The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1890-05-30
ORIGINAL PACKAGES.
Senator Wilson's Bill to Meet the Recon,
Supreme Court Decision Discussed In tn,


Senate.
WASHINGTON. May 21.-The Sensts
yesterday afternoon took up the bill re
ferred from the Judiciary Committee
subiecting imported liquors to the pro
visions Of the laws of the several States
Mr.. Wilson, of Iowa, who had intro
duced the bill in the first instance, and
had afterward reported it back, ad
dressed the Senate in explanation and
advocacy of it, stating that it was made
necessary by the recent decision of the
Supreme Court on that subject It was
response to the suggestion contained
in that decision that Congress could per-
NIT the exercise of the restraining
power of State, and it was for the pur-
pose of giving that permission
that the bill had been introduced
and reported. The effect Of il
would be to leave each State in he
Union to determine for itself what its
policy should be in regard to the traffic
in intoxicating liquors Under that de-
cision of the Supreme Court the State of
Iowa could not prevent the citizens of
other States, or the subjects of Great
Britain, France or Germany from send
ing intoxicating liquors into Iowa and
having them sold there in the original
packages by agents. At the present
time original package saloons were be-
ing organized in his State. The pack
age might be a pint or half pint Of
whisky or keg or bottle of beer. It
was 20 put stop to such practice and to
recognize in every State the power to
regulate its own internal police that the
bill was reported.
Mr.. Vest said that as member of the
Judiciary Committee he had not been
able to agree with the majority in re-
porting the bill because it would sweep
away the exclusive jurisdiction of the
United States over Interstate commerce.
The Supreme Court had decided en-
phatically by a majority of its justices
that alcoholic stimulants were an article
of Interstate commerce and that the
power to regulate commerce among the
States and with foreign nations was an
exclusive power vested in Congress BY
the Constitution. The intimation that
Congress might delegate to a State
that power was contained in a mere
obiter dictum Of thatdecision. He (Mr.
Vest cOntended that it could not be
done. The Supreme Court had decided
that the power Of Congress over Inter-
State commerce was an exclusive power
and could not be delegated. If it could
be delegated in regard to one article Of
merchandise (alcohoD, it could be dele
gated as to any other article-wheat,
corn. rye, oleomargarine, :. Was the
Senate going to make that new de-
parture? Was it on a mere dictum Of
the supreme Court to tear down the
barriers of the Constitution?
Mr.. Mcpherson asked Mr.. Vest wheth-
er the right to import an article implied
the right to sell it?
Mr.. Vest replied in the affirmative,
and quoted from the decision of Mr..
Justice Matthews of the Supreme Court.
in the case of Ward against Maryland
TO that effect.
Mr.. Hear argued in favor of the bill.
If the bill were not within the legisla-
tive power of Congress then there was
no more miserable Nation on the face
of the earth than the United States.
He supposed that there did not exist
community anywhere where the danger
OF permitting the unrestricted sale of
intoN eating liquors was not recognized
and guarded against by public authority.
Mr. Edmunds remarked upon it as
very curious and interesting circum- |
stance that a condition of things had |
been reached where, according 20 the !
debate and according to the Judgment Of |
the Supreme Court, the State had no /
power to deal with the subject and Con- !
gress had no power TO deal with it. The |
result was that there was in every man /
in one State an inherent. individual, /
personal right to carry into any State |
what that State might consider in furious /
to its safety. there TO sell it, and that 1
Congress had no power to stop it and that I
the States could not stop it unless Con- /
only necessary to state such PROPOSE /
ton to show that somewhere. either in .
the Supreme Court or in the Senate, /
there was fault in the logic of some
body. He did not feel over persuaded.
or put in a box, by what the Supreme
Court had said. 1t might change its
opinion next year and say that the rule
should be the other way. He did not
feel embarrassed by the fact that the
Supreme Court had taken the longest
step ever taken within hundred years
in the republic toward the centraliza-
ton Of INSTRUMENTATION, either in the
Supreme Court or in Congress. He did
not believe in the Capitalization of
power. He believed in IT'S segregation
and separation in every respect
Speaking of the importation of into1-
lcating liquors into a State Mr.. Ed
nunds claimed that once they got there
they were whether in the hands of ma
lives or mott subject to State laws and
that was what the Supreme Court of the
United States would come to within the
next twenty years 1t might be that
hat would interfere with the revenue
If the United States. but the power Of
he United States to regulate com
nerce and levy taxes was no
yrester within its sphere than the
power Of the States to deal with the I
commodities and the conduct of its
'eople within their sphere. Both pow
rs were supreme and each had to be
xerted in its own order. The Constitu- 1
ion had declared that Congress should
ave the power to regulate commerce
mong the States and left to the States
he power to deal with the objects of l
commerce after they got there.