The Delta independent., 1890-05-06
FEDERAL DECISION
The United States Supreme Court
Holds the Seizure ofLiquor in Orig
inal Packages to be demonstrations
Three Judges Dissent.


Holds the Seizure of Liquor in Orig
inal Packages to be demonstrations
Three Judges Dissent.
WASHINGTON, D. c., April 30.-The
United States Supreme Court, through
Chief Justice Fuller, to-day 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 the interstate
commerce law. After the liquor becomes
the property of the importer the State
may, under its police powers, regulate or
prohibit sale, but it has no power in the
ity to prohibit the transportation of the
article from another State and its deliv-
cry 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 ap-
peal from the Supreme Court of Iowa, and
this court reverses the decision Of the
State court. Justices Gray, Harlan and
Brewer dissented.
The Chief Justice, in delivering the
opinion of the court, said:
The power vested in Congress to regu-
late 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, acknow-
Lodging no limitations other than those
prescribed in the constitution. 1t is Co
extensive. with .the subject on which it
acts and cannot be stopped at the external
boundary Of State, but must enter its in
terror and must be capable of authorizing
the disposition of those articles which it
introduces so that they may become min
gled with the common property within the
territory entered.
That ardent spirits are subjects of in
terstate commerce cannot be denied.
Whenever a law of q State amounts es-
sentially to a regulation of commerce, as
IL does when il inhibits directly or indi-
rectly the receipt OF an imported ..c0mmod-
ity or its disposition before it has ceased
to become an article of trade between one
State and another, 1t comes in conflict
with a power which in this particular has
been exclusively in the general govern
ment, and is therefore void. Undoubtedly
1t is for the Legislative branch of the
State governments to determine whether
the manufacture Of particular articles OF
trafic VIII iniuriously affect the public
and IL Is. for Congress TO determine what
measures State may properly adopt as
appropriate or needful for the protection
of the public morals, life, or safety: but
Notwithstanding, IL is not vested with
supervisory power over matters of local
administration; the responsibility is upon
Congress, so FAR as the regulation of inter
state commerce Is concerned, TO remove
the restriction 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 TO the delctcrious qualities Of particular
articles, we cannot hold that any articles
which Congress recognizes Us subjects of
interstate commerce are such or that they
can be controlled by State laws amounting
TO regulations while they retain that char
actcr, although at the same time. il di.
rcctly dangerous to themselves, the States
may take appropriate measures TO guard
against injury before it obtains complete
jurisdiction over them To concede TO n
State the power to exclude, directly or in
directly, articles SO situated without Con
gressional permission is to concedc 10 a
majority OF the people of State, repre-
sented in the State legislature, the power
To regulate commercial Intercourse be-
tween the States by determining what
shall be its subjects, when that power was
distinctly granted to be exercised By the
people OF the United States. represented
in Congress, and its possession by the lat
ter was considered essential to that more
perfect union which the constitution was
adopted to create.
"Cndoubtcily there is difficulty in draw
ing the line between the municipal powers
OF the one government and the commercial
powers of the other. But when that line
as determined accommodation 10 il without
serious Inconvenience may be readily
found in a frank and candid co operation
for the general good. The decision Of the
Supreme Court of Iowa is reversed
JUSTICE GRAY's OPINION.
Justice Gray delivered dissenting
opinion in behalf OF himself and justices
Harlan and Brewer. He says:
Common experience has shown that the
general aud unrestricted use of intoxicat-
ing liquors tends TO produce idleness, dis =
order, disease, pauperism and crsme- The
power of regulating or prohibiting the
manufacture and sale of, Intoxicating liQ-
uors appropriately belongs, Us q branch OF
tho police power, to the legislatures Of the
several States, and can be iudiciously and
effectively exercised by them alone, nc.
cording to their views of public policy and
local needs, aud cannot practically, il IL
can constitutionnlly, be welded by Con-
grcss as part Of national and uniform
system.
The statutes in question were enacted
by the State OF Iowa in tho exercise Of its
undoubtcd power to protect its inhabitants
against tho evils-physic moral and So
attending the free ,usc Of intoxicat-
ing liquors, They arc noe aimed NJ inter
state commerce; ihcy have no relation to
the movement of goods from one State to
another, utopcrate only on Intoxicating
liquors within the territorial limits of the
State. they include all such liquors, with
out discrimination, and do not even men,
ton where they are made or whence they
come.
''lf the statutes Of State restricting or
prohibiting the sale of Intoxicating liquors
within its territory are To be held inopcra-
tive and void as applied TO liquors sent or
brought from another State and sold by
the importer in what are called original
packages, the consequence must be that
nm inhabitant of any State may, under the
pretcxt of inter state commerce, and with
out license or supervision of any public
authority, carry or send into, and sell in,
any or all Of the other States of the Union,
intoxicating liquors of whatever dcscrip-
.tion, in cases or kegs or oven in single
bottles or TASKS, despite any legislation Of
those States or the subject. And, al
though his own State should be the only
ono which had not enacted similar laws.
We would require affirmative and explicit
legislation on tho part Of Congress- to con-
vince us that 1t. contemplated or intended
such result"