Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1890-05-01
IMPORTANT RULING.
Decision of the Federal Supreme
Court Affecting Prohibition.
ORIGINAL PACKAGES INVIOLABLE
The Opinion as Delivered BY Chief Justice
FuIler-Dissenting Views of JUS
tIces Gray, Harlan and
Brewer.


adverse to the cOnstitutionality Of State
laws providing for the seizure OF liquor
brought into the State IN original
packages. Such laws, the court holds,
are an interference with Interstate
commerce. After the liquor becomes
the property of the importer the State
NAV, under its police powers, regulate
or prohibit the transportation OF the
article from another State and its de-
livery TO the importer.
The case in which the decision was
made was that of Gus Leidy & Co.,
plaintiffs in error, VS.. A. J. Hardin. 1t
was brought here on appeal from the
Supreme Court of Iowa and this court
reverses the decision of the State court
Justices Gray, Harlan and Brewer dis
sented. The case is one of great impor-
tance to Prohibitionists and liquor
dealers.
Leidy, a beer manufacturer of Peoria,
Ill, shipped beer to Keokuk, Iowa,
which was seized in the original pack
ages by Hardin, a State official, as hav-
ing been sent there in violation of the
Iowa law The Supreme Court of Iowa
0olQ JQdb Ju6 law ulluCI NhiNh OA-S
official acted was valid.
The Chief Justice in delivering the
opinion of the court cited number OF
cases bearing upon Interstate COM
aerce, among others 1.-The license
cases." where laws passed by Massachu-
setts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island
in reference to the sale of spirituous
liquors came under review in the court
and were sustained, although the mem
bers of the court who participated
in the decisions did not concur
in any common ground upon which
to rest them, in which Chief JUS
tee Taney is quoted as holding that
spirituous distilled liquors are univers-
ally admitted to be subjects of owner
ship and property and therefore sub
1ects of exchange, barter and traffic, like
any other commodity in which right of
property exists; that Congress, under
its general power to regulate commerce
with foreign nations. may prescribe
what merchandise shall be admitted and
what excluded; but, inasmuch as the
laws of Congress authorized the importa-
ton of ardent spirits, no State has a
right to prohibit their introduction.
After referring to these and other de-
cisiOns bearing on license laws, the court,
in its opinion, says:
The decisions rest upon the undoubted
right of the States of the Union to control
tn I purely internal affairs, in doing which
they exercise powers not surrendered to the
NrtiOnal Government
The power vested in Congress to regulate
commerce arOng the several States is the
power to prescribe the rule by which that
commerce is TO he governed and is a power
complete in itself, ac >nOwledging no limita-
tiOns other than those prescribed in the
Constitution. 1t is cO-extensive with the
subject on which il acts and can not be
stopped at the external boundary of the
st tie, but must enter its interior and must
he capable of authorizing the disposition OF
Those articles which it introduces, that they
may become mingled with the common mass
of property within the territory entered.
That ardent spirits are subjects of Inter
st ttc commerce can not be denied When
ever 4 law of a State amounts essentially to
n regulation of commerce, as il does when II
inhibit- irectly the receipt of an imported
commodity or lis disposition before 1t has
ceased to become an article of trade be-
tween one Stat and another it comes in
conflict with power which in this particu-
iar has been exclusively in the General
Gov-r iInent a is. therefore, void. Un-
doubtrdly it is for the Legislative branch
of the state Government to deter
mine whpt ser the manuf ICturer of par
ticHlar articles of traffic will injuriously
affect the public and it is not for
Congress to determine what measures a
Stat may prope; ly adopt as appropriate or
nccdfGl for the prot ction of the public
morals life or safety: but Notwithstanding
il is not We ted with supervisory power over
matters ofllocal admiuistr 'tion The respon-
sibilitv is upon Ong css so far as the regu-
lation of In; T. tr 90 limprce is concerned,
to remove the restrictions upon the State in
dea ing with imported articles which have
not b cn mingled wi n the common mass OF
property therein.
Whatever our individual views may be as
TO the delctcrious qualit rS of particular ar
ticIeS, we can not hold that any articles
which Congress :ccogniZeS rs subjects of In
ter--tate commerce are not such or that
whatever are thus recognized can be con-
trolled by tate lav amounting to regula-
tions, Will they retain that character, al
though at the same time il directly dangerous
to themselves til state may take appro-
pirate mpa ures to guard against injury be-
fore il obt ins complete ju isdiction over
them. To e dc q tate the power to
exclude direct sr indirectly, articles so
situated thuut Congressional permis-
sion Is to Conrcdc to majority OF
the peo' /" of Il state, represented
I'm the state I"riS ature, the power to regu-
late commercial intercourse between the
States by determining " hat shall be its sub
1ects v hen that power was distinctly grant
cd to he exercised 10y the people of the
United states reprcsrntc in Congress, and
its possession 10y the latter was considered
essential to that more perfect union which
the Constitution was adopted to create.
Undoubtedly there is difficulty in drawing
the line between the municipal powers OF
rasf an commercial
ers of the other, hut hen that line is deter
mined accommodation to it without serious
inconveni nee my read ly be found in q
frank and candid cooperation for the gen.
eraI good. The decision of the Supreme
Court of Iowa is reversed
Justices Gray. Harlan and Brewer, in
summing up the reasons which satisfy
them that the Judgment of the Supreme
Court of Iowa should be affirmed, say
that the power of regulating or prohibit
ing the manufacture and sale of intoXi
eating liquors belongs as a branch Of
the police power to the Legislatures ot
the several States and can be judici
ously and effectively exercised by then
alone according to their views of public
policy and local needs, and can not
practically, if it can consitutionally, bt
welded by Congress as part of nationa
and uniform system.
The Iowa Prohibitory laws were en-
acted by the Legislature in the exercise
of its undoubted power to protect its in
habitants against the evils, physical
moral and social, attending the free us'
of intoxicating liquors. They are moi
aimed at Interstate commerce and have
NO rclafi0n 10 the movement of goods
from one State to another. but operate
only on intoxicating liquors within the
limits of the State. They include al