Morning journal and courier., 1892-01-21
CRITICISED THE COURT.

Edmunds Astonishes the
Chief J Justices of the United States
The Court Told That 1t Was En-
tirely Wrong in Hts Decision In the
Original Package Case.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 20.-The chief justices
of the United States supreme court were
was created in court by the manner in
which ex-senator Edmunds, in a case
under argument, criticised the court and
stated his opinion that it was entirely
wrong in it's decision in the celebrated
original package case from Iowa. The case
under argument in some features involves
the question decided by the court in the
original package case. Mr.. Edmunds was
counsel for the state of Vermont. Ex-At-
torney General Garland appeared on the
other side as attorney for John O'Neill, o
Whitehall, N. Y, liquor dealer, whom Yer
mont had prosecuted for shipping jugs of
liquor across Lake Champlain into Yer
mont on orders from citizens of Rutland.
The prosecution ante-dated the Iowa case.
Mr.. Edmunds was in excellent spirits
and he lectured the court in the benig-
nant, amiable manner, familiar to col
leagues on the senate floor, whom he had
more than once told quietly, but with pro-
found conviction, that they. were alto
done. With great difidence, he said, he
felt it his duty to tell the court that it had
gone wrong in its construction of the con-
stitution in it's decision in the Leisy YER
sus Hardin case (he original package
case) The principle laid down in that
case was one dangerous to the peace and
security of the states. We are O people
who could not live under a consolidated
form of government any more than under
a segregated form of government, such as
that provided for by the old articles of
confederation. He thought the court had
not in the Leisy case established the clear
and plain line of demarkation to be drawn
between the rights of the states and of the
nation.
The true line of what was subject to the
prohibitions of the constitution as respects
limitations on interstate commerce, he
submitted with all Difference to the court,
was that when goods have reached their
final destination, when they are either to
be consumed or remain where they are,
they are subject to the law just as though
raised in the state or made in the state or
born in the state. He apolog:zed to the
court for criticizing its opinion and urged
it to retore the line of demarkation and to
go back to the true doctrine in this case
while there was yet time.
Mr.. Garland argued the case for O'Neill,
maintaining that it was governed by the
decision in the Leisy case. In the Leisy
case it was kegs and in some cases which
were original packages consigned to the
person ordering them. In this case it was
jug-whether the famous "little brown
iug' or not he could not say.
Justice Gray wanted to know whether OF
not it was jug that came back when the
package was emptied.
Mr.. Garland gravely replied that the
| record did not disclose whether it was thai
kind of a jug or not.
The case is before the court in favor Of
the etate of Vermont, the supreme cour
having decided that the sending of liquor'
thus by express on order. the liquors t.
be delivered only after the price and -ex
press charges were paid was sale in Yer
mont and not in New York, and tina
O'Neill was liable to Vermont laws. Their
is, it is said, in the case some grounds Oh
which declaration may be reached with
out passing upon the question presented
in the Iowa original package decision.