Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1892-01-28

WASHINGTON, Jan. Gothic justices OF
the Supreme Court of the United states
were astonished to-day ana mild sensa-
tion was created in court by the manner In
which ex. Senator Edmunds, in e case under
argument criticised the court ana stated
his opinion that it was entirely wrong IN
its decision in the celebrated original pack
age case from Iowa. The case under argu-
ment in some features Involved the ques-
ton decided by tho court in the original
package case.
Mr.. Edmunds was counsel for the State
OF Vermont. Ex-Attorney- General Gar
land appeared on the other side of tho suit
as attorney for John O'Neil, Whitehall,
N. y. lquor dealer, whom Vermont had
prosecuted for shipping jugs of liquor across
Lake Champlain into Vermont on orders
from citizens OF Rutland.
The prosecution ante dated the Iowa case.
Mr.. Edmunds said hc felt it his duty 10 tell
the court that it had gone wrong III its CON
struction of the constitution iii Its decls on
In the Lelsy VS.. Hardin case Ghe original
package case.)
The principle laid down in that case was
one dangerous to the peace and security OF
the people of the individual States. We
were q people who could mover live under q
consolidated form OF government any more
than under segregated form OF govern
ment such as that provided for by the old
articles OF confederation. He thought the
court had not in the Leisv case established
the clear and plain line OF demnrkation to
he drawn between the rights of tho States
and of the nation. The true line
of what was subject to the pro-
hibitious OF the constitution as re-
spects limitations on inter State commerce
he submitted with all Difference to the court,
was that when goods have reached their
hual destination, when they are either to be
consumed or remain where they are, they
are subject to the La just as though raised
in the State, or made in the State, or borr
in the State.
He apoosized to the court for critc2ine
its opinion, and urged it to restore tde line
of demarkation and to 90 back to the true
doctrine in this case while there was ye
TINA.
Mr.. Garland argued the case for O'Nen
maintaining that it was governed by the
decision in tho Leisy case and that the law
Of Vermont as applied 10 this case consti
tuted AN Interference with Interstate cotn
merce.
In the Leisy case il was kegs and in som
cases BOTTLES which were original package
consigned by a man to the person ordering
the package. In this case it was Jug
whether the famous little brown jug or no
be could not say.
Justice Gray wanted to know wheths
or not it was a jug that came back whei
the package was emptied.
Mr.. Garland gravely replied that the rec
ord did not disclose whether it was that kin,
Of jug or not.
The case is before tho court in favor O.
the State of Vermont, its supreme Cour
having decided that the Sending of liquor
by o Neil from Whitehall, n. y, TO Kut
land. VT, by express upon orders from per
sons OF the latter place the liquors to be de
livered only after tho price and expires
charges were paid, was sale in Vernon
and not in New York, and that O'Neil wa
liable TO Vermont laws There is, it is sale
in the case some ground on which dec
sion may be reached, without passing upc,
the question in the Iowa original packag
decision.