The Portland daily press., 1890-05-02

We observe that the Kennebec journal
thinks the decision of the Supreme Court
in the Original package" case goes only to
the extent of declaring that nonresident
of prohibitory State may import liquors
into that State and sell them, leaving it to be
Inferred that the importer when he is a citi-
zen of the prohibitory State may be prevent
ed from selling them by State laws. That is
to say, while liquor dealer in Massachu-
sets could send liquor into Maine in the
original package and sell it in such pack
age, liquor dealer who was citizen of
Maine could not bring liquor in in the orig
inal package and sell it. Or applying the
doctrine to the Mike Burns case the adyo-
Gates of this view would hold that while an
English firm with its headquarters in Lon
don could send into this State liquor and sell
1t. Mr. Mike Burns, being a citizen of this
State, could not buy liquor of this London
firm, and, after importing it, sell it. The
supporters of this view apparently rest their
case on the fact that the. importer in the Iowa
case was citizen of Illinois, and that all
that the court decided in.that case was that
foreigner could sell liquor in original pack
ages In Iowa In spite of Iowa's law to the
contrary. That was all they were called
upon to decide specifically. But they laid
down doctrine, which apparently admits
no distinction between the importer who
Is citizen of the State and the importer
VINO is citizen of some other State. And
the court had no intention of making
such distinction we think will become OBJ
vlous from an examination of another opin-
Ion which was pronounced by the full court
Two years ago. This is the case of Bow
man VS.. The Chicago g. Northwestern Rail-
way Company, which was suit for dam
ages against the railroad for refusing to
transport into Iowa beer which plaintiffs
mad purchased in Illinois. The plaintiffs
were firm established in Marshalltowp,
Iowa, and one of the members of it was
citizen Of Iowa. The defence set up by the
defendants was that a statute of Iowa forbade
tue transportation of liquor into that State
Judge Stanley Matthews delivered the opin-
ion Of the court, which was that the Iowa
statute was void as being regulation of
interstate commerce. Whether the impor-
ters-that is the Marshalltown frm-would
nave the right to sell the liquors which the
court held they had the right to bring into
Inc State In spite of the State law, was not ex-
pressly decided by the majority of the court
because the cause Of action did not REQUIRE
It, but they did 60 to the extent Of throwing
out very strong intimation that If that
question had been decided it would
have been decided in favor of the
lmporters-not foreign residents in this case
for they said. replying to suggestion in
the opposite direction:
IL IS easier to think that the right Of importa.
non from abroad and Of transportation from one
olate TO another, includes by necessary implica-
ton, the right of the importer to sell in unbroken
packages at the place where the transit term-
h haees ior the very purpose and motive Of that
Dlancn OF commerce which consists In anspor-
saeion, Is mat other aud consequent act of COM
nt ~ , which consists in the sale and exchange
VI He commodities transported.
Inc Importing firm under consideration
When TIE court threw out this strong intima-
tlon that they believed it had not only right
70 receive liquors, but to sell them. was estah-
hshed IN Iowa, with its headquarters there
ana with one of its members a citizen of that
State. But Judge Field went further
than the majority and declared as bis nor
sonal view that the right of imnortation
carries with it the right to sell the article
imported does not appear to me to be dopht.
full" And further he declared that s.to
assert that, under the constitution of the
United States the importation of an article
of commerce cannot be prohibited by the
State, and yet to hold that when imported
its use and sale can he prohibited, is to de
clare that the right which the constitution
gives is a barren one" A minority o.
the court, including Chief Justice Waite
Judge Harlan and Judge Gray, dis
scented from the majority opinion and held
that the State could, under its police powers
prevent the importation of liquors from other
States and from foreign countries. But no
where in this case, either in the opinion OF
the majority or Of Judge Field or of the mi