The Portland daily press., 1890-05-02

nority, is any distinction made or limited at
as existing between the foreign importer or
nonresident importer, and the resident or
citizen importer. The majority Of the court
expressly decided that the Marshalltown
nrin' winch was a resident and citizen i'm
porter, could bring liquor into that State in
spite OF the State law to the contrary. they
animated very strongly that this citizen inn
porter might sell it after having brought it
IN Judge Field expressly declared that in
MS opinion such was the case. Now there is
no doubt that the doctrine limited at as the
most reasonable and logical one, namely that
the importer could dispose of his import by
sale, has been declared to be the law in the
opinion announced this week. But because
the Importer in this last case happened to be
a nonresident importer the inference is
sought to be drawn that the court has limited
" 10 that class of importers. If so the court
mas discovered the distinction since March
1888 when the Bowman case was decided. for
Iuere was In that case no intimation that any
such distinction existed; on the contrary in
the minority opinion in that case there was
10 all intents and purposes declaration that
no distinction did exist, for the minority saw
THIS Oh the results of the majority opinion:
~. therefore, as the court now decides, the Con-
annr gives the right to transport intoxicating
idht in,o IOWA from another State, and if that
Llght carries with it, as one of its essential ingre
um.ehts, authority in the cOnsignee to sell or ey
oddnge Sucn articles, after they so brought in
e "niie III MS possession, in the original pack
ssss II Is manifest that the regulation iorbiddng
S"ioS Vi intoxicating liquors. within the States
view avn VIII De OF little practical value In this
xIew, any one-egen citizen of IOsUG- desiring to
sell intoxicating liquors in that State need only
arrange to have them delivered to him from some
pliyaH ~ anotner State, in packages of varying
sizes, as may suit customers.
The this view" which the minority say
would lead to such disastrous consequences
and would enable citizen of a prohibitory
State to bring liquor into the State in origi-
nal packages and sell it is sustained by the
majority of the court in the opinion lust de-
hVered, for the court quotes the Bowman
case at length, and says that ''the opinion of
the court delivered by Justice Matthews. and
the dissenting opinion delivered by Justice
Harlan, discussed the question in all its
phases and while the determination of
"nether the right of transportation of an
article Oh commerce from one State to an
otner includes by necessary implication the
right OF the consignee to sell it in nm
broken packages at the place where the
transportation terminates was in terms re-
served, yet the argument of the majority
conducts lrresistibly to that conclusion"
EA..h ined In the light which the Bowman
case throws usHon it the conclusion seems to
be inevitable that the majority of the court
meant to decide, and did decide in their re-
cent opinion that the importer, whether
foreign resident or citizen could
import liquor in the original package
and sell it in the original package, State
laws to the contrary Notwithstanding.
On the whole, however, we DO
not think the sweeping character of
this decision is to be regretted, from prohi-
bition standpoint. 1t may be that some i'm
pulse will be given to the liquor traffic, but
If so it will be only temporary, and it
will only hasten the enactment of measures
which shall be of undoubted constitution
ality and effectiveness. One result, and that
a speedy one, will. we have no doubt, be to
bring pressure of public opinion on Con-
gress so strong that it will be COM
PEELED to pass an act making all inn
portations of liquor subject to State
law. That will give the States much
greater authority over the matter than
they have ever had before. 1t will enable
the prohibitory States to prevent the intro
duction of liquor into them. and will thereby
put them in possession of a most effective
power for destroying the traffic. Nobody
need have any fear that as result of this
decision rum shops will spring up on
every corner, or that any palatial saloons
will be established in Portland by men from
Boston. Theoretically it undoubtedly does
nullify great many of the provisions of the
prohibitory law, but its practical effect even
while 1t is unremedled will not, we imagine,
be very great, as IL VIII not pe iouuu pIaUS.-
cable to bring liquor into the State in small
original packages. except possibly at few
places close to the border.
Besides, every dealer of this sort may be
compelled to fight the State up to the court
at Washington, with the chances that before
he got decision in his favor Congress would
have passed some law which would entirely
deprive him of any benefit from it as far as
carrying on business in this line in the future