The morning call., 1890-05-08
SIX TO THREE.

If all the members of the United States
Supreme Court took part in the recent de-
cision oYerruling the Supreme Court of
Iowa on a point in the Prohibition Act
there were six in favor and three in the
negative. AS a matter Of fact the decision
Is conclusive, but as matter of law the
point involved is still open. Following is a
statement of facts:
Gus Leisy & Co. are beer-breweTs in Peoria,
I'll. They sent some of their product In sealed
kegs and cases by railroads to KeOkuk, Iowa,
where their agent, non- resident, offered it for
sale in The original cases. The liquor was seized
by 4. j. Hardin, Marshal OF heokuk, under the
prohibition laws of Iowa. Leisy s. Co. brought
suit against the Marshal, alleging that the seiz-
uie was unconstitutional and void, being in vio-
laIion Of the clause OF the Constitution giving
tile United States the exclusive right to regu-
late interstate commerce.
The Supreme Court of Iowa sustained
the State law, and the case went to the SUI
preme Court of the United States on cues
ton of the police power OF a State as
against the constitutional power of Con-
gress to regulate commerce among the
several States. Chief Justice Fuller took
the ground that the power vested in Con-
gress was complete in itself, and might be
exercised without other limitations than
those prescribed in the Constitution. This
power, he said, sis coextensive with the sub
Iect on which it acts and cannot be stopped
at the external boundary of a State, but
must enter its interior and must be capable
OF authorizing the disposition of the articles
which it Introduces, so that they may be-
come mingled with the common mass of
property within the territory entered
The argument continues to the effect that
the police power of a State may provide
for the security Of the lives and property of
its residents, but in matter confded ex-
clusively to Congress by the Constitution
ii does not possess jurisdiction unless such
jurisdiction is conferred by Congressional
action. Per contra the dissenting Justices
Gray, Harlan and Brewer-while admitting
that all statutes of a State must give way,
so far as they are repugnant to the national
Constitution and laws, hold that an inten-
ton to subordinate the protection of the
safety, health and morals of the people to
the promotion of commerce is not lightly to
be imputed to tsle trainers Of the Consti-
tutior. The police powers, the minority
contend, extend to the control and regu-
lation Of things which, when used in a
lawful and proper manner, are subjects of
property and commerce, and yet may be
used so as to be injurious or dangerous TO
the public safety, the public health or the
public morals" Many people who do not
believe in the policy of prohibition will
prefer the definition Of the police power of
State given by the minority to that of the
majority. Chief Justice Fuller makes trade
and commerce the supreme consideration,
while the dissenting opinion recognizes the
right and power of a State to deal with
questions involving the general public well
fare as considerations of higher importance
than the general right of citizens of one
State to sell articles in which they deal in
another State.