Sturgis advertiser. (Sturgis, Dakota [S.D.]) 1887-1???, 1891-06-04
A VICTORY FOR PROHIBITION.

sioux City journal.
A VICTORY FOR PROHIBITION.
The decision of the United States SUI
preme court, affirming the constitution
ality of the original package law enact
ed by the last congress, removes all
doubt as to the right of states wherein
prohibitory laws are in force to block at
least one avenue by which these statutes
have been evaded, says the Minneapolis
Tribune. In the case in which this de-
cision was rendered it was contended by
the appellants that the law was uncon-
stitutional. and that even if it were con-
stitutional state wishing to take advan-
tage of its provisions must first re-enact
it's prohibitory laws. The court mega
tives both pleas.
In explanation of the decision in the
Leisy case in which an apparently con-
trary ruling was made, the court cites
the fact that at that time congress had
taken no action. In the absence OF con-
gressional action prevention of the sale
of liquor in original packages was in
violation of interstate commerce provis-
ion of the constitution. The Iowa law
was therefore imperative SO far as it in
terfered with interstate traffic. But, in
the language of the decision, sit followed
that when congress acted at all, the re-
suit of its action must serve as a res
traint upon that perfect freedom which
Its silence insures." Congress having
spoken, the status of imported articles is
the same as that of domestic goods.
The court goes on to affirm the power
of state to impose restrictions of bur-
dens for the preservation of public health
and good order and the promotion of
prosperity. This power, it says, has al
ways belonged to the states. and has new
or been surrendered. But it explains
still further that the power of congress
to regulate commerce between the states
is also exclusive; that the constitution
does not provide that interstate COM
MERGE shall be free, but by this exclus-
i've grant it was left free except SO far as
congress might undertake to regulate it.
From PRACTICAL standpoint this is a
signal victory for statutory prohibition.
It will enable the authorities, wherever
and whenever they are SO disposed, to
suppress the retailing of liquor in a
manner which has been more or less
popular and claw proof in Kansas and
Iowa for some time, and latterly in the
Dakotas. 1t is also interesting and val
liable as an exposition of the relative
rights of the state and congress regard
ing interstate commerce and police or
sanitary regulations.
Prohibitory legislation is still an ex-
pertinent, and thus far an unsatisfactory
one at the best, but the states which
have adopted it should give it a thor
ough, fair and rigid test, and this decis-
ion will greatly aid them in doing SO.
Tt will now stand or fall ON its merits,
and neither the national constitution,
congress nor the supreme court can be
set up as scapegoat in the event OF
failure.
The Sioux City Journal concludes an
editorial upon this subject as follows:
This last decision, then, completes the
circle. It makes prohibitory Legislation,
SO far as its constitutional standing is
concerned, about as binding as it is pos
sible to conceive. The ssoriginal pack
age saloon" which was legal previous
to the act of congress and which flour
ished Like q green bay tree for a time,
has no legal legs to stand on. The pow
er Of the state over this whole subject,
so far as regards mere prohibitory edicts,
is plenary.
It rests with the people through the
Legislature. The liquor traffic has no
protection under the constitution OF the
United States. No state constitutional
provision is required. al constitutional
provision could not add one jot or title
TO the power which the Legislature has
without such provision to prohibit the
liquor traffic; and even where q consti-
tntienal provision exists it is not worth
the paper it is written on. since it does
not enforce itself. until the Legislature
BY positive enactment gives it effect.
The liquor dealers have been utterly
defeated In the legal contest on the great
points.