The DeSmet leader. (DeSmet, Kingsbury Co., Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1891, 1890-05-24
Plymouth county. Mr.. Justice Miller then re

Plymouth county. Mr.. Justice Miller then re-
marked:
"If the objection To the statute is that 1t au-
thurizes proceeding In the nature OF suit III
in ;oxiCattng liquors which are by law prohlblt-
cd. and TO ahate the nuisance w@'ch the statue
declares such acts to be. wherever carried on,
we respond that, 80 tar as at present advised. u
appears TO us that all the powers or court,
whether at common law or in chancery, may De
called into operation by q legislative body Tor
the purpose OF supprcPsing this objectionable
traffic: aud we know Ot no hindrance IL the con-
stitution OF the United States TO the form OF
proceedings or To the court In which this RENE
DIV shall he had Certainly II Jeems TO us to be
quite wise to use the processes or the law and
the powers of a court to prevent the evil as to
punish the offense as a crime after 1t has been
committed.
These decisions rest upon the undoubtcd
right OF tine states of the Union to a0Itro! their
purely internal affairs, In doing which they ex.
ercise powers not surrendeTed to the national
government; but whenever the law OF the state
amounts essentially TO regulation OF COM
merce with foreign nations or among the states
II does when IL inhibits, directly or indirect
ly the receipt OF an imported commodity or its
disposition before IL has ceased TO become an
article Of trade between one state and another,
or another country and this. It comes in con-
fict with power which, In this particular. has
been exnlualvely vested IN the general govern
ment, and IA therefore void
In MuGler VS.. Kansas, (supra,) the court said
that IL could not shut ont OF view the TACT,
health, the public morals and the public safety
may be endangered bv the general use OF inLok-
icattng drinks: nor the fact established by sta
tstics accessible TO everyone. that the idleness,
disorder, pauperism and CRIME existing In the
country are in some degree at least. Lraceable
to this evil" Aud that If In the judgment OF
the legislature of the statCl the manufacture OF
Intoxicating liquors for the makers own use, as
a beverage, would tend to cripple II It did not
defeat the effort to guard the community against
the evils attending the excessive use OF such IL
L.. hair
as to what IL best and safest for tho community.
to disregard the Legislative cetsrinination OF
that question. Nor can IL De
said that government interferes with or impairs
any ones constitutional rights OF liberty or Of
property, when IL determines that the manutac.
ture and sale OF Intoxicating drinks, Tor general
or individual use. as beverage, are, or NAV be-
come. huTtful To society. and constitute, there
fore, n business In which no one NAV lawfully
engage" Undoubtedly 1t IL for the legislative
branch Of the state governments 60 determine
whether the manufacture OF particular articles
OF traffic the sale OF such articles will In jur-
iously affect the public, and II Ia not for con-
gress TO determine what measures n state may
properly adopt ~ appropriate or needful for the
protection Of the public morals the public
health h or the public safety; but notwithstanding
1t IL not vested with supervisory power over
matters OF local administration, the responsibii.
ity Is upon congress-, so far as the regulation or
interstate commerce IL concerned. TO remove the
restriction upon the state in dealing with i'm
ported articles Of trade within it's limits, which
of property therein, II in its judgment the end
TO be secured justites and requires such act ion
Prior TO 1888 the statutes OF Iowa permitted
the sale OF foreign liquors imported under the
laws OF the United States, provided the sale was
by the importer In the original casks or packag-
es and in quantities not less than those In which
they were required to be imported; and the pro-
visions of the statute to this effect were declar-
ed by the supreme court Of Iowa, TO be intend
ed TO conform the statute TO the doctrine OF the
United States supreme court, announced In
Ma and AhAnH n1I a
cense Cases 3 How, 504, 80 that the statute
should not conflict with the laws and authori-
ty OF the United states But that provision OF
the statute was repealed In 1858, and the law
90 far amended that We understand 10 now to
provide that, whether imported or not. wine
cannot be sold In Iowa except for sacramental
purposes. nor alcohol except for specined chem
ica purposes, nor Intoxicating liquors, includ-
ing ale aud beer, except for pharmaceutical and
medicinal puI poses, and not at all except by
citizens OF the state OF Iowa. who are registered
pharmacists aud have permits obtained as pre-
scribcd by the statute. permit being also
grantable to one discreet person In any township
where pharmacist does not obtain IL.
The plaintiffs in error are citizens OF Illinois,
are not pharmacists, and have no permit, but
import into Iowa beer which they sell In origi-
nal packages. as described. Uader our dect-
sion In Bowman v. Chicago, etc Railway Co.
(supra,l they had the right to import thi9 beer
into that state. and IN the view which we have
expressed they had the right 90 sell IL, by which
act alone II would become mingled In the CON-
mon mass OF property within the state, Up to
that point of time, we hold that In the absence
OF congressional permission TO do so. the state
had no power TO interfere by seizure, or any 9TH
or action. In prohibition Of importation and sale
by the foreign or nom resident importer. What
ever our individual views may be as to the dele
terious or dangerous qualities OF particular ar
ticlcs we cannot hold tha: any article which
congress recognizes as subjects Of interstate
commerce are not such, that whatever are
thus recognized can be controlled by state laws
amounting to regulations. while they retain
their character: although, at the same time, IL
directly dangerous in themselves, the state may
take appropriate measures TO guard against in-
jury before IL obtains complete jurisdiction over
them. To concede to a state the power 10 ex-
clude directly or indirectly. articles so SIT
uated, without congressional permission, In to
concede to majority Of the people OF state,
represented in the stale legislature, the power
tG regulate commercial intercourse between the
states. by determining what shall be its sub
jects when that power was distinctly granted
10 be exercised by the peop'e OF the United
States. represented in congress, aud its posses
sion by the latter considered essential to
that more perfect Union which the constitution
was adopted to create. Undoubtedly there IN
difficulty In drawing line between tho munic-
ipaI powers Of the one government and the COM
meTcial powers OF the other. but when that line
ia determined. In the particular Instance. ac-
commodatiou to IL, without serious inconven-
Of MIR Justice Johnson In Gibbons v. Ogden,
wheat, 1888, In "A frank and candid 90 -oper-
alton for the general good.
The legislation in question is 10 the extent
indicated repugnant to the third clause Of acc
tIon OF art. OF the constitution Of the United
States, and therefore the Judgment or the gu
preme court OF Iowa Is
Reversed and the cause remanded for further
proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.