The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1890-07-06
IL.
THE IOWA PROHIBITION CASE.

It would be diverting IL 1t were not melan-
choly to read the platforms OF Republican
Conventions wherein they express their de-
sire to promote the cause OF temperance, and
call upon Congress to bestow on the States
power to pass and enforce prohbitory liquor
laws. whether the liquor is brought within
their limits and sold in Original packages
or otherwise. II the Democratic methods OF
Interpreting the Federal Constitution had
prevailed. the present muddle Of Federal and
State authority would not have arisen.
The high-strung notions of the Republican
party about the commercial power OF Con-
gress have caused q state Of things with which
1t is very difficult to deal; and the late de-
cision Of the Supreme Court Of the United
States. which has denied to the States all
power to prohibit the sale within their own
borders OF liquors brought into them from
other States, because the liquor remains in
the original package" in which the con-
signee received it. and because such prohi-
bition would be in conflict with the power OF
Congress to regulate commerce among the
several States, has carried dismay among
the rends of -prohbltory liquor laws
throughout the Union: Their dlsmay will
be, that the idea OF Congress bestowing on
the States, by an act Of Federal legislation,
power to do something which the Supreme
Court has held that the States cannot now
do, Is mere chimera
There Is no way out Of this difficulty, I'M
less the Supreme Court shall. on a re-
argument OF the constitutional. ques-
on the Iowa prohibition law. It was a
decision made by q majority Of the bench.
and they can. II they will. revise and re-
verse It. The friends of prohibition will be
satisfied with nothing less; and the friends
Of q sound interpretation OF the Consti-
tuition will not acquiesce In such an enor-
nous stretch OF Federal authority as n
majority OF the court have made 1t is so
large a stride toward consolidation that 1t
completely prostrates the police power Of the
States, and this cannot be submitted to.
The greatest obstacle to the adoption OF
the Constitution, when 1t was first pronul-
gated, was the fear that the Government to
be established under 1t would absorb the
powers OF the States. For this reason tho
States insisted on the adoption Of an amend-
ment which would declare that the powers
not delegated by this Constitution to the Unit
cd States, or prohibited by it to the States
are reserved respectively to the States or to
the people" Accordingly it has been the duty
OF all persons administering the Federal
Government, whether In the executive the
legislative, or the judicial departments. to
avoid encroachments upon the powers of the
States, and to draw the line between tho
powers which the Constitution has delegated
to the United States, or has prohibited to
the States, and those which are reserved to
the States or to the people. 1t Is not dfli-
cult to do this, SO long as certain cardinal
rules are observed: and one Of these rules is
that in all cases OF doubt, in order to avoid
a conflict between Federal and State author
ity, the doubt should be resolved In favor Of
the latter
One Of the most clearly reserved powers
OF every State Is its police power, which
comprehends everything relating to health,
good morals, good order, life, property,
that can bo the subject Of Legislation. No
provision of the Federal Constitution should
ever be SO Interpreted as to impair or en-
danger the police power OF the States. Tho
people Of every State require that this
power should be sedulously preserved.
lngenerl,, the Supreme Court of the United
States has been careful not to assert tho
expense OF the police power OF the States; but
the late decision on the Iowa Prohibition
law, based as 1t Is upon very exaggerated
ideas concerning tho power Of Congress to
regulate commerce among the several States,
has made greater encroachment upon the
police powers OF the States than has ever
been made before. And now in order to get
out OF the difficulty, it Is proposed that Con-
bestOw on the States power to do that which
the Supreme Court has said they cannot do,
as the Fcdernl Constitution stands! In
other words, it Is proposed that Congress
shall confer power on the States, not in IL
case whore there is a concurrent power in
Congress and in the States to act on tho
same subject matter, but In a case in which
the power is exclusively in tho one Govern
ment or In the other.
Tho sole question in the Iowa case was :
When does an article of merchandise, trans
ported from one State into another, cease to
be II subject Of Interstate commerce. and
become part OF the mass Of pers nal prop
erty within the State? Does 1t continue to
be n subject Of Interstate commerce after
il has reached the hands OF the consignne,
or at the moment Of its reaching his hands.
has the commercial power Of Congress over
IL ceased. and has II then become subject to
the police power of the State? 1t would seem
very obvious that tbs latter is the true
answer to the question But n majority
Of the Judges Of the supreme Court have |
held that in the hands Of the consignee the
article is still n subject Of Interstate COM
mercN so long as he docs not break the |
Original package" In which he received it;
and that IN that form he may sell ii. In
spite o Il State law which prohibits n sale Of
the article within th' state, in any form or
quantity or package whatever
This decision may hold liquor, but II | |
may make use 81 common and expressive |
phrase, it will not "hod water"
Ill.