Weekly expositor. (Brockway Centre, Mich.) 1882-1894, 1891-05-29
Observation-Disclosures.
rhe United States Supreme Court
Renders "a Decision on an
Important Qdcstion.
Much Devastation Caused I'm Mis-
souri, by ~ Cyclone and
Wind Storm.
OcO Damage and Endangers
Some Lives.

/ WASHINGTON, May 20. = The United
States supreme court yesterday decided
that the original package law passed by the
last congress was valid and constitutional
ard that il went into effect in all states
where prohbitory laws prevailed without
re-enactment by the states OF the laws by
which they forbade the sale OF intox icating
liquors within their boundaries whether
imported from other states or not. Chief
Justice Fuller rendered the opinion OF the
court and the bench was united in support
Of the conclusions TO which he arrived.
Justice Gray announced that Justices
Harlan Brewer and himself did not COR
cur in the reasoning of the opinion of the
court The court says the power OF the
state TO impose restraints and burdens
upon persons and property in promotion
of the public health, good order and pros
rerity is power which always belongs 10
the state, not surrendered by them TO the
general government nor directly restrained
by the constitution Of the United States
and not essentially exclusive. The power
OF congress 10 regulate commerce among
the several states when the subjects are
national in their nature, IL says, is also
exclusive. The constitution does not pro-
vide that Interstate commerce shall be
free, but by tho grant OF this exclusive
power to regulate it, il was left free
except as congress might undertake to
regulate it. Therefore it has been
determined, robbins VS.. Shelby,
taxing district) that the failure
of congress 10 exercise this ex-
elusive power in any case is an xpression
Of it's will that the subject shall be free
from restrictions or impositions upon it
by the several states, and If state law
comes in conflict with the win of congress
the state and congress cannot occupy the
position of equal opposing sovereignties,
because the constitution declares its SUI
premacy and that OF the laws passed in
pursuance thereof. That which ia not
supreme must yield to that which is SUI
preme. The court says that intoXicat ng
liquors are undoubtedly subjects OF com
merce like any other commodity and are so
recognized, but nevertheless il has been
often held that laws prohibiting the manu-
facture and sale Of liquor within state
limits does not necessarily infringe any
constitutional privilege or immunity, this
right being rested, as in the Mugler case,
upon the acknowledged right OF the states
TO control their purely internal affairs and
in so doing they protect the health, morals
aud safety of their people by regulations
that do not interfere with the powers OF
the general government The present
cases arise upon the theory Of repuguancy
between the state law and the interstate
commerce clause of the constitution and
involve a distinction between the COM
mercial power and the police power which,
though quite distngu!shable when they
do not approach each other are sometimes,
like the coiors, so nearly allied rs 10 per-
plex the understanding as the cOlOrs do the
vision