The Lamar register., 1891-05-30
A NEW PROHIBITION DECISION.
The Supreme Court Declares the
Original Package Law Con.
atitutional.


The United States Supreme Court
has decided that the original package law
passed by the last Congress- was valid and
constitutional and that it went into effect
In all states where prohibition laws pre-
vailed without re enactment by the states
Of the laws by which they forbade the sale
of Intoxicating liquors within their bound
aries, whether imported from other states
or not Chief Justice Fuller rendered
the opinion Of the court and the bench
will be unanimous in support OF the CON
clusions at which he arrived. though
Justice Gray announced tha. Justices
Harlan, Brewer and himself did not con-
cur in all the reasonings of the court
The case upon which the aec.sion WIS
rendered was that of John NJ. Wilkerson,
sheriff Of Shawnee county, Kansas, ap-
pellanl, versus Charles 4. Rahre, brought
here on appeal from the decision OF the
Circuit Court of the United States for the
district of kansas against the state Rahre
was the original package agent at Topeka,
Kansas, of the firm OF Maynard, HOPKINS
& Co of Kansas City, Missouri, and was
arrested the day after the original pack
age law went into effect He claimed
that the law was unconstitutional and also
that it could not so into operation until
the state has re-enacted its prohibitory
law.
The court holds it Is within the power Of
the states to impose restraints and bur
dens upon persons and property in pro
motion of the public health, good order
and prosperity, and that it is a power
always belonging to the states, not sur
rendered by them TO the general govern
ment nor directly restrained by the
constitution OF the United States and
essentially exclusive.
The power OF Congress 10 regulate COM
meree among the several St.tSs when the
subjects are national in their nature, it
says, IS also exclusive. The constitution
does not provide that interstate commerce
shall be free, but by the grant of this
exclusive power to regulate it. it was left
free except as Congress might undertake
TO regulate it.
The court says that Intoxicating liquors
are undoubtedly subjects OF commerce
like other commodities and SO recognized.
but nevertheless it has been often held
that the laws prohibiting the manufacture
and sale Of liquor within state limits do
not necessarily infringe upon any cousu-
tutional privileges or immunity, this right
being rested, as in the aiugler case, upon
the acknowledged right of the states 10
control their purely internal Affairs and in
SO doing they protect the health, morals
and safety OF their people by regulations
that do not interfere with the powers OF
the general government
Continuing, the court said that the Iowa
laws held to be unconstitutional in the
Leisy original package case were enacted
in the exercise of the States police court
and not a. all as regulations OF Interstate
commerce, but as il amounted In effect to
q regulation OF such commerce., It was held
that so long as Congress did not pass any
law to regulate specifically the tranic
between the states on Intoxicating liquors,
or act in such way as to allow state laws
to operate upon 1t, Congress thereby indi-
Gated lis will that such commerce should
be free and unirammeIled and therefore
that the laws OF Iowa were imperative in
in SO far as they amounted TO regulations
of foreign or interstate commerce in in
hibiting the reception Of such articles
within the State or their sale upon arrival
in form in which imported. II followed as
Z corollary that when Congress acted at
ell. the result of its action must be to
operate as 4 restraint upon that perfect
freedom which its silence insures- Con
sress has now spoken, but declared that
imported liquors shall, upon arrival in a
state, fall within the category OF domestic
articles Of 4 similar nature.