Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-04-30
WEDNESDAY. :. APRIL 80. 1890.
The Iowa Caso-Prohib,tion.


The decision OF the Supreme Court OF the
United States on Monday last In the case oil Gus
yytpy a Co. rsA. J. HARDIN concerns every In
habitant Of this country. II places the frofloi-
tionists In an embarrassing predicamcnL Tho
telegram In regard 10 II which appeared In our
,ssue Of yesterday was not as satisfactory one
as We should have been glad 10 get, but there
was enough IN IL 10 indicate that there Il posi-
bility that the ProhiDtlonsts may have 10 begin
thelr work AT tho foundation that Ia 70 say, Sc
euro the proposing and ratification OF an amenc-
ment 10 tho Federal Constitution which shall
rnuso 20 revert TO the several states the power 10
regulate the trafic IN liquor even when this
1inuor IL sent from ono state into another. The
dnc,sion Is adverse 10 the cOnstituton0lity OF
State laws providing for the seizure OF liquor
Nroueht into the State IN original packages
sAfter the liquOr becomes the property OF the
Imporier the State may, under Its police pow
mrs. regulate or prohibit SALE but 10 has no
mower In tho absence OF express congressional
authority 70 prohibit the transportation OF tho
article from another state aud its delivery 10
the importer We gave yesterday an extract
from the opinion u the court A perusal OF inc
dissenting opinion will give clearer idea OF
the fsr-rearhing character OF the decision. JUS
tees GaAY, HARLAN, and BREWER agreed upon
xhis dissenting opinion. II IL worth mentioning
INIT Justice BREWERS elevation 10 the Supreme
Bench was bitterly opposed by The Prohibition
hts upon the ground that he had rendered de-
cisions, as a United States circuit Judge, IN the
interest Of the Iiquor-deslers. We quote from
the dissenting opinion
"The power Of regulating or prohibiting the
manufacture and sale Of intoxicating liquors
belongs. as a branch Of the police power, to Inc
legislatures Of the several States. ana can DO
3udiciousiy and effectively exercised by them
alone. according 10 their views OF pubic pohcy
and local needs, and cannot practically, II u can
consiltutonnily, be welded by Congress 20 part
OF a national and uniform system.
"The Iowa prohibiory laws were enacted Dy
the Legislature in the exercise OF us unuoupteo
power 20 protect its inhabitants against tue OWLS
physical, moral, aud social, attending the iree
use OF intoxicating liquors. they are not aiheu
Mt Interstate commerce, have no Iel1loh 70 lno
movement Of goods from ono state 10 announcer
but operate only on intoxicating liquors wlthln
the limit Of the state they include OIL such
liquors. without discrimination, and 90 not even
mention from whence they come.
.They effect commerce much more remotely,
the dissenting justices say. than laws OF stare
the validity Of which IS unquesuoned, aulhpII-
King the construction 81 bridges ana damS acfoss
nAv.gable waters within itslimits. which wholly
onsiruct the course Of commerce ana navigation,
or than quarantine laws. when operate ollectE
upon all ships and merchandise coming INTO the
ports OF the state.
"If they say. the statutes OF a state restrict
ing or prohibiting the sale OF intoxicating liquors
within It's territory are TO be held lnoperatve
md void as applied 10 liquors sent or brought
from another state and sold by the importers IN
original packages, the consequences must De
that an inhabitapt OF any state NAV, uaoer tne
preiext Of Interstate commerce., and without
license or supervision OF any pubic outhofty,
carry OF send liquors inio and sell II, any or al
OF the other States, despite any ieglslauVh vi
thope States on the subject, ana althouBh MS
own State should be the only one which had not
enacted similar laws
This reasoning, as the reader secs at once, IL
evidence that the dissenting Justices look upon
the decision ss almost tying the hands OF tho
State legislatures, and rendering it impossible
for auv state % regulate the traffic 70 suit Itself
On this point the Washington Post says:
"Whlo this decision does not inyadate the
whole Of the Iowa prohibition system, as this
particular provision was contained In separate
law II will no dOub; act as an entering Wedge
and render the enforcement OF the other laws
more difficult in the future. As long az u IS
legal to carry liquor into the state IN orlglnal
pscksees there will be found some practical way
Of transferring the contents OF the packages 10
the stomachs OF the Hawkeye citizens. WIN
one OF the most effective features OF thelr prom.
hilton law sWept away by tho supreme OoHrl, IL
g. highly probable that the work OF converting
ihe iowa people TO the cause OF high-li1ense VIII
be less dificulL"
Our Washington contemporaries suggestion
Ysa sbrewd one. The decision Will strengthen
The hands o. the advocates Of high-lcense. IL Is
no, impossible that IA Lew law may be framed
in Iowa with an eye TO an evasion OF or compii-
ance with this decision, which may become Is
famous as 1.-The rule in SnELLRY's case" We IN
Virginia have had good deal Of experience In
lecislating 40 as not 10 violate the Constitution
OF the United States as expOundod by the SUI
preme Court
In another case decided on Monday the SUI
prone Court denied the power OF State to ex
rlude directly or indirectly the subjects OF inter
s;ate commerce by the imposing OF burdens
thereon or 70 regulate such commerce without
congressional permission. The same ruie' IL
held, which applies TO she sugar OF Louisiana
the cotton Of south Carolina, the mines Of Calf
fornia, the tobacco Of Maryland and Connect.
cut. applies to all tho commodities In which q
right of traflc exists, recognized by the laws o.
Congress, the decisions of courts, and the usagei
OF the commercial world, should apply in thi'
case. From this decision also three Justices dis
sented. And this suggests that 1t is not impossi
bic for the Prohibitonists 10 secure in years Il
come the control of the supreme Bench. Tha
court reversed a legal-tender decision after tW'
new justices had been appointed.
We give now an Interesting paragraph IRON
the opinion Of the cour; In the Iowa case. Alto
referring 70 previous decisions bearing upon tn
pame general question the court say:
"These decisions rest upon the undoubtet
risht of the Statss OF the linton 10 control thei
purely internal affairs, in doing which they e1
ercise powers not surrendered 70 the Nationa
Government but whenever the law OF the stat
amounts essentially 10 regulation OF com
merce with foreign nations or among the states
as II does when IL inhibits, directly or indi
rectly the receipt OF any imported commodit.
or its disposition before II has ceased 10 Decoin
an article Of trade between ono state an'
Another or another country aud this, II comes Il
conflict with power which in this particula
Aas been exclusively vested Ia The Genera
Government, and Is therefore void. The plain
tifis. citixens OF Illinois, had the right to I'm
port their beer into Iowa. and had the right =
sell It by which act alone u becomes mingled u
the common mass OF properly within he stele
Up to that point Of time, In the absence OF con
eressionai permission 10 do 80, tho state han n
power 10 interfere by seizure or any other acti0
Ia prohibition Of importation aud sale by Tn
nonresident importer. Articles which Con
gress recognizes IA subjects OF Interstate com
rneroe may be controlled Ny state laws amount
Tag 10 regulations whilo they retain that ehsraC
ter but 70 coucode 90 q state the power 70 en
clude such articles without congressional pei
fnission is 70 concede 10 q majority OF the peopl
OF a state represented Ia the state Legislature
the power 10 regulate commercial tntercours
between the states"
This decision will break up the "soiid NORTH
ives; THAI IL, will demOraize and disorganiz
the Republican party thore, and thus aid In Of
-