Baxter Springs news. [volume] (Baxter Springs, Kan.) 1882-1919, 1890-05-03

Justice Fuller, has rendered an opinion
adverse to the constitutionality Of State
laws providing for the seizure Of liquor
brought into the State in original
packages. Such laws, the court holds,
are an interference with Interstate
commerce. After the liquor becomes
the property of the importer the State
may, under its police powers, regulate
or prohibit the transportation of the
article from another State and its de-
livery to the importer.
The case in which the decision was
made was that of Gus Leidy & Co.,
plaintiffs in error, VS.. A. j. Hardin. 1t
was brought here on appeal from the
Supreme Court of Iowa and this court
reverses the decision of the State court.
Justices Gray, Harlan and Brewer dis
sented. The case is one OF great impor-
lance to Prohibitionists and liquor
dealers.
Leidy, beer manufacturer of Peoria,
ILL.,, shipped beer to Keokuk, Iowa,
which was seized in the original pack
ages by Hardin, State Official, as hay
ing been sent there in violation Of the
Iowa law. The Supreme Court of Iowa
held that the law under which this
official acted was valid.
The Chief Justice in delivering the
opinion Of the court cited number Of
cases bearing upon Interstate COM
merce, among others 1.-THE license
cases." where laws passed by Massachu-
sets, New Hampshire and Rhode Island
in reference to the sale OF spirituous
liquors came under review in the court
and were sustained, although the men,
bers of the court who participated
in the decisions did not concur
in any common ground upon which
to rest them, in which Chief JUS
tice fancy is quoted as holding that
spirituous distilled liquors are univers-
ally admitted to be subjects Of owner
ship and property and therefore sub
jects Of exchange, barter and traffic, like
any other commodity in which right Of
property exists; that Congress, under
its general power to regulate commerce
with foreign nations, may prescribe
what merchandise shall be admitted and
what excluded; but, inasmuch as the
laws Of Congress authorized the importa-
ton Of ardent spirits, no State has
right to prohibit their introduction.
After referring to these and other de-
cisions bearing on license laws, the court,
in its opinion, says:
The decisions rest upon the undoubted
right of the States of the Union to control
their purely internal affairs. in doing which
they exercise powers not surrendered to the
National Government
The power vested In Congress to regulate
commerce among the several States Is the
power to prescribe the rule by which that
commerce Is to be governed and Is power
complete in itself, acknowledging no llmita.
lions other than those prescribed in the
Constitution. 1t is cO-extensive with the
subject on which IL acts and can not be
stopped at the external boundary of the
State, but must enter Its interior and must
be capable of authorizing the disposition Of
those articles which II introduces, that they
may become mingled with the common mass
Of property within the territory entered.
That ardent spirits are subjects of Inter
State commerce can not be denied. When.
ever law Of a State amounts essentially to
q regulation Of commerce, as 1t does when Il
inhlbits directly the receipt of an imported
commodity or It's disposition before It has
ceased to become an article of trade be.
tween one State and another II comes In
conflict with power which In this partlcu
lar has been exclusively In the General
Government and Is. therefore. void. Un-
doubleday 1t Is for the legislative branch
OF the State Government to deter.
mine whether the manufacturer Of par
tIcular articles of traffic will injuriously
affect the public and 1t Is not for
Congress to determine what measures a
State may properly adopt as appropriate or
needful for the prot ction of the public
morals, life or safety; but Notwithstanding
it is not vested with supervisory power over
matters ofllOcal administration The respon-
sibillty Is upon Congress so far as the regu-
lation of Int, r tate commerce IL concerned,
60 remove the restrictions upon the State In
dealing with imported articles which have
not been mingled with the common mass OF
property therein.
Whatever our individual views may be as
60 the deleterlous qualities OF particular ar
ticles, we can not hold that any articles
which Congress IecogniZes as subjects of In
ter-State commerce are not such or that
whatever are thus recognized can be con- |
trolled by state laws amounting to regula.
tions, while they retain that character, al
though ut the same time II directly dangerous
pirate measures to guard against injury be.
fore It obtains complete Jurisdiction over
them. To concedc to a tate the power 60
exclude directly or indirectly, articles so
situated without Congressional permits |
sion Is to concede to q majority OF
the people of a State, represented |
In the State Legislature. the power TO regu. |
late commercial intercourse between the
States by determining what shall be It's sub
jects when that power was distinctly grant
ed to be exercised by the people Of the |
United States represented In Congress, and /
Its possession by the latter was considered
essential to that more perfect union which
the Constitution was adopted TO create
there 10 difficulty In drawing
the line between the municipal powers OF
one Government and the commercial pow
ers OF the other, but when that line 10 deter
mined accommodation to it without serious
inconvenience may Sreadly be found In a
frank and candid cooperation for the gen.
arnl nOOd. The decislOn of the eupreme