Audubon County Republican. [volume] (Audubon, Audubon Co., Iowa) 1885-1894, 1890-11-06
THE IOWALAW SUSTAINED
Judge Caldwell Uphoids Prohibit.
ton In Iowa.

The opinion of Judge Caldwell, OF
the United States circuit court OF the
original package case Of II. NJ, Van
viert, o. Iowa, was filed. 1t discusses
all the questions raised aud extends
over more than fourteen large type
written pages. The court holds that
the act OF congress and tho laws OF
the state arc valid. The following
are some OF the salient points in the
opinion.
BY the act OF congress the right
which the importerpreviously enjoyed,
OF selling liquor in tho oris inal pack
age in tho state whore the transit end.
cd, regardless OF the laws OF such
state. is taken away, the net declaring
that tho liquor shall, upon its arrival
in such state or territory. DO subject
to the operation and effect Of the laws
OF such state. After citing authorities
aue the act OF congress, tho opinion
proceeds: at will DO observed that
by the terms Of tho act, the original
package upon its arrival in tho state
Is put upon the footing with liquor
produced in the state. The original
package, when IL arrives In the state
where its transit terminates, IL ut once
reduced TO the rank OF domest c
liquors, enjoys no privilege not en-
joyed by domestic liquors, and IL sub.
ject to the operation ana effect OF the
laws Of such state, enacted in the eX.
ercise OF its police powers To the same
extent and in tho same manner rs
domestic liquor. Now there never
was any question that The laws OF Iowa
prohibited the sale oil liquor produced
in the state, II that the laws for this
purpose was constitutional. These
laws were In iull lOrcc nj the dato OF
the passage Of The act OF congress, and
that act having, in legal effect,
abolished original packages on their
arrival within tho state by placing
them on the same footing with liquor
produced within the state, they are as
much amenable TO tho state law rs
II they had never existed In the
form Of original packages. Congress
may regulate Interstate commerce but
not inlrastate commerce. IL may rog-
ulato commerce among the states but
not in tho states. The state may reg
ula,e purely internal bat not Interstate
commerce. The net is drawn In view
OF those settled principles. ltproiects
the interstate transportation Of liquor
until its arrival In the state, whcro
the transit is TO, and no longer. Upon
its arrival In the state, tho act OF con.
gress declares that 1t shall DO subject
TO the laws OF tho state. IL IL said tho
supreme court declared these laws TO
be Unconstitutional In SO far as they
prohibited the snle OF liquor by tho i'm
por. err or his agent In the original
package, and that congress could not
IN the language OF tho learned counsel
| 'vivify dead statute There are two
answers TO this contention. The first
is that the act OF congress relcgutes
the original package OF liquor on its
arrival in tho state to the laws OF tho
state passed In tho exercise OF its po.
| lice powers, and there Is not now. or
ever has been, any doubt OF tho valid.
ity OF those laws. IL is not tho laws
of the state, but the original package
that ia dead. Tho obvious design
and intention Of congress was to with.
draw at once the protesting shield OF
interstate commerce from original
packages Of liquor, the moment they
entered the state where their transit
was to end by placing them on the
footing OF liquors produced in the state
and declaring they should be subject
to the same laws. This is what the
supreme court, as construe their
opinion, had said congress might do,
and it is what it did do, in language
that admits OF no evasion or discuss
ion