Gloucester County Democrat. (Woodbury, N.J.) 1878-1932, 1890-08-28
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
PROHIBITION NULLlFlED BY A RUL-
ING OF THE SUPREME COURT.

No State Has Right to Prohibit Sale in
Original Packages OF an Article I'M
ported from Another statc-saIe of
Beer in Kegs.
The recent decision by the supreme
court of the United States of the Iowa
liquor cases will undoubtedly deal Sc
rious blow to the pretensions of the Pro
hibitionists. Under its ruling intoxicat-
ing liquor Of any sort may be carried
into any state hereafter and sold, pro
vided that the parcel in which it was
originally placed be not broken, and this
regardless of state regulations or inter
diets. The case arose originally from a
shipment of beer into Iowa by a firm
in Illinois. The liquor was seized by a
city marshal of the former state when
offered for sale at the warehouse Of that
firm, ON the ground of the violation of
the prohibition laws of Iowa. In the
court to which the case was first brought
the agent Of the firm showed that the
beer was sold by the Beg or case as
originally put up in Illinois and judg-
ment was given against the state.
The Iowa supreme court, however, to
which the matter then went, reversed
this ruling, after which an appeal was
taken to the federal supreme court, which
has just reversed the decision of the Iowa
tribunal last named and affirmed that of
the lower court. "a state may provide
for the security Of the lives and property
of its residents" says Chief Justice Ful-
ler, who delivered the opinion, 'but a
matter exclusively confded to congress
by the constitution Ii. e., interstate COM
merce) is not within the jurisdiction of
the police power Of the state unless placed
there by congressional action
Under this decision any goods which
figure prominently IN commerce between
the states can be legally carried by the
railroads through or into any state and
sold there, if sold in the Original pack
age" even though the sale Of this partic-
ular commodity be forbidden by state
law. The states jurisdiction over the
article does not begin when it enters the
state, "but when the importer has SO
acted upon it that it becomes incorpo-
rated and mixed up with the mass of
property" in the state. 1t is impossible
to see otherwise than that this ruling
will effect practical repeal of all prohi-
bition enactments.
1t is worthy of note that three of the
justices-namely, Justices Gray, Harlan
and Brewer-dissent from the Iowa de-
cision on the ground that it enlarges
federal authority at the expense of state
rights They hold that state has the
same right to prevent the sale Of inn
ported liquor as any other liquor; that a
law to do this is a local law which does
not regulate interstate commerce, and
that since the decision of the license
cases forty years ago there is no ex-
plicit legislation showing that it was
the intention of congress to aid or pro-
tect the sale Of liquors contrary to state
law.
It will not only render nugatory state
prohibition laws, but may be invoked
also against the operation Of regulation
and even license laws. Is Justice Gray
says, the consequence may be that am in
habitant of any state may, uader the
pretext of interstate commerce, ami with
out license or supervision of any public
authority, carry into and sell in any or
all of the states Intoxicating liquors de-
spite any legislation of such state on the
subject. If this be correct, and it seems
to be reasonable and logical deduction
from the conclusion i'll the Iowa case,
the license laws of the several states are,
as to liquor brought from other states,
imperative and void. II 50, the conse-
quences of the decision will be far-reach-
ing and enormous, and the whole prob
lem as to the liquor traffic is involved
in new and greater difficulties.-Cen
Law Journal