Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1890-05-03
AN IMPORTANT DECISION.
Ruling by the United States Supreme
Court Regarding tho Constitutionality
of Certain state Laws.

Ruling by the United States Supreme
Court Regarding tho Constitutionality-
of Certain state Laws.
WASHINGTON, April 29.-The United
States Supreme Court yesterday rem
dered an opinion adverse to the consti-
tutionality of State laws in prohibition
States, providing for the seizure OF
liquor brought from other States. Such
law, it is held, are interferences with
Interstate commerce. The case in.
which the decision was made was that,
of Leisy VS.. Hardin, brought here on ap-
peal from the Supreme Court of Iowa..
Leisy, beer manufacturer of Peoria.
ILL.,, shippe beer to Keokuk, Ia, which
was seized in the original packages by
Hardin, State official, as having been
sent there in violation of the Iowa law.
The Sup eme Court of Iowa held that,
the law under which this official acted
was valid, but the Supreme Court re-
versed that decision. Justices Gray,
Harlan and Brewer dissented from the,
opinion of the majority of the court.
The opinion cited number of cases
bearing upon Interstate commerce..
among others ''the license cases." where,
the laws passed by Massachusetts, New
Hampshire and Rhode Island in refer-
ence to the sale of spirituous liquors.
came under review in the court and
were sustained, although the members;
of the court who participated in the de-
cisions did not concur on any common.
ground upon which to rest them; in
which Chief Justice Taney is quoted as,
holding that spirits and distilled liquors.
are universally admitted to be subjects.
of ownership and property and therefore
subjects of exchange, barter and traffic..
like any other commodity in which a.
right of property exists; that Congress,
under its general power to regulate.
commerce with foreign nations may
prescribe what merchandise shall be ad
mitted and what excluded. But mas
much as the laws of Congress authorized
the importation of ardent spirits, no.
State has right to prohibit their intro
duction.
After referring to these and other de-
cisions bearing on State license laws,
the court in its opinion yesterday says.
"These decisions rest upon the un--
doubted right of the States of the Union,
to control their purely internal affairs,
in doing which they exercise powers not.
surrendered to the National Govern,
ment; but whenever the law of the
State amounts essentially to regula-
ton of commerce with foreign nations.
or among the States, as it does when it.
inhibits, directly or indirectly, the re-
ceipt of an imported commodity or its.
disposition before it has ceased to be-.
come an article of trade between one,
State and another, or another country
and this, it comes in conflict with q
power which has been exclusively
vested in the General Government and
is therefore void.
The plaintiffs, citizens of Illinois, had
the right to import their beer into Iowa
and had the right to sell it, by which
act alone it became mingled in the COM.
mon mass of property within the State.
Up to that point of time, in the absence.
of Congressional permission to do so,
the State had no power to interfere by
seizure or any other action in prohibi-
tion of importation or sale by the non
resident importer. Articles which Con-
gress recognizes as subjects of inter
State commerce may be controlled by
State laws amounting to regulations,
while they retain that character; but TO,
concede to State the power to eXcluie,
such articles without Congressional per-
mission is to concede to a majority of
the people OF State represen ted in the
State Legislature the power to regulate
commercial intercourse between the
States.
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 pro-
hibiting the manufacture and sale of in
toxicating liquors belongs, as a branch,
of the police power, to the Legislatures
of the several States, and can be judi
ciously and effectively exercised by
them alone, according to their views of
public policy and local needs; and can
not practically, If it can constitution
ally, be welded by Congress as part of
u national and uniform system"
The court also decided the case Of
Henry Ling against the people of the
State of Michigan, involving the valid
ity of the Michigan law taxing beer in
the original package, manufactured in
Wisconsin and sold in Michigan. The
court denies the power of State to ex-
clude directly or indirectly the subjects
of interstate commerce by the imposi-
tion of burdens thereon to regulate such
commerce, without Congressional per-
mission
FLOOD HORRORS.
Seven Persons Drowned While Trying to.
frft nnrf kni I'm Ea