The state herald. (Holyoke, Logan County, Colo.) 1887-1921, 1891-05-29
a NEW PROHIBITION DECISION.
The Supreme Court Declares tho
Original Package Law Con-
stitutional.

Tho United States Supreme Court
has decided that the original package lew
passed by the last Congress was valid and
constitutional aud thstit went into effect
In all states whore prohibition laws pro
vailed without re enactment by the states
Of the laws by which they forbade the sale
of Intoxicating liquors within their bound
aries, whether imported from other states
or not. Chief Justice Fuller rendered
the opinion Of the court and the bench
will be unanimous In support Of the con.
illusions at which he arrived. though
Justice Gray announced that Justices
Harlan, Brewer aud himself did NOT con-
cur In all tho ressonings Of the court
Tho case upon which the decision was
rendered was that Of John M. Wilkerson'
sheriff Of Shawnee county, Kansas, ap-
pellant, versus Charles A. Tahrc, brought
here on appeal from the decision OF the
Circuit Court OF the Urited States for tho
district Of Kansas against the state. Rahro
was the original package agent At Topeka,
Kansas, Of tho firm Of Maynard, Hopkins
& Co. Of Kansas City, Missouri, and was
arrested the day after tho original pack
age law went into effect. He claimed
that the law was unconstitutional and also
that II could not 20 into operation until
the state has re.enacted It's prohibitory
law.
The court holds 1t Is within tho power Of
the states to impose restraints and bur-
dens upon persons and property In pro-
motion Of tho public health, good order
and prosperity, and that It 10 q power
always belonging 10 the states, not sur
rendered by them to the general govern
ment nor directly restrained by tho
constitution of the United States and
essentially exclusive.
The power Of Congress to regulate CON-
merco among the several States when the
subjects are national in their nature, IL
says, is also exclusive. Tho constitution
does not provide that interstate commerce
shall DO FREQ, but by the grant Of this
exclusive power TO regulate 1t, 1t was left
TO regulate It,
Tho court says that Intoxicating liquors
are undoubtedly subjects Of commerce
like other commodities and SO recognized,
but nevertheless 1t has been often held
that the laws prohibiting the manufacture
and sale OF liquor within state limits do
not necessarily infringe upon any consu-
tutional privileges or immunity, this right
being rested, as In the Mugler case, upon
tho acknowledged right Of tho states to
control their purely internal Affairs and In
so doing they protect the health, morals
and safety Of their people by regulations
that do not interfere with tho powers Of
tho general government
Continuing the court said that the Iowa
laws held 10 DO unconstitutional In the
Leisy original package case were enacted
In the exercise Of the States police court,
and not at all as regulations Of Interstate
commerce, but as 1t amounted In effect 10
regulation OF such commerce, 1t was held
that SO long US Congress did not pass any
law to regulate specifically the trafic
between the states on intoxicating liquors,
or act in such way us to allow state laws
10 operate upon IL, Congress thereby indii
Gated its will that such commerce should
be FREQ and untrammcllcd and therefore
that tho laws Of Iowa were imperative In
in so far as they amounted TO regulations
OF foreign or Interstate commerce In in
hibiting the reception Of such articlos
within the State or their sale upon arrival
In form In which imported. IL followed ~
corollary that when Congress acted It
all. tho result Of Its action must DO 70