Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1890-05-01
IOWA'S BACK IS BROKEN
The PrOhibitory Law is Pronounced
Unconstitutional
The United States Supreme Court De-
cides the Case.
Three Of the Justices Descent From
the Majority's Ruling.

WASHINGTON, April 28.-The supreme
court of the United States today rendered
decision IN the case of Leisy, beer manu-
facturer of Peoria, ILL.,, against Marshal
Hardin of Keoknk, Ia, who had seized
beer imported from Illinois to Keokuk
The question involved in the case was the
validity of the state law of Iowa, which
prohibits the sale of malt liquors in the
state. The supreme court of the state
decided that the law was valid, but the
supreme court today reversed the decision
and decides that the Iowa state law is I'M
constitunal Chief Justice Fuller delivered
the opinion of the court
The chief justice in delivering the opin-
ion of the court says: The power vested
in congress to regulate the commerce
among several states, is power to prescribe
a rule by which that commerce is to be
governed and is power complete in itself,
acknowledging no limitations other than
those prescribed In the constitution. It is
co-extenslve with the subject upon which
ut acts and cannot be stopped at the exter-
nal boundary of the state, but must enter
It's interior and be capable of authorizing
the disposition of those articles which it
introduces so that they may become mingled
with the common mass of property within
the territory entered That ardent spirits
are subjects of Interstate commerce can
not be denied Whenever the law of a
state amounts essentially to the regula-
ton of commerce. as it does, when it in
hibits directly or indirectly the receipt of
an imported commodity, or its disposition
before it has ceased to become an article of
trade between one state and another.
1t comes In conflict with the power which in
this particular has been vested exclusively
IN the general government, and is therefore
void. Undoubtedly it is for the legisla-
tive branch of the state government to de-
ternine whether the manufacture of partic-
ular articles of traffic will injuriously effect
the public, and it is for congress to de-
termine what measures the state may
properly adopt as appropriate or needful
FOR the protection of public morals, life
or safety, but notwithstanding il is not
vested with supervisory power over mat
ters of local administration, the response
bll1ty is upon congress, so far as the reg
ulatlon of Interstate commerce is con-
cerned, to remove the restriction upon the |
state IN dealing with imported articles |
which had not been mingled with the |
common mass of property therein.
To concede to the state power to exclude
directly or indirectly articles so situated
without congressional permission is to
coneede to the majority of the state, rep
resented In the legislature power to regu-
late the commercial intercourse between
the state by determining what shall be |
its Subjects when that power was dis |
tinctly granted to be exercised by the
United States, represented in
congress. and its possession
by the latter was considered essential to !
that more perfect union which the consti-
tuition was adopted to create. Undoubted-
iy there is difficulty in drawing the line
between the municipal powers of one
and the governing and commercial power
of the other. But when that line is de-
termined accommodation to it without
serious inconvenience, may readily be |
found IN the frank and candid cooperation
for the general good The decision of the |
supreme court of Iowa is reversed
Justice Gray delivered dissenting
opinion in behalf of himself and Justices |
Harlan and Brewer. 1t says, in part: Com
mon experience has shown that the gen
eral and unrestricted use of intoxicating
liquors tends to produce idleness, dis
order, disease, pauperism and crime
The power regulating or prohibiting the
manufacture and sale of intoxicating
liquors appropriately belongs as branch |
of police power to the legislatures of sew
eral states and can be judici ,uslv and
effectively exercised by them alone
according to their views of pub
lie policy and local needs
and cannot practically, if it can constltu-
tionally, be welded by congress as a part
OF the national and uniform system.
The statutes III question were enacted by
the state of Iowa in the exercise of its I'M
doubted power to protect its inhabitants
against the evils, phyical, moral and social
attending the free use CT intoxicating
liquors. They are not aimed at
interstate commerce; they have no
relation to the movement of goods
from one state to another but to operate
only on intoxicating liquor within the
territorial limits os the state, they to in
clude all such liquors without discrimina-
ton. If the statutes of the state, restrict
ing or prohibiting the sale of Intoxicating
liquors within its territory are to be held
imperative and void as applied to liquors
sent or brought from another state and
sold by the importer in what are called
original packages, the consequence must
be that an lnhabltant OF any state may,
under the preteXt of interstate commerce
and without license or supervision of
any public authority, carry or send into
and sell in any or all of the other
states of the union intoxicating liquor
IF whatever description, despite any legis-
lation of these states on the subject, and
although his own state should be the only
one which had not enacted similar laws
We should require affirmative and explicit
Legislation on the part of congress to con-
vince us that it contemplated or intended
such a result.
The court by the same vote reversed the
decision of the supreme court of Michigan
IN the case of Henry Ling, an agent for a
Wisconsin brewery, who was fined for sell
ing liquor without license. Ling at
tackled the constitutionality of the law on
the ground that it would compel the agents
of an outside brewery to pay $500 year
license, while the brewers within the
state could, under a manufacturer license
sell at wholesale after paying only s65 an
nual license
BOSTON'S NEW METHOD.