Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1890-05-02

The supreme court of the United States
has Just rendered a decision which will
have very important effect in uulhfving
prohibitory liquor laws in states where
they exist, if its ultimate bearing and con
struction are as now interpreted The
case came up from the Iowa state courts
The plaintiffs were firm of brewers at
Peoria, Ill, who shipped u quantity of beer
in kegs to Iowa TO be sold The beer WAS
seized III Iowa on the ground that it was "a
violation of the law of the state TO sell an
Intoxicating beverage there The case
was decided in favor of the Iowa statutes
by the lower courts, and~ came to the
United States supreme court on appeal
The supreme court has reversed the decis-
ion and remanded it for further proceed
ings not inconsistent with the opinion rem
dered by the court. Chief Justice Fuller
gives the opinion five of the associate
judges concurring and three dissenting
The fundamental principle of the decision
is that TO seize liquors sent into one state
from another in sealed packages is a viola
ton of the rights Of interstate commerce
The minority opinion was written by
Justice Gray Of Massachusetts and repre-
sents the views Of himself and Justices
Harlan and Brewer In it occurs this sig
nificant paragraph
If the statutes of "a state. restricting or
prohibiting the sale of Intoxicating liquors
within its territory, are TO be held inOpera-
tive and void applied TO liquors sent or
brought from another state and sold by the
importer IN what are called original
packages, the consequence must be that an
inhabitant of any state may under the
preteXt of interstate commerce, and with
out license or supervision of any public
authority, carry or send into aud sell IN
any or all of the other states of the Union
Intoxicating liquors of whatever descrip.
ton, in cases or kegs or even IN single bot
ties or TASKS, despite any legislation of
those states on the subject, and although
his own state should be the only one which
had not enacted similar laws
The opinion agreed IN by the majority of
Judges does not specifically say or intimate
that this is what the decision means, but
the three dissenting judges plainly think
that this is what it will come 20 in its ulti
mate effect In other words as now un-
derstood and as interpreted 10y the leading
newspapers that have commented upon il.
no matter how strong prohibtory law
Vermont, for instance, may have on its
statute books, any man who chooses TO go
into such business may import from Massa
chusetts or any other state, liquor in bot
ties. pocket TASKS, or whatever size of
packages he finds advantageous, and so
long as he keeps the liquor in the original
packages, unbrokeu, he may sell them
with impunity 20 whoever will buy them
The buyer must look out what he does
with it, but the importer may sell 1t and
snap his fingers at the state law. IL would
take some time 20 bring this state of things
about, and there would first bee sharp and
protracted legal contests, undoubtedly but
this is what il would come 70 IN the end as
now appears As showing that tins would
he the effect of the Iowa decision another
decision of the supreme court sent down
the same day by the same vote is quoted
"This decision reverses the decree Of the
Michigan supreme court which had denied
the right of an agent of a Wisconsin brew
ery to sell liquors in Michigan IN original
packages without license.
These decisions constitute one Of the