The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1890-05-10
a BILL TO CORRECT IT.
How the Prohibitionists Propose to Re-
pair the Damage.

HOW the FrOnlDltOnlStS propose 10 he
pair the Damage.
A Washington special says: The pro-
hibitionists have already taken steps to
repair the gap in their fences made by
the supreme court decisions. They are
working quietly but vigorously. Their
plan is to pass law which shall give a
state the authority to prevent transporta-
ton companies from bringing liquor
into that state from another state. The
select committee of the house on the
alcoholic liquor traffic has already re-
ported a bill. Mr.. Kerr, of Iowa, makes
the report. At the time the committee
considered the matter it was inspired by
the desire to find something TO offset
what is known as the Bowman decision.
The more recent decision of the Keokuk
case gave the prohibitionists additional
reason for pressing the bill. In the re-
port the committee says:
1.-The bill gives legislative authority of
the general government to the state to
regulate the transportation of lntOxl-
eating liquors by railroad companies
and other common carriers. This action
has been rendered necessary by the de-
cision of the United States supreme
court in what is known as the Bowman
case. The court in that case in render
ing the decision made use of the follow
ing language:
- For the purpose of protecting its
people against the evils of intemperance,
it has the right to prohibit the manufac-
ture within its limits of Intoxicating IL
quors. 1t may also prohibit all domestic
commerce in them between its own in
habitants, whether the articles are intro
duced from other states or from foreign
countries. 1t may punish those who sell
them in violation of its laws. 1t may
adopt any measures tending even indl-
rectly or remotely to make the policy eff
fective, until it passes the line of power
delegated to congress under the cOnstitu-
ton
But the court says further: 1T can
not. without the consent of congress. eX-
pressed or implied, regulate commerce
between its people and those of other
states of the union in order to effect Its
end, however desirable such a regulation
might be- This opinion was dissented
from by a minority of the court, includ-
ing the late Chief Justice Waite, Justices
Harlan and GRAY, who maintained that
the state had full power to prohibit or
regulate transportation in the exercise of
its police powers. but the decision must
stand as the law, and the objects of the bill
is to give the state the express right
of the general government to exercise
the same power over interstate commerce
for the suppression of the unlawful traffic
in intoxicating liquors as it now exer-
Cises without question over state COM
merCe. The court, after reatfirmlng the
opinion in the case of Muyler vs.. Kansas
and others. where the power of the state
TO prohibit was expressly recognized,
saws: These cases rest on the acknOw!-
edged rights of the states OF the union to
control their purely internal affairs, and
in so doing TO protect the health, morals
and safety of their people by regulations
that do not interfere with the powers of
the general government We do not
think it was the intention of the trainers
of the constitution III granting the power
TO regulate commerce between the states
to prohibit the exercise Of its legitimate
police power. the object being only TO
prevent unjust discrimination against
the products of other states. There Is no
theory Of our government deeper seated
in their minds and deareT to the people
than the right of local self government;
the theory that the mass of governmental
powers. except such as are delegated 10
the general government by express grant
or by implication. are vested in the iegis-
latureS Of the several states. 70 be exer-
cised for the protection and Improvement
Of the people As q matter Of
fact whatever NAV have been the
purpose of the court IN the Bowman /
case. however that NAV have been inn /
PEELED TO decide by virtue OBJ the pro- /
vision on which they base their Iudg /
ment. the effect has been virtually 10 /.
DESTROY in many cases. and in all cases /
greatly TO impair, the efficiency Of the I
law Of the states for the prevention Of an F.
evil OF great magnitude. In view Of the /
fact that this l. conceded by all the
court. that congress may grant the .
power 70 the state 10 apply the same re-
st7ctiOu % interstate a. 70 state roads. I.
and IN view Of the further fact that the f.
states that have adopted the policy Of 4
find the difficulty Of enfOrc-
ng their laws a. the result Of the decis-
ION Of the court on the question very
greatly increased. and demand that their 4
police power over this subject shall b.
Unrestricted 10 the end that their local /
policy be enforced Your committee
th8- the second section of 4
The bill be stricken out and that a. thus
amended the bill pass.
Strange as 1t may seem, the anu-prO-
libItionists only discovered today What !
he prohibitioaists are about This bill.
{ enacted. viii undo all Of the advau-
ages gained By the ants in the recent 4
decisions o. the supreme court. Il
hardly need - added that steps have
zen taken TO fight the prohihiti0nists on
his oill and 10 see that Il does not slip
through. Il Is expected that the trans
,ortation companies vii take hand to
Il l.. -. = 4