New-York tribune., 1891-05-26
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
THE oH1e1NAL-pAcKAGE LAW UPHELD.

LAWS WITHOUT A RE-ENACTMENT OF THOSE
LAWS RELATIONS OF NATIONAL
BANKS AND THEIR DIRECTORS
THE PRESIDENT AND TER
RIToRIAL OFFICERS.
washington, MAY 25.-The United States Supreme
court to-day decided that the Original Package law
psssed by the last Congress was valid and constiti
touai and that II went into effect in all States where
prohibitory laws prevailed without re-enactment by
the states Of the laws by which they forbade the sale
a, intoxicating liquors within their boundaries whether
,mported from other States not. Chief Justice
Fer gave the opinion Of the court and the bench was
upited In support of the conclusions to which ne
arrived though Justice Gray announced that Justices
Harlan Brewer and himself did not concur in all the
reasoning of the opinion of the court.
The case upon which the decision was rendered was
that OF John NJ wilkerson, Sheriff Of Shawnee County,
Xan appellant, agt Charles A. Rahrer, brought here
on appeal from the decision Of the Circuit Court for
the District Of Kansas against the State Rahrer was
the original package agent at Topeka, Kan, Of the
Arm Of MAYNARD, Hopkins & Co., of Kansas CITY, NO.,
ard was arrested the day after the Original Package
law went into effect. He held that the law was un-
constitutional and also that IT could not go Into
operatton until the State had reenacted It's promoitory
law The court the power OF the state TO impose
restraints and burdens upon persons ana properly Id
vromotion of the public health, good order ana pros
perity power always DelOnSllS W Vi'V S'""'
essentially exclusive. The power OF Congress 10
reglate commerce among the several states when the
subjects are National in their nature, 1t says is also
exclusive The failure Of Congress 10 exercise tias
exclusive power in any case s an expression Oh iuS
win that the subject shall be free from restrictions OF
Smpoarions upon it by the several States, ana IL
State law comes in conflict with the will OF Congress
the State and Congress cannot occupy the position @
equal opposing soveregntes because the CONSTITUTION
declares its supremacy and that Of the laws passed m
pnrsuance thereof The present arises upon the
theory of repugnancy between the state law anu Vo
interstate commerce clause Of the CONSTITUTION anu
Involves distinction between the commercial power
and the police power which, though quite distinguish
able when they do not approach each other. are soe
r.s 60 nearly allied as 10 perplex the understanding
rontinung the court says that the Iowa laws helo
10 be unconstitutional in the Lefsy orgfnalpacKase
case were enacted in the exercise N the sAss po1e
power and not at all regulations on interstate oo
nerce but as Il amounted in effect TO regulation OF
such commerce. 1t held that so long as Congress
did not pass any law to regulate specifically the trainc
between the States in intoxicating liquors. or act In
such way as to allow State laws to operate upon H.
Congress thereby indicated it's will that such commerce
should be free and unranmellcd, and therefore, that
the laws Of Iowa imperative in so far as they
amounted to regulations of foreign interstate CON-
merce inhbing the reception Of such articles with
In the State their sale upon arrival in the form in
which imported II follows also a corroary that,
when Congress acted at all. the result Of its action
must be 10 operate restraint upon that perfect
freedom which its silence insured. Congress has now
spoken and declared that imported LIQUORS shall upon
arrival in State fall within the category OF domestic
articles OF q similar nature.
The court then aeks Is the law open TO con-
sttutional obectonq" BY the Constitution, Section
10 Of Article l. certain powers are enumerated which
the States forbidden to exerese'n any event, and
also certain powers which may be exercised with the
consent Of Congress. 1t is earnestly contended that
THE Original Package act regulation Of commerce,
falls within the powers which the States forbidden
to exercise and that the Constitution guarantees free
dom of commerce dmong the States In all things, and
that not only may Intoxicating liquors be imported
from one into another. without being subject to
Regulation under the laws of the latter but that Con-
iress is poweress to obviate that result. Thus the
grant to the General Government Of power designed
ito prevent embarrassing restrictions upon interstate
commerce by any state would be made to forbid any
restraint whatever The court does not concur In this
view.
BY the adoption Of the Constitution the ability OF
che several states to act on the matter solely In sc-
cordsnce with their own sweet will was extnguished
and the legislative will of the General Government sub
stituted In enacting the law In question, Congress
has not attempted TO delegate the power TO regulate
commerce or TO exercise any power reserved TO the
States, or to grant power not possessed by the
States or TO adopt State laws. 1t has taken Its own
subjects OF interstate commerce one common rule.
whose uniformity is not affected by variations in state
Jaws in dealing with such property. NO reason Is per
ceived why Congress chooses to provide that certain
designated subjects Of interstate commerce shall be
governed by rule which dvests them OF that character
at earlier period of time than would otherwise be
the case it is not within its competency to do So The
court recalls no decision giving color TO the idea that
wsn Congress acted its action would be less potent
than when 1t kept silent. The trainers of the Const-
tuition never intended that the legislative of the
Nation should find itself incapable of disposing of sub
lect matter specifically committed to its charge
The court then takes up the contention that, be-
cause the state law held 10 be unconstitutional
by the original package decision the present suit
against the Sheriff is mainalnable on the ground that
1t necessary for the state TO reenact its law after
the passage of the original act by Congress. in order
TO prevent the importation of intoxicating liquors:
the State law, but simply limited its operation TO
properly strictly within the states Jurisdiction. In
August 3, 1890, the day after the act Of Congress
had gone into effect. Rahrer thereby prevented
laws of the state upon the implication arising from
Congressional inactioh. The Law OF Congress did not
terms Of permission TO the State TO act but simply
removed impedlment to the enforcement of the
state laws II respect TO i'm imported packages &c in Their
utteranoe on It's part. 1t impaired no power 10 the
State not then possessed but allowed imported prop
Jurisdiction. No adequate ground is perceived for
holding that a reenactment Of the State law
required before 1t could have the effect upon i'm
ported which it had always had upon domestic prop
erty. Jurisdiction attached, not In virtue Of the laws
OF Congress but because that law placed the property
where Jurisdiction could attach.
The decree Of the lower court therefore
versed.
The supreme Court, by a vote of five to four to-
day affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court for the
Northern District OF NewYOrk in the case Of Albert
b. Briggs, receiver Of the First National Bank OF
Buffalo, against E. G. Spauldiog and Others, directors
Of the bank The receiver sought 10 hold tho directors
responsible for bad loans made by the president of the
bank. No dishonesty charged, but IL asserted
that II the directors had given proper attention to
the affairs of the bank IL would not have failed and
that the directors were liable 10 the bank The court
holds that the directors simply to exercise ordinary
prudence and that this prudence IS 10 be governed by
usage in bank affairs. This done in the present
case! The is Of great importance, involving
the relations Of all National bank directors.
The court through Justice Bradley, rendered judg-
inents against the state of Kentucky In the suit by