The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1891-05-26
ORIGINAL PACKAGE LAW.
II Is Declared Constitutional by the
Supreme Court Of the
Land.
The Court Unanimous Upon That
Point, Though Not Upon the
Reasoning.

Not Necessary to Re- Enact Prohibition
Laws to Make Them Effective-Other
Washington News.
WARRINGTON. May 25.--The United States
supreme court to-day upheld the constitu-
tionality of the original package law, passed
by congress. and also held that it was not
nee ssary for Kansas to re-endct her pro-
hibitory law after tho passage of the con-
gressional act, in order to shut out liquors
in original packages. The case came up on
the appeal of Wilkinson, sheriff, against
Raherer, 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 announced, however, that
Justices Harlan and Brewer and himself
assented in the decision, but did not concur
In all the reasoning in the opinion of the
court. Rahrer was the original package
agent at Topeka of a Kansas City liquor
firm, 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 so into operation
until the state re-enacted its prohibitory
laws. The circuit court decided against the
state and the case was brought here on ap-
peal. The supreme court says the power of
the state to impose restraints and burdens
upon persons and property in the promo
tion of health good order and prosperity is
e. power always belonging to states.
Tho power OF congress to regulate
commerce among several states when the
subjects are national in their nature is also
exclusive, but it was left free by the consti-
tint :--1,k Al.
to regulate it. Intoxicating liquors are un-
doubtedly subjects of commerce. like any
other commodity, but nevertheless it often
has been held that laws prohibiting the
manufacture and sale of liqnor within state
limits does not necessarily infringe any
constitutional privilege or immunity This
right rests upon the acknowledged right of
states to control their purely internal
affairs. The Iowa laws held to be uncon-
stitutional in the Leisy original package
case were enacted in the exercise
of state police power, but as
it amounted sto regulation
OF Interstate commerce, it WAS held that 30
long as cong ess did not pass any law to
regulate specifically traffic between states
in intoxicating liquors or act in such wav
as to allow state laws to operate upon it,
congress thereby indicated it's will that such
commerce should be free and untrammeled
and therefore the laws of Iowa were inoper-
atlve in 80 far as they amounted to regula
tions of foreign or interstate commerce in
lnhlbiting the reception of such articles
within the state or their sale upon arrival
in the form in which imported. 1t follows
that when congress acted at all the result
of the action must be to operate as a re-
straint upon that perfect freedom which its
silence insured.
Congress had now spoken and declared
that imported liquors shall, upon arrival in
state, fall within the category of domestic
articles of similar nature. Congress did
not use terms of permission to the state to
act. but simply removed impediment to the
enforc2 ment of state laws i'll respect to i'm
ported packages in their original condition,
created by the absence of specific utterance
upon its part. The act of congress re-
moved such obstacle and no adequate
ground is perceived for holding that the re-
enactment of the state law was required be-
fore it could have the effect upon imported,
which it always had upon domestic, prop
erty. jurisdiction is attached, not in vir-
tue of the laws of congress, but because
that law placed the property where iuris-
dictjon could attach.
In the case of the Chicago Distilline COM
pany against Stone, internal revenue COL
lector, Justice Bradley delivered an opinion
in favor of the distilling company, holding
unlawful the government method Of assess assess
ing at the end of each month what is called
mulct money, to make up any distillation
by dlstilleries in excess of the capacity esti-
mated.
The court also rendered an opinion
through Justice Harlan, in the case of Ward
McAillstef against the United States. Nc
Allister was removed from office ag Judge Of
the district court of Alaska. by President
Cleveland, and claimed salary from the
time removed to the, qualification of Daw-
son, who was confirmed as his successor.
The one question in the case was whether
the Judge of an Alaskan court came within
the provisions of section 1,76S, r. S.
authorizing the president to suspend
all civil officers, except judges of the
United States courts" The court holds that
the Alaska court is not court of the
United States in the constitutional sense,
as set forth in the third article of the con-
stitution, but ter ritorial court. The fact
that the term of an Alaska judge is limited
to four years and that he does not hold
office for life or during good behavior. the
court says, proves it is not Il court of the
United States as the term is constitution
ally used. The court, said the decision, in
the present case, gave the president COM
plete power over territorial officers. Judp-
ment therefore is given in favor of the
United States. Justices Field, GRAY ard
Brown dissented in an opinion in which
Justice Field maintained that the mere will
of the president was not sufficient to re-
move the judge of court created by the
Unteu States ana that the constitution did
not contemplate that n judge should be
responsible to any man for continuance
in office. 1t seemed to him that some of
his brethren overlooked the character of
tho judicial branch of the governments
when they made distinction against the
courts of territories. These courts had sim
liar powers, and there was the same neces-
sity that they should use their office fear
essly and without fear of offending any
president lest they should be removed.
The case of Wingnrd, justice of a WASH
ngton territory court, was deciued the
'ame way.
When the supreme court last term upheld
,he constitutionality of the Edmunds law,
~ which the property of the late corpora
non of the Church of Jesus Christ of Lat
er Day Saints. otherwise known as the
Mormon church. was eschcated to the
United States, it found itself in some-
What embarrassed position. Tho doctrine
If escheat was quite unknown in this coun-
ry, and no purpose considered
audable and proper OF simi-
ar nature to that for which
property WAS formerly used was known for
which the property could be devoted. The
ouyt. therefore, instead of sending de-
rec down. withheld it, II strong intimation
icing conveyed of the desire of the cou.t
hat congress should, by law, direct the
iCn i'm IN ha IL, ~ | .