The Madison daily leader. [volume] (Madison, S.D.) 1890-current, 1890-06-17
Another Federal Court in Kan
sas Says Their Sale Is
Clearly Legal.
Fully Half Million Dollars WortE
of Property Destroyed In Rock
ford and Vicinity.
Kentucky Men Killed by Lightning
During a Terrible Storm
The News Of a Day.
.RAvrxwonrn. kan. Juno le.

l IaRAyKswoRrH, Kan. June l6
The long looked for decision la the or.
| iginal package habeas corpus cases from
4 Topeka and salina has Just been delivered
| In the United States circuit court by Judge
| Caldwell, az Leavenworth. The decision
releases the eleven petitioners from custody
| aud announces the fact that liquor can be
sold IN this state in original packages,
whether large or small.
After the decision had been delivered, a
notice that an appeal 10 the United States
supreme court would be taken was fled.
! The decision In fnll as delivered BY
Judge Caldwell IN as follows:
Eleven different persons have sepa-
rataly petitioned tkis count for writs OF
| habeas corpus to relieve them frou alleged
1 imprisonment in violation OF the constitu.
tion of the United states. The cases were
heard together, and while there Is some
difference in the minor details, the material
and controlling facts are the same in all
cases. Prosecutions we're instituted against
the petitioners, charging them with selling
liquor in violation of the laws OF this
state. They were arrested, and failing 70
give bail, were committed. ard there
upon fled their petitions In this
court, alleging that they were inn
prisoned in violation of the con-
stitution of the United States, IN
virtue OF criminal prosecutions com.
meneed against them in the state courts OF
| Kansas for selling liquor in that state In
alleged violation OF it's constitution and
| laws; that the liquor, for the selling of
which they were prosecuted and impris-
oned, was shipped BY its owners, who we're
citizens and residents OF the state Of Mis-
souri,, from that state into this state and
sold by The petitioners ~ agents Of such
shippers and importers ia the original
packages in which II was shipped By its
owners into this state; that they sold
| liquor In no other manner and that. 20 Tar
as the constitution and laws of the state
maks such saie Of liquor . orfma. they afS
In conflict with the commerce clause OF
the constitution of the Uaited states, and
| void.
"The nncontradicted evidence supports
the allegations OF the petitions, namely,
that certain persons and firms residing and
doing business In the state Of Missouri,
owned and shipped from that state into this
state distilled liquors and beer, and that
the petitioners, as agents for said shippers
and importers, sold said liquors in this
state in the original packages In which il
was shipped into the state by it's owners,
and sold liquor IN no other manner. With
an exception not material to be considered
in this case. the constitution and laws OF
this state make ii q crime for any personto 10
sell liquor in this state.
'sThe cons stitutlon and laws of the state
make no distinction between the importer
who sells Ia original packages and one
who sells In broken packages or by the
glass. The law infaicts the same penalty
on both. Every question Of law raised in
these cases has been decided BY the su-
preme court of tho United States. That
court In recent decision saya. Ardent
spirits, distilled liquors, ale and beer are
subjects Of exchange, barter and
traffic, IKE other commodities THAI
the rigkt of traffic exists and Ia
so recognized by the usages of the
commercial world, the laws OF congress and
| the decisions Of courts ~ not denied.
Being thus articles of commerce, can q
state. in the absence Of legislation on the
part Of congress, prohibit their importation
from abroad or from sister state, or when
imported, prohibit their sale by importerss
These questions that court answered in
the negative and thai answer Is conclusive
in this and al other courts Ia this country
The court, referring 10 the laws of Iowa
which, like the laws of this state, make II
unlawful for the importer TO sell, said:
The plaintiffs in error are citizens OF
Illinois, are not pharmacists and have no
permit, bit import into Iowa beer which
they sell in original packages, ~ described.
Under the decision In Bowman rs. the
Chicago Railway company they had the
right 10 import this beer into that state,
and they had the right to sell it, by which
net alone IL would become mingled Ia the
common mass Of property within the state.
Up to that point OF time we hkld that in
the absence Of congressional permission to
do SO the state had no power to
interfere by seizure or any ether action
In prohibition OF the importation or
sale by tho foreign or nonresident i'm
porter. The legislation Ia question Ia 10
the extent indicated repngnant TO the third
clause Of section OF article | Of the
United States. II was then no ofFansa for
these petitioners TO sell liquor in the orig
inal packages, agents for the non-resident
importers and ownera having a right 10
make such sales under the constitution Of
the United States, as construed By the sn-
pfeme court of the Unised States. ANY
imprisonment Of them for doing that act
is, In the language OF the habeas corpus
net. IN violation Of the constitution Of the
United States and Illegal, and this court
has the iurisdiotion and ia is made its duty
10 discharge any person 30 illegally held In
custody.