The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1890-05-19
CONGRESS AND THE RUM TRAFFIC.
Three Ways Proposed to Allow the
States to Restrict 1t.
The Senate Has One BilI and the
House Has Two More.
Peculiar Position in Which the DEM
ocrats Now Find Themselves.
Especial to the PREss.I


WASHINGTON, May 17.-Eyerything Dor
tends that there will be vigorous attempt
In this Congress, and very likely at this ses-
sion, to pass national law to repair what
ever damage may have been done by the re-
cent decision of the Supreme Court in the
Iowa case relating to the sale of liquor in
the original packages. There are now three
measures pending to accomplish this result:
Mr.. Boutelle's, which is in the form Of an
amendment to the interstate commerce law,
Be 1t enacted by the Senate and House OF Rep
resentatlyes OF the United States of America
In Congress assembled,
That section twenty-five of chapter one hun
dred and four, public laws of second session of
Forty ninth Congress. entitled IAN act to regulate
proyiso; Provided, That nothing contained in
TINS act shall be construed to authorize any sale
OF or uaf1c In Intoxicating liquors in any state
contrary to the laws thereof.
and which is still with the committee on
commerce.
There is, another House measure, intro
duced originally by Mr.. Struble Of Iowa,
but somewhat amended by the temperance
committee. This measure has already been
reported from the committee, and Is on the
House calendar. 1t is as follows
Be 1t enacted by the Senate and House OF Repre-
sentatlves OF the United States OF America in
Congress assembled,
That from and after the passage OF this act it
shall be unlawful for any person or persons, cor
ry, ship or transport intoxicating liquors Of any
kind from any state, or territory of the United
States OF District Of Columbia to Or into any 9TH
er state or territory OF the United States contra
ry to and In violation OF the laws thereof.
The Senate also has before 1t a bill upon
this subject, which has been under consider
alton by the committee on judiciary of that
body, and, after consideration and amend
ment by that committee, has been reported
favorably in this form:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Repre-
sentatives of the United States Of America in
Congress assembled,
That no state shall be held to be limited or re-
STRAINED In It's power TO prohibit, regulate, con-
troll or tax the sale keeping for SALE or the trans
portatlon, as an article of commerce otherwise,
to be delivered within its own limits Of any fer
liquids or liquors by reason of the fact that the
same have been imported into such state from be-
yond its limits whether there shall or shall not
have been paid thereon any tax, duty, import, or
excise to the United States.
This bill is not reported by the unanimous
voice of the committee. Mr.. Edmunds of
Vermont, who is a good enough constitu-
tional lawyer for anyone, with Mr.. Hoar
and other Republican members, is for it,
But some of the Democrats, at least, are
against the bill. Mr.. Vest of Missouri, who
is member of the Judiciary committee, dis
sents. This is bill to delegate part Of the
national authority to the states. Mr. Vest
does not believe in this, on the ground that
Il is equally clear that Congress can not part
with or delegate to a state any power which has
to the states a power given by the constitution 10
Congress; much more cannot Congress dalec ate
or surrender granted power to any portion OF
the states, for that would pro tanto invest those
states with powers not possessed by the others.
The Democratic dilemma ON this question
seems little strange. The Democrats have
always contended on constitutional grounds
for extreme state rights; but now when
some of the states want to be allowed enough
state rights to shut out rum the Democrats
pop up with another constitution point