New-York tribune., 1890-04-29
THE LIQUOR DEALERS WIN.
THE g ORIGINAL PACKAGE CASES IN IOWA
DECIDED IN THEIR FAVOR
THE SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT THE sTATE
LAW FOR THE SEIZURE OF. LIQUOR
BROUGHT INTO THE STATE Is uS-
CONSTITUTIONAL.


{ Co are beer brewers in Peoria, Ill Ihey sent
ma 10 thoir prnduct in sealed kegs and cases by
means OF the railroads TO Keohuk. Iowa wher, their
,oent nonresident offered 1t for sale In tho original
casc. The liquor seized by A. J. Hardin, Mar
shal OF Keoluk. under the Prohibition law, OF Iowa.
rcisy 4 Co brought suit against the Marshal alleging
bat the seizure was unconstitutional and void. being
violation Of the cxclusivcIeht OF the United states
70 regulate interstate commerce. The Keokuk court
,oc,dcd in favor Of the liquor men.
but on appeal the Supreme Court Of
iowa the Prohbitionsts won, wherenpon the
liouor men brought tine case to this court. The
.uit had become widely known rs the Original Pack
agen case and has attracted great deal ot attcn-
tion.
Chief Jnstice Fuller delivered the opinion Of the
court to-day The court says the power vested in
Congress ia regulate commerce among the several
states is the power 10 prescribe the rules DIV which
than commerce is to be governed. and il power com
plete in itself acknowledging no limitations other
than those prescribed I'm the Constitution IL can
not be stopped at the external boundary of Sta'c
hut 1nus; enter it, interior and must be capable Of
authorizing the disposition of those articles which 1t
introduces so that they become mingled with
,hc common mass Of property within the territory en-
tered 4 state may provide for the security OF the
lives and property OF 1t, residents. hut matter
conGded exclusively to Congress by the Con'ttuton l.
not within the jurisdiction of the police power oi
the State unless placed there by Consr sscna action
II paricular subjects of interstate commerce do
not REQUIRE the application Of general or uniform
svstem The states may lcelslatc in regard to them
with a view h. local needs and circumstances, until
Congress otherwise directs. hut thi, power Is noi
Identical I'm it. extent with the powc- Il enlate com
,ncrce au,ag the States The court quote, the state
ents Of the Fcderat in support Of this conclusion
That ardent spirits are subjects of interstate com
mcrcc /, not denied. and the court then asks If
STATE I'm the absence Of Congressional legislation. can
nrohibit their importation from abroad or from
sister state on their sale by the importer II the In
,ortation cannot he prohibited without Congrcs'ona
authorization the next question the court says. +
when does the imported property so become part
Of the common of property within State
A. to be subject 10 this unimpedcd control I'm
Brown ag Maryland It iald down hy
Chief Justice Marshal that the point Of time when the
prohibition ceases and The power of the stat. begins
Is not the instant whAn the article ecrs the country
but when the importer has acted upon il that 1t
has become incorporated ard mixed up with the mass
of property in the country. which happens when the
original package ls no longer such I'm his hands, that
the right 10 sell any article imported was an In
scparalc incident 10 the right t. import IT, and that
that the principles cNpouuded IN the case applied
equally 20 mportatons from sister a, from foreign
country. Although the precise question before the
court not ruled upon in that case the court SAYS
it thinks II virtually Involved in the Brown
case and also in the Bowman case, In which an at
Of the state Of Iowa forblddine common carriers 10
b7ns intoxicating liquors into the State without first
being furnished with certificate as prescribed In the
act was declared invalid. because ESSENTIALLY
regulation Of commerce among the states
The act of Cor srcss Providing that the Interstate
Commerce clau~c of the Constitution shall not pre-
vent any state municipality from making Law,
with regard TO the tran -pora'on ~ nitro siy''nr
aud other explosives. The court says. s indicative
If the intention of Congfc,, that the transportation
Of commodit.e, between the State, shall Dee IRE, e.
ccpt where u is positively restricted hy oOnsrc,,
Itself by state, ia particular case, by the cAprc-
permission of Congrr-..
The court then tifcs mp the case Of Pcrcc agt.
