Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1890-11-06
ANOTHER DECISION.
Judge Caldwell Gives an Opposite Decision
60 that Of Judges Philips and Foster as
e. original Packages.

Judge Caldwell Gives an Opposite Decision
60 chat OF Judges Philips and Foster al
e. original Packages.
LITTLE Rock, Ark, Nov 1.-The
opinion OF Judge Caldwell, Of the
United States Circuit Court In the
original package case OF II. NJ Van
yiliet Of Iowa, was filed yesterday II
discusses the questions raised and ex-
tends over more than i4O large type.
written pages Tho court holds that
tho net OF Congress and the laws Of tho
State are valid. The following are
some OF the salient points in the opin-
ion;
by the act OF Congress tho right
which the importer previously enjoyed
OF selling liquor in original packages in
the State where the transit ended, re-
gardless of the laws Of such State, is
taken away, the act declaring that the
liquor shall, upon its arrival in such
State or Territory be subject TO the OPP
Grafton Of tho laws of such State"
After citing tho authorities and the
act OF Congress, the opinion proceeds:
1T will be observed that by tho terms
of the act the original package, upon
arriving in the State, is put on the same
footing with liquors produced in the
State. The original package, when II
arrives within the State where the tran.
sit terminates, is at once reduced to th
rate Of domestic liquors, enjoys no priv
lege not enjoyed by domestic liquors, il
subject to the operations and effects OF
the laws of such State, enacted in the
exercise Of its police powers, to the
same extent and in the same manner as
domestic liquor.
"Now there never was any question
that the laws OF Iowa prohibiting the
sale Of liquors produced in the State
we're constitutional. These laws we're
in full force at tho date OF the passing
OF the act of Congress and that act hav.
ing in legal effect abolished orl lginal
packages on their arrival within the
State, by placing them on tho same
footing with liquor produced within the
State, as such they are amenable to the
State laws as II they had never existed
in the form OF original packages.
Congress can regulate Interstate
commerce, but not intrastate commerce,
1t may regulate commerce among the
States, but not in the States The
State may regulate partly internal, but
not Interstate commerce. The act is
drawn in view OF those settled prin.
cipleS 1t protects the Interstate trans.
portation OF liquor until its arrival in
the State whore the transit is to end,
and no longer. Upon its arrival in the
State the act Of Congress declares that
1t shall be subject to the laws Of the
the State.
1T is said the Supreme Court decreed
tf1sSla@s to be'unconStitut1onaf1hSs so far
as they prohibited tho sale Of liquors by
the importer or his agent In the original
packages, and that Congress could not,
in the language of the learned, validity
dead statute There arc two answers
to this contention. The first is, the act
OF Congress rolegates the original pack
age of liquor on its arrival in the State
to the laws of the State. passed in the
exercise of the police powers and there
is not now. nor over mas Ueen any
doubt Of the validity OF these
laws 1t is not the laws OF the
State but the original package that
is dead. The obvious designs and
intentions of Congress was to with
draw at once the protecting shield Of
Interstate commerce from the original
package Of liquor the moment they
entered the State where their transit
was to end by placing them on the foot
ing Of liquor produced in the State and
declaring they be subject to tho same
laws
That is what the Supreme Court, as
construe their opinion, had said Con-
gress might do, and it is what it did do
in language that admits Of no evasion
or discussion