The Portland daily press., 1890-05-01
THE QUESTION IN NATIONAL POLITICS.
Maine Congressmen on the Supreme
Courts Recent Decision.
allow to License Laws as Well as
to Prohibition.
What Is Said of the Subject by Gem
eraI Dow and Others.
Especial to the Press.1

WASHINGTON, April 30.-The despatch in
Tuesday mornings PRESS gave an incorrect
impression of the scope and nature of the
decision of the Supreme Court in the Iowa
liquor case. The opinion of the court has
not been published in full. but as 1t is under
stood here it, in effect sweeps away all re-
strictions on the liquor traffic, not only by
prohibitory laws but by high license laws, as
WELL Ii the states may no longer exercise
the power of police regulation in this matter,
1t seems probable that the whole question of
the regulation of the liquor traffic, which
has heretofore been a local issue in the
states. may be thrown into the arena of ma
tional politics.
The members of Congress from prohibi-
tion states do not like the decision of the
majority of the court at all. Several Of the
Maine delegation were seen this afternoon.
Speaker Reed said: "This decision seems
very far reaching lie its effects. The first
original package decision made years ago as
to importations from foreign countries did
very little harm since the package by law
had to be so large that it could not reach the
tippler. But this new decision seems to
place the package within the control Of men
in other states. l have not seen the full de-
cision; and hope it may not prove to be so
sweeping as the abstract indicates"
Mr.. Dingley said on the decision: 81 have
been unable to obtain the full decision of the
court; but from abstract which l have
seen infer that the effect of it will be to en-
able any man in any state to have liquor
brought in from another state and sell it in
the original package in defiance, not only of
prohibition, but OF license laws as we'll 1
infer this from the statement of the effect Of
the decision made by Justice Gray in his
dissenting opinion. Ii the decision is as l
understand it, regard it as second Dred
Scott decision; as an attempt on the part of
the majority of the Supreme Court to i'm
pose upon the people of the states which
prohibit or restrict the liquor traffic, free
rum against their will. The people of the
country will not stand this; and when it is
apparent that the decision of the court is ef-
fecting this result, the question will be
that Congress may enact law to prevent
the consequences of their decision"
Mr.. Boutelle said: "It seems to me that
the decision Is very sweeping and must lead
to serious embarrassments. If a state is not
only not able to prohibit the importation of
liquors, but equally unable to prohibit the
sale thereof, within the limits Of the state
while in the original package, the principle
involved would seem to be practically de-
structive Of the police power Of the state as
heretofore understood. II the sale of
liquors imported from without the state can
not be prevented, the importation and sale
OF infected cattle cannot be prevented, and,
In fact, it would seem that the authorities of
the state would be powerless to arrest the
importation and distribution of anything
deemed nuisance or peril to public health
or safety so long as the cupldity of indiyid-
uals inside or outside of the state should in
duce them to engage in an injurious traffic
The opinion Of Judge Reed of Iowa, which
BBp16s efff. sseeim 70 6y 1nlnd Very much more
strongly buttressed in logic than the majori-
ty view but my opinion is not that of law
yer, and where such eminent jurists disagree
so completely there must be some grounds
for doubt as to the absolute constitutional
construction"