St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-05-21
WHISKY AT ITS BASE.
A Bill Aimed at "Original
Packages Discussed in
the Senate.
The Measure Intended to Give
a State the Power to
Restrain.
A Fine Point on the Nations
Jurisdiction Over Inter-
state Commerce.
The Forthcoming Question
of Where the States
Rights Begin.

laws OF the several states. L He DllI
provides that mo state shall be held to
be limited or restrained in its power to
prohibit, regulate, control or tax the
sale, keeping for sale, or the tranSporta-
ton, as an article of commerce or other
wise, to be delivered within its own
limits, of any fermented. distilled, or
other intoxicating liquids or liquors by
reason of the fact that the same have
been imported into such state
from beyond its limits, whether
there shall or shall not have been
paid thereon any tax, duty, impost
or excise to the United States" Mr..
Wilson, of Iowa. who had introduced
the bill in the first instance, and had
afterwards reported it back, addressed
the senate in explanation and advocacy
of it, stating that it was made necessary
by the recent decision Of the supreme
court on that subject. 1t was response
to the suggestion contained IN that decl-
sion, that congress could permit the eX-
ercise of the restraining power of a
state, and it was for the purpose of CIV
ing that permission that the bill had
been int reduced and reported. The eff
feet of it would be to have each state in
the Union to determine for itself what
its policy should be in regard to the
traffic III intoxicating liquors.
Under That Decision
of the supreme court the state of Iowa
could not prevent citizens of other
states, or the subjects of Great Britain,
France, or Germany sending intoXicat-
ing liquors into Iowa, and having them
sold there in the original packages by
agents. At the present time, original
package saloons were being organized
in his state. The package might be a
pint or half pint of whisky, or key OF
beer. 1t was to put stop to such prac-
tce, and to recognize in every state the
power to regulate its own Internal po-
lice that the bill was reported. Mr..
Vest said that as a member of the judi
ciary committee he had not been
able to agree with the ma
ioritv in reporting the bill.
because it would sweep away the eXclu-
sive Jurisdiction of the United States
over interstate commerce. The supreme
court had decided that the power of
congress over interstate commerce was
an exclusive power and could not be
delegated Mr.. Vest sent to the clerks
desk and had read a report of the jul
dietary committee i'll the last congress,
laying down the principle for which he
contended. Mr.. ingalls, and MIR. Ed
munds called for the reading of the
minority report, and it was read, dis
senting from the views of the majority
and signed by Messrs. Wilson, of Iowa :,
ingalls,, ElmundS and HOar. Mr.. Gray
agreed with Mr.. Vests argument, but
he asked whether the difficulty could
not be got over by
An Affirmative Declaration
of congress that intoxicating spirits
were not an article of Interstate com
merce. Mr.. Vest aid not think so. If
that were done as to one article of COM
merce for one state, congress would be
asked to Go it as to other articles for
other states. MIR. EdmundS suggested
the case of state prohibiting the
entrance of leperS, the transportation
of whom, as of all other passengers, was
question of interstate commerce. Mr..
Vest said that that did not touch the
case at all, because the supreme court
had decided that the commercial clause
of the constitution never was intended
to take away from states their reserved
police power to protect the lives
and health of their own citizens.
Mr.. Mcpherson asked Mr.. Vest
whether the right to import an
article implied the right to sell it..
Mr.. Vest replied in the affirmative, and
quoted from the decision of Justice
Matthews, of the supreme court, i'll the
case of Ward against Maryland, to that
effect. Mr.. Hoar argued in favor of the
IL Ii n NAfx In
legislative power of congress, then
there was no more miserable nation on
the face of the earth than the United
States. Mr.. Hlscock asked Mr.. Hoar
whether, if state desired to exclude,
not liquors, but manufactures of wool,
it was within the power of congress to
delegate to states the power to do so.
Mr., Hoar replied that he did not go
quite that far, but the question involved
was on the boundary lines between two
conflicting powers-the police power of
the state and the exclusive power OF
congress over interstate commerce. Mr..
HiScOck assumed that the presence of
the bill was due to the fact that, unless
it should become a law, the state would
be limited or
Restrained in Its Power
UNCI GuC CuDJCCbs LIZ dCCCPICo Wei
dOubtfully the proposition that congress
had the constitutional power to delegate
to any state the power to prohibit the
importation or sale within its borders OF
wheat or butter or other products of the
farm or factory. He did not say that he
would vote against the bill: he thought
it might be wise to pass it and leave ii
10 the supreme court to pass upon it.
Mr.. Reagan said that whatever might
be his wish to see temperance promoted
i'll the laad, he was not willing to lay
his hand on the constitution and tear it
down. Mr.. Edmunds remarked upon ii
rs very curious and interesting cir
cumStance that a condition OF things
had been reached where, according to
the debate and according to the judg-
ment Of the supreme court. the states
had no power to deal with it. The re-
suit was that there was in every man in
one state an inherent individual, per
5onal right to carry into another
state what that state might con-
slider very injurious to its safety, there
to sell it, and that congress had nc
power to stop it, and that the states
could not stop it. Unless the congress
gave them that power, he did not be
Iieve in the Capitalization of power. He
Believed III its segregation and separa
ton in every respect. Speaking OF the
importation of intoxicating liquors into
state. Mr.. Edmunds claimed that once
they got there they were whether in
the hands of natives or not the subject
of STATE laws, and that was what the
supreme court of the United States
would come to within the next twenty
years. After further discussion the bill
went over without action and the sen
Rte proceeded to the consideration OF
resolutions offered by Mr.. Cameron in
respect to the memory of the late Rep.
resentative William d. Kelley, of Penn
SyIvania. Remarks in eulogy of the char
acter and public services of Mr.. Kelley
were made by Senators Cameron, Nor
rill, Reagan, Sherman, Hampton, Haw-
ley and Daniel. At the conclusion Of
the eulogies, as a further mark of re-
spect, the senate adjourned.