The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1890-05-24
ORIGINAL PACKAGES.


handed in we notice that n case has
been tried at Des Moines, Iowa,
which, so far at least, has gone quite
in harmony with what the writer says
will take place. The Iowa court held
that the unrestricted sale of liquor in
Original packages was the law in
that state Ed. TIMES.
To TIE EDITOR:
On the 2sth day of list month the
Supreme Court OF the United States,
rendered an important decision. The
oiiit ia report of the case is not yet
PUBLISHED, but according to informa-
ton we have the history of it in brief
is as follows: An Illinois firm OF brew
ers Lad sent beer in sealed kegs and
cases by rail to Keoknck, Iowa, where
it was offered for sale IN the original
packages. The beer was seized by a
state Official, under authority of the
Iowa Prohibition Law. The Illinois
firm then brought SUIT against the of
fetal, alleging the seizure to be void
as in violation of the constitution CT
the United States. The local courts
having taken the same view, the case
was appealed to the State court of
last resort where the case was decided
against the brewers. Then the case
was appealed to the Supreme Court of
the United States and was decided for
the brewers, on the date above given.
/ The conclusion Of the court will be Of
special interest to lawyers, because it
clearly rcvcrses another similar case
which arose from the state Of New
Hampshire, some years ago. In that
case the court hell that New lamp
shire had the right to prohibit by law
the sale of gin imported from Massa
chusettS, and that the constitutional
grant of power TO the Federal Govern
ment to control commerce, or inter
course, among states, could not be con-
strued to be an absolute prohibition of
the exercise of any power by the state
over the same object. As a matter Of
interest, i'll connection with the his
tory of the case, it may be added that
Chief Justice Fuller and Justices
Field and Lamar, heretofore supposed
to he rather strenuously in favor of
Il strict construction of the constitu-
ton, subscribed to the conclusion of
The court, while Justices Brewer, Gray
and Harlan, supposed to be broad Con
structionists, dssented.
The decision Is important for at
least three reasons.
First.-lt Is a dow between the
eyes TO prohibition, and to license as
well. AS to prohibition: If intoXl-
eating drink can be imported into a
prohibition state and sold there in the
original packages under national pro-
lection, about the only difference, in
the retail rum business, between
those states and the other states of
the Union will be that in the other
states the stuff will he drunk, as a
rule, out of glass tumblers, while in
the retailing of liquor it will generally
be sucked out of the necks of glass
bottles and walls The effect upon the
sucker Will not differ materially from
that upon the dIinker; and the state
prohibition laws will be practically in
operative.
So much for the blow prohibition
gets. But what is popularity called Ii
cenSe gets whack also. For if state
prohibition laws, SO far as they apply
TO imported liquors offered for sale in
original packages, are violative Of the
Fundamental national law, then any
law whose object is partial prohibition
of the sale of such liquors is also vio-
ls;tive of it, and is void. But licensing
the sale of liquors is, according to
| legal opinion everywhere accepted,
partial prohibitions 1t must follow
then that the state license laws are,
so far as they relate to the sale in or
iginal packages of liquors imported
frCm other states, void under the nat
| iondl constitution. If this naked
question comes before the Supreme
Cortland it certainly Will come
/ there now since the court has render
/ ed this decision-it must declare such
7 License laws illegal, or nullify the logic
of its late action.
! Second. This decision is important
I because it scores a point for the broad
est construction of the constitution of
I the United States. Broad construc-
| ton favors national power: strict con
struction, state power. Very strict
construction might result in the indie
rendence of the states and the diSSolu-
ton of the Union; very broad con-
StrEction, in the tyranny of the nat
lonal government over every interest
of the people from one end of the
country to another. Secession eXamp-
lllied one extreme, and the suspension
( harmless. under the circumstances
of the privilege of the writ of habeas
I corpus by President Lincoln without
I the consent or congress, the other.
The true policy of construction is
neither very broad nor very strict, but
il aims IT a true Interpretation of the
instrument Now, the sentence in
terpreted by the court is simply this:
Congress shall have power to regu
/ late commerce between the several
/ states The word commerce here
means intercourse. What is L reason
able Interpretation of the sentence,
with reference to the case in hand ?
If mere common sense is of much
avail IN such q case as this, and pro-
found legal knowledga is not absolut-
" essential. it would seem to mean
just what the words say and no more.