The Iola register., 1890-05-09
LIQUOR SEIZURES.
Important Decision By tho United
States Supreme Court
state Laws For the seizure of Liquors On
Original Packages Unsonstitutionsl
Opinion CT the Court-Thres
Justices Dissent.

brought into the State in sriginal
packages. Such laws, the court holds,
are an interference with Interstate
commerce. After the liquor becomes
the property of the importer the State
may, 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. ]. 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, beer manufacturer of Peoria,
Ill, shipped beer to Keokuk, Iowa,
which was seized in the original pack
ages by Hardin, State official, as hav-
ing been sent there in violation of the
Iowa law. The Supreme Court of Iowa
held that the law under which this
official acted was valid.
The Chief Justice in delivering the
opinion of the court cited number of
cases bearing upon Interstate COM
merce, among others "the license
cases" where laws passed by Massachu-
sets, New Hampshire and Rhode Island
in reference to the sale of spirituous
liquors came under review in the court
and were sustained, although the men,
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
tice Taney is quoted as holding that
spirituous distilled liquors are uniyers-
ally admitted to be subjects of owner
ship and property and therefore sub
jects 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 admitted and
what excluded; but, inasmuch as the
laws of Congress authorized the importa
tion of ardent spirits, no State has a
right to prohibit their introduction.
After referring to these and Other de-
cisions bearing on license laws, thecourt,
in its opinion, says:
The decisions rest upon the undcubted
right of the States of the Union to control
their purely internal affairs in doing which
they exercise powers not surrendered to the
National Government.
The power vested in Congress to regulate
commerce among the several States is the
power to prescribe the rule by which that
commerce is to be governed and is q power
complete in itself, acknowledging Eo limita-
tions other than those prescribed in the
Constitution. 1t is co-extensive with the
subject on which it acts and car not be
stopped at the external boundary of the
State, but must enter its interior and must
be 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
State commerce can not be denied. When
ever laW of a State amounts essentially to
regulation of commerce, as IL does when il
inhibits q irectly the recent of en- imported
commodity or its disposition before it has
ceased to become article of trade be-
tween one State and another 1t comes in
conflict with power which in this particu-
lar has been exclusively in the General
Government sand is. therefore. void. Un-
Goubtedfy it is Tor the legislative branch
of the state Go rnment to deter
mine whether the manufacturer Of par
affect the public and 1t is not for
Congress to determine what measures a
Stat" may properly adopt as appropriate or
needful 'ior the prot ctun of che public
morals, life or safety; but Notwithstanding
1t is notvested with supervisory power over
matters ofTOcal administration THE respon-
sibiiity is 0Pon Congress so far as TIE regu-
latiOn OF Inter tate commerce is concerned
toremove the restrictions upon the State in
dealing with imported articles which have
not been mingled with the common mass of
property therein.
Whatever our individual views may be as
to the deleteTioaS qualities of particular ar
ticles, we can not hold that any articles
which Congress recognizes as subjects of In
ter->tate commerce are not such or that
whatever are thus recognized car be con-
rtrolled by state laws amounting TO regula-
tions, while they retain that character, al
though at the same time if directly dangerous
10 themselves the State may take appro-
pirate measures to guard against injury be-
fore it obtains complete jurisdiction over
them. To concede to Ntate the power to
exclude directly or indirectly, az7icIes so
situated without Congressional 'permis-
sion is TO cconcede to a majority of
the people ,of a State, Represented
in the State Legislature. the power TO regu-
late commercial intercourse between the
States by determining what shall be fsssub-
jeCts when that power was distinctaS grant
ed to be exercised by the people Of the
United states represented in Congress- and
Its possession blythe latter was considered
essential to that more perfect union which
the Constitution 'was adopted to create
Undoubtedly these is difficulty in Craving
the line between the municipal powers of
oneGoyernment ard the commercial DOW
-ers of the other, but when that line il deter
mined accommodation to it without serioas
inconvenience II ~ read ly be found in a |
frank and candid cooperation for the gen
sral good. The decision of the Supreme |
Courteof Iowa is reversed.
Justices Gray, ftarlau and Brewer, IL |
summing up the reasons which satisfy !
them SEat the Judgment of the Supreme |
Court of Iowa stsauld be affirmed, say
that the power Of regulating or prohibit I
ing the manufacture and sale of intSxi- |
eating liquors belongs as a branch Of
the police power to the Legislatures of |
the several States and can be judici- |
ously ande ffectively exercised by them |
alone According to their Giews of public
policy AMI local needs, and can not
practically, If it can e0nstibutionally, Be
welded byCGongreSs as partI1f national
and uniform system. |
The Iowa Prohibitorv laws were en-
acted by the Legislature in 1t e exercise 4
of its undouh5ed power 70 pDOtect its in
habitants against the evils, physical, /
moral and social, attending the free use
of intoxicating liquors They are not
aimed at Interstate commerce and have
no relation 10 Gze movement Of goods
frOm one State 10 another. bat operate
aaly on Intoxicating liquors within the
limits Of the State. They include all
SUCH liquors without discriminatioa and
do aot even mention where they are