The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1890-06-13
LToUOE zND 7nk LAW.
The Lac Between Federal and State Au-
thority Tho Responsibility Thrown

WASHINGTON. June l2-The recent decision
OF the Supreme Court OF the United States
In Leisy vs. Hardin. better known as the
original package liquor case, has revived the
ancient dispute as to the precise line between
Federal and State authority which ran so high
during the days OF slavery The advocates Of
prohibition are as Jealous OF Federal inter-
ference with State laws on that subject as the
owners OF slaves were OF similar interference
with their peculiar institution" Iowa Kan
sas' and Maine are found contendlng for as eX-
ttemo states rights views as those with which
tne senate Chamber rang when Calhoun cham
ploned the sovereignty OF South Carolina.
Inc supreme Court has had the liquor ques-
| ton before 1t for several years past and has
rendered decisions sustaining the power Of the
states. on tho one hand, to prohibit the n an
| uiacture and sale OF liquors within their Dor
uers; and sustaining the power Of the Federal
government on the other hand, to protect per-
| sons engaged In carrying liquors from one
state 10 another from the penalties prescribed
by state laws forbIdding such commerce.
| Inc seeming paradox with which the Court
has been recently engaged is the harmoniznG
| OF Inc Federal power to regulate commerce
between the States with the police powers OF
| the States under which the sale OF articles OF
| Interstate commerce deemed by the Legis-
lature to be injurious to the health. safety, ard
| morals OF tho people, may be prohibited.
The question in Leisy Va. Hardin was not
new one. 1t had its prototype in the case OF
| Brown vs. Maryland. and the decision OF
the Court was based upon the principles con
tained In the opinion Of Chief ] Justice Marshall
rendered In that case in 1897 III Wheaton. 4l9l
mat opinion declares that the power to reGu-
late commerce with for eign nations and among
the several States is coextensivo with the
subject on which 1t acts. and cannot be stopped
at the external boundary OF State but must
enter It's Interior" III this power reaches
the interior OF State. and may there be exer-
cised. 1t must be capable Of authorizing the
sale OF those articles which 1t introduces.
Commerce is intercourse: one OF its most or
binary ingredients Is traffic" To what pur-
pose should the powerto allow importation be
given unaccompaned with the power to au-
thorize sale Of the thing imported sale is
the object OF importation" Congress has a
right not only to authorize importation. but to
authorize the importer TO SELL"
AS to the time when the State acquires juris-
diction over articles of commerce brought
within its borders from a foreign country.
Chief Justice Marshall said that when the
Importer has 30 acted upon the thing imported
that 1t has become Incorporated and mixed up
with the mass OF property In the country it
has perhaps lost Its distinctive character as
OIL iinboIN' onl Ldb uoCOluo SuDJeCb 10 the TAX
ing power OF the State"
This decision was In q case concerning for
eign Imports; the Chief Justice said: 1T may
be proper to add that we suppose the princi-
pies laid down in this case apply equally to i'm
portatioDs from sister State.'
The original package liquor case Just de-
ctded Is covered by the last quoted words. The
law OF Iowa forbids any common carrier to
bring within that State any int oxicating liquors
from any other State or Territory. EXCEPT I'M
der certain restrictions made to prevent their
sale for any but mechanical medicinal, cult
nary. or sacramental purposes. In the case OF
Bowman vs.. the Chicago and Northwestern
Railroad Company. decided in 1887 t125 U. S..
465). this was held to be a regulation Of COM
merce among the States, and. therefore, I'M
constitutional and void.
So far as 1t went. this was in accordance with
the decision in Brown vs.. Maryland. but 1t
dealt only with the question OF the power Of
the s. ate to interfere directly with Interstate
commerce in liquors by forbiddng the bring
ing of them into the State. No such trans
portation had actually taken place. The rail-
road company had been sued rs q common
carrier for a refusa to receive beer at Chicago
to be delivered in Iowa. 1t defended by plead
ing the Iowa statute. and the Supreme Court
held that Its defence was not good. But the
ue'Iu non ~ ueetuo "nothei Tue
l,kn' W tfahspor' oeer 10 iowa carried win II
Tue riRht 10 sell II there' IL Simply declared
tna' Tue power TO feEuiate or ioEplu the sale
"a d e"inhoui'S a'ter II mas oeen Drought into
Tue @tate ooes not curry Win IL the right and
power to prevent its Introduction by trans
portation from another State"
Tho Court upheld the power OF the State to
prohibit the manufacture within its limits OF
intoxicating liquors. and " to prohibit all do
lnestic commerce IN them between its own in
habitants' whether the articles are introduced
from other States or from foreign countries"
This was but reat1rmlng long line of de-
clslons' but the court denied the power OF the
state without the consent OF Congress. to pass
the line OF power delegated to Congress under
the constitution to regulate commerce be-
tween the states.
This presented a dilemma not unlike that Of
inc young iady IN tne nursery rhyme whose
carelul mo'her gave her permission to swim
but enJoined her from going near the water.
ubot :, Il ha TO