Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-06-16
DIFFERING VIEWS CONCERNING THE
ORIGINAL PACKAGE" BILL.


The RECORD UNION has heretofore pre-
scented its doubts concerning the Wilson
blli-to cure the supposed ills of the origi-
nal package decision of the Supreme Court
OF the United States. In the last con-
sideration given to the subject we sug-
gested that the passage of the bill exempt
ing liquors from the operation of the
interstate commercial regulations estab-
ilshed by Congress for States prohibiting
their importation and sale, might bring on
greater evils than those it is intended to
cure
Our suggestion then was that the de-
cision of the Court left the matter lust
where it can well enough stand-that is to
say, the Court held that when the I'M
broken commercial package has completed
Its interstate transit and mingles with the
property in the State, it ceases to be ex-
empt from State regulation. That SO soon
as 1t becomes part of the common prop
erty in State, it is subject to local regu-
lation, even though that be prohibition of
the sale of the contents.
The Wilson bill goes beyond this. 1t
declares that when the original package is
liquor, and it is shipped into State for
bidding its entry, it shall be taken to be
Invested of the original package form, ac-
cording to and under State regulation, and
shall cease to be regarded as of interstate
commercial character when its transit is
completed.
Why, then, it is asked, is there danger
in passing such measure? Simply this
Ihat II WIN open the way to the demand
for legislation regarding other articles
which the several States do, or may here
after desire to regulate, and thus the whole
system of interstate commerce regulation
by Congress may be broken down by siege,
notwithstanding the fact that knit into
that grant of power to Congress is one of
the most vital and necessary threads of
national unity.
As the matter is more studied graver OBJ
iectiOns to the Wilson bill rise to view.
Thus, the learned Senator from Vermont,
Mr. Edmunds, has let it be understood
that in his opinion as a constitutional law
yer the Supreme Court is wrong, and that
under the Constitution "when an Act of
commerce is complete, among the States or
from foreign nations" its subject comes
under the State law, where the Act of
transportation ends, no matter whether the
owner of the commodity is citizen of that
or Of some other State
Mr.. Edmunds is not backward in sug-
gesting that when another case comes up
to the final tribunal, and a broader view
is taken Of the subject, the Court may
change or modify its position and hold
''that the States OF the United States, in
respect of what shall be done in those
States and not among them, is a matter
that the Constitution leaves to those
States TO regulate as they will"
There are many sound constitutional
lawyers who hold with Senator Edmunds,
ard it is freely asserted in Washington
that the majority of the Senate and the
House concur in the view taken by him.
II, then, there is a possibility of the Su-
preme Court receding from its position,
the passage OF the Wilson bill will be a
misfortune, because it will constitute a
dangerous precedent, as an attempt to re-
lax one of the bonds of union, and the
uniformity of commercial regulation.
If the principle enunciated by Mr.. Ed
munds is sound, and it is drawn from the
Constitution itself by natural deduction,
then TO pass the Wilson bill will be to
enact unconstitutionally and ineffectiveIy.
If that proposition is sound, such legisla-
fion as is proposed is useless. Again, if
the constitutional grant to Congress to
regulate commerce among the States
leaves the latter powerless to interpose, it
seems that any modification must come by
constitutional amendment and not by leg
is!ation, since there is force in the objee-
ton that exception by Congress is in the
nature of delegation of power that is
vested exclusively in Congress. and to dele
gate any such powers is not given to Con-
gress.
The question rs then. is what the Will
son bill attempts delegation of the power
conferred by specific grant exclusively
upon Congress?
But it is said that the Supreme Court,
In its recent decision, said that application
of remedy for the hardship alleged by
Iowa is within the power of Congress.
But that was at most obiter dictus,, and it
docs not appear that the point was ex-
haustively considered by the Court, nor
that it was one of the issues argued be-
fore it. When that question is argued be-
fore the Court, already divided in opinion,
we may have very different ruling. 1t
is accepted now that under the decision Of
the Court the right to sell the liquor in
the State of arrival is given since only by
such sale can it miugle with and become a
mart of the common property in the State,
and ue to that time the State law cannot
interfere except by Congressional per-
mission The Court said: