The sun., 1891-05-27
Tho L.sss. Original Package Decision.

The Supreme Court OF the Uhitcd States
on Monday rendered q decision sustaining
tho constitutionality OF the act Of Congress,
passed last year, which was designed to do
away with the consequences Of the cele-
brated original package decision made by
the same tribunal In April, 1890. In the
{ former case the Supreme Court decided that
tho Prohibitory Liquor law Of Iowa was
unconstitutional as applied to the sale OF
i. LIQUOR manufactured In another State and
., brought into Iowa, where 1t was sold by tho
importer in the original packages or kegs,
unbroken and unopened; inasmuoh a. such
. statute was repugnant to the clause Of the
Constitution which empowers Congress to
regulate commerce among tho States.
Three members OF the court, all Republi-
cans, dlssented from the conclusion reached
by the majority In that case: Justices GRAY.
HARLAN. and BREWER. It is not too much
70 say that the correctness of the decision
tvas seriously doubted by largo majority Of
the competent constitutional lawyers In the
country; and 1t was regarded with particu-
Tar dlsfavor' by believers in the Democratic
principle Of State rights In the exercise OF
Ill police powers.
Immediately after this decision was rom
1cred, Congress set about devising some
method to obviste its natural consequences,
and the result was the enactment OF Fed
eral statute providing in substance that the
States in which prohibitory laws existed
should be allowed to enforce those laws, as
against liquor imported from other States
end offered for sale In the original package.
Tho opinion Of the majority OF the Supreme
Court In the original Iowa case contained
distinct intimation that such legislation
as this would be valid, for Chief Justice
FULLER therein declared that inasmNch as
the grant Of the power to regulate COM
merce among the States was exclusive, the
States could not exercise that power withott
the dsaert of Congress-; thus implying that
they might do 80 with tho assent Of Con-
gress, such as has been conferred by tho
new act. In view OF this intimation, 1t is
not surprising to find that the constitu-
tionaIity Of the new act has been upheld.
But we predict that the correctness Of this
latest original package decision will be ques-
toned by competent critics quite as much
as the first decision. As an indication of
what Is to be expected, we may refer to an
able article on the Iowa case by the we'll
known law writer. Mr.. @. STUART PATTER-
soN Of Philadelphia, In the October number
OF the Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science. There this able
writer declares that nothing short of con-
stitutional amendment can change the law
laid down In the first original package case,
and he quotes Chief Justice TANEY to
chow that no act OF Congress can confer
upon the States any power In tho matter:
ut will hardly be eontsndsd that an act o, Congress
can alter the Constitution and confer upon Q State
power which the Constitution declares Il shall not
possess. And II tho grant OF power to the United
ststes TO make rssua Of commerce is prohibit
tion to the States TO mako regulations upon the
subtsor. Conarsss could the States
the power of which they thus deprived than Il
cnuld authorize them to coin money. make paper
money tender In the payment of dsba or to do any
ether sct forbidden to them by the Constitution"
There are three so-called Democrats on
the bench OF the Supreme Court OF the
United States: Chief Justice FULLER, Mr..
Justice LAMAR, and Mr.. Justice FIELD.
The NEAaLE case seems to have developed
In Judge FIELD disposition to look with
favor upon legislation which has tendency
toward Capitalization; but We ought reason
ably to be entitled to expect a firm
adherence to Democratic doctrines in con-
stitutional law on the part OF the two
members OF the court who were appointed
to office by President CLEVELAND. In their
wisdom, however. they have preferred to
ignore the views OF the interstate COM
meroe clause OF the Constitution entertained
and expressed by SO great a lawyer as
ROGER b. TANEY.
II JOHN q. CARLISLE Of Kentucky had
been appointed Chief Justice Of the United
States, we venture to say that one Demo-
cratic member OF the court would have
been recorded as dissenting from this latest
original packag decision.