Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1891-06-04
CONSTITUTIONAL.
Decision By the Supreme Court OF
Original Packages.
Prohibition Statutes Upheld-The Power a
the State to Exercise Police Supervis-
ion For the Good OF the People
Endorsed.

IndOrBeds
WASHINGTON, May 26.-The United
States supreme court has decided that
the original package law passed by the
Last congress was valid and constitu.
tional and that when it went into eff.
feet prohibitory laws remained in force
without re-enactment
Chief Justice Fuller rendered the
opinion Of the court and the bench was
united in support of the conclusions tc
which he 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. Will.
herson, sheriff of Shawnee county,
Kan, appellant VS. Charles A. Rohrer,
brought here on appeal from the de-
cision of the circuit court of the United
States for the district of Kansas. Rohrer
was the original package agent at To-
pexa, Kan, of the firm 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 unconstitutional and also
that it could not go into op-
Grafton until the state had re-
enacted its prohibitory law The
United States circuit court for Kansas
released him on a writ of habeas
corpus The Kansas authorities then
brought the case to the supreme court
on an appeal The court reverses the
circuit courts decree and remanded the
case for further proceedings.
The court says the power of the state
to impose restraints and burdens upon
persons and property in promotion of
the public health, good order and pros
perity is a power always belonging to
the states, not surrendered by them to
the general government nor directly
restrained by the constitution of the
United States and essentially exclusive.
The power of congress to regulate
commerce among the several states
when the subjects are national in their
nature, it says, is also exclusive. The
constitution does not provide that inter-
state commerce shall be free, but by
the grant of this exclusive power to
regulate it, it 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 expression of its will that the sub
ject shall be free from restrictions OF
impositions upon it by the several
states, and if state law comes in
conflict with the will of congress,
the state and congress cannot occupy
the position of equal opposing sover.
eighties, because the constitution de.
clares national 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 undoubtedly subjects of
commerce like other commodities and
so recognized, but neverthe less it has
been often held that laws prohi biting
the manufacture and sale of liquor
within state limits do not necessarily
infringe any constitutional privilege or
immunity, this right being rested. as in
the Mugler case, upon the acknowl.
edged right of the states to control their
purely internal affairs and in so doing
protect the health. morals and safety OF
their people by regulations that do not
interfere with the powers of the
general government
The present case arises upon the
theory of repugnancy between the state
laws and the interstate commerce clause
of the constitution and involves q dis
tinction between the commercial power
and the police power which while quite
distinguishable when they do not ap-
proach each other, are sometimes like
the colors, so nearly allied as to perplex
the understanding as the colors do the
vision.
Continuing, the court says that the
IOWA law held to be unconstitutional in
the Leisy original package case was
enacted in the exercise of the states
police power, and not at all as regula-
ton of interstate commerce, but as it
amounted in effect to a 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 OF
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 SO far as they amounted to
regulations of foreign or interstate
COmIncTCs4lu IuulOlUluS tuc IcCcpClOu
of such articles within the state OF
their sale upon arrival in the form in
which imported. 1t followed as a
corollary that when congress acted at
all, the result of action must be to OPP
crate as restraint upon that perfect
freedom which its silence insured Con-
gress has now spoken and declared that
imported liquors shall, upon arrival IN
a state, fall within the category of do.
mestic articles of a similar nature.
Continuing. the court says: THE law
of congress did not use terms of per
mission of the state to act, but simply
removed an impeachment to the enforce.
ment of the state law in repect to i'm
ported packages in their original condi.
ton, created by the absence of specific
utterance on its part 1t impaired nc
powes to the state not then possessed,
: but allowed imported property to
fall. at once upon arrival within
the local jurisdiction. The liquor
arrived in Kansas prior to
the passage of the act of congress, but
&. there is no question presented of the
right of the importer to withdraw the
property from the state, nor is it per
ceived that the congressional enact