The Globe-republican., 1890-05-28
ORIGINAL PACKAGES.

|
Senator Wilson's Bin 70 Meet the Recent
Supreme Court Decisioa Discussed In the
Senate.
WASHINGTON. May a1.-The Senate
yesterday afternoon took up the bill re-
ferred from the Judiciary Committee,
subjectirg imported liquors to the pro-
visions Of the laws of the several States.
Mr.. Wilson. of Iowa, who had intro
duced the bill in the first instance, and
had afterward reported it back, adj
dressed the Senate in explanation and
| advocacy of it, stating that it was made
necessary by the recent decision of the
Supreme Court on that subject 1t was
response to the suggestion contained
in that decision that Congress could per-
NIT the exercise of the restraining
power of State, and it was for the pur-
pose of giving that permission
that the bill had been introduced
.would be to leave each State in the
Union to determine for itself what its
policy should be in regard to the traffic
in intoxicating liquors. Under that de-
cision of the Supreme Court the State OF
Iowa could not prevent the citizens OF
other States, or the subjects OF Great
Britain, France or Germany from send
ing intoxicating liquors into Iowa and
having them sold there in the original
packages by agents At the present
time original package saloons were be-
ing organized in his State. The pack
age might be pint or half pint OF
whisky or keg or bottle of beer. It
was to put stop to such practice and to
recognize in every State the power to
regulate its own internal police that the
bill was reported.
Mr.. Vest said that as member Of the
Judiciary Committee he had not been
able to agree with the majority in re-
porting the bill because it would sweep
away the exclusive Jurisdiction of the
United States over Interstate commerce.
The Supreme Court had decided en-
phatically by majority of its justices
that alcoholic stimulants were an article
of Interstate commerce and that the
power to regulate commerce among the
States and with foreign nations was an
exclusive power vested in Congress by
Congress might delegate to State
that power was contained in a mere
obiter dictum of hatdecision. He (Alr.
Vest) commended that it could not be
done. The Supreme Court had decided
that the power Of Congress over Inter.
State commerce was an exclusive power
and could not be delegated. If it could
be delegated in regard to one article Of
merchandise (alcohoD, it could be dele
gated as to any other article-wheat
corn, rye, o!eOmargarine, etc Was the
Senate going to make that new de-
parture? Was it on mere dictum Of
the Supreme Court to tear down the
barriers Of the Constitution?
Mr.. Mcpherson asked Mr.. Vest wheth-
er the right to import an article implied
the right to sell it?
Mr.. Vest replied in the affirmative,
and quoted from the decision of Mr..
Justice Matthews, of the Supreme Court,
in the case of Ward against Maryland
to that effect.
Mr.. Hoar argued in favor of the bill
If the bill were not within the legisla-
tive power of Congress then there was
no more miserable Nation on the face
Of the earth than the United States.
He supposed that there did not exist a
community anywhere where the danger
of permitting the unrestricted sale of
intoxicating liquors was not recognized
and guarded against by public authority.
Mr.. Edmunds remarked upon it as
very curious and interesting circum-
stance that condition of things had
been reached where, according to the
debate and according to the Judgment of
the Supreme Court, the State had no
power to deal with the subject and Con.
gress had no power to deal with it. The
result was that there was in every man
in one State an inherent individual,
personal right to carry into any State
what that State might consider injurious
to its safety. there to sell it, and that
Congress had no power to stop it and that
the States could not stop it unless Con
gress gave them that power. 1t was
only necessary to state such PROPOSE
ton to show that somewhere. either in
the Supreme Court or in the Senate,
there was fault in the logic of some
body. He did not feel over persuaded,
or put in box, by what the Supreme
Court had said. 1t might change its
opinion next year and say that the rule
should be the other way. He did not
feel embarrassed by the fact that the
Supreme Court had taken the longest
step ever taken within a hundred years
in the republic toward the centraliza-
ton of power-somewhere,e either in the
Supreme Court or in Congress. He did
not believe in the Capitalization of
power. He believed in its segregation
and separation in every respect
Speaking of the importation of intox-
icating liquors into State Mr.. Ed
munds claimed that once they got there
they were whether in the hands of ma
tives or mott subject to State laws and
that was what the Supreme Court Of the
United States would come to within the
next twenty years. 1t might be that
that would interfere with the revenue
of the United States, but the power of
the United States to regulate COM
merce and levy taxes was no
greater within its sphere than the