The Hot Springs star. (Hot Spings [Hot Springs], Dakota [Dakota Territory, i.e. S.D.]) 1886-189?, 1890-06-27

ORIGINAL PACKAGES.
a KANSAS COURT SAYS rHsiR
SALE 10 L9oAL.
Dssesssa e. JuaGe Caaawsn n ~ usbeae
Osepus Casss AsM Tspska go aalna,
Kansas Neesee = - Apeeal -
Uaaeea oeasss 0speeae UsarA
The long leoksd tof dseasloa IN H. o..
iisinal peetaes hsbsas eoepls easss non
Topeka and Slliaa has Just bssa dsivsesd
II the United 0taees circuit court By judeo
Caldwell, q. Lesvsnwcsth. TIE decision
releases the eleven pseitioaees ffoa onseody
aud announces H. Test that hquos ca IS
sold IN this stats II original packages.
whsthsr large o. small. &
After The deoision had been delivered. .
notice that On appeal 70 the United States
supreme court wouldib be taken vas Aid.
The decision In fnll % delivetsd ~
Judge Caldwell 10 q follows:
Eleven different persons have sspa-
sately petiiioned this cou,t for wsits q
habsas coepus 70 relieve them from alleged
imprisonment In violation OF the constitu.
ton Of the United states. The casse were
heard together, and. while there 10 some
difference In the minor details, The material
and controlling facts are tho same in all
cases. Prosecutions were instituted against
the petitioners, charging them With selling
liquor in violation Of the laws Of this
state. They were arrested, and failing to
give bail. were committed, ard thsre-
upon filed their petitions In this
court. alleging that they were i'm.
prisoned in violation Of the con.
stitution Of The United States, in
virtue Of criminal prosecutions Som.
menced against them In the state courts Of
Kansas Tor selling liquor in that state in.
alleged violation OF ito constitution and
laws; that the liquor. for the selling Of
which they were prosecuted and impris.
oned, was shipped BY its owners, who were
citizens and residents Of the state OF Mis-
souii, from that state into this state and,
sold by the petitioners as agents Of such
shippers and importers in the original
packages in which Il was shipped BY tie
owners into this state; that they sold
liquor in no other manner and that. so far
as the constitution and laws Of. the state
make such sale Of liquor . crime, they arc
in conflict With the commerce clause Of
the constitution Of the Uaited states, and.
void. .
"The uncontradicted evidence supports
the allegations Of the petitions, namely,
that certain persons and firms residing end
doing business in the state OF Missouri.
owned and shippedfrom that state into this
state distilled liquors and beer, and that
the petitioners, as agents for said shippers
and importers, sold said liquors In this
state in the original packages in which II
ives shipped into the state BY ito owners,
and sold liquor IN no other manner. With
on exception not material to be considered
in this case. the constitution and laws OF
this state make it q crime for any personto
sell liquor in this state.
"The constitution and laws Of the state
make 40 distinction between the importer
who sells in original packages and ono
who sells in broken packages or by the
glass. The law inhicts the same penalty
on both. Every question Of law raised in
these cases hes been decided BY the SUI
preme court Of the United States. That
court in 8 fsc;::ct decision says: Ardent
spirits, distilled liquors, ale and besr are
subjects Of exchange. barter and
traffic. like other commodities; that
the right Of trafac exists and il
90 recognized by the usages Of the
commercial world, the laws Of congress aud
the deoisions Of courts 10 not denied.
Being thus articles Of commerce, can .
state, in the absence Of legislation on the
part Of congress, prohibit their importation
from abroad or from Q sister state, or when
imported. prohibit their sale BY importers2
These questions that court answered in
the negative and that answer 10 conclusive
In this and all other courts In this country"
Tho court. referring TO the laws OF Iowa
which, like the laws Of this state, make II
unlawful Tor the importer to cell, said:
The plaintiffs in error arc citizens Of
Illinois, are not pharmacists and have no
permit, brt import into Iowa beer which
they sell in original packages, ~ described.
Under the decision In Bowman W. the
Chicago Railway company they had the
right to import this beer into that state
and they had the right to sell IL, BY which
act alone it would become mingled in the
SV1sAAV0 1nose VI psVp0tsy WSSuAu INC 8t8te.
Up to that point Of time We held that In
the absence Of congressional permission to
do 10 the state had no power to
interfere by seizure or any other action
in prohibition Of the importation or
sale By the foreign or nonresident i'm
porter. Tho legislation in question IL to
the extent indicated repusnant to the third
clause Of section 8 Of article 1 Of the
United States. IL was then no ofense for
these petitioners to cell liquor in the orig
inal packages. agents for ths nonresident
importers and owners having . riRht TO
make such sales under the constitution OF
the United States, " construed By the SUI
preme court Of the United States. Any
imprisonment Of them for doing that oct
Is, in the language Of the habeas corpus
cot. Sin violation Of the constitution Of the
United States and Illegal and this court
has the Jurisdiction and IL IL made it, duty
to discharge any person 90 illegally held IN
custody"
CHOLERA IN MADRID.
Il IL Spreading q n AlaEming Rats-Nine.
ty.Ono Cases Ropoetod