New Hampshire wl.eh ha, been one Of the chief au.
ihoritic, of tho advocating The validity - the Iowa
statute. The defendant 100 This ca-s was fred for
-clllng barrel - e.r which b" had imported from
Nassachu,ett. and .of c,nfrir, to the laws 4 Ncw
Hampshire. In this case. ohlcf Justice Taney heN
that the stat. had q rrh' make such Law for tine
lso'cction Il it. Mhabiiant.. and That thc
mere grant ~ power over inter 'aic commerce
- the General cofcrnr.Li cannot hc construed g.
ic an absolute prohhrion 10 the exercise Of ans
power over the same subject hy The ~,at-s. Bat.
say the the authority ~ pcifcc a-a.r.t Now.
Hamp-hIra In IA 90 r't, on iho view th1f the
law Of Ncw llamp-lr re wa- valid because Conrrc-.
had made ro rcar, ,.fon on ilc subject. must hc
car;o1 hntin. hoe0 distinctly ov,riLrown h}
humorous ca.'.. IT, '".lt quote, from large
number II ihe.e.
whatever olr iad.,f..l view. may D., ~ to 'hr
dc.'ci ,u, qualities e., f'rfrui4r articles, wc cannot
hold that anf ar g., .fn.'h 'or.f'-- recognizes
subjects o, interstate commerce ar MT SUCH or thai
ph9tcycr are thH. rc.oef1ci. can hc controlled hy
state laws amounting q, regulations. white t'cy retain
that character. alfhou.h ~ the same time II directly
danscrDus - thrm.else.. the state take ap
proprlatc mci,nrs 20 rllri a.ain.t injury before
obtains compete iufiaai,.on os'r th,m. 10 con.
cci. ~ state Tie power t. ~
cludc directly or indirectly. articles 50 situated.
without Cougrc, .,uual p'fm.-siou j., Ia conccdr to
a majority Of the aoIle Of state rcpf,,cntrrl in
the state Legislature. She poecr 10 rcgula'r cor.
mcrcla intercourse between the State Tho de
c,ion of the supreme Court Of Iowa is reversed
Justice Gray delivered dissenting opinion in fe
half of himself and Justice, Harlan and frewrr.
The dissenting opinion says that the protection Of the
general welfare Of the people IS the chief end gov
ernmcnt. All statute, Of state must Of course
give away. 50 far a, tley are rcpuHant To the Na
tonal Constitution and Lass, Iut an intention 1,
not lightly to be- imputed to the framer, Of the
Constitution or the Congress Of the United state.
subordinate the protection of the welfare Of the
people to the promotion of trade and commerce The
power Il regulating prohibiting the manufacture
and sale Of Intoxicating liquors. appropriately be
longs a. a branch Of the police power. to the Lcris
latmrcs u the several States. and cannot practically
If il can ccn,tt'onaly, be welded by Congrc.,.
The statutes in question were enacted by TIE stat
Of Iowa. to protect It's inhabitants against the
evils of the free use Of Intoxicating liquors
uhcy are not aimed at ntirstat, ctnnr,~r.
If the prohibitory statutes Of state 10 De- held
imperative and void ~ applied to liquors sent or
brought from another state aud sold by the import
in what are called original pachae, The consequence
must be that an inhab.tant Of any state may under
the prccNt Of Interstate commerce. carr, send ino
and sell H. any all OF the other Of the niou
intoxicating II uOrs OF whatever de-, riptiDn in cases
or kegs or In single bottle, nasks. de- lic any
cgi- atiOn Of those STATES on thr SUBJECT and an Rough
his own state should be the only which had not
enacted similar laws.
Other busincss was a. follow:
No. i15-SIic u. Hartranit, admini, i,tratrix, etc.
plainin III error. agt. harlcs II. Meyer others
In error In the Circuit Court Of the United states for
the IA tern District Ot fcnnsl lvanla Judgment ar
hrincd with costs and entered.
so. 24i-Adolphs T. klOn. plaintiff In error agt.
the District OF Columbia. In error 10 the supreme
COnrt Of the District OF Columbia. Judgment affirmed