The record-union., 1891-05-26
Special to the RECoRp-UNIoN.


States Supreme Court to-day upheld the
constitutionality Of the original package
law passed by Congress, and also held
that it was not necessary for Kansas to
re-enact its prohibitory law after the
passage of the Congressional Act in order
to shut out liquors that are in original
packages.
The case came up on an appeal of Will
kinson, Sheriff, against Rahercr, the
lower court having decided against the
State. This court reverses the decision
of the lower court. Chief Justice Fuller
rendered the decision, the entire court
being with him.
Justice Gray announced that Justices
Harlan, Brewer and himself assented in
the decision, but did not concur in all the
reasoning of opinion of the court
"Raherer was the original package agent
at Topeka of a Kansas City liquor firm,
and was arrested the day after the origi-
nal package law went into effect. He
claimed that the law was uncOnstitu-
tional, and also that it could not go into
operation until the State re-enacted its
prohibitory laws. The Circuit Court
decided against the State, and the case
was brought here on appeal.
THE Supreme Court says the power of
the State to impose restraints and
burdens upon persons and property in
the promotion of public health, good
order and prosperity, is power always
belonging to the State. The power of
Congress to regulate commerce among
the several States, when the subjects are
national in their nature, is also exclusive,
but ii was left free by the Constitution,
except as Congress might undertake to
| regulate it,
Intoxicating liquors are undoubtedly
| subjects of commerce, like any other
! commodity, but, nevertheless, it has
often been held that the laws prohibiting
the manufacture and sale ofliquor within
State limits does not necessarily infringe
on any constitutional privilege or inn
munity. This right rests upon the ac-
| knowledged right of States to control
their purely internal affairs.
1.-The Iowa laws held to be unconstitu-
| tional in the original package case We're
| enacted i'll the exercise of State police
power, but as it amounted to regulation
of interstate commerce, it was held that
so long as Congress did not pass any law
| to regulate specifically traffic between
States on intoxicating liquors, or act in
such way as to allow the State laws to
| operate upon it, Congress thereby indi-
! Gated its will that such commerce should
! be free and untrammeled, and, therefore.
| the laws of Iowa were imperative in so
far as they amounted to the regulations
of foreign interstate commerce in inhibit-
! ing the reception of such articles within
| the State, or their sale upon arrival in the
! form in which they were imported. II
! follows that when Congress acted at all
! the result of its action must be to operate
as a restraint upon that perfect freedom
which its silence insured.
| Congress has now spoken and declared
/
| in the State fall within the category OF
! domestic articles of similar nature. Con
gress did not use the terms Of permission
| to the State TO act, but simply removed
an impeachment to the enforcement of State
! laws in respect to imported packages in
their original condition, created by the
absence of specific utterance upon its
| part. An Act of Congress removed the
obstacle, and no adequate ground is per-
ceived for holding that the re-enactment
I of the State law was required before il
could have effect upon imported, which il
always had upon domestic property. The
jurisdiction attached is not in virtue OF
the laws of Congress, but because that
law placed the property where jurisdic.
ton could attach"
In the case of the Chicago Distilling
Company against Stone, Internal Reve-
nue. Collector, Justice Bradley delivered
an opinion in favor of the distilling com.
pany, holding unlawful the Government
method OF assessing at the end of each
month what he called "mulct money! y
to make up any distillation by distillers
in excess of the capacity estimated from
day to day.
| The Supreme Court rendered iudg.
ments against the State of kentucky in 3
suit by the agents of the United States
Express Company, who claimed the law
of the State, imposing a license-taX on
express companies, violative of the inter.
state commerce clause of the Fedora
Constitution.
The court also rendered an opinion
through Judge Harlan in the case O.
| Ward McAlliSter against the United
States. McAllister was removed from
office as Judge of the District Court by
| President Cleveland, and claimed salary
| from the time of his removal to the quail
ification of Dawson, who was confirmed
as his successor. One question in tho
case was whether the Judge of the
Alaskan Court came within the provi
sion of Section l76S, Revised Statutes
authorizing the President to suspend al
civil officers, Except Judges of the
| United States" The court holds that the
| Alaskan Court is not court of the United
States in a constitutional sense, as Sc
forth in the third article of the Constitu
ton, but a Territorial court. The fac
that the term of the Alaskan Judge i!
limited to four years, and that he doe!
not hold office for life, or during gooC
behavior, the court says, proves that it il
not q court of the United States, as tn,
term is constitutionally used. The cour
said the decision in the present case CAV,
the President complete power over Ter
ritorial officers. Judgment, therefore, is
given in favor of the United States.
! Justices Field, Gray and Brown dis
scented in the opinion, in which Justic
Field maintained that the mere will O
the President was sufficient to remov,
the Judge of q court created by the Unitet
States. and that the Constitution did no
contemplate that Judge should be re
sponsible to any man for his continuanc
in office. 1t seemed to him that some O
his brethren overlooked the charter O
the judicial branch of the Government
when they made distinction agains
courts of Territories. These courts hat
similar powers, and there was the sam
necessity that they should use the offic
fearlessly and without offending an,
President, jeast they should be removed
The case of Wingard, Justice of tn
J Washington Territory Court, was de
cided in the same way.
The Supreme Court of the United State
to-day reversed the decision of the Oregon
Circuit Court in the celebrated "wagol
road cases." The Dalles Military Roa,
Company ct al, Oregon Central Militar,
Road Company ct al. and Willamett
Valley and Casco De Mountain Road e
al. were the principal appellees, but Their
were individual appellees, as follows
James X. Kelley, Daniel j. Cooper
Matilda c. Rogers (administratrix), Will