The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-04-29
A REBUKE TO IOWA.
Original Packages of Liquor
Must Enter.
a SUPREME COURT DECISION.
Packages IL Declared Tn
constitutional.
4 SUPREME COURT DECISION.

WAsHrssrox CrrY. April A-Ths United
States supreme court. through Chief jus
tice Fuller. today rendered An opinion ac-
verse 10 the constitutionaiity of state laws
providing for tne seizure of liquor brought
into state in original packages- Such .
Law. the court holds. is an interference with
interstate commerce.
The chief justice in delivering the opin-
ion OF the court says in part:
The power vested in congress to regulate
commerce among the several states is .
power to prescribe the rules by which com.
merce Is to be governed and is . power
complete in itself. acknowledging no limi-
tations other than those prescribed in the
constitution.
That ardent spirits are . subject OF inter
state commerce cannot be de MED. When
ever the Jaw Of q state amounts essentially
TO regulation OF commerce. as il does when
IL inhibits directly or indirectly the receipt
OF IN imported commodity or its disposi-
ton before IL has ceased TO become an
article Of trade between one state and an
other, IL comes in conflict with the power
which in this particular has bean vested
exclusively in the general government
and is void. To concede to state power
TO exclude directly or indirectly articles so
situated without congressional permission is
TO concede TO the majority of a state repre-
sented in the legislature, power TO regulate
commercial intercourse between states by
determining what shall be its subjects,
when that power Was granted to be exer-
cised by the people of the United States
represented in congress, and its possession
by the latter was considered essential to
taat more perfect union which the consti-
tuition was adopted TO create.
Justice Gray delivered = dissenting
opinion in behalf of himself and Justices
Harlan and Brewer. 1t says. Ia part. that
the power regulating or prohibiting the
manufacture and sale of Intoxicating
liquors appropriately belongs. Is branch
Of its police power. to the legis-
latures Of the several states. The
statutes in question were enacted by the
state OF Iowa in the exercise Of its un-
doubted power TO protect its inhabitants
against the evils. physical, moral aud social,
attending the free use of intoxicating
liquors. They are not aimed ct interstate
commerce, but operate only against intoxi-
eating liquors within the territorial limits
Of the state.
III the StAtutes Ol the St8te IeStflctlu& OF
prohibiting the sale of Intoxicating liquors
within its territory are to be held inoper-
ative and void as applied TO liquor sent or
brought from another state and scld by the
importer in what are called original pack
ages, the consequence must be that
the inhabitants Of any state
may. under the pretext of interstate
commerce. carry into and sell IN any or all
other states in the Union intoxicating,
liquors OF whatever description. despite
any legislation of those states on the sub
ject, and although his own state should be
the only one which had not enacted SIM
liar laws, We would require affirmative and
explicit legislation on the part OF congress
10 convince US that il contemplated or in
tended such result"
The court, by the same vote, reversed the
decisim OF the supreme court OF Michigan
in the case of Henry Lying, agent for the
Wisconsin Brewing Company. who was
fined for selling liquor without license.
Lying attacked the constituionality of the
law on the ground that it would compel
agents OF outside breweries TO pay $500
year license, while brewers within the state
could, under the manufacturers license.
sell at wholesale after paying only $65 an
nual license.