Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1890-05-02

Whsf Leading nswspsprs asd Law.
ysss Sag conossnlng H.
WsII Nss Rrsasss ~ Rsa sAsps-
rBoeeoo HeYnN.1

The amount of business which will be
permitted asd done under this decision will
be very smaIi. There will BE-. once 10 .
While man Who wants EqnoT badly enough
TO come TO Massachusetts,. or to send here,
ard buy IL. The coart says he may do %.
Ard that the State shsii nos Interfere With
fke trsr sp0rts'fsn; but II he atfe % 20 20 sell
il, be mutt .sili be governed by State laws
II will also reduce 10 sonae exfers the Tisk
which Maine liquor dealsrs nor run in
repienish NJ shsir stosk; bat il viii not
protect them In their business after thsif
stocks get into their stores. nor will Il even
pscsz Ct their stocks 10 process Of trarsports-
tinn. unless they buy the new goods OUT
side Of their own State. II . Bangor deal
er buys Of = Portland wholesaler, his pur
chases are still liable to seizure. There
Isn't much cause : OF aHy rejoicing On the
part Of the hqaor dealers. and the Pro-
hibisionisfs needn', get frightened about IT,
Far Hssebsng Decision.
Portland Express
The decision Of the United States Sa
preme Court just rendered upon vha. wss
iown as the Original package" case prac-
ticallv deprives State Of the power ne'
only to pfohitir, but to supervise or in any
way tc regulate the liquor traffic. The de-
eision. in tsrms to be sure. applies only to
certain coedltions of the traffic; but there
will be 90 little real difficulty in bringing
the traffic, col0fabiy at least, within those
conditions, ths, State laws which have here
tofere sfected It, ranging all the way In
stringency from the most rigid prohibitions
10 the lowest kind Of license, are RELOCATED
BY this decision into desue.ude infinitely
noxious in its results.
Nothing 70 Prevent the EsfoSeemsnt Of
Prohibition.
Bangor Whig.
The effect of the decision 10 bad. es
pecially on account Of the general mis-
understanding as to its full meaning, bn
from what we have seen Of il there is no
thing 10 prevent State authorities from
enforcing the probibitofy or licerse stat
u,es the moment the imported liquor il
placed upon sale by the consiguee.
Denies the Police Power OF the state.
Portland Advertiser.
Court squarely denies the police powe
| of States over the sale of liquor imports
| from other States. The police power cal
| legally operate only when the origina
packages have been broken, or sfter tn
| liquor has left the control of the importer
| As the Biddeford Times says, 1T simpl
knocks the bottom out of the prohibitor
law"
| May still Prevent the Rum shop.
New York Times
| C..to ,nay r,avact tha ,,.n,faotu,, =,
Intoxicating liquors within its borders, an
il may also prevent the sale Of liquor b
the glass, and, indeed, in any quantities b
one Of its own citizens to another. Br
it must not interfere with the sale O
liquor to one of its citizens by a citizen Q
another State. because this is an act c
commerce between the States" ard
under the exclusive control of Congress.
The Only Remedy.
Bath Times
The only remedy now is the remedy tbs
Maine has found ever ready on memorsbl
occasiops-her strong Congressional dele
CATION. We shall hear from it at once fo
W. will wager our last penny that Nelso
Dingiey won't sleep until he has starte
measure allowing the State to regulat
the trans portstion of liquor.
Don't Heach Hssty Conclusions.
| (Lewist IN Journal.)
! We advise Maine rum sellers not to b
in too much of hurry in acting upon tn
idea that the recent decision of the ST.
preme Court of the United States, an at
strsct of which we print elsewhere, ar
nuls or destroys, the force Of our prohib
tory law.
Does Not Prevent Seizures.
Judge Dresser of Auburn.
"Of course cannot make a conclusiv
statement until | have read the full text o
the decision. But if it is as represented i
the published abstracts, it interferes wit
only part Of our prohibitory system.
operates sgains: the seizure of liquors q
railroad stations, but it does not prever
lures after liquors have been brought t
The shops and transferred to vessels. II
deed, it does not prevent seizures at al
1, merely opens a way for the owners I
recover liquors by proving that they are i
the original packages. The burden O
proof is on the rum dealer. 1t is ne
enough to show that the packages bear Gel
tain marks. 1t must be proven conclusive
ly that they are in the original package,
Again, the decision, as reported, does nc
invalidate the single sale by the glass an
the nuisance features of our prohibitor
law, which are of far greater value TO u
and are much more disastrous to liquol
sellers than the seizure clauses
Il The Third Psrty's Reward.