Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1891-05-30
IT rs CONSTITUTIONAL.
The Original Package Law so De-
clared by tho Supreme Court.
Synopsis of the Decision in n Kansas Case,
Tho states Have Power to Impose
Certain Restraints In Promotion
of the Public Good-Other
Decisions.

WASHINGTON, May 26.-The supreme.
court of the United States adjourned
yesterday until the second Monday in
October.
The most important case decided was.
that of John M. WiliSerson, sheriff of
Shawnee county, Kan, against Charles
Rohrer. This is one of the original
package cases, and it came to the SUI
preme court on appeal from the Kansas,
United States circuit cour5
Rohrer was the agent at Topeka,
Kan, for n Kansas City, Mo-, liquor
firm. Last year he offered for sale beer
and whisky in original packages. Ro-
hrer was arrested for violating the Kan
sas prohibition law; but the United
States circuit court for Kansas released
him on writ of habeas corpus The,
Kansas authorities then brought the
case to the supreme court on appeal.
The court reverses the circuit courts,
decree and remands the case for fur
ther proceedings. Chief Justice Fuller,
who read the opinion reviews at length
legal opinions bearing on the jurisdic-
tion of congress over the states and re-
ferring to the original package law
passed by congress last year, asks the
question: ''Is the law open to consti-
tutional objection?"
In considering this query the chief
justice said by the first clause of Sec
tion 10 of Article l. of the constitution,
certain powers are enumerated which
the states are forbidden to exercise in
any event; and by clause ., certain
others which may be exercised with the
consent of congress. AS to those in the
first class, congress can not relieve from
the positive restriction imposed. AS TO
those in the second, their exercise may
be authorized, and they include the
callection of the revenue from imports
and duties and on imports and exports,
by state enactments, subject to the con-
troll of congress, and tonnage duty
to the eXaction of which only the con-
sent of congress is required. Beyond
this, congress was not empowered to
enable the state to go in this direction.
Nor could congress transfer Legislative
powers to a state nor sanction n state
law in violation of the constitution; and
if it can adopt a state law as it's own it
must be one that it would be incom-p
petent itself to enact and not a law
passed in the exercise of the police
power.
In surrendering their own power over
external commerce the states did not
secure absolute freedom in such COM
merce, but only the protection from en-
croachment afforded by confiding its
regulation exclusively to congress. By
the adoption of the constitution the
ability of the several states to act upon
the matter solely in accordance with
their own will was extinguished and
the legislative will of the general gov
ernment substituted. No affirmative
guaranty was thereby given to any
state of the right to demand, as be-
tween it and the others what it could
not have obtained before; while the OBJ
iect was undoubtedly sought to be at
tanned of preventing commercial rela-
! tions partial in tn ir character or con-
trary to the common interests.
In the case of the First national bank
of Buffalo, the court rendered decision
freeing the directors from blame for the
banks failure. This case settles mat
ter of Importance to national banks.
The bank failed and passed into the
hands of receiver, who sued the direc-
tors for allowing the president of the
bank to contract some loans that re-
suited disastrously. The court holds
! that directors of national banks are not
obliged to exercise more than the super-
vision usually expected of them, and
they are therefore not liable for the
failure of the bank because they did not
supervise the action of the president in
making the loans.
Justice Gray rendered the decision of
the court in the case of Clara L. Bots
ford, who was injured in Union Pa
cific car and was awarded damages In
it's decision the court held that the lady
was not obliged to submit to physical
examination by the company's physici-
ans to ascertain her injuries. Such an
examination, the court decides, would
be an invasion of the sanctity of the
person; had no foundation in law, and
had never been recognized in the coun-
try. Justices Brewer and Brown dis
| faJ