Baxter Springs news. [volume] (Baxter Springs, Kan.) 1882-1919, 1891-05-30
THE LAE EGLID.
THE SUPREME COURT DECIDES THE
ORIGINAL PACKAGE LAW PASSED
BY CONGRESS To BE CONsTITU-
TIONAL.-ALL THE JUDGES CONCUR
IN THE DECISION.
The Kansas Law Valid.

The Kansas Law Valid.
WASHINGTON, May 26.-The United
States supreme court to-day upheld the
constitutionality OF the original package
law passed by Congress, and also hold
that it was not necessary for the state
Of Kansas TO re-enact its prohibitory
law after the passage OF the congress.
sional act in order to shut out liquors In
original packages. The case came up
on appeal OF Wilkinson, sheriff, against
Rehrer, the lower court having de
cided against the state. This court re-
verses the decision OF the lower court
Chief Justice Fuller rendered the decis'
ion, the entire court being with him.
Justice Gray however. announced
that Justices Harlan, Brewer ard him
self did not concur III all the reasoning
OF the court. The case upon which the
decision was rendered was that Of John
NJ. Wilkerson, sheriff OF Shawnee coun-
ty, Kansas, appellant vs. Charles Rerhrer
brought here on appeal from the decis-
ion OF the circuit court OF the United
States for the district OF Kansas against
the state. Rehrer was the original
package agent at topeka, KS, of the
!irm Of Maynard, Hopkins & Co., OF
Kansas City, Mo-, and was arrested the
day after the original package law went
into effect.
He claimed that the law was uncon-
stitutional and also that it could not go
into operation until the power of the
state to impose heavy burdens upon per-
sons and property in promotion OF the
public health, good order and prosperi-
ty is power always belonging to the
states, not surrendered to them by the
general government, nor directly re-
strained by the constitution OF the
United States and essentially exclusive.
The power OF congress to regulate
commerce among the the several states
when the subjects are national in their
nature, it says, Is also exclusive. The
constitution does not provide that in
terstate commerce shall be free, but by
the grant OF this exclusive power to
regulate it, ii was left free except as
congress might undertake to regulate
it. Therefore it has been determined,
Robbins VS.. Shelby taxing district, that
the failure OF congress to exercise this
exclusive power in any case is an ex-
preston of its will that the subject shall
he free from restrictions or impo
sitions upon it by the several
states, and ii state law
comes in conflict with the will OF con-
gress, the state and congress cannot
occupy the position OF equal opposing
sovereignties because the constitution
declares its supremacy and that OF the
laws passed In pursuance thereof. That
which is not supreme must yield TO
that which is supreme. The court says
that Intoxicating liquors are undoubt'
eddy subjects OF commerce like other
commodities and so recognized but
nevertheless it has been often held that
laws prohibiting the manufacture and
sale OF liquor within state limits
does not necessarily infringe any
constitutional privilege or immunity,
this right being rested as in the
murder case, upon the acknowledged
right OF the states to control their pure
ly internal affairs and in 30 doing they
protect the health, morals and safety OF
their people by regulations that do not
interfere with the powers OF general
government. The present case arises
upon the theory OF repugancy between
the state laws and the interstate COM
merce clause OF the constitution, and
involves distinction between the COM
mercial power and the public power.
The Iowa laws said to be unconstitu-
tional in the Leisy original package
case, were enacted in the exercise OF
the state police power, and not at all US
regulations Of interstate commerce, hut
as it amounted in effect to regulation
of such commerce. it was held that so
long as congress did not pass any law to
regulate specifically the traffic between
the states on intoxicating liquors or
act in such way as to allow state laws
TO operate upon it, congress thereby IN
dictated its will that such commerce
should be free and untrammeled, and
therefore that the laws OF Iowa
were imperative insofar as the
amounted to regulations OF foreign or
interstate commerce in inhibiting the
reception OF such articles within the
state or their sales upon arrival in the
form in which imported.
1t followed as corollary that when
congress acted at all, the result OF its
action must be to operate as restraint
upon the perfect freedom which its sill
ence insured. Congress has now spoken
and declared that imported liquors
shall, upon arrival in the state, fall
within the category OF domestic articles
OF similar nature.