The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1890-05-05
! i In Maglsr Y. Kansas. 1913 U. S. e2s. it was

auJuuged that
state legislation which prohibits the manufac-
other intoxicating LIQUORS within the limits of the
state, to be there sold or bartered for general use
~ roh does not necessarily infringe any
rignt, privilege, or immunity secured by the Con-
ments thereto''
And this was in accordance with our de-
clslons In Bdrtemeyer v. Iotod, IS Wall. 129;
and FSster Kansas sSsae is g. s aoi So in
Kidd v. Pearson, 12S U. 5. l, 1t was held
that a state statute which provided a. that
foreign intoxicating liquors may be imported
into the state, and there kept for sale by the
importer, in the original packages, or for
transportation in such packages and sale be-
yond the limits of the state; end (2) that in
toxicating liquors may be manufactured and
sold within the state for mechanical, medci-
nal, culinary, and sacramental purposes, but
for no other, not even for the purpose of
transportation beyond the limits of the state,
was not an undertaking to regulate COM
merce among the states: And in Eilenbeck-
e. Y; District Court Of Plymouth County, 1874
U. 5. =. we affirmed the judgment of the Su-
creme Court Of Iowa, sustaining the sem
tence of the District Court of Plymouth in
that state, imposing fine of $500 and costs
and Imprisonment in Jail for three months,
II the fine was not paid within thirty days,
as punishment for contempt in refusing to
obey writ of Injunction issued by that
court, enjoining and restraining the defend
ant from selling or keeping for sale any in
toxlcating liquors, including ale, wine, and
beer, in Plymouth county. Mr.. Justice Mil
Ter there remarked: A
"If the objection to the statute is that it all-
thorlZes proceeding In the nature of a suit in
equity to suppress the manufacture and sale of
intoxicating liquors which are by law prohibited,
and to abate the nuisance which the
statute declares such acts TO be- wherever carried
it appears to us that all the powers OF a court,
whether at common law or in chancery, may be
called into by esaye body for the
and we know OF no hindrance In the constitution
of the United States TO the form of proceedings,
or to the court in which this remedy shall be had.
Certainly it seems to us to be quite as wise to use
the processes of the law and the powers of court
to prevent the evil as to punish the offence as a
crime after 1t has been committed"
These decisions rest upon the undoubted
right Of the states Of the Union to control
their purely internal affairs, in doing which
they exercise powers not surrendered to the
national government; but whenever the law
OF the state amounts essentially to regnla-
ton OF commerce with foreign nations or
among the states, as 1t does when it inhibits,
directly or Indirectly the receipt of an i'm
ported commodity or its disposition before it
has ceased to become an article of trade be-
tween one state and another or another conn-
try and this, 1t comes in conflict with a pow
er which, in this particular, has been exclu.
sively vested In the general government, and
is therefore void.
In Mugler ". Kansas, (suprd,) the court
aid that it could not shut out Of view the
act within the knowledge of all, that the
public health, the public morals and the pub
lie safety may be endangered by the general
use Of Intoxicating drinks; nor the fact es-
tablished by statistics accessible to everyone,
that the idleness, disorder, pauperism and
crime existing in the country, are in some de-
gree at least, traceable to this evil" And that
IF In the judgment of the legislature [of the
Statel the manufacture of intoxicating
liquors for the makers own use. as
beverage. would tend to cripple. if it
did not defeat, the effort to guard the com
munity against the evils attending the excess
sive use of such liquors, it is not for the
courts, upon their views as to what is best
and safest for the community, to disregard
the legislative determination Of that ques-
ton. Nor can 1t be said that gov
eminent interferes with or imPairs any ones
constitutional rights of liberty or of prop
erty, when it determines that the manufac-
ture and sale of intoxicating drinks, for gen.
eral or individual use, as a beverage, are, or
may become. hurtful to society, and consti-
tute, therefore. a business in which no one
may lawfully engage" Undoubtedly it is
for the legislative branch Of the state gov
ernments to determine whether the manufac-
ture Of particular articles of traffic, or the
sale of such articles, will injuriouSly affect
the public, and it is not for Congress to de-
termine what measures state may properly
adopt as appropriate or needful for the pro-
lection of the public morals, the public
health, or the public safety but notwith-
standing it is not vested with supervisory
power over matters of local administration,
the responsibility IS upon Congress, so far as
the regulation of Interstate commerce is con-
cerned, to remove the restriction upon the
state in dealing with imported articles of
trade within its limits, which have not been
mingled with the common mass of property
therein, II in its judgment the end to be Sc
cured justifes and requires such action.
Prlor to 1888 the statutes of Iowa permit
ted the sale OF foreign liquors imported I'M
der the laws OF the United States, provided
the tn sale was by the importer in the original
than those in which they were required to be
imported; and the provisions of the statute
to this effect were declared by the Supreme
Court of Iowa, in Pearson v. International
DistilIe1y,72 Iowa, 1854, to be"intended to con-
tgam me ssasuIs e the aoetTns Of the
h1s B anS LICENSE Mqrgssnd Z Ao Wheat
SO that the statute should not conflict with
the laws and authority Of the United States"
But that provision of the statute was re-
pealed in 1888, and the law so far amended
that we understand it now to provide that,
whether imported or not, wine cannot be
es. nor alcohol except for specified chemical
purposes, nor intoxicating liquors, including
ale and beer, except for pharmaceutical and
medicinal purposes, and not at all except by
tered pharmacists and have permits OBJ
tanned as prescribed by the statute, permit
being also grantable to one discreet person
In any township where a pharmacist does
not obtain it.
The plaintiffs in error are citizens of Him
OILS, are not pharmacists. and have no per-
NIT, but import into Iowa beer which they
sell in original packages. as described. I'M
DER our decision in Bolvmda Chicago, DC.
RditDdy Co., (suprG,) they had the right to
lmnOrt this hQQr Ipfa that tot In, fho
view which we have expressed they had the
right to sell 1t, by which act alone it would
become mingled in the common mass of
property within the State. Up to that point
OF time, we hold that in the absence of Con-
gressional permission to do so, the State had
no power to interfere by seizure, or any 9TH
er action, in prohibition of Importation and
sale BY the foreign or nonresident importer.
Whatever our individual views may be as to
the deleterious or dangerous qualities of par
ticular articles, we cannot hold that any arti-
Giles which Congress recognizes as subjects of
Interstate commerce are not such, or that
whatever are thus recognized can be con-
trolled by state laws amounting to regula-
lions, while they retain that character: al
though, at the same time, If directly danger
Gus in themselves, the state may take appro
pirate measures to guard against injury
before 1t obtains complete jurisdiction over
them. 10 c0ncede to state the power to
exclude, directly or indirectly, articles so
situated, without Congressional permission,
Is to concede to 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 that power was
distinctly granted to be exercised by the
people Of the United States, represented in
Congress, and its possession by the latter
was considered essential to that more per-
feet Union which the Constitution was
adopted to create. Undoubtedly there is
difficulty in drawing the line between the
municipal powers of the one government
and the commercial powers of the other, but
when that line is determined, in the parti-
cular instance, accommodation to it, without
serious Inconvenience, may readily be found,
to use the language of Mr.. Justice johnson
in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat /, 23S, in "a
frank and candid cooperation for the
general good"
The legislation in question is to the extent
Indicated repugnant to the third clause of
section 8 of Art. of the Constitution of the
United States, and therefore the judgment
Of the Supreme Court of Iowa is
ReUerSed and the cause renaanded for
further proceedings not Inconsistent with this
opinion.
cpEIu DAM CATARRH