Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-04-10
THE RICHMOND DISPATUH.-SUNDAY. APRIL TO- 1892
orig.nal-packago Decision.

We mentioned some time ago o speech
of Senator EDMuSDs's in the Supreme
Court OF the United States, in which he
took the Justices to task for having de-
cided wrong the celebrated original-pack-
400 case of LIrsY ~. HlaRpIS from Iowa.
II ia n compliment To the Justices 10 say
that Notwithstanding tho distinguished
ex-sepa,or's rebuke, they seom since to
have decided In his favor the point which
he raised in his case-the case OF JOHN
O,Nru. a wholesale and retail liquor.
dealer IN Whitehall. N. u, who did lucra-
tive busipess few years since filling
orders from the prohibition town of Rut-
land. VT. across Lake Champlain. lie
SHIPPED Jugs containing the liquors c. o.
u. He wns convicted in Vermont OF vio-
lating the laws Of that State forbid
ding the unlicensed sale OF intoxi-
eating liquors. He appealed. but final
Judgment was given against him IN the
State courts. Then the case went
up 10 The Supreme Court OF the United
States on the question whether the act OF
Vermont in srresting the seller OF liquors
Che lived in New York; was or was not IN
violation Of the imterstate-comnerce
clause Of the Constitution of tho United
States. The case went off on new point,
but it was dreadfully hard upon O'NErL'
The Supreme Court held that the sale took
place in Rutland, Vt. and not in White
hall. N. Y. II the sale took place in YER
mont there was no violation of the Con-
stitution, the State authorities of Vermont
like the authorities of any other state.
having full power to punish New Workers
Cor persons from any other State) ior
violating the State laws. Congress mas
power TO regulate commerce amongst
the States, but not within the States.
Congress has power to pass an interstate
commerce act, but not an intrastate-coih-
MERGE act. Anyhow, the Supreme Court
of the United States on Monday last
turned BIr. ONEn over TO the tender
mercies of the State of Vermont, holding
that he was not protected in his unlawful
traffic by the Federal Constitution.
This decision seems to be hardly con-
sistent with the Iowa case we have Just
mentioned. Possibly it is but whether II
is orSot the Supreme Court of the United
States is feeling its way along the path
which the results of the war between the
States have compelled it to travel. Inter-
state commerce aud intrastate commerce
are closely allied. II will not be easy Tor
the highest court in the land to blaze the
way for the State courts to follow. Inc
subject will require deep study and pro-
found thought. In the case we are speak
ing of Justice FIELD and Justice HARLAN
dissented in separate opinions, and justice
BREWER agreed with Justice HARLAN III
most of his reasons for dissenting. These
three dissenting Justices may grow into a
majority of the court in the course of a
few wears. The DRIED ScoTT decision did
not stand very long as the law of the land.
It will be seen that if the sale had taken
place in whitehall. n. y, instead OF Rut-
land. VT, there would have been q Federal
question involved, and the Supreme
Court of the United States would have
assumed jurisdiction, and decided 49,
well. we know not what it might not have
decided