Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-05-17
THAT FAMOUS LIQUOE DECI.
SION.

I
liquors exposed for sale contrary to
Its provisions, has occasioneda great
amount of discussion all over the
country. II has been both COM
mended and condemned by lawyers
and newspapers, and is generally
regarded as staggering If rot fatal
blow to prohibition, unless Congress
shall come to the rescue Of that cause
with appropriate legislation.
One Of the most strongly written
criticisms Of it which have appeared
in the American press is an article
by T. Z. Wilson, which was given
in the New York World Of May It'll.
That any writer should find in any
decision Of the supreme tribunal OF
the Union, ground for such denun-
citation of the action of tina. august
body, as is uttered by Mr.. Wilson,
is matter OF profound regret, and
of the deepest concern to every
citizen of every State.
The World precedes the article
with the following headlines set In
display type:
IAN IMPERIAL DECREE.
"THE STATES CONTROL OF TRADE RE-
sTRIcTED TO ITS own Products.
WHATEVER CROSSES STATE LINE Is
UNDER CONTROL OF CONGRESS.
"An State LAWS Regulating the sale of DIS
eAsed Meat, Adulterated Food, Poisons,
EXPLOSIVES, Liquors, obscene Books,
and Everything Brought Into One State
from Another, Declared Void by the
Supreme Court"
The article in full is here append
ed. 1t bears date of Washington,
d. c. May 5th:
''The decision of the Supreme Court
OF the United States in the case OF
Jersey & Co. VS.. ]. A. Harding, city
marshal Of Keokuk, Ia, who seized
certain kegs Of liquor imported by
Jersey & Co., from another State and
exposed by them for sale in Keokuk.
in violation Of the State law forbid
ding the sale of liquor. is one which
fifty years ago would have convulsed
the country. Both political parties
would have united then in wiping out
a court so evidently in open rebellion
against the Union. Today it is diff
cult to get any one even TO listen for
two minutes to a mere statement Of
the case, much more-a thousand
times mOre-importsnt than the bred
Scott decision. Patriotism is absolute
" dead Only here and there can be
found a man who cares whether he
lives under despotism or a democ-
rscy.
ain effect the decision OF the Su-
preme Court OF the United States is
that the State law OF Iowa, and all
laws made by any State, regulating
the sale within its boundaries OF any
thing brought into II from another
State, is unconstitutional and void, all
control and regulation Of such impor-
ted products within State being ex-
clusively within the jurisdiction OF
the United States. The court gerer-
ouslv leaves TO each State the right to
regulate the sale Of its domestic pro-
ducts, and Of imported products from
other States after they have been 50
broken up and disturbed that they are
no longer distinguishable in the gen.
'eral mass.
"The State law of Iowa is divided
into parts, and this decision is also
divided into two parts
1.-THE first part Of the State law pro-
hibits the importation into the State
Of certain manIfactures-whic the
first part OF the decision declares the
State of Iowa has no right 10 do. 1t
cannot pass any law limiting or con-
filming the absolute free trade ordained
by the Constitution between the States.
or any act affecting in any way any
goods Tor bads) which may be outside
its boundary lines. This inhibition
has never been assailed by the most
ardent advocate OF State rights. There
was no objection TO it in the constitu-
tional convention. II was a part Of
the Articles Of Confederation. Il has
often been explained, expounded, and
upheld by the Supreme Court Of the
United States from the adoption of the
Constitution to the present time.
There is no one who would attempt at
this day to controvert it, and no State
court would permit State law to be
enforced in violation Of it.
"Our federal union of States is based
upon an absolute and unqualified IN
taxed free trade within the boundaries
of the United States such as exists
within one country or State; which |
cannot he regulated limited or re-
strained in any way by Congress or
by the States. Any state law forbid |
ding citizen to import certain thing |
is a Limitation of the right which the |
State may not attempt. The bringing
1t to the boundary line-the actual |
crossing Of the boundary line-is not |
in itself an act which the State may
punish. But after the thing gets
across the boundary line the State is
sovereign
1.-THE power is not taken from the
State by the Constitution TO be lodged
in Congress. The perpetual, unlim-
tied and unlimitable free trade be-
tween the States can no more be
interfered with CT regulated by the
United States than it can be by a
State. The free trade of the Constitu-
ton is as binding upon the one as up
on the other. 1t is not at the pleasure
or will Of either. The State is not for
hidden because Congress may. but be-
cause-if there be a because-the
Congress is forbidden TO NEEDLE with
trade between the States as well as
within the State.
"A score Of decisions Of the Sunreine
Court, running Dack 10 1910. uphold
the present judges in declaring tba; so
much OF the Iowa Slate law as forbids
the importation Of any foreign pro-
ducts is unconstitutional, but there is
not one line to justify their reason for
it-that the Congress has control OF the
and that the Congress may
set up tariff and free list Of goods TO
be imported from one State into snoth-
err. Their reason. however, need not be
debated here. So much OF the deci-
sion is sound, however faulty the logic
may be-
"But-aDd here is the point which
marks the new doctrine of the Su-
Preme Court-the second part of the
law and the second part of this de-