Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1891-05-28

cOnstitutiOnality OF the original package
law passed by Congress, and also hold
that II was not necessary for the state
OF Kansas 10 re-enact its prOhibitOry
law after the passage OF the congress
sional act in order to shut out liquors 10
original packages. The case came mp
on appeal Of Wilkinson, sheriff, against
Raherer, the lower court having de-
cided against the state. This court re-
verses the decision OF the lower court
Chief Justice Fuller rendered the decis-
ion, the entire court being with him.
Justice Gray however. announced
that Justices Harlan. Brewer al d him
self did not concur III All the reasoning
OF the court. The case upon which the
decision was rendered was thai Of John
Nj. Wilkerson, sheriff Of Shawnee coun-
ty, Kansas, appellant, VS.. Charles Fahre
brought here on appeal from the decis-
ion OF the circuit court OF the United
States for the district Of Kansas against
the state Fahre was the original
package agent at Topeka, Ks, OF the
tirm Of Maynard Hopkins q Co, OF
Kansas City, Mo, and was arrested the
day after the original package law went
into effect.
He claimed that the law was uncon-
stltutional and also that il could not go
into operation until the power Of the
stat TO impose heavy burdens upon per.
sons and property in promotion Of the
public health, good order and prospcri
ty is power always belonging TO the
states, not surrendered 10 them by the
general government, nor directly re-
strained by the constitution Of the
United States and essentially exclusive
The power OF congress to regulate
commerce among the the several states
when the subjects are national in their
nature, il says, is also exclusive The
constitution does not provide that in
terstate commerce shall be free, but BY
the grant OF this exclusive power 10
regulate it, il was left free except rs
congress might undertake 10 regulate
it. Therefore il has been determined,
Robbins vs.. Shelby taxing district, that
the failure OF congress 70 exercise this
exclusive power in any ease Is an ex-
preston OF its will that the subject shall
be free from restrictions or impo
sitions upon 1t by the several
states, and If state Law
comes In conflict with the will OF con
grass, the state and congress cannot
occupy the position OF equal opposing
sovereignties because the constitution
declares its supremacy and that OF the
laws passed in pursuance thereof That
which is not supreme must yield 10
that which Is supreme. The court says
that intoxicating liquors are undoubt-
edly subjects OF commerce like other
commodities and so recognized but
nevertheless il has been often held that
laws prohibiting the manufacture aud
"a ~ fY4. -
does not necessarily infringe any
constitutional privilege or immunity,
this right being rested rs in the
murder ease, upon the acknowledged
right Of the states 10 control their pure
ly internal affairs and in 30 doing they
protect the health. morals aud safety of
their people by regulations that do not
interfere with the powers OF general
The present case arises
upon the theory Of repugancy between
the state laws and the interstate COM
merce clause OF the constitution, and
involves "A distinction between the com
mercial power and the public power.
The Iowa laws said to be unconstitu-
tiOnal in the leisy original package
case. were enacted ia the exercise Of
the state police power, and not at all as
regulations OF interstate commerce. hut
as it amounted in effect 10 regulation
OF such commerce. IL WAS held that so
long as congress did not pass any law to
regulate specifically the traffic between
the states on intoxicating liquors. or
act IN such "A way as 10 allow state laws
10 operate upon It, congress thereby in
dicated its will that such commerce
should be- FREQ and untrammeled, and
therefore that the laws OF Iowa
were imperative insofar as the
10 regulations OF foreign or
interstate commerce in inhibitng the |
reception OF such articles within ths |
state or their sales upon arrival In the |
form In which imported.
IL followed as a corollary that when |
congress acted al all, the result OF lis |
action must be 10 operate as a restraint |
upon the perfect freedom which its sill |
ence insured. Congress has now spoken |
and declared that imported liquors !
shall, upon arrival in the state, fall |
within the category OF domestic articles !
OF asimilar nature.
TIE court also rendered an opinion /
through Justice Harlan In the case of |
Ward McAlistcr against the United /
States McAlster was removed from /
Office as Judge Of the district court for /
Alaska by President Cleveland and |
claimed salary from the time Of his re- /
mOval TO the qualification OF his sue /
cessor. One question in the ease was |
whether the judge Of the Alaska court /
came within the provision OF section /
l76s, r.. :, authorising the president 10 /
suspend all civil officers except Judges /
Of the United States. The court holds /
that the Alaska court is not court OF /
the United States in the constitutional /
sense a. set forth In the third article Of /
the constitution. but a territorial court /
The court said the decision
In the present case gave
the president complete power over the
territorial officers. Judgment is. there
fore, given In favor Of the United /
States Justice Field and Justice Gray
and Brown dissent in an opinion in
which Justice Field maintained that the
mere will OF the president was not
sufficient 10 remove a judge from
court created by the United States and
that the constitution did not contem
plate that Judges should he responsible
to him for his continuance in Office. 10
seemed to him that some Of his breth
rem overlooked the character OF the iu-
dicial branch Of the government which
Only uaiit a uleliNrtltu against lut
courts OF the territories. These courts
have similar power and there was
the same necessity that they should use
their Office fcarlessly and without fear
OF offending any president lest they
should he removed.
The court also by a majority of Eve
10 four 10 day affirmed the judgment Of J.
the circuit cour. Tor the northern dis
trict Of New York in the case Of Albert
B. Briggs. receiver Of the First Ma
iioual bank Of Buffalo against f. G..
Spaulding et al, directors Of the bank.
The receiver sought 70 hold the direc-
tors Of the bank responsible for bad
loans made By the president Of the
bank
No dishonesty Was charged. but g.
was asserted that if the directors had
given proper attention 90 the affairs Of
The hank il would have not failed and
that the directors were liable 30 the
bank. The court holds that the direc-
tors are simply % exercise prudence
and that this prudence is b be- governed
By usage In bank affairs. This was 50
IN the nrazrnf case The tsaan is nf