The Bennington banner. [volume] (Bennington, Vt.) 1858-1894, 1890-05-01
THE IOWA LIQUOR CASE
The U. s. Supreme Courts DecisiOn.-The
Higher Law.

The U. s. Supreme Courts DecisiOn.-The
Higher Law.
One of the most distinguished of
American statemen, the late William H. |
Seward, in notable speech in the United
States Senate on the admission of Cali
fornia to the Union in 1850, used the fol
lowing memorable language; 1.-The con-
stitution regulates our stewardship; the
constitution devotes the domain to union,
to Justice, to defense, to welfare and
liberty. But there is a higher law than
the constitution which regulates our
authority over the domain, and devotes
it to the same noble purposes. The ter
ritOry is part-no inconsiderable part
of the common heritage of mankind,
bestowed upon them by the Creator of
the universe. We are his stewards and
must so discharge our trust as to secure,
in the highest attainable degree, their
happiness.
twill be remembered that the doctrine
of the higher law thus proclaimed, was
rejected with scorn by the southern
Shareholders against whom it was direct
en-, and by their northern abettOrs, but
by the opponents of slavery it was re-
ceived with delight. To them it was al
most revelation from heaven; and
when the attempt to execute the fugitive
slave law was made in the northern
states, it was appealed to with irresistible
force. The bred Scott decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States
went down before it. 1t was the law of
humanity; it was the law of common
sense, and in the presence of these the
laws of legislatures and courts are al
WAYS powerleSs.
The Supreme Court of the United
States has just made a decisionwhich,
though not so flagrantly unjust as the
bred Scott decision was, does violence
to the higher sentiments of mankind,
and will cause sincere grief to all true
temperance men and women in the
country. For it is on this question of
temperance, a question, as that other one
of slavery was supremacy moral ques-
ton, that the Court has spoken. 1t has de-
cided, in a.oase from Iowa, that liquor
manufacturer may send his liquors into
another state and there sell them by his
agent in the original package, the pro
hibitory laws of that state to the con.
trary Notwithstanding.
To this extent this decision annuls the
prohibitory and local option and high
license laws of all states having such
laws. If state has, for instance, Local
option and high license law, town OF
county voting mo license" cannot pre-
vent the ingress of liquors in original
packages to be sold there by the non
resident agent of the sender. The voters
in such town or county cannot exercise
the stewardship Senator Seward would
claim for them, cannot $50 discharge
their trust as to secure in the highest
attainable degree the happiness of its
citizens, its men and women and child
rem, if to secure that happiness" they wish
to completely prevent the entrance OF
Intoxicating liquors into their borders
The Supreme Court of the United States
says "No" to these voters, in the exer.
else of what they have heretofore sup.
lposed one of their inalienible rights
1.-THE rights of commerce, the court says
cannot be interfered with; the morals OF
a community are put, by the court, as
subordinate to the pecuniary interests OF
lpersons outside of it. But as once before
there was ''higher law'' than decision
of the Supreme Court of the United
States, so there is now; and part OF
the Court has had the courage to pro.
claim it, A dissenting opinion by Jus.
tees Grey, Harlan and Brewer gives the
true doctrine, for it makes the well be-
ing of any state or any community OF
higher importance than the material inte-
rests of any other, and consequently of its
own. 1t exalts the moral element in the
social fabric to its proper place and rele.
gates the material to a subordinate
sphere. That the doctrine of the minor
ity of the court will find ready accept
ance among all those who place mora
above material interests, can hardly be
doubted; nor can it, that it will eventu.
ally become the doctrine of the court it
self. 1t is not an unheard of thing for the
United States Supreme Court to reverse
its own decisions. The following is the
New York Tribme'S abstract of the dis.
senting opinion:
"The dissenting opinion says that the
protection of the general welfare of the
lpeOple is the chief end of government
All statutes of a State must, of course
give away, so far as they are repugnant
to the National Constitution and laws
But an intention is not lightly to be i'm
puted to the trainers of the Constitution
or to the Congress of the United States
to subordinate the protection of the wei
fare of the people to the promotion Of
| uNuO lllC pOMtI VI
regulating or prohibiting the manufac
ture and sale of intoxicating liquors
appropriately belongs, as a branch o.
the police power, to the Legislatures OF
the several states, and cannot practically
if it can cOnstitutionally, be welded by
Congress. The statutes in question were
enacted by the State of Iowa, to protec
its inhabitants against the evils of the
free use of intoxicating liquors. They
are not aimed at interstate commerce
If the prohibitOry statutes of State are
to be held imperative and void as ap
piled to liquors sent or brought from an
other State and sold by the sender il
what are called original packages, the
consequences must be that an inhabitan
of any State may, under the pretext o.
Interstate commerce, carry or send into
and sell in, any or all of the other States
of the Union Intoxicating liquors O.
whatever description, in cases or kegs
or even in single bottles or TASKS, de
spite any legislation of those States OF
the subject, and although his own Stat,
should be the only one which had not en-
L. 4