Daily Republican., 1890-05-13
An on.raseons Decision.

coming !uiiy uLut trntools tncit IS gen
,rel feeling that Congress should take
some action In the mattsr nj once.
The laws Of the etete of Iowa say that
liquor, wine or beer shall not be sold In
any shape, form or manner, tave Tor
In dIclnal, mechanical Or sacramental
to any oi tue Inhabitants
thereof.
A year or more ago Gus Leisy & Co.,
Of Peoria, ILL.,, sent $3.50 worth of beer
In kegs aud cases to their agent In Kco-
kuk. lows, John Leisy by name, who
offered 1t for sale in the original pack
ages In tue latter city. Constable A. j.
Hardin seized them. Gus Leisy & Co.
sued to get possession OF the property,
alleging that the law under which the
search warrant was issued is unconttitu-
tional and void, being in vocational OF
section Of article !, Of the Constitution
OF the United States, which declares that
Congrets shsll have the power to regu-
late commerce among the several States,
against the con table, but the Supreme
Court of Iowa reversed this verde and
entered judgment against tho plaintiffs
with costs. In this shape the case was
carried to the Supreme Court at Washing.
ton, and majority Of the learned men
therein declared that until Congress ex-
plicity ea!d to the contrary Measrs. Gus
Leipsy & Co., had . perfect right to send
their Illinois beer into Iowa, and Iowa
had no right to keep 1t out.
Three members oil the Court. Justice
Gray, Harlan and Brewer, strongly dis.
sented from this opinion.
Chief Justice Fuller, formerly OF I'LL
n0is, delivered the opinion OF the Court,
which was in favor Of the Peoria brew
ers and not the authorities. The power
vested In Congress, he said, TO regulate
commerce with foreign nations and
among the several States, and with the
Indian tribes. Is the power 10 prescribe
the rule by which that comuerce 10 to be
governed, and is . power complete In
Itself, acknowledging no limitations
other than those prescribed in the con.
stitutlon. II cat not be stopped at the
external boundary of State, but must
enter Its Interior AMI be capable of au-
thorizing the disposition OF those articles
which 1t introduces (even the Peoria
articles) SO that they may be mingled
with the common mass of property. A
subject matter, the Chief Justice con-
cludes. which has been condded exclu-
sively to Congress BY the constitution IL
not within the Jurisdiction OF tho rolice
power Of the State, unltss placed there
BY Congressional action.
"Whenever," says the Chief Justice,
the law of the State amounts essen
TALLY to regulation Of commerce with
foreign nations or among the States, as
It does when 1t inhib.ts, directly or indi-
rcctly, the receipt OF an imported COM
modify or lts disposition tefore 1t has
ceased to become an article OF trade be-
tween one State and another, It comes In
conflict with power which, In this par
ticular, has been exclusively vested In
the general government, and 10 therefore
void"
1.-THE plaintiffs in error ere citizens OF
Illinois, are not Pharmacists, have no
pei init, but import into Iowa beer which
they sell in original packages as de-
scribed. They had the right to import
this beer into that State and they had the
right 10 sell 1t, by which fact alone Il
would become mingled with the common
mass Of property within the State. What.
ever cur individual yiews may be as tc
the deleterious or dangerous qualities oil
particular articles we cannot hold tina,
any articles which Congress recognizes az
subjects OF interstate commerce arc uol
euch, OF that whatever are thus recog.
Dized can be controlled by State lawi
amounting to regulations while they re
tain that character, although II directly
dangerous in themselves the State NAY
take appropriate measures to guard
against injury before II obtains complete
Jurisdiction over them."
Justice Gray wrote the dissenting 4
opinion, In which he says:
''lf the ststutes # State restrict
ing or prohibiting the sale OF Intoxicating
liquors within its territory are to be helt
imperative and void az applied to liquor.
such as brought from another etate and
sold by the importer IN what are oallet
original packages, the consequence mus
be that an iuhabitant OF any State may
uuder the pretext Of Interstate cOmmerc,
and without license or supervision OF any
public authority, carry or send into enc
sell In any or all OF the other States o
the Union Intoxicating liquors of what
ever description, in cases or kegs, ol
even in single bottles or fasks, despit,
any legislation of those States on tht
subject, and although his own State
should be the only one which had moi
enacted similar laws. 1t would requi irs
positive and explicit legislation on the
part of Congress to convince us that il
contemplated or intended such result. "
And Mr.. Justice Harlan has the
temerity to state that tho regulation oi
the sale and use OF that Peoria beer in
Iowa belongs to the police powers of the
latter State. But the opinion Of Chief
Justice Fuller and his confreres is now
tho law, and will remain as such until
Congress takes some action In the matter.
According to this, anyone over In New
Jersey, or Pennsylvania, or any other
State can put liquor In pint, half-plnt
or even gill bottles or nasks, and send
the bottles TO eome one 10 this city, who
can dispose of 1t without respect to the
liquor laws Of this State, 30 long as he
does not break the original packages.
This would prove disastrous to reputable
liquor dealers who pay large amounts to
secure license, and would also open the
way for an iDdlscrimiuate sale OF rum,
with a consequent increase in intemper-
aDcr, vice and crime.
A prominent Now York lawyer in
speaking OF the decision said:
"If that decision is the law OF the
land. the quicker that Congress acts In
the matter the better 1t will be Tor her
own good name. The Supreme Court Of
the United States has driven q beer
wagon through all State legislation, and
Instead OF an excise system we hiv
chaos aud anarchy. No longer need tue
dive keepers fear the Excise Commission
ers or the watcbful press. All they have
to do 10 10 be agents" OF some toreis n
merchant" sell their drinks In the
originsl package, aud that package may
be a bottle holding but single swallow,
sud the Suprems Court pas them on the
back and tells them to go ahead. Reput-
able liquor dealers will be threatened
with disastrous competition and the
license system give way to li:onse. 1t is