Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1890-01-23
ORIGINAL PACKAGES.

che Kansas Supreme Court Decides That
the sale Of Liquor I'm Original Packages
II . Violation Of the Law.
TOPEKA, Kan, Jan. 13.-Saturday
the Supreme court rendered number
Of opinions, the most important ono
being in the original package" case OF
the State vs.. F. w. Fulker.
The defendant was in charge of the
railroad depot and express Office at
Oketo, Marshall County, and was
prosecuted in the district court of that
county on the charge of unlawfully
selling Intoxicating liquors. The testi-
mony showed that he sold what were
called ''prize packages" being boxes
about twelve inches square, in each OF
which there was a 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 the close of the testimony
he requested the court to instruct the
jury that if 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. The re-
quest was refused, and in charging the
jury the court said: II further in
struct you that if you believe from the
evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt,
the defendant knowingly sold intOxi-
eating liquors at the place described in
the complaint and within two years
prior to December %, 1888, it would be
no defense against such sale for the de-
PENDANT to show by evidence that such
intoxicating liquor so sold by him bad
been imported by him from another
State over some route ordinarily used
for the transportation of merchandise,
in inclosed boxes or packages, and that
such intoxicating liquors had been so
sold by the defendant in the original
boxes or packages in which they had
been placed for shipment in another
State without breaking said boxes or
packages.
Fulker was found guilty and sem
fenced to pay a fine of 500 and be i'm
prisoned for thirty days each on two
counts. He appealed, alleging that the
court erred in overruling his motion for
a new trial. His counsel, A. L. Will
Iiams, of this city, argued that in in
terpreting the commercial clause of
the United States Cons titution, intoxi-
eating liquors must be regarded as arti-
cles of commerce which might be i'm.
ported from another State and sold at
the end of the transit in this State, the
same as other commodities.
The Supreme Court holds that the
Prohibitory law does not operate di-
Fectly on commerce or on the introduc-
ton of liquors, but only provides that
they shall be subject to unreasonable pc.
lice regulation when bought within
the territorial limits of the State. The
fact that such regulations may to some
extent diminish the traffic or incident
ally affect Interstate commerce, does
not, in it's view, render them invalid.
The court says:
Intoxicating liquors transported
from another State to a point in Kan
sas are subject to the laws of Kansas
to the same extent and in like manner
as other intoxicating liquors already
rightfully 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
the district court did not err in instruct
ing the jury, and hence its judgment
will be affirmed The case will prob
ably be taken to the Supreme Court of
the United States.