, 1891-05-26
NO MORE PACKAGES.
Decision of the United States
Supreme Court
In an Original Package Case
From Kansas.
The State Law Declared to be
Constitutional.
Original Package Decision.

WASHINGTON, May 25.-The supreme
court today rendered a decision in the
Original package case from Kansas.
The case came up on the appeal of
Wilkinson, sheriff, against Raherer, the
lower court having decided against the
state. This couIt Ieverses the decision of
the lower court. Chief Fuller rendered
the decision, the entire court being with
him Justice Gray announced, however,
that Justices Harlan. Brewer and himself
a~ssented in the decision but did not con-
cur in all the reasoning of the opinion Of
the court. Raherer was an original
package agent at Topeka o. a Kansas
City liquor firm, and was arrested the day
after the original package law vent into
effect. He claimed that the law was I'M
constitutional. and also that it could not
90 into operation until the state re-
enacted its prohibitorv laws.
The circuit court decided aguinst the
state and the case was brought here on an
appeal. The supreme court says the
power OF a state to impose restraints and
burdens upon persons and property in
promotion OF public health. good order
and prosperity is a power always belong
ing to states. The power of congress to
regulate commerce among the several
states when the subjects are national in
their nature is also exclusive, but it was
left free by the constitution except as
congress might undertake to regulate it.
intoxicating liquors are undoubtedly
subjects OF like any other com
modify, but, nevertheless. it has often
been held that laws prohibiting the manu-
facture and sale of liquor within state
limits do not necessarily infringe any CON
ST: 'ional privilege or immunity. This
r-rests pom the acknowledged right
.ates to control their purely internal
..."s.
The Iowa laws held to be unconstitu-
toDal in the Lei>y original package case
were enacted in the exercise of state po-
lice power, but as it amounted to a reg
ulation OF interstate commerce, it was
held that 80 long as congress did not pass
any law to regulate specifically the traffic
between states in intoxicating liquors, or
act IN such a way as to allow state laws to
operate upon it, congress thereby indicated
its will that such commerce should be
free and untrammeled aud, therefore, the
laws of Iowa were imperative 10 so far
as they amounted to regulations of foreign
or interstate commerce in inhibitinR the
reception of snch articles within the state
or their sale upon arrival in the form in
which imported. II follows that when
congress acted at all the result of its nc-
ton must be to ate as a restraint upon
that perfect freedom which its silence in
su7ed. Congress has not spoken aud de-
clared hat imported liquors shall. upon
ARRIVAL in a state, fall within the category
OF domestic articles of a similar nature
Congress did not use a term of per
mission to a state to act but simply re
moved the Impcdiment to the enforcement
OF state laws in respect to imported
packages in their original condition
created by absence or specific utterance
upon lis part. The act of congress re-
moved the obstacle and no adequate
ground is perceived for holding that the
re. enactmCnt of a state law was required
before it could have effect upon an i'm.
ported, which it always had uppu
domestic properly. Jurisdiction attached,
not in virtue Of the laws of congress, bu,
hecsuse that law placed the property where
jurisdiction could attach