The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1891-05-28
ORIGINAL PACKAGE.
The Supreme Court Decides that the
Law is Constitutional

etitntiona and that IL went into effect ID states
where prohibitory laws prevailed, without re-
enactment by the States OF the laws 10y Mhicu
thev forbade the sale of Intoxicating liquors
within their boundaries whether the liquor
was imported from other States or not.
The opinion was rendered by Chief Justice
Fuller, and the Court WAS united M support OF
the conclusions 20 which the Chief Justice ar
rived, though Justices Gray, Harlan and Brewer
did not concur in all the reasoning oil the opih-
ion of The Court
The case upun which decision was rendered
was that of John NJ Nilkcr,ou, Sheriff OF
Shawnee County, Kan. appellant, VS.. Charles
A. Rharer, brought here on appeal from the
decision of Circuit Court OF the lnlied states
for the District Of Kansas, against the state
Rahrer was the original package agent AT o.
pela KAN OF the firm of Maynard hopkins
& Co, OF Kansas City, Mo-, aud was arrested
the dav after the original package law went
into effect. He claimed that the law was UNI
constitutional aud also that u could not 80
into opcration until the State had re-cnacied
its prohibitory law.
The Court holds that the State has power TO
Impose restraints aud burdens uron persons
and property ia promotion ol the pu6hc icaiJa'
good order and prosperity is power always
belonging 10 the States, not surrendered by
them to the General Government nor directly
restrained by the Constitution OF the Chileu
States, and essentially exclusive.
The powCr of Congress 10 regulate commerce
among the several States when the SUBJECTS are
National iu their nature, rs also exclusive me
Constitution docs uot provide That INTERSTATE
commerce shall be free, bUt by the grant 90
this exclusive power to regulate a. u was ielt
free except AS Congress might undertake 70
regulate III. Therefore ID has been determined
that the failure OF Congress % exercise tins OK
elusive power in amy case is IN expression OF
its will That the subject shall he free from re-
strictious or lmpositiuns upon u 10y the several
States Aud if a State law comes IN conflict
with the will OF Congress, the State and Con-
grcss cannot occupy tho position of equal op-
posing sovCrciguties, because the Constitution
declares its supremacy and tlat OF the laws
passed I'M pursuance thereof That which Is hot
supreme must Weld 10 that which Is supreme.
Intoxicating liquors are undoubtedly sub
iecl, OF commerce, like any other commodity,
aud are So recognized, but nevertheless u has
been often held that laws prohibiting the
manufacture and sale OF liquid within State
limits does not necessarily Infringe, any consN-
"a unal privilege OF Snuniiy, this right
being vested. as in the Nug.cr case upOn tac
acknowledged right of the States to control
their purely internal affairs, and in so dong 70
protect the health morals, aud safety OF Their
people by regulations that do not IEtc-lcTe win
the powers o, the General Government
The present case arises upOu the theory OF
repuguancy between the State law and The
interstate commerce clause OF the Constitution,
aud involves q distinction between the cont
mercial power and tho police power, which
though quite distinguishable when they do not
approach each other, are sometimes, like the
COOrs, SO nearly allied ms 10 perpleE the under
standing, as the colors do the vision.
The Iowa laws, held 10 be unconstitutional
IN the Ieisy original package case, were enacted
in the exercise OF the States police power and
not az al Bs regulations o. interstate commerce;
but as ID amounted lu effect 20 a regulation OF
such commerce. il was held that 50 long as Con-
Fress did not pass amy law TO regulate specit-
caly the traffic between the States IN intOXlcat-
ing liquors, on act in such way as 20 allow
State laws 10 operate upon b., Congress thereby
indicated is viii that such commerce should
be FREQ and untuuumcled, and therefore
that the laws Of Iowa were imperative
IN SO far as they amounted 10 rcl1iauons
of fore .gn on interstate commerce % lnAiBltlne
the reception Of suCh articles within the State
or trcirsalc upon arrival la tho form In which
imported. 10 followed as cOro.ary that when
Congress acted al all, the result Of us action
must be- 10 operate a. "a restraint upon that per-
feet Freedom which it, silence insured. Con-
Rreg has now spoken aua declared that lm-
ported liquors shall, upon arrival in state,
fall within the category % domestic articles 81
atimiiaT nature ls that Law Cpgu 30 lUnstl-
tuti0ua Ol erii0n2
Iy tie Constitution certain powers are Gnu
me .ated Uhic, the States arc forbidden 10
exelrise iu any event and also certain powers
which may be exercised with tie consent Of
Congress. Do Is earnestly c0utcudcd t.at TIC
original package act, a q regulation ~ COM
mcrCc falls within the powers which The States
arc forbidden 90 exercise and that the CUa-
sttulion guarantees freedom o. commerce
among thu States in all things, aud t.at not
only may Intoxicating .ignUr- hc imported from
ono State iHto another without being subject
g. regulation under tic laws OF the latter, but
that Congress iZ poWcrl,-z tu 0gylata tie result.
Thus the grant 70 the General Government OF
power d gHe1 o. prevent embarrassing re-
sirc'0us o. Du interstate commerce by any
State would bee made 90 forbid ANY restraint
whatever. The court Goes not concur u this
view. la sHfraHtefug their own pOwc. over
external commerce the States did not secure
absolute freedom BOZ snca commerce, but only
tie protection .f0m cEcr0a.Iment afforded by
couGdiHg Ed regulation exclusively 70 Con-
Rrc-s.
By the aloption OF The Constitution the
ability Of tic several State 10 art upon the
matter solely DO accordance with their own
Nls Gas cZtIugnishc3, and the legislative will
oil tHc General Government substituted, and
mr. affirmative guaranty thereby was given 20
Huy State gi thl right % amHud, as between
II anf the Others, what IN could not have
obtained before wh.et He object was uudOUat-
ealy sought 10 Doe obtained o. preventing COM
mrrra regulations partial i tbc.g character
or contrary 20 The common interests. The
magnificent growth aud prosperity Of tho
country attest lAc success which has attended
tG. accom- rishmuHi OF that Object
The court then take. up the contention that
because Tie State law was hca % be uucan q
tutiaua, ny tHc original package decision the
present suit b maiutBIuHie on tuo ground that
it W8s nee. sFTy for tHc State 20 rr-cugct .is
law after Use passage vi The original pcl ly
Congress in ORDER 10 prevent The importation
81 Intoxicating liquors The Court SAYS thet
Do thC LUisy case q held thr law could not d.
given au operation Tint would bring the arti-
Giles seized within lhC common mass at WuD-
erIy within the State without bringing the
State into collision with the implied exercise
Of power exclusively conGdcd 10 tac General
Government.
Bot this furnishes no support 70 the position
that C0nFrc. could not in thc exercise III
the discretion TepG-rd iu a. concluding thai
the common interests did not require entire
freedom u tAe traffic In ailDnt spirits. enact
the law boz question. In 30 doing Congress
has not attempted 30 delegate the power 4,
regulate commerce, or 30 exercise any powel
reserved 90 the States, or 90 grant power uol
possessed by the States, on ID adopt State laws
ID bias taken its own course and made ts own
regulations applying 10 these subjects Of n
tcIrtatc commerce one common rule wh0sj
uniformity is not affected by variations il
State Jaws iH dealing with such property.
The power 10 regulate Is solely ia The Gen
eral Government. au4 il ls au essential part O
NJ HrfH 10. . az. d. #... r"..s