Evening journal., 1890-04-29
A BLOW AT PROHIBITION.
Iowa's Liquor Seizing Law Pro-
nounced Unconstitutional.
A VERY IMPORTANT DECISION.

A VERY IMPORTANT DECISION.
The United States Supreme Court says
Liquor Can Lawfully BE TaIsen Into
Iowa from other states-The Law In
terferes with Interstate Commerce.
wAsnNGroV, April 29-The United
States supreme court has rendered an
opinion adverse to the constitutionality Of
state laws in prohibition states providing
fos the seizure ef liquor brought from other
states. such laws, it is held are interfer-
ences with interstate commerce The case
IN which the decision was made was that
Of lseisy against Hardin, brought here an
appeal from the supreme court Of Iowa
Leisy, a beer manufacturer Of Peoria Ills,
shipped beer TO Keokuk which was seized
in the original packages by Hardin, state
official as having been sent there in viola
lion OF the Iowa law The supreme court
Of Iowa held that the law under which this
official acted was valid but the supreme
court has reversed that decision Justices
Gray Harlan and Brewer dissented from
the opinion Of the majority.
The Legal status Of Spirits.
The opinion cited a number of cases bear
| ing upon interstate commerce and among
Others the Lyons case,n where laws passed
| by Massachusetts, New Hampshire and
Rhode Island in reference TO the sale OF
/ Epirituous liquors came under review in
the court and were sustained, although the
members Of the court who participated in
the decisions did not concur 4n any common
ground in which to rest them, In which
| Chief Justice Taney is quoted as holding
that spirits and distilled liquors are uni.
versally admitted to be subjects Of owner
ship and property, and therefore subjects
of exchange, barter and traffic like any
other commodity in which right Of prop
erty exists; that congress under its general
power 70 regulate commerce with foreign
nations may prescribe what merchandise
shall be admitted and what excluded. But
snasmuch as the laws OF congress author-
lied the importation Of ardent spirits no
state has right to prohibit their introduc-
kion.
The Opinion of the Court.
After referring to these and other decis-
Ions bearing on state license laws the court
In its opinion says "These decisions rest
upon the undoubted right OF the states OK
the Union to control ther purely internal
affairs, in doing which they exercise pow
ers not surrendered to the national govern
ment, but whenever the law OF the state
amounts essentially TO a regulation OF com
merce with foreign nations or among the
states, as ii does when 1t inhibits, directly
or indirectly, the receipt Of an imported
commodity or its disposition before it has
ceased to become an article Of trade be-
tween one state and another or another
country and this, il comes in conflict With
/ power which in this particular, has been
exclusively vested in the general govern
ment and is therefore void. The piaintiffss
citizens of Illinois, had the right 10 import
: their beer into Iowa and had the right to
sell il, by which act alone il became mingled
In the common mass of property within the
!. state.
4 The state Could Not Interfere.
oUp to that point Of time, in the alb
sence Of congressional permission to do 50,
the state had no power to interfere by seiz-
ure or any other action in prohibition Of
:. importation and sale by the nonresident
e. importer Articles which congress recog-
nizes as subjects Of interstate commerce
- may be controlled by state laws amount
ing TO regulations, while they retain that
character, Int TO concede TO a state the
. power TO exclude such articles without
congressional permission is to concede 70
a majority Of the people Of a state repre-
sented ia the state Legislature the power Ia
'N'ffN~A@
the states
The Views of the Dissenters.
). Justices Gray, Harlan and Brewer in
= summing the reasons which satisfy them
= that the Judgment of the supreme court Of
Iowa should be affirmed say that the pow
er Of regulating or prohibiting the manu-
facture and sale of intoxicating liquors be
longs as a branch of the police power tS
de the legislatures of the several states, ant
m can be iudieiously and effectively exercised
+" by them alone, according TO their views o
,rs public policy and local needs, and canno
practically If it can constitutionally b.
. welded by congress as part of a nationa
= and uniform system
The Iowa prohibitory laws were enacted
by the legislature in the exercise Of its un
n doubted power TO protect its inhabitants
w against the evils physical, moral and social
M attending the free use Of intoxicating
NJ liquors. They are not aimed at interstate
VI commerce, have no relation 70 the move
~ ment Of goods from one state TO another
"a but operate only on Intoxicating liquors
a within the limit Of the state; they include
N all such liquors without discrimination
WI and do not even mention where they ar'
A made or whence they come They aifec
S commerce much more remotely, the dis
& senting justices say, than laws of a state-
the validity Of which is unquestioned-
~ authorizing the construction of bridge
n and dams across nayigable waters withii
\ its limits, which wholly obstruct the cours
by OF commerce and navigation; orthan quar-
Rs, antine laws which operates directly upo
~ all ships and merchandise coming into tn
ports Of the state.
The stand Of Congress.
: II, they say the statutes Of a state r,
stricting or prohibiting the sale Of intox
eating liquors within its territory are to /
held imperative and void as applied {
liquors sent or brought from another stat
and sold by the importers in original pacl
ages the consequence must be that an il
habtant Of any state may, under the pr
text of interstate commerce, and withot
license or supervision of anypublic autho
ity, carry or send liquor into and sell i
any or all OF the other states despite an
~ legislation of these states on the subie,
~ and although his own state should be II
= only one which had not enacted simils
laws. Northing short Of affirmative an
aSrplirit ~ ba f,,f