The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1890-07-27
The Original Package Bills.

Tho decision OF the Supreme Court OF The
United States In the Iowa prohibition cast
denying to the several States the right tt
prevent the Introduction and sale Of liquor
In the original package within their
borders aroused such storm Of Dissent
protest, and remonstrance that the Repub-
llcans in Congress at once resorted tc
legislation to do away with the effect OIL
the decision. II possible. n was blow al
State rights which aroused the indignation
Of many leading Republicans in the West;
and as for Democrats everywhere, they were
unable to understand how It was that two
Judges appointed by a Democratic President,
Chief Justice FULLER and Mr.. Justice LAMAR,
could concur In reversing former decision
Of the Supreme Court rendered in Chief jus
tice TANEY'B time and could, by their votes,
commit the court to view OF the law d.
rectly hostile to the time-honored doctrines
OF the Democracy.
Tho theory OF the decision was that, mas
| much as the Constitution gives Congress
the power to regulate Interstate commerce,
no State could prohibit the importation and
subsequent sale of liquor in the original
package within its territorial limits; and
this notwithstanding that Congress had
not legislated on the subject. The court
under Chief Justice TANEY had held that in
the absence OF any regulation by Congress
in the form Of q statute OF the United
States, tho traffic In liquor might lawfully
be regulated by the State as soon as the
liquor was landed In its territory, land q tax
imposed upon it. or license required, DR. the
sale altogether prohibited" according to the
h. Gtotn irh In 1Na
its interest or duty to adopt Such was the
law, in the view Of such lawyers as Chief JUS
tice TANEY and Judges NELSON. CATRoE,
MCLEAN. DANIEL, WOODBURY. and GRIER;
and such would be the law to-day II MEL
VILE W. FULLER and LUcrUs @. G. LAMAR
had concurred with Mr.. Justice GRAY, Mr..
Justice HARLAN, and Mr.. Justice BREWER,
three Republicans who united In what Is the
now the dissenting opinion, but which
should have been the prevailing opinion In
the Iowa prohibition case.
Well, the anti-State rights majority OF the
Supreme Court having created an embar-
raising situation by this decision In the
direction OF GENERALIZATION, the Republicans
in Congress began to devise measures to
mitigate its effects and give to the States,
by means OF Federal Legislation, the police
power over the liquor traffic which has been
taken from them by the Supreme Court. Bills
for this purpose were promptly introduced
into theV enate and House OF Representa-
tives The Senate passed bill, introduced
by Mr.. WILSON OF Iowa, providing:
THAT all fsrmentoi distilled or other Intoxicating
liquor liquors transported into any State Terri
tory and remaining therein for pon, sale
OF OY
Territory be subject to tho operation and effect of the
laws OF such state or Territory enaced In the exercise
Of s police powers to the intent and In the
manner though such liquor liquors had been pro
ducSd in such state Territory and shall not DO
smpt theretrom by reason of being introduced therein
In original packages or otherwise"
But this was not satisfactory to the House,
and 1t has been rejected by that branch OF
Congress. which on Tuesday adopted sub
stitute proposed by Mr. REED Of Iowa. and
which Is as follows:
THAT whenever any article Of commerce ID i'm
ported into any State from any other State Territory
or foreign nation. and there held or offered for sale.
the same shall then be subject to the laws ofsuch sat
Provided, That no determination shall DO made by
any state in favor Of its citizens against those of ether
States Territories In respect to the sale OF sny ArsIo
OF in favor of Its PRODUCES against
those of like character produced other States or
Terrtorea nor shall tho transportation OF commerce
through any State DO oDtructed except In the nsces
BAry enforcement Of the heath laws OF such State"
II will b. observed that both these bills as
sumo TO give to the States powers which the
Supreme Court has declared they do not
now possess. But by what authority does
Congress enlarge the limits Of State power
Congress-, under the Constitution. may regu-
late interstate commerce. but where 10 IL
empowered TO authorize tho several States
to subject Interstate commerce to such
regulations as may suit themselves? II the |
decision OF the Supreme Court under Chief |
Justice TANEY was right, then tho prohibi- |
ton OF the liquor trafic by State. even In |
the case OF original imported packages, was |
a legitimate exercise OF tho police power OF |
tho State, In nOWise In conflict with the |
power OF Congress over Interstate COM |
merce. But II tho decision OF the Supreme |
Court under Chief Justice FULLER il right, |
In the Iowa prohibition case, then wa Fee no |
answer u the argument OF Mr. GEORGE |
1IcKHOR CUBTIs. recently published over
his signature in The Sun, showing
that nothing short Of an amendment
10 the Constitution can cure the dinlculty
caused by that decision. As this diStin-
gulshed constitutional lawyer we'll says:
" To hold that Congress can confer on the
States power that they do not now bossoss
would be 10 hold that tho creature can act
20 II II were the creator. Congress can no
more confer on the States power 10 do some
thing which they cannot now do than II can
BY leRislGtion dstOEDkns WhVt The reserved
powers OF the States are. BY no legislation