The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1890-08-01
+. w. SnuLTz.
Central Committeeman.

ANsAh ilkoNI tONlNSlllp utlSSlut
OF .corDcraticl, 4 each; city Of Chamber
lain. 8.
+. w. SnuLTz.
Central Committeeman.
JUDGE WANEY's DEscgsIGM.
Judge Eanay at Chamberlain yesterday
decided Nh original package case. He
holds that the enabling act admitting
South Dakota to statehood authorized the
enactment Of a prohibition clause in the
state constitution; that such an enabling
act was passed subsequent to the passage
OF the interstate commerce law. and
therefor the prohibition law received the
sanction Of congress and is not affected
by the decision of the supreme court. An
appeal from Judge Haney's decision to
the supreme court OF the state will be
taken.
The above 10 taken from the Sioux
Falls Press, and Judge Haney has like
wise been thus wrongly quoted by nearly
every newspaper in the state. and by the
press Of other states as we'll, Tho blunder
is.probably due to Chamberlain news
paper correspondent, Judge Haney's de-
cision as thus given is practically that
advanced some time ago by the Parker
New Era. Before the case in question
was argued in Mitchell. by District Attor-
ney Porter and G, L. Mckay, of Kimball.
the temperance folk of Chamberlain sug-
gested to MI. Porter the urging Of the
ground taken by the Parker paper. After
the case was ended by the judge contin-
uing the Injunction and Mr.. Porter 50 no
tifying the Chamberlain folk, the latter
at once jumped at the conclusion that
the Judge had likewise fallen in with
their and the Parker papers opinion, and
through newspaper correspondent the
decision accordingly wrongly went out
broadcast.
Even had Judge Eaney made the de-
cislOn accredited him it is not founded on
awa and common II aud it is strange
that newspapers with the as%tuteness of
the Sioux Falls Press should not have at
once discovered it and commented accord
inglY. In the first place, the decision OF
the United States supreme court on orig
inal packages was not founded upon the
Interstate commerce law but upon the
constitution. And the very plain words
OF the constitution which say in substance
that any new state may lie admitted into
the Union at any time With the consent
OF congress upon the same footing with
the original thirteen ought to demolist
any such line of reasoning as accredited
to Judge Haney. 1t is absurd to thinl
that South Dakota could come into Thu
Union with greater rights and Privileges
than other states. The enabling act by
which the state was admitted provides
that Its constitution shall not be repug
nant 10 thai OF the United States"
The history of the case tiled before
Judge Haney and decided by him was sub
stantially as follows:
A civil action under the p~rohibitor,
law was commenced against the defend
ant. a Chamberlain dealer. and q temper
airy injunction issued restraining tn,
sale. The case came up on af,idavits an;
a motion to dissolve the r~estrainin;
order. At the hearing the judge wa
pressed for time and indicated his deci
sion In these words: "Inasmuch az tn
defense here presented is the Technical
one that defendants are selling in tn
original packages only, and this being
disputed question OF fact, l viii continu
this injunction in force until a trial o
the case can be had upon the merits
when all the facts can be ascertained b
examination and cross examination of al
the parties" Later and at his Ieisur
the court prepared and filed a writer
opinion in the case in,which he Teiterate
the holding above stated and enlarge
upon it. In substance he holds: .Tha
although the injunction order is
harsh remedy, yet in view Of the fact tina
the people Of this state have twice de
clared in favor of prohibition, the individ
uals who seek to sell Intoxicating liquor
have gone into the business in oppositio
to the will Of the people and they mus
take the consequences. That while tn
laws laid down by the supreme court i
the original package decision is the la
Of the land as expressed and determine
by the highest tribunal of the nation y,
it must be determined by a trial wheth,
the defendant is in good faith sellin
within the law Of the original packal
case, or is resorting simply to . "shi
or device to eyade the prohibitory law
the state" This, in brief, was the dec
sion of Judge Haney. lie simply settle
a question of practice in this circuit
applied to dissolution Of injunction orde
effecting the sale of liquors. The jud:
in express terms reserves all question
upon the constitutionality of our sta
law, the delegation Of authority to tn
state to regulate interstate commerce
far as it relates to intoxicating liquo,
and the effect which the p%rohibitory a
ticle in our state constitution at Il
time of the admission Of South Dako
may have upon the question OF delegate
OF authority, until such time as the ca.
a be tried upon the facts. This hol
ing was because OF q disputed qucstit
of fact as to how the liquors were sold.
Huron has issued q circular printed
German in which the statement is ma,
that Huron is within 40 miles of the &C
graphical center of South Dakota al