Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-05-06
THE LATEST SUPREME COURT LIQUOR
DECISION.

The decision of the Supreme Court of
the United States, rendered a week ago
yesterday in an Iowa liquor case, has ex-
cited wide. spread interest, and the express
sions concerning it are almost as varied
as there are critics. We do not consider
the Court as announcing any new doctrine,
or as constituting the. constitutional powers
of the Federal Government any more
broadly than heretofore.
The case in brief is as follows: Iowa
has law prohibiting the manufacture,
sale or importation of spirituous or malt
or vinons liquors. A Peoria, ILL.,, manu-
facturer of beer shipped original packages
of his manufacture to customers in Keo-
kuk. An Iowa official seized these pack
ages after they crossed the line, and before
the delivery to the purchaser was COM
plete. The lower Court and the State
Supreme Court sustained him in this ac-
tion. The case then went to the Supreme
Court of the United States, and that final
tribunal reverses the Court below. The
Supreme Court of Iowa held that as long
as the State prohibited the sale of liquor,
the privilege of selling liquor denied resi-
dents of that State obuld not be extended
to residents of other States. They held
that the right to prohibit the sale of
liquor was broad enough to include the
actual sale and delivery of liquor within
the State, no matter where the liquor
came FROM
The Supreme Court of the United States
holds that ardent spirits are subjects of
interstate commerce. Whenever State
law amounts to regulation of such COM
merce, and directly or indirectly inhibits
the receipt lof an imported commodity or
its disposit Pn before it has ceased to be-
come an asficle of trade between States, it
comes in conflict with power exclusively
in the General Government, and it is
therefore void. And the Court adds:
Undoubtedly it is for the legislative branch of
the State Governments 10 determine whether
the manufacture of particular articles of traffic
VIII nlJurlously affect the public, and it is not
for Congress to determine what measures a state
may properly adopt as appropriate or needful
ior the protection OF the public morals, life or
safety; but notwithstanding it is not vested
with supervisory powers over N stters of local
40 mlnlstration, the responsibility is upon Con.
ress, SO lar as the regulation of interstate COM
I4nerce is concerned to remove the restriction
upon the State in dealing with imported articles
which have not been mingled with the COM
mon mass of property therein. What
ever our individual views NAV be as the dele
ferrous qualities of particular articles we can
not hold That any articles which Congress rec |
ognizes as subjects of interstate Commerce are
not SUCH or that whatever are thus recopnized
can be controlled by State laws amounting 10
regulations, while they retain that character:
although, at the same time, If directly danger
Gus 10 themselves the States may take appro- |
pirate measures to guard against injury before |
IL OBTAINS complete Jurisdiction over them To
conceoe 70 State the power TO exclude, di- |
rectiy or indirectly articles so situated without
Congressional permission, is TO concede 10 a
majority OF the people OF a State, represented
IN the state Legislature, the power TO regulate
commercial intercourse between the States, by
determining what shall be its subjects, when
tnat power was distinctly granted to be exer-
clsed BY the people of the United States, repre-
latter was considered essential TO the more per
feet union which the Constitution was adopted
to create.
In this decision six Justices concurred
and three dissented from it. The extreme
prohibitionists hold that the decision COM
pletely destroys their footing and that now
prohibition must proceed upon national
basis. The more conservative take d.
rectly opposite view, and contend that the
decision does not affect the one great aim
of the cause, the suppression of the saloon
and the retailing of ardent spirits.
Let us look at the matter calmly and we
will discover that the Court has enunci-
,ated no new doctrine. There are very
many cases in which it has affirmed the
constitutional doctrine that over inter-
state commerce the States as individual
members of the Union have no power In
the celebrated Maryland case it was held
that the State has no power to tax or in
terfere with an article Of interstate COM
merce so long as it retains that character,
and until it has mingled with and become
of the volume of the common property in
the State. In the Marshalltown case it
was held that railroad company had the
right TO bring liquor into State as COM
mon carrier, but the Court did not say
that after it had been delivered in the
State TO the consignee the State laws
could not control its disposition. Neither
does il so hold now. 1t does not now say
that after the unbroken package has been
delivered to the importer he can go on
and sell it unrestrainedly within the State,
for as soon as delivery has been effected it
becomes subject to the police regulations
of the State.
So then if A B, residing IN State for
bidding the sale of liquors, purchases from
CD in another State package of liquors,
in bottles, kegs, barrels or TASKS, and inn
ports them into his own State, he does so
under the interstate commerce right guar
anteed between the States to all the citi-
zens thereof by the Federal Constitution.
gnt so soon as he has received the package
in his own State it becomes portion Of
the common property thereof, and is sub
;ect to the local police regulations of the
State. So that A B cannot break the orig.
mai package in his State and sell it to the
neople thereof, if the State law prohibits
such sale.
r,h;s IL really what the decision amounts