Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1890-06-19
ORIGINAL PACKAGE DECISION.
Judge Caldwen Orders the Discharge Of
Liquor Package Vendors Convicted In

OuuSe Odt0Weu Of0ef8 the lDtac03f8e OF
Liquor Package Vendors Convicted In
LEAvENwoRTH, Kan, June 16.-Judge
Caldwell, in the United States Circuit
Court, Saturday afternoon rendered his
decision in the noted habeas corpus
original package" cases from Shawnee
County.
Nine of the cases decided were from
Topeka, the other being from Salina,
and grew out of the recent decision by
the United States Supreme Court in the
matter of the sale Of intoxicants in the
original packages in which they are
| shipped
Judge Caldwell's decision is in line
| with the Supreme Court decision, and
the petitioners for habeas corpus writ
were ordered discharged from custody.
Their names are as follows: w. w.
| Beine, Carl Jockhecl, Christian Schmidt,
j. R. Deisher, J. B. linn, w. H. Copp,
L. Yout, Jacob ri. Sicher. Bernard
Touchman, C. A. Rahre, George Bell.
The following is the full text of Judge
| Caldwelrs decision:
Eleven different persons have separately
petftioned this court for writs of habeas
corpus to relieve them om alleged impris-
onment in violation of the Constitution of
the United States. The cases were heard to-
| gether. and while there is some difference
n the minor details the material and con-
trolling facts are the same in all the cases.
Prosecutions were instituted against the
| petitioners, charging them with selling
| liquor in violation of the laws of this State.
| They were arrested and, failing to give bail,
| were committed and thereupon filed their
| petitions in this court. alleging that they
| were imprisoned in violation of the Const-
| tuition of the United States in virtue
| of criminal prosecution commenced
against them in the State courts of
| Kansas for selling liquor in that
| State in alleged violation of its Constitution
and laws; that the liquor, for the selling of
! which they were prosecuted and impriS-
| oned, was shipped by its owners, who were
| citizens and residents of the State of Mis-
| souri,, from that State into this State, and
| sold by the petitioners agents of such
| shippers and importers, in the original
| packages in which ir was shipped by its
| owners into this st tie that they sold liquor
! in no other manner, and that so far as the
| Constitution and laws of this state make
such sales of liquor a or me they arc in con-
| 1ict with the CONNIE rcial clause of the Con-
| stitutiOn of the United states and void.
The uncontradictct evidence supports the
| allegations of the petitioners namely, that
| certain persons and firms, residing and
| doing business in the State of Missouri,
| owned and shipped from that State into this
State distilled liquors and beer, and that the
| petitioners, rs agents for said shippers and
Importers sold said liquor in this State in
the original packages in which it was
shipped into the State by its owners, and
| sold liquors in no other manner.
With an exception not material to be con-
| sidered in this case, the Constitution and
| laws of this State make it crime for any
| person to sell liquor i'm this State.
The Constitution and laws of the State
| make no distinction between the importer
| who sells in the original packages, and one
| who sells broken packages, or by the glass.
| The law inflicts the same punishment on
| BOTH
| Every question of law raised in these cases
1,oc xlnI
| the United States.
That Court in recent decision says: ssThat
ardent spirits, distilled liquors, ale and beer,
| are subjects of exchange, barter and traffic,
like any other commodity in which right
| of traffic exists, and are recognized by the
usages of the commercial world, the laws of
| Congress, and the decision of courts, is not
! denied. Being thus articles of commerce,
| can State. in the absence of legislation on
| the part of Congress, prohibit their importa-
ton from abroad or from sister State? or
| when imported, prohibit the sale by the i'm
| porter?''
| These questions that Court answered in
the negative, and that answer is conclusive
on this and all other courts in this country.
| The Court referring to the laws of Iowa,
which, like the laws of this State, make it
unlawful for the importer to sell said:
''The plaintiffs in error are citizens of Illi-
| nois; are not pharmacists and have no per-
| NIT, but import into Iowa beer, which they
| sell in original packages, as described Un-
| der our decision in Bowman VS.. Chicago
Railway Company (supra) they had the right
| to import this beer into that State, and in the
| view which we have expires led they had the
right to sell it, by which act alone it would
| become mingled in the common mass of
| property within the State. Upto that point
| of time we held that, in the absence of Con-
| greSsional pei mission to do SO, the State had
| no power to interfere by seizure, or any
other action. in prohibition of importation
and sale, by the foreign, non resident i'm
| porter.
| in ic 70
indicated repugnant to the third claus of
section of part fl rst of the Constitution of
the United States.''
1t was, then no offense for these petition
| ers to sell liquor in the original package,
as agents for the non resident importers and
| owners.
Having right to make such sales under
the Constitution of the United States as con-
strued by the Supreme Court of the United
| States, any imprisonment of them for doing
that act, is. in the language of the Habeas
Corpus act, lin violation OF the Con-
ILLEGAL, and this court has the jurisdic-
tion," and it is made its duty, to discharge
| any person SO illegally held in GUS
tody. question was raised in the aIgu-
| ment as to whether tn Smallness of some of
| the packages sold by some of the petitioners
did not deprive them of the protection given
to vendors of original packages. Single
| bottles of beer and whisky, packed and
| sealed or nailed up in boxes, made of paste
| board or wood, were shipped and sold in
that shapa. The boxes containing one bot
| tie were not packed in any other box, but
shipped sinsly and separately, as SO many
| distinct and separate packages.
1t is not perceive why in the absence of a
| regulation by Congress to the contrary the
importer may not determine himself the
| form and size of the package he puts up for
| export. The idea that small packages of
| liquor can not he treated original pack
| ages, because they are small, springs from
| the conviction back of it, that liquor in any
| form, or in any sized package, is not a legit-
| innate subject of commerce. That
question is put at rest by the de-
| cision of the Supreme Court of the United
| states until Congress shall act. AS long as
| packages of liquor in any form or size may
| lawfully be sold by the importer or his
| agent. in Prohibition state, the size of
/ the package is not of much consequence
Whether the package be large small, the
| practical effect W i'll be 10 seriously impa
| the efficiency of all laws intended to
! protect society from the liquor traffic.
! Clippings.
Miss Mile Bunnell, aged ninety-seven
| wears and six months died AFT Kaarpev