The Dickinson press., 1891-05-30

SSnto vi tue elttSlNe cfaIt Wnlcl the
United States government will libel and
perhaps forfeit for violation of our neu-
trality laws.
Original Package Decision
WASHINGTON, May 27.-'rhe United
States supreme court to-day decided
that the original package law passed by
the last congress was valid and constitu
tlonal, and that it went into effect in all
states where prohibitory laws prevailed
without re-enactment by those states of
laws by which they forbade the sale of
Intoxicating liquors within their bonn.la-
ries, whether imported from other states
or not. Chief Justice Fuller rendered
the opinion of the court, and the bench
was united in support of the conclusions
to which he arrived at, though Justice
Gray announced that Justices Harlan
Brewer and himself did not concur i'm all
the reasoning of opinion of the court
The case upon which the decision was
rendered was that OF John w. Wilker-
Soll, siiciiii vi oilitWlee county, A;lnSHS,
appellant, VS.. Charles \. Rahrer, brought
here on appea! from the decision of the
circuit court of the United States for.lis-
trlct OF Kansas against the state Rahrer
was an original package agent at To-
peka, kas., of the firm of Maynard, Hop
klns a Co., of Kansas City, Mo-, and was
arrested the day after the original pack
age law went into effect. He claimed
the law was unconstitutional, and also
that 1t could not go into operation until
the state had re-enactcd its prohbitory
law. The court says the power of a
state 20 impose restraints and burdens
upon persons and property, in the pro-
motion of public health, good
order and prosperity, is power always
belonging To states, and not surrendered
by them to the general government nor
directly restrained by the constitution of
the United States, and essentially ex-
elusive. The power of congress to rey,,-
late commerce among the several states,
when the subjects are national in
their nature, it says, is also exclusive.
The constitution does not provide that
Interstate commerce shall be free, but hy
grant of this exclusive power to regulate
1t, 1t was left free except as congress
might undertake to regulate it. There
fore 1t has been determined i'm the cns,
of Robbins VS.. Shelby, taxing district,
that the failure of congress to exercise
tins exclusive power in any case is I'm
expression of its will that the subject
shall be free from restrictions or impn-
stions upon the several states, and if IL
state law can be- in conflict with the will
OF congress, Il state and congress cannot
occupy IL position of equal opposing SOY
erclgnty, becouse the constitution de-
clares its supremacy, and that of laws
passed in pursuance thereof That
which is not supreme must yield to that
intoxicating liquors are undoubtedly
subjects of commerce like any other com
modify, and are SO recognized, but new
erthelcss it has been often held that laws
pr' hlbiting the manufacture and sale of
liquor within state limits does not
necessarily infringe any constitutional
rested. as in Mmgler case, upon acknowl-
edged right OF 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 powers of the
general yosernment. Present cases
arises upon the theory of repusnancy
between state law and the interstate
| commerce clause of constitutions, and in
wolves distinction between commercial
power and police power. which, though
quite distingnishable when they do not
approach each other are sometimes, like
colors, SO nearly allied as to perplex the
understanding as cuors do the vision
Continuing, the court says: The Iowa
laws held to be unconstitutional in the
Lelsy original package case, were enact
Ell i'll excess of the state police power and
not at all as the regulations of interstate
commerce, but as it amounted in effect
to the regulation of such 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 ii way us to allow
state laws to operate on it, congress
thereby indicated its will that such com
merce shonll be free and untrHmmeled,
and therefore that the laws of Iowa wer..
imperative in SO far as they amounted
to regulations of foreign or interstate
commerce in inhliting the reception Of
such articles within the state, or their
sale upon their arrival III tle form il.
which they were imported. 1t followed
as corro!arry that when congress acted
ht all the result of its action
must be imperative, as restraint upon
that perfect freedom which its silence
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 Continuing, the court says:
The law of congress did not allow the
state to act, nut simply removed the i'm
pediment to the enforcement of the state
laws i'll respect TO imported packages
in their original condition. created
by the absence of specific ut
terance on its part. 1t
impaired no power to state not then
possessed, but allowed imported prop
erty to fall at once upon arrival within
local jurisdiction. Liquor arrived in
Kansas prior to the passage of act of
congress, but there is no question pre-
sented of the right of the importer to
Withdraw property from the state, nor is
it perceived that congressional enact
ment is given retractlve operation by
holding it applicable to transaction oc-
curing after 1t took effect 1t
is not case of law enacted
in the unauthorized exercise of
power exclusively confiled to congress,
but of a law which it WAS competent for
the state to pass but which could not
operate upon articles occupying GER
tain situation until the passage of the
act of congress. That act removes the
obstacle, and no adequate ground is per-
ceived for holding that re-enactment of
the state law WAS required before it
could have the effect upon imported
which it had always had upon domestic
property. jurisdiction attached not in
virtue of the laws of congress, but be-
cause that law placed the property where
jurisdiction could attach. The decree of
| ~ r