The Kinsley graphic. [volume] (Kinsley, Kan.) 1890-1940, 1891-05-29
ORIGINAL PACKAGES.
Important Decision OF the United
States Supreme Court.
Prohibition statutes Upheld-Tho Power OF
the state to Exercise Police SupervIs-
ion For the Good OF the People
Endorsed


tiOnaI 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 to
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. viii
lzersOn, 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-
perca, 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 OPP
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
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, IL 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 or
impositiOns upon it by the several
states, and if a 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 lifting
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 aclSnowl-
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 a 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 reguia-
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 or
act in such way as to allow state laws
to operate upon it, congress thereby in
dicated 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
commerce in inhibiting the reception
of such articles within the state or
their sale upon arrival in the form in
which imported. It followed as a
corOllary that when congress acted at
all, the result of action must be to op-
crate as d 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
nestle articles of similar nature.