Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1891-05-29
ORIGINAL PACKAGES.
The United States >lpreme Court
Decides the Co. .SSional
Act C0nSutU enal.
IL VIII Not be Necessary for Iowa
TO Re-enact Her Prohib-
itOry Law.
Review of the Raherer Case and
Grounds of the Decision
Announced Yesterday.

/ WASHINGTON, May 2S.-The Unite5
States supreme court today upheld the con,
/ shtutloaality of the original package law
passed by congress. and also held that Il
was not necessary for the state of Kansas
To re-enact Its prohibitory law after the
| passage Of the congressional act i'm
order to shut out LIQUORS in original
| packages. The case came up on the
appeal of Wilkinson. sheriff, against
| haherer, the lower court having decided
/ against the state. This court reverSes the
/ decision of the lower court. Chief Justice
/ Fuller rendered the decision the entire
/ court being with him. Justice GRAY an
noLnced, however, that Justices
Harlan, Brewer and himself aid
not concur in all the reaSoniuy
OF the opinion of the court. Raherer was
an original package agent at Topeka q
Kansas City liquor hrm and was arrested
the day after the original package law went
INTO effect. He claimed that the law WAS
unconstitutional and also that ii could not
go into operation until the state re
enacted Its prohibitOry laws. The cir
cult court decided against the state
and the case was brought here Oh app,al.
The supreme court says the power Of the
state to impose restraints and burdens
upon the people and property in the NO
motion of public health, good order and
prosperity Is a power always belonring to
the states. Thepower of congress to regulate
commerce among the several states when
subjects are national in their nature is
also exclusive, but it was left free bv the
constitution except rs congress might
undertake to regulate it. In
toxlcatlng liquors are undoubtedly
subjects of commerce like any other
commodity but nevertheless it has often
been held that laws prohibStiug the manu-
facture and sale of liquor within state
limits do not necessarily infringe any con-
Stltutonal privilege or immunity. This
right rests upon the acknowledged right
OF the states to control their purely inter
nal affairs. The Iowa laws held to be un.
constitutional i'll the leiSy original
package case were enacted IN the exercise
of state police power, but as il amounted
to the regulation of Interstate commerce.
II was held that as congress dill
not pass any law to regulate specifically
the traffic between the S'lt rs on intuXicat-
ing liquors, or act III such way as to ne
low the state laws to operate upon il,
congress thereby indicated its will that
such commerce should bC free and un-
trammeet, and therefore the laws of
Iowa were imperative in so far us they
amounted to II, atioD. of foreign or
Interstate commerce IL reception of
such articles within the s. or their sale
upon arrival III the form ~ which they
are imported 1t follows that when con-
greSs acted at all the result of its action
must be to operate as a restraint upon
that perfect freedom which its silence in
sured. Congress has now spoken and de-
clared that imported liquors shall, upon
arrival within the state, fall within the
category of domestic articles of a similar
nature. Congress did hot use terms of
permission to the state to act but simply
removed the impediment to the enforce
ment of the state laws in respect to the
imported packages in their origi-
nal condition. created by the
specific utterance upon its part.
The act of congress removed the obstacle
and no adequate ground is perceived for
holding that re-enactmont of the state
law was required before il could
have the effect upon imported,
which it always had upon domestic
property. Jurisdiction attached, not
in virtue of the laws of congress but be-
cause that law placed property where
Jurisdiction COuli attach