Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1890-01-16

The Kamsas Supreme Court DecIdes That
sales of Liquors Ia Original Pacikagss 10 .
Violation Of Law.

The Kansas Supreme Court Decidea Thai
Sales of Liquors Ia Original Pacikagsa 10 4
Violation Of law.
TOPEKA, Kan, Jan. Is Saturday
the Supreme court rendered number
of opinions, the most important one
being In the ''original package" casc Of
the State vs.. /. w. Fulker.
The defendan was In charge Of the
railroad depot ana express univv al
0keto, Marshall County, and was
prosecuted In the district court Of that
county on the charge Of unlawfully
selling intoxicating liquors. The tesii-
mony showed that he sold what we're
called prize packages, being boxes
about twelve inches square, IN each Of
which there was jug OF whisky
These boxes were expressed to him
from Blue Springs, Neb., In the same
form and condition in which they were
shipped. AT tho close Of the testimony
he requested the court to instruct the
jury that IL the packages containing
intoxicating liquors wers sold in
the original packages as de-
livered for shipment in Nebraska
such sales were not In violation OF
the Constitution and laws. Tie re-
quest was refused, and in charging the
jury the court said. II further I'M
struct you that If you believe from the
evidence, beyond reasonable doubt,
the defendant knowingly sold intoxi-
eating liquors at the place described in
the complaint and within two years
prior to December ~, 1858, 1t would be
no defense against such sale for the de-
fendant to show by evidence that such
intexicati & liquor so sold by him had
been imported by him from another
State over some route ordinarily used
for the transportation Of merchandise,
in inclosed boxes or packages, and hat
such Intoxicating liquors had been 90
sold by the defendant in the original
hoyes or packages in which they had
been placed for shipment In another
State without breaking said boxes or
p ckages. y
Fulker was found guilty and sefi-
fenced TO pay fine Of sl00 and be i'm
prisoned for thirty days ach on two
counts. lie appealed, alleging that the
court erred in overruling his motion for
a new trial. His counsel, A. l.. Will
liams, Of this city, argued that in in
terpretlng the commercial clause OF
the United States Constitution, intoxi-
eating liquors must be regarded rs arti.
cles OF commerce which might be i'm
ported from another State aud sold at
tho end of the transit il this State, tho
same as other commodities
The Supreme Court holds that the
prohlbitory law does not operate di-
eectly on romnreIceser on %ee introduc-
ton Of liquors, but only provides that
they shall be subject to reasonable po-
lice regulation when brought within
the territorial limits of the State. The
fact that su Ii regulations may to some
extent diminish the traffic OF incident
ally affect Interstate commerce, does
not, in its view, render them invalid.
The court says:
Intoxicating liquors transported
from another state to point IN Kan
sas are subject to the laws of Kansas
to the same extent and in like manner
as other intoxicating liquors already
existing in the State and can
not be sold at the place of destination,
in the original packages or in any other
form, except as the laws Of the State
prescribe. The police power Of the
State so exercised does not infringe on
the power delegated to Congress to
regulate commerce between STATES"
The elaborate opinion closes with
these words: "Our conclusion is that
he district court did not err in instruct
ing the jury, and hence its Judgment
wi be affirmed" The case will prob
ably be taken to the Supreme Court of
the United States