Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-04-29
LIQUOR SALES.
A DECISION IN THE IOWA "UN'
BROKEN-pAcKA6ED CASE.
The United States supreme Court Re
verses the Decision of the SUI
preme Court of Iowa.

WASHINGTON. April 2S.-The Supreme
Court TO-DAY rendered an opinion OF great
interest to all States In which prohibition
prevails.
Gus Leisy & Co. are beer-brewers in
Peoria, III. They sent some of their pro.
duct in sealed kegs and cases by means OF
railroads 10 KeOkuk, Iowa. where their
agent. a nonresident. offered 1t for sale
m the original cases. The liquor
was scized by A. j. Hardin. marshal
OF Keokuk, under the prohibition laws
of Iowa. Leisy & Co. brought suit against
the Marshal. alleging that the seizure was
unconstitutional and void. being in vio-
latlon Of the clause Of the Constitution
giving the United States the exclusive
right TO regulate interstate commerce.
The Keokuk Court decided in favor OF tho
iiquor-men. but on appeal 30 the supreme
Court of Iowa the prohibitionists won,
whoreupou the hquOr-mcn brought the
case TO this court. The suit has become
widely known as tho orIglnal-packa
case and has attracted I great deal IT at
tention Chief-Justice Fuller delivered
the opinion of the Court to-day.
The Court says tho power vested In Congress
70 regulate commerce among tho several states
IL power TO prsscrite rule by which thst
commerce Is 70 be governed. and ls a power
complete In itself. acknowledging no imlaions
other than those prescribed In tho Constitution.
IL Is co-extenslye with tho subject on which II
acts and cannot be stopped at the external
boundary OF a state. bus must entar its isterior
and must be capable ~ authorizing The dispn,i-
ton OF those articles which " Introduces, 50 mat
they may become managed with the COM
mon IT AS of property within tho territory
entered Tho state may provids Tor
the security Of tho lives and property OF
/ its resiienta. but matter conhded oxcius'eiV
/ to Congress by the Constitution il not within TIE
| Jurisdiction OF the poco-p0wer Oi the state un.
ie's placed there hy congressional setlon. II
/ particular subjects OF interstate commerce DO
not require tho application OF general or uni.
+ form system. the States may lcgielate IN regard
/ 20 them with view 20 local needs or crcum-
/ stances until Congress otherwise directs, but
this power Is not identical IN its extent with tue
power to regulate commerce among the states.
! The Court quotes the statement ~ mo FedSrfl-
/ fst IN support of this conciusiou- That ardent
spirits are subjects Of interstate commerce Is
not denied, Bnd the Court then gsks II a state In
the absence % congressional Liquidation can pro-
/ mint their importation from abroad or from
/ sister state or ther sale by an importer. II the
| importation csnm0t ho prohibited without coh-
| grossiOnal authorization, tho next question. the
| Court says, f., IS hon does The imported property
I RO become part Of the common mass Of pro-
/ perty within tho stale ~ 10 be sub
! icct 90 iis uuimpeded control In Brown
I rs Maryland Il vas lad down by great magis-
tra;e who presided over the court for more than
| a third OF century Nhioi-iustico MarshalN mat
I TIE point OF time Wheu tho prohibition coases
aud the power OF 'he state begius is no, instant
/ when the article en;crs the country. but when
/ tho importer has 80 acted upon IL that n mas be-
/ come incorporated aud mixed up with the mass
/ ~ property in she country. which happens when
/ the original pack lge IL no longer such In hls
hands; that noue ot tue OWLS which proceeded
/ from tho ieeblenees OF the Federal Cow
/ orUmert contributed moro 90 the great
/ revolution whicn introduced the present system
/ than the deep and general conviction thst con-
merce ought 20 be regulated bv Congress- that
! tho right 70 sell any article imported VS.. It.
-eparsule from the right 10 import It, and mat
D fn.t f,Ffuefsia aYrpffn.fnI u a. HQulleI
J equally t0 importation from a sister stats as
/ from 4 foreign country.
Although the precise question now before mo
/ Court was not ruled upon IN hat case the Court
/ says IL thinks q was virtually involved M tho
/ Brown case. and also IN TIA Bowman case, IN
/ which an act ~ the Stato Of Iowa prohibiting
/ common carriers 10 bring intoxicating liquors
| into tho state without first being furnished with
! certificates as prescribed in the at, was de-
I clared invalid because essentially regulation oi
commerce among the states
The opinion OF the Court in the Bowman
case delivered by Justice Matthews. aud
! the dissenting opinion delivered 10y Justice
! Harlan, discussed the question IN all its
phases, and while the determination OF
whether the right Of transportation of an
article of commerce from one state TO
! another includes by necessary implication
| the right of the cOnslgnee 10 sell ~ IN un-
broken packages at tho place where the
transportation terminates, was in terms
reserved, yet the ARGUMENT of the ma
jority conducts irresistbly TO that conclu
sion. The decision is quoted at length.