Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1890-05-30
SUPREME COURTS DECISION
In The Eiehasl Burns Case, InYoITias the
Original Package Question.
The Cou,, Acts in Obs6tercs to a Re.
cSut D-ctsi ~ OF :ae o 8 Su
pg0me Court

! The following decision in the Burns case
vas rendered 5y the sgprem- Court, Thurs
day;
Sat Va Michzs. Barns. Same '. In
sox'cAt'Sx Lsq iofs- Michael Barns, Claim.
ant.
PErEss g. l. The uudi. ,uted fact. In
tni' case shoT 'ha. the liquors, . hen the
STATE claim. 70 cnuhsests a. being IN the
posse'sior u the Respondent Burus, for
unls~ful sale, we're imported By hin, from
hos'And, we're his property. we're the orig
mai AMI aH1r3ksn package, AMI in thu
same eoniisIon. - ~ben import j ard that,
az the date OF the seizure, be had .hen in
| MS Possession Nth tn. i1tent TO sell the
same oniy in such original and untroken
packages, ard in the sama cand q m. a.
when imp1rte /; and hal established him
self In place of Fnsiaes, in 'he city Of
Aaza',a for ;ha, purpose.
There il NJ dsabt tia, formerly it was
both the judicial ard legislative opinion in
this Stat that such liquors could be legally
sold by the importer in the CONDITION a.
when imported aot~ithstAniins Any geaer-
a. snactments aa4ins. liquor selliGg in the
Stat. where sold
- 'FNHNN " ispDlHsDVr ~ Maine ysD,
Davis. j (in 1852 speaking for the
court, 'sit "Ueon this point. n. lice
OF DIVISION between the power OF the
general government and hat Of me
state. hs, b. en- seitled Under .he rover
granted By the constitution r. rryulae com
merce with other na;ioas. Congress nav
authorize person TO .mp3r. intoxicating
liquors Ard 20 sell the same Ia tn. Org. al
Hut har fta -
ceases, and the jnri-d elton of TIT SAFE be-
gins BroSn vs.. the STATE OF Maryland l2,
Whesl, 262 No one ba, N. impor er him
self has the right 20 ,eii. except a. allowed
by the laws Of the Stat. and ne can ..iI
only in the original packages. The
power Of the State is pie1sry t,
regniste or prolibi. ali sales, except such
as are thu, made by the importer himself
Those "ho purchase from him have no
such night 10 sell The iicense cases. :
Hossri. 5n4 concnrr. nee in tLis view
viii be found IN Other cases State W.
Blackwell 50 Mtine. 500; STATE W. iatox
ics'ing Liquors, ca Maine. 524 visi prius
rulings 10 The same effect we're freqaeitly
made
The idea e1'-rtasned b. the lagi,a,ur-
On this subject ia seen il several /. gislstiye
acts
chatter 205 of the laws Of 1916 contain.
The irs' prohibi,ory enactment in thi. s,4te
Prior thereto Inherent license laws la zen
manhattan |. Section 2 of that ;hspt-r IL
a. Follows The provls ons Of this act shall
not extend 10 vine or spiti,uous liquors.
which shah have been imported into the
United State. from ans foreign port or
place. when not solt IN less quantities than
the revenue laws of the United States. !
prrscr bed for the i'm D)rtation into this /
country. AMI delivered ard carried axsy
at one time"
The foregoing provision remained in the |
law until more intens Id act was passed |
IN lHJl, IN which it was substantiall; re- |
tanned Win different phra,eology The /
new act placed 4 stronger burden of proof !
upon respondent. rem .ering him liable to |
punishment for selling liquors or for hsv.
ing them in his possession for sale "Un- |
less he can show ny positive proof that such |
liquors are OF foreign production. tn It they |
have been imported under the laws Of the |
United Sta'e-. AMI IN accordance there with, |
that thy a. contained in the original
packages "a which they wese imp lrted. and
in qusntiIies not less than the laws of the
United States prescribe" Th. folio wig
vas added 10 the new 1t. Sec IL, Chap
I'll But Custom House certificates
Of importation and proof OF marks on the
packages corresponding thereto shall rot
be rec wed AS evidence that the Identical
liquors contained ia said packages and casks
were actually imported therein"
TIE exception of liability for selling I'M
ported liquors stood through different en-.
actmen;s until .le year 1883, when il was
in most part dropped from the statutes
t0uclng che sale of intoxicating liq1ors,
therr beng left only the clause relating To
what should not be taken As evidence that
liquors wtre imported. the same that ia
now embodied in Sec. 50 of Chap 81 Of our
present Rev. Stat. Laws of 1858. Chap. 80,
p25
After these decisions of the court an 4
ensctments of the legislature, so much
change hli been wrought in the public SEN
tment on this and kindred questions,
that 1t became IN the public MAD debats-
bic poinr whether the rule as laid down in
Brown W. Mary land, so far as affecting the
sale of imported liquors In State in which
the sale of intoxicating liquors is by its laws
forbidden. would on reconsideration be
adhered to by the Supreme Court of the
United States. The ruling in the present
cases to the court below was in ! measure
TO test the question whether the principle
of the case allu led to would be sustained
AS applicable to the facts of the present
record
But the case of Gus Leisy ct ala, vs..
IIsr'iin, just decided by the supreme Court
of the United States on full consideration,
seems 20 clearly settle the question. and 10
require as As se are bound on such ques
tons BY tie law a. determined by that
court 20 reverse the rulings below, and
snstaip the law according to the respon
dents contention. The opinion Of = minor
lty of the Judges sitting in that case
appears to be very elaborate and exhsus-
tive of the question involved and may COM
mend itself TO many as containing the
better conclusion.
orr obedience is due, however, to the
iudgmen, which prevails Not that our
statute is unconstitutional. for it prohibits
only the unlawful sale" of Intoxicating
liquors; but that its Interpretation must be
constitutional.
Ercs ptinns sustainei