The Portland daily press., 1890-07-01
ORIGINAL PACKAGES" OF ALL KINDS
Should Be Subject to the Police Reg
ulations OF the States.
Laws Against Objectionable Com
modItles Would Otherwise Fail.
Report of the House Committee on
the Senate Bill.


which should apply to all articles Of inter-
state commerce as well as intoxicating
liquors. For instance. the House bill would
not only prevent the importation for sale Of
rum into Maine, but also Of oleomargarine,
which is as much prohibited in Maine as in
toxicating liquors. In explanation Of their
course in making the change which they did
in the Senate bill, the committee have made
report, which is intended to explain their
action when the bill shall come up in the
House, which will be soon after the election
bill has been disposed Of. it's understood
that Judge Reed of Iowa had an important
part in drawing this report, and Judge Reed
was on the bench Of Iowa when the decision
was made in the state court, which came to
the United States Supreme Court and was
reversed. The report says:
"The Senate bill! it will be observed, is applica.
Bile TO single subject of commerce, viz, intoxi-
eating liquors. Its effect would be TO subject
property of that character, when imported into
any state from another state or territory, or a
foreign nation, and there kept for use, c0nsump-
tion, sale or storage to tha laws enacted by that
state in the exercise of its police power. With
the amendment recommended by the committee
it would subject all articles of commerce when
imported into state, whether from another state
or territory, or foreign nation, and there held,
or offered for sale TO the laws of that state.
"The attention Of the country has been sharply
called to the necessity for some legislation by
Congress on this subject by the decision Of the
Supreme Court of the United States in the case
OF Leisy & Co. VS.. Hardin.
"The case arose in the State Of Iowa, by the
laws of which state the traffic in intoxicating
liquors, except for certain specified uses, and
subject to certain restrictions, Is prohibited. The
plaintiffs are citizens of Illinois, and are engaged
In the manufacture. of beer They opened a
house in Iowa, which they stocked with beer
from their mandatory, and which they there of
fered for sale in the packages in which they i'm
DOftpd
pose to limit themselves to sales for the uses pre-
scrlbed by the Iowa statutes, but offered to SELL
and did sell, for any use to which the purchaser
might desire to devote the property. Neither did
they comply with the provisions OF the statute
which required all persons, before engaging in
the traffic, to obtain permit from the board OF
supervisors Of the county in which
the business was proposed to be car
ried on. The property was seized under a writ
issued by court Of the state in proceeding in
stituted under the statute, the object OF which
was its condemnation and destruction as a nui-
sanee. The plaintiffs then instituted an action
for the recovery of the property, alleging as the
basis of their claim Of right that as The property
was produced in another state and imported into
Iowa for sale, it was not subject 10 the laws of
that state; but that the business of selling prop
erty within the state which had been so imported
constituted commerce amcng the several states
and was not subject to restriction or regulation by
the state. And this claim of right has been Sus-
tained by the judgment of the court.
I'm their opinion the count say, the plaintiffs
in error are citizens of illinois, and not pbarma-
csstts, csssts aid Lave rs Permit, but import iG|a
beer, which they sell in original packages as de-
scribed. Under our decision of Bowman VS.. Chi
cago, etc. Railroad Company, they had the right
to import this beer into that state and in the view
which has been expressed they had the right to
sell it. 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 congressional permission to do
o sG fne Saer @ Of
or sale by the foreign or nonresident Importer
GAS thus interpreted the effect OF the CONNER
cial clause of the Constitution is very apparent.
