The Dickinson press., 1890-05-03
STATES LACK POWER.
United States Supreme Court
Renders u Decision ON
Prohibition.
States Cannot Prevent the Ship.
ment of Liquor Into Their
Borders,
Nor Prohibit Its Sale by the Non
Resident Importer-The
Opinion.

W~Aon4N6AONs april SV.-4Lc Oulttu
States supreme court has rendered an
opinion adverse to the constitutionality
of state laws in prohibition states, pro-
viding for the seizure of liquor brought
from other states. Such laws, it is held,
are interference with interstate COM
merce. The case in which the decision
was made was that of Leisy against
Hardin, brought here on appeal from
the supreme court of Iowa. Leisy, a
beer manufacturer of Peoria, Ills,
shipped beer to Keokuk, Iowa, which
was seized in the original packages by
Hardin, a state official, as having been
sent there in violation of the Iowa law.
The supreme court of Iowa held that the
law under which this official acted was
valid, but the supreme court has reversed
that decision. Justices Gray, Harlan
and Brewer dissented from the opinion
of the majority of the court. The opin-
ion cited a number of cases bearing upon
interstate commerce, among others 1.-The
license cases." where laws passed by
Massachusetts,, New Hampshire and
Rhode Island in reference to the sale Of
spirituous liquors came under review in
the court and were sustained, although
the members of the court who partici-
pated in the decisions did not concur in
any common ground upon which to rest
them, in which Chief Justice fancy is
quoted as holding that spirits and dis
titled liquors are universally admitted
to be subjects of ownership and prop
erty and therefore subjects of ex-
change, barter and traffic, like
any other commodity in which a
right of property exists; that congress,
under its general power oregulate COM
merce with foreign nations, may pre-
scribe what merchandise shall be ad-
mitted and what excluded. But, mas
much as the laws of congress authorized
the importation of ardent spirits, no
state has the right to prohibit their in
PRODUCTION.
After referring to these and other de-
cisions bearing on state license laws, the
court, in its opinion, says:
"Thse decisions rest upon the I'M
doubted right of the states of the Union
to control their purely internal affairs.
in doing which they exercise powers not
surrendered to the national government;
but whenever the law of the state
amounts essentially to a regulation of
commerce with foreign nations, or
among the states, as it does when it in
hibits, directly IL Indirectly, the re-
ceipt Of an imported commodity, or it's
disposition before it has ceased to be-
come an article of trade between one
state and another, or another country
and this, it comes in conflict with a
power which, in this particular, has
been exclusively vested in the general
government, and is therefore void.
"The plaintiffs, citizens of Illinois, had
the right to import their beer into Iowa
and had a right to sell it, by which act
alone it became mingled with the COM
mo- mass of property within the state.
Up to that point Of time, in the absence
of congressional permission to do SO,
the state had no power to interfere by
seizure, or any other action in prohibi-
ton Of importation and sale by the nom
resident importer. Articles which con-
gress recognizes as subjects of interstate
commerce, may be controlled by state
laws amounting to regulations, while
they retain that character; but to con-
cede to a state the power to exclude such
articles without congressional permission
is to concede to a majority of the people
of a state represented in the state legis-
lature, the power to regulate CONNER
cial intercourse between the states"
The court also decided the case of
HeWy Lying against the people of the
state Of Michigan, involving the validity
of the Michigan law taxing beer in the
original packages, manufactured in Wis
consin and sold in Michigan. The court
denies the power of a state to exclude,
directly or indirectly the subjects of in
t~erstate commerce by the imposition of
burdens thereon, or regulate such COM
merce without congressional permission.
The same rule, it is held, which applies
to the sugar Of Louisiana, the cotton of
South Carolina, the wines of California
and the tobacco Of Maryland and Con-
necticut, applies to all commodities in
which a right of traffic exists, recog-
nized by the laws of congress, the decis-
ions of courts and the usages Of the COM
mercial world should apply in this case.
The decision of the state court of Mich
igan, deciding that Lying was liable to
tax, is in this case reversed. Justices
Gray, Harlan and Brewer dissented
from the opinion of the court on the
same grounds stated in the Leisy-Hardin
case.