The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1890-05-07

THE IOWA AND MICHIGAN ACTS DE-
CLARED VOID.
The Supreme Court of the United States
Decides that Intoxicants May lie I'm
Por ed, and that They Are Not Liable To
Unusual Taxes.
Warrington special

Decides that Intoxicants May lie Inn
porN ed, and that They Are Not Liable Ia
Unusual Taxes.
Washington speciall
The United States supreme Court on Monday
rendered an opinion adverse 20 tbs constitution
ality Of State laws In prohibition States proyid-
ing for tho seizure OF LIQUOR brought from other
States. such laws, IL is held, are inter ;ercnces
With iLterttate commerce. The case in which
the decision made was that OF Leisy against
Hardin, brought here on an appeal from the Su-
prtme Court OF Iowa Leisy, "a beer Inanutac-
turer OF Peoria, shipped beer 10 Keokuk,
which was seized IN the original pa k
ages by Hardin, State Official, as having
been sent th're IN violation or the Iowa
law. 1he supreme Court of Iowa hold
That tho law under which this official acted WAS
valid but the Federal supreme Court to-day
reversed thai decision. Justices Gray Harlan
and Brewer dissented from the opinion OF tho
ma ority OF the court The opinion cited a
number oil cases b. airing upon interstate COM
merce; among Others the license cases" laws
passed by Mngsnchnsotts, New Hampshire aud
Rhode Island in reference 10 the sale OF spirit
nous liquors, cafno under review in the court
ana were sustained, although the members OF
the count who participated in the decisions did
LOT 6oacur in any common ground upon which
to rett them, in which Chief Justice fancy
IL quoted as holding that spirits and
distilled liquors are universally admitted 10
lie ssblects Of ownership ana properly and
therefore subjects OF exchange, barter md traf-
hc, like any other commodity in which n right
OF property exists that Congress, under It's
g,neral power 10 regulate commerce with for
tign nations, NAV prescribe what merchandise
shall be admitted aud what excluded. But in
asnluch as tine law OF Congress authorized the
importation OF ardent spirits, no State has
right 70 prohibit their introduction. After re-
ferring 10 these and other decisions bearing on
State license laws, the Court in its opinion
10 day says:
These decisions rest upon the undoubted right
Of the States of the Union 10 control III ir
pur ly internal Affairs, in doing which they
exercise powers not surrendercdrO the National
Government; but whenever the law OF the state
| amounts essentially to regulation OF com
merce With foreign nations or among the Stntes,
as IL does when IL inhtbits, directly Indirectly,
the receipt OF an imported commodity or its
disposition before IL mas ceased 10 become TN
arIlcle of trade between one state and another,
or another COUNTRY aud this IL comes in conflict
With power which, m this particular, has been
exclusively vested IN the General Government
and is therefore void.
1.-THE plaintiffs. cilzens OF Illinois had the
right 90 iIupI-t their beer into Iowa, and had
the right 10 sell II, ly which act alone il be-
came mingled in the common mass OF properly
Within the State. Up TO That point of time In
tie absence OF Congressional peun ssiOn 10 do
So, the state had no power 10 interfere by
seizure, or any other action, in prohibition OF
importation and sale by the NONRESIDENT I'M
lOrvtr.
Articles which Congress recognizes as sub
Jects or interstate commerce may bc controlled
10y state laws amounting 10 regulations, " lille
they retain that character; but to concede 10 IA
Stale the DOW oT To exclude sucn articles with
out Congressional perlui sion is TO coLcode 10 IL
ma oritY OF the people OF Il State represented in
the state Legislature the power TO regulate
justices Gray. Harlan, and Brewer, IN sum-
ming up the reasons which satisfy them that
the Judgment Of the supreme Court OF Iowa
should De affirmed, say: The power OF regu-
lating or prohibiting the manufacture and sale
OF Intoxicating liquors belongs, branch Of
the police power, 10 he Les slatures OF the SOW
clal States and can be Wdicously and effect
lively exercised b. them alone according to their
views OF public clicy and local needs. and can
not practically, /; IL can cons1tu ionally, be
wielded by Congress as part OF a hational ana
uniform system.
The Town prohibitory laws were enacted by
Il G Legislature in the exercise Of its undoubte1
power 10 posect It's ianaLdtants AGAINST the
evils, ph ysicai. moral and social, attending he
free use of Intoxicating liquors. They are not
aimed at interstate commerce, and have no re-
iation 10 the movement OF goods from one state
10 another. but operate only on Intoxicating
liquors within the limits O. the State. They in
ClUde hll such liquors without discrimination.
aud do not even mention where they
a'e made or whence they come. They
affect commerce much more remotely than laws
Oh staie-the yalidity of which Is unquestioned
authorizing the construction OF bridges and
dams across nayigable aters within its limits
which wholly oDstruct ohe course OF commerce
and navigation. or than quarantine laws, which
operate directly upon all ships and merchandise
coming into the ports OF the State. If the
statutes of state restricting or pro-
hibiJing me sale Of intoxicating liquors
wiGhn its territory 70 be held mop
era i've and void As applied 10 liquors sent
or brought from another STATE ard sold by the
importers in original packages the conseq Cenco
must be that IN iAhabitaut of any 81 ate may,
under the pretext OF interstate commerce and
without license or supervision Of any public
authority carry on send liquor into and sell in
any all Of the other states, despite any lepis-
latiCD Of those states on the subject and III
though his own state should be the only one
v hich had not enacted similar laws"
Nothing short OF Affirmative and explicit
leg slntion the part Of Congress will con-
vince the dissenting justices that IL contem-
plated on intended such n result. They quote
from the decision in the license cases in
which the court sustained these views. ana
contend that the silence AMI inaction OF Con-
gress upon the subject during The long period
since the license cases appear 10 require the
inference that G, ngress intended thnt the
law should remain thereby declared by the
court, rather than 10 warrant the presumption
thai % gross intended that commerce. among
In States should be tree from the indirect effect
O. such an exercise OF tie police power for pub
lie safety, was GdluCgtd 10y that decision To
be Within he constitutional authority of tho
state.
ILe court also decided the case Of Henry
LYING against she pao pie OF the State OF Michf-
gan, involving the Validity Of the Michigan law
taxing beer In the original package manu-
fncturcd in Wisconsin and sold in Michigan
The court denies the loNer Of a state TO ex-
clude directly o. indirectly the subjects
OF interstate commerce by the impo-
sition OF burdens thereon, or To regulate
such commerce without congressional per-
mis- sion. 1he same rule. IL is held which ap-
plies TO the sugar 81 louisiana the cotton OF
South Carolina. the win - OF Cal ornia, and
the tobacco Of arylGLd and Come .ticut ap-
plies TO all commodities in which a. right of
traffic exists is recognized by the laws of Con-
gress. tn d. cisiOns OF courts ana the usages OF
the commercial world, and should apply in this
case.
Tho decision Of the State Court @, Michigan.
deciding that Lydg was liable 20 tax is in this
case also reversed. Justices Gray, Harlan and
Brewer dissented from the opinion of the court
on the same grounds stated IN The Loisy- Hardin