The prevailing opinion has been perhaps that
commerce among the several states within the
meaning of the Constitution consisted In the sale
of articles of commerce situated In one state TO
the inhabitants Of another state and their trans
portation and delivery to the purchasers In the
state of their residence. And that the sale and
delivery within state and to its Inhabitants Of
property which had been imported from another
state without any previous contract Tor ltS SAFE
was commerce within the state rather than CON-
merce.among the states. But this latter view, it
appears, is alto2ether erroneous. For as now In
terpreted by the court, the provision OF the Con-
Stituti0n includes transactions OF the latter as
well as those of the former character. SO that,
however, much the interests of the state may de-
mand that traffic in particular articles OF COM
merce should be regulated or restricted, however
much the peace Of society or the welfare OF its
citizens would be promoted by such regulation,
the state in the absence Of Congressional per-
mission, is powerleSs to enforce any regulation
against the nonresident dealer, who imports his
commodities from abroad. Statutes for the re-
guati0n OF the traffic in intoxicating liquors nave
been enacted by nearly every state in the Union.
Different states have pursued lines OF policy for
the accomplishment of the same general result.
All have regarded the traffic, when unrestricted,
as an evil to society. and each has sought by its
enactmentS TO lessen that evil. But 1t Is apparent
that without the aid OF Congressional legislation
all the efforts of the States in that direction must
fail. 1t was doubtless in view OF the very gener-
al efforts OF the states to regulate that particular
traffic, that the bill which has been sent 70 US was
passed by the Senate. But In the judgment OF
your committee the bill fails TO meet the situation
There are many other lines OF traffic which the
states nave sought TO controi Win @ TeieTsnee t 70
Iowa, in view of the almost universal use by It's
citizens OF Illuminating oils has sought TO reduce
to the minimum the danger incident TO such use.
Its statutes forbid the sale Of all oils which have
not been found to be, on inspection, OF certain
quality. Under the standard adopted, only OILS
of very high quality can be sold. But articles OF
lower grade are articles of legitimate commerce.
And all oils consumed in the state are imported
from other states, and very much OF 1t IS import
ed into the state and sold by the great corpora
tions who refine it. directly to the consumer
Other states, with similar conditions, have enact
ed similar laws. The validity Of those laws has
not been questioned in the courts. 1t has proba-
bly, not been to the interest Of the dealers to
question them. But they are clearly regulations
of commerce. They prohibit the trat1c within
the states in legitimate article of commerce:
and when they become the subject OF judicial
construction, they of necessity will fall within
the rule laid down in the case from which we
have quoted. And all state laws for the inspec-
tion OF articles of food, and which prohibit the
sale of such as are found to be Of lower grade or
subject 10 the same Objec ion.
sin the opinion Of your committee all property
which has been imported into state and kept for
sale there ought to be subject for all purposes to
the Jurisdiction of the state, and all persons who
would engage In traffic within state, ought 10 be
subject to such rules as 1t may enact for the regu-
latiOn of that traffic. The states are the proper
judges of the needs of their own citizens and they
ought to be free to enact and enforce such laws
as they may deem best adapted to their situation,
and best calculated to enhance the prosperity
and happiness of their people; and when the non
resident imports his wares into the state and then
engages in traffic therein, 1t Is but just that he
should be subjected to the same restrictions that
govern the citizen of the state who would engage
In like traffic. And this would be the effect OF
| the bill If amended as recommended by the com
mittee. 1t would In no manner interfere with the
rights of the citizens of a state to purchase
abroad any article of commerce which he might
desire for his own use, and have the same trans
ported and delivered to him at his place of busi
ness. The state would bave no power to prevent
| the importation OF any article of commerce, mol
| te obsIruct the transportation of commerce
through their territories, except In the necessary
enforcement of their health laws.
"Its only effect would be to subject such prop
erty as may be imported into the state and ther'
held or offered for sale to the laws of the state
| character can hardly be doubted. 1t is empower
/ ed to regulate commerce among the seyera
| states and with foreign nations. Any enaetmen
| which establishes a rule for the government Q
| commerce of that character Is a regulation with
in the meaning Of the Constitution, and the bi
| would clearly have that effect.
| I'm the judgment of your committee it woul
| be much wiser to enact general law, applicabl
| to all articles of commerce, than to meet the e2
| igency with reference to particular articles as
| may arise as would be the policy If the Senat
| bill should be enacted. And 1t is the opinion
the committee that the bill as amended ought I
| be enacted into q law"