Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-05-16
Pennsylvania might run some risk in starting

Pennsylvania might run some risk in starting
an original package store.
R. B. Parkinson, Esq. seemed to think
original package stores would be short-lived.
as Congress would undoubtedly give the States
police power to regulate the matter He said
an amendment TO the Constitution was not
necessary, He thought the olemargarine deal
ers' case and that OF would-be liquor merchants
were similar in some respects, and both cases
needed correction.
w. A Sipe thought Congress would undoubt-
edly take corrective action at once, as he
thought no party could afford to sanction such
state of affairs as would be brought about by
the uncontrolled sale of liquors, the majority
OF public sentiment in all states being strongly
opposed to it.
M. A. Woodward said he hadn't read thede-
cison in full but would bet 81 to s cents that
the States would find power to prevent the in
discriminate sale OF lquors-or words to that
effect. His idea was that common carriers and
the recipients Of such goods would be pro-
tected, but then State control would be exer-
cised.
his clients to start an original package liquor
store on the strength of the decision. He
pictured Judge Ewing coming down on q man
in the business If prosecuted, like a blotting
pad, and extracting all the moisture in him
long before the Supreme Court of the nited
States would come to his rescue.
ONCE BEFORE DISCUSSED.
This matter, it is recalled, was exhaustively
discussed two years ago in an opinion rendered
some agents of foreign corporations or corpora
tions in other States. when the License Court
of this county WAS debating whether or no to
let in LIQUORS from other Stares. The agents
secured the opinion from an eminent member
of the Allegheny county bar. who yesterday
allowed the reporter to examine it. The ma
teral portions are as follows:
You represent three corporations of Wis
consin, each of which. you assure me- may, in
A1.,
facture beer and sell il in any State of the
Union. Each Of them has applied for a whole
sale license under the act of 1857 to the Court
OF Quarter Sessions Oh Allegheny county
rendered. You desire to know what remedy, IL
any, the corporations can have in the United
States courts. So far as the applications for
license are concerned, see no steps You could
take until the :Court OF Quarter Sessions has
passed upon them. II that court denies them,
and on their papers filed they are legally en-
remedy by an application for q mandamus. II
the court in Allegheny county refuses their
licenses. and 1t does so on the ground that they
are foreign corporations. then most important
questions do arise as to their right under the
Constitution OF the United States 20 carry on
Interstate commerce and import into Pennsyl-
vania and sell the imported article in the
original package.
WHAT IS PROHIBITED.
There is nothing in the act Of lss! which
prohibits any person from shipping into Penn
sylvania any quantity Of beer, and these Wis
consin corporations may SO do, for the act OF
1887 only prohibits the sale or offering for sale
Of the same Now. IL the sale or Offering for
sale of the beer In the original package in
which 1t is shipped from Wisconsin is part of
the Interstate commerce, they may. as i'm
porters, so sell, Notwithstanding the act OF 1887,
and this because State act cannot prohibit or
regulate Interstate commerce. In the very
latest case on this subject, Bowman vs. the
Chicago and n northwestern Railway Company,
decided March, 1888. the Supreme Court OF the
United States held that a statute of Iowa
which forbids common carriers TO bring into
the State liquor unless the carrier had
a certificate of county auditor that
the person to whom it was shipped was legally
authorized TO sell, was void. because IL was
regulation Of Interstate commerce, and
Judge Matthews. who delivered the opinion.
added: 1T is easier to think that the right of
transportation from one State to another in
cludes by necessary implication. the right of
the importer 10 sell in unbroken packages at
the place where the transit terminates; for the
very purpose and motive of tina. branch of
commerce which consists in transportation is
that other and subsequent act of commerce
which consists in the sale and exchange of the
commodities transported: but as the question
was not specially raised, the court declined to
pass upon it.
This seems to intimate a decided opinion of
a present majority of that court that such a
sale in the original package could be made.
This is in conflict with the former opinion of
that court, In Pierce versus New Hampshire.
6th Howard, page 5l4, decided in lS46,
Massachusetts, barrel of gin, took it to New
Hampshire and there sold it in the original
package. He was convicted and sentenced in
the State court, and the Supreme court of the
United States affirmed the conviction.
WHERE IT CONFLICTS.
ut also seems to be in conflict with Hanson
Judge Bradley, in Walling VS. Michigan, ll6th
VS., 46O, ETC., but in harmony with the opinion
in Robbins VS. Taxing District, 10th United
States, 4S9.
las the cases stand, can only say that an in
ferior court might feel itself bound to follow
the Pierce VS. New Hampshire and kindred
cases. and hold that the beer could not be sold
in Pennsylvania while the dictum of Judge
Matthews seems to be that the Supreme Court
of the United States is inclined now to hold
that such a sale is part of Interstate commerce
and could be made.
"The fact that the license laws of Pennsyl-
vania are so constructed as to prohibit licenses
to citizens of other States would strengthen
the view that the Pennsylvania act is an unlaw-
full attempt on the part of the State to regulate
commerce, and possibly might raise question
under the fourteenth amendment to the Fed
eral Constitution.
II think these corporations might lawfully
sell beer IN Wisconsin, and from there ship it to
would be safer to deliver the beer to the ven-
der on board cars in Wisconsin. So think
the Wisconsin corporations might send
travelling agent into Pennsylvania to
solicit orders for beer. but in such
case he should take orders only, and not sell or
offer the beer for sale and with the corpora
tion should rest the option to comply with or
refuse the order. In this case, the sale and
delivery on board cars should be in Wisconsin.
But il seems to me the safer and better course
is for them to do nothing until the Quarter Ses-
sions Court has passed upon the applications.
Hasty action might prejudice them with the
court and prevent what is possible it otherwise
may do and that Is, grant the licenses"
The decision referred to made IN lS48,
Pierce versus New Hampshire, was rendered
by Chief Justice Taney.
George II. Quail said he hadn't any doubt
that Congress, before adjournment, would
confer by legislation the necessary police
power on the States TO enable them to control
the liquor traffic in their borders.
MAY BE THE LIBRARY SITE.