The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1890-04-30
IN ORIGINAL PACKAGES.
Ardent Spirits May be Taken by
Common Carriers Into Pro-
hibition States.
State Legislatures Cannot Inhibit
Articles of Interstate
Commerce.
Opinion by Chief Justice Fuller-A Dis.
senting Opinion by Justices Gray,
Harlan and Brewer.

WASHINGTON, April 29.-In delivering the
opinion of the court in the test case of the
constitutionality of state laws prohibiting
the carrying Of liquors in original packages
into states under prohibition laws, by COM
mon carriers, the court held that the power
vested in congress to regulate commerce
among the several states il the power to
prescribe the rule by which that commerce
is tohe governed, and is q power complete
in itself, acknowledging no limitation other
than those prescribed in the constitution.
That ardent spirits are subjects of inter-
state commerce cannot be denied. Whenever
the law Of state amounts essentially
to the regulation of commerce as it does
when it inhibits directly or indirectly the
receipt of an imported commodity, or its
disposition before it has ceased to become
another, il comes in conflict with the power
which, in this particular. has been vested
exclusively in the general government, and
is, therefore, void.
To concede to state power to exclude,
directly or indirectly, articles 60 situated,
conoeds to ouag majority d the state, repre-
sented in it's legislature, power to regulate
commercial intercourse between the states,
by determining what shall be its subjects,
when the power was distinctly granted to
be exercised by the people of the United
session by the latter was considered essen
tial to that more perfect uuion which the
constitution was adopted to create.
!. Justice Gray delivered dissenting opin-
ion in behalf of himself and Justices Harlan
and Brewer. 1t says in part that the power
and sale Of Intoxicating liquors appropriate
~ belongs, as a branch of the police power,
to the legislatures of the several states.
The statutes in question were enacted by
the state of Iowa in the exercise of its I'M
doubted power to protect It's inhabitants
attending the free use of Intoxicating liq-
uors. They are not aimed at interstate
commerce, but operate only on Intoxicating
liquors within the territory limits of the
state. # the statutes Of state restricting
or prohibiting the sale of Intoxicating
imperative and void rs applied to
liquor sent or brought from another state
and sold by the importer in what are called
soriginal packages" the consequence
must be that the inhabitant of any state
may, under the pretext of interstate COM
merce carry or send into and sell in any or
all of the other states of the union intoxi-
eating liquors of whatever des ription,
despite any legislation of those states on
the subject, and although his own state
should be the only one which had not enact
ed similar laws. We would require affirm
alive and explicit legislation on the part of
congress to convince us that it contem-
plated or intended such result.
The court, by the same vote reversed the
decision of the supreme court of Michigan
in the case of Henry Lying, agent for the
Wisconsin brewery, who was fined for SELL
the constitutionality of the law on the
ground that it would compel the agents of
outside brewers to pay $500 a year license,
while brewers within the state could, under
a manufacturers license, sell at wholesale
after paying only $65 annual license.