Baxter Springs news. [volume] (Baxter Springs, Kan.) 1882-1919, 1890-10-25
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Important Decision Of the Federal
Court at Topeka.
El.s state Prohibitory Law. So Far ~ Orig
ANAL Packages Arc Concerned. Unconsti-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LeglsiatiOn
Needed.

TOPEKA, Kan, OCt II.-Ino OlrculJ
Court OF the United States filed its
opinion this morning touching the con-
stitutionality Of the Prohibitory law OF
Kansas The decision is very long, and
Il declares the Prohibitory law Of the
State unconstitutional because OF Its
passage prior to the passage OF the Will
SON bill by Congress-
The decision therefore leaves the sit
nation In Kansas the same as before tho
passage OF the Wilson bill.
In rendering their opinion Judges
e. Philips and Foster said:
Two PRINCIPAL questions have been dis.
eussed by counsel in this case. First, as to
che coustitutionality of what Is known as
che Wilson bill, passed by Congress on the
eth day Of August. 1890; and, second. whether
a saIL bill DO valid the existing Prohlbitory
aaw of the State of X ,nsas applies, or Is IL
needful that additional legislation should
Do had by the State to bring Into action In
the State the provisI OF the Wilson bill.
Under the view taken of the last question
we deem II unnecessary to enter upon my
discussion of the first proposition as with
or without tue constitutionality Of tho Will
con bill the result to the petitioner Is the
came.
The first section OF the Prohbltory law Of
Kansas Is rs follows: ANY person or per-
sons who shall manufacture, sell or barter
/. In splrltuOus, malt, vinous. fermented or
. Other intox catlng liquors shall be guilty OF
"a mIsdemcanor." etc. (Gen. Stats 1883
Sec. 252l.)
Unuer the decision OF the Supreme Court
of the United States, In Lelsy Vs. Hardin,
EsS U. 6. 100, this statute. In so lar as 1t at
t,Il.l Nl.a In ~ inf N m ~
sEbuuors imported into the state and sold by
che importer or his agent, In the original
package. was imperative and void. being
IN conflict with section three. article one, OF
che Federal Constitution which places the
p0Wer exclusively In Congress to regulate
commerce with foreign nations and among
che States.
Lncldent to this decision, Congress on the
9Th day OF August, 1890. enacted tho Wilson
,1lll, which declares ''that all fermented. dis
titled or other Intoxicating liquors or liquids
transported into any Stale or Territory or
remaining therein for use. consumption
uaie or storage therein, shall, upon arrival
On such State or Territory, be subject to the
operatIon and effect of the laws of such
9tate or Territory enacted In the exercise OF
I1t6 police powers. to the same extent and In
the same manner as though such liquids or
.aIauors had been produced In such State or
Territory, and shall not DO exempt there
from by reason OF being introduced therein
In original packages or otherwise"
It is not claimed nor pretended ly tho at
torneys for the State that the petitioner pre-.
vi rs to the passage OF the Wilson bill was
engaged in business violatlve OF any law
OF the state; but thoy do claim that imme-
Iliately after tho passage OF said bill by o N.
xress. the petitiOner's business became md
d a violation OF the Prohlbltory law Of the
Gtate. So that the proposition stands In
4hls form: On the 9TH day Of August, 1890,
sales shade by the petitioner were permits.
OIbIe and lawful under the Constitution OF
che United States, the Prohibltory law OF
she State TO the contrary notwth-
standing; therefore, IL on tho 9th day
OF August, 1890, the same act OF the
defendant Is tnk.n from under the protec.
tioa OF the Federal Constitution. and Is avio-
latiou OF the same Prohlbitory law OF the
State, the conclusion would seem to be In.
-evltable that this changed condition OF la
hllIty Is because of the enactment OF Con-
,Kress on Auguste. 1880 In brief the conten-
zion OF the State 10 that the act Of Congress
enlarged the scope and operat on Of tho act
OF the a att Legislature, making taat which
'was legitimate business one day crime
'the next, not under any law Of Congress, but
against the law Of tho state There Is moth.
iang In the wording OF the act Implying that
Congress assumed such power or intended
to give such eject To this enactment
At the tim Congress passed the Wilson
OIIl u was well known and recognized that
abe Supreme Court had decided that such a
Ueate Pr, hibltory law was void, In so far as
eho dealer In imported liquors In the orig.
dnal package was concerned. In other
words, there was no law and and could be
NO law In existence making such business a
crime. It can not be assumed that Congress
desired to Introduce into the pres
ant police laws Of tho State an
article or subject hitherto not In.
eluded by those laws How could
Congress know that the people OF all or any
of tho States on March 8, 1888, desired to
AaVe such object or article embraced In
stheir police laws The contention OF coun-
-Oel for the state 10 that II Is for the several
states themselves to determine the scope
and purpose Of their police laws, and Con-
.gress has not undertaken to arrogate to It.
self any power or control over that subject
In employing the word "shall be the ope-
ration OF the laws Of the State" Congress did
not use them In mandatory but in. per-
missive sense. The most ardent and enthu-
GIaseic advocate OF q strong central govern
Gnent would spurn the Idea that Congress
assumed to dictate or convey a mandate to
che several States In the matter OF the exer-
OaSe OF tnetr ponce power.
On tho contrary, the Wilson bill left Il to
she frce and nntrammeled action Of the sew
eral States to determine whether they would
81 would not include within their police
laws this particular article OF commerce.
Every State In the Union probably has upon
Ca statutes some police regulation of the
trafnc IN Intoxicating liquors. These stat
ates as q rule exempt from their opera
9f0a, either In express terms or Inn
plicatIon, imported liquors and their
1aie In original packages In some
OF che States the exception was ex.
pressed, as lin the IOwa ProhIbItory law Of
a88 and the old New York law Of IS s. and IN
alleaseS whore not expressly reserved the
Law ofthe land A. declared by the supreme |
1udlcial tribunal supplied the exception,
ahas lndicatlngthe general consensus that
hitherto lt was not recognized as among she
police poWers Of the etnte 60 regulate or In