The DeSmet leader. (DeSmet, Kingsbury Co., Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1891, 1890-05-31
ORIGINAL PACKAGES.
Senator Wilson'S BIIi Discussed at
Length In the Upper House.

Senator Wilson'S BIl Discussed al
Length In the Upper House.
The senate on the Goth inst. consid
cred the bill subiecting imported Ii
quors to the provisions OF the laws o
the several states. Mr.. Wilson of To-
wa, who had introduced the bill in the
first instance and afterwards report.
ed it back, addressed the senate in
explanation and advocacy OF 1t, stat.
ing that it was made necessary by the
recent decision of the supreme court
on that subject. 1t was a response
to the suggestion contained in that
decision that congress could permit
the exercise OF the restraining power
Of the state and it was tor the pur.
pose Of giving that permission
that the bill haai been introduced
and reported. The effect OF IL would
be to leave each state in the Union to
determine for itself what its policy
should be in regard to the traffic IN
Intoxicating liquors. Under that de-
cision OF the supreme court, the State
OF Iowa could not prevent the citizens
OF other states or the subjects ol
Great Britain, France or Germany
from sending Intoxicating liquors into
Iowa and having them sold there in
the original packages by agents. At
the present time original package sa'
looms were being organized in his st ate.
The package might be pint or half.
pint OF whisky, or keg or bottle oi
beer. 1t was to put u stop to such
practice, and to recognize in every
state the power to regulate its own
internal policy that the bill was re-
ported.
OPPOSED BY VEST.
Mr.. Vest said that as a member of the
judiciary committee he had not been
able to agree with the ma jority in re-
porting the bill, because it would
sweep away the exclusive jurisdiction
OF the United States over Interstate
commerce. The supreme court mad
decided that the power OF congress
over inter state commerce was an ex-
elusive power and could not be dele
gated. Mr.. Vest sent to the clerks
desk and had read a report OF the iu-
dietary committee in the last congress,
laying down the principle for which he
contended. Mr.. Ingalls, and Mr.. Ed.
munds called for the reading OF the
minority report, and 1t was read. dis.
senting from the views OF the MAORI
ty, and signed by Messrs. Wilson, Of
Iowa, Ingalls,, Edmunds and Hoar.
Mr.. Gray agreed with Mr.. Vest 8 areu.
ment, but he asked whether the diff.
Guilty could not be got over by an al
tirmative declaration OF congress that
Intoxicating spirits were not an artl-
Gle OF interstate commerce.
Mr.. Vest did not think so. 1t that
were done as to one article OF com.
merce tor one state, congress would
he asked to do il as to other articles
for other states. Mr.. Edmunds sug.
gested that the case OF a state prOhlb.
iting the entrance OF lepers, the trans
portation of whom, as OF all other
passengers, was question OF inter
state commerce. Mr.. Vest said that
that did not touch the case at all, be-
cause the supreme court had decided
that the commercial clause OF the con-
stitution never was intended to take
away from states their reserved police
power to protect the lives and health
OF their own citizens. Mr.. Mcpherson
asked Mr.. Vest whether the right to
import an article implied the right to
sell it. Mr.. Vest replied in the affirm
alive, and quoted from the decision
OF Mr.. Justice Matthews, OF the su-
preme court, in the case OF Ward
against Maryland to that effect. MIR.
Hoar argued in favor Of the bill. II
the bill were not within the legislative
power OF congress, then there was no
more miserable nation on the face OF
the earth than the United States.
MR.. HlSCOCK ASSUMED
that the presence OF the bill was due
to the fact that, unless it became a
law, the state would be limited or re-
strained in its power over the subject.
He accepted very doubtfully the prop
osltion that congress had the consti,
tutional power to delegate to any
state the power to prohibit the i'm
portation or sale within it's borders
of wheat OF butter or other products
OF the farm or factory. He lid not
say that he would vote against the
bill. He thought it might be vice to
pass it and leave 1t to the supreme
court to pass upon it. Mr.. Reasa
said that whatever might be his wish
to see temperance promoted III the
land, he was not willing to lay bis
hands on the constitution and tear il
down. Mr.. Edmunds remarked upon
it as q very curious and interesting
circumstance that a condition oI
things had been reached, where,
according to the debat. and according
to the judgment of the supreme court
the states had no power to deal with
it. The result was that there was in
every man In one state an inherent
individual, personal right to carry IN.
to another state what that state
might consider injurious to its safety
there to sell 1t, and that congress had
no power to stop 1t, end that the
states could not stop it unless the
congress gave them that power. He
did not believe in the Capitalization
OF power. He Lelieveu in its segre
cation and separation in every re-
spect. Speaking ol the importation
OF Intoxicating liquors into state,
Mr., Edmunds claimed that once they
got there they were whether in the
hands OF natives or not) the subject
of state laws; and that was what the
supreme court OF the United States
would come to within the next twenty
years. The bill went over without &C
tIon.