Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1891-06-04
The Latest Original Package Decision.

| The Supreme Court of the United States
on Monday ,eDde ed decisio 1 SUSTAINING
| the constltutlonality of the act of Com,
| gress. passed last year, which was do
| signed to do away with the consequences
OF the celebrated original package decis-
| ION made by the same tribunal In April.
| 1890. In the former case the Sunrame
Court decided that the Prohibitorv IT,
quor law OF Iowa was unconstitutional ne
appiled to the sale of liquor manufactured
In another State and brought into Iowa.
where it was sold by the importer i'm the
original packages or kegs, unbrokel and
unopened; inasmuch as such q statute
was repugnant to the clause of the Con
stitution which empowers Congo .ess to
regulate commerce among the States.
Three members OF the court. all Renub.
licans, dissented from the Conclusion
reached by the majority in that case:
'ustices Gray, Harlan, and Brewer. IL
Is not TOO much TO say that the Correct
ness of the decisi' was seriously douht-
ed by large maiol .ty o. the competent
constitutional lawyers in the country +.
ana 1t was regarded with particular dis,
favor by believers in the Democratic prin-
ciples of State rights in the exercise of ali
police powers. "i
Immediately after this decision was
rendered, Congress set about devising
so he method to obviate its natural con-
sequences, and the result was the enact
ment OF Federal statute providing in
Substance that the States i'm which pro-
hibitory laws existed shOud be allowed
to enforce those laws, as against LIQUOR
| imported from other States and offered
| for sale in the original package. The
opinion of the majority of the Supreme
Court in the original Iowa case contained
distinct 1ntimatiOn that such legislation
as this would be valid, for Chief Justice
Fuller therein declared that inasmuch as
the grant of the power to regulate COM
marce among the States was exclusive.
the States could not exercise that power
without the assent Of Congress; thus i'm
plying that they might do so with the as
sent OF Congress, such as has been con-
ferred bV the new act. In view of this
lnilmaflon, 1t is not surprising to find
that the constitutionality of the new act
has been upheld.
But we predict that the correctness of
this latest original package decision will
be questioned by competent critics quite
as much as the first decision. Asan indi-
cation of what is to be expected, we may
refer to an able article ON the Iowa case
by the well-known law writer, Mr.. g.
Stuart Patterson of Philadelphia. in the
october number of the Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Soc
ial Science. There this able writer de-
ciares that nothing short of a constitu-
tlonal amendment can change the law
laid down in the first original package
case, and he quotes Chief Justice Taney
to show that no act of Congress can con-
fer upon the States any power in the mat
ter:
at will hardly be contended that an act
OF Congress can alter the Constitution and
CONFER upon State power which the Con-
stltut1on declares IL shall not possess. And
II the grant OF power to the United States to
make regulations of commerce Is a prohibit
tion to the States to make any regulations
upon the subject, Congress could no more
restore to the States the power of which they
were thus deprived than 1t could authorize
them to coin money, or make paper money
tender in the payment of debts, or to do
any other act forbidden to them by the Con-
stitution."
There are three o-called Democrats on
the bench of the Supreme Court of the
United States: Chief Justice Fuller, Mr..
Justice Lamar, and Mr.. ustice Field.
The Neagle case seems to have deveioped
in Judge Field disposition TO look with
favor upon legislation which has ten
Gency toward Capitalization: but we
ought reasonably to be entitled to expect
firm adherence to Democratic doctrines
in constitutional law on the part of the
two members of the court who were ap-
pointed to office by President Cleveland,
IN their wisdom. however, they have pre-
ferred to ignore the views of the inter-
State commerce clause of the Constitution
entertained and expressed by so great a
lawyer as Roger b. fancy.
Ii John q. Carlisle of Kentucky had
been appointed Chief Justice of the United
States, we venture to say that one Dem
ocratic member of the court would have
been recorded as dissenting from this lat
est original package decision.-N Y.
Sun.