The herald., 1894-04-11

States held invalid an Iowa statute pro
hibiting the importation OF intoxicating
liquors into the state.
fhe statute forbids any common car
rier to bring into the state, for any per-
con or persons or corporation, any in
toxicating liqu ,rs from any other state
or territory; and the supreme court
he'd the act void, as being an unwer-
rentable interlRTence with interstate
commerce, going beyond the limits OF
its own territory, and legisating against
those outside its borders, and the court
says "The section OF the statute OF
Iowa, the validity OF which is drawn in
question, doea not fall within tho legiti
mate exertion OF the police power. IL
is not an exercise Of the Jurisdiction OF
the etate over persons and property
within its limits; on the contrary. it is
an attempt to exert that Jurisdiction
over persons and property within tho
limits OF other states. II seeks to pro.
hibit and stop their passage and import
ation into its own limits, and is design
cd as q regulation OF commerce before
the merchandise is brought to the bor-
der. 1t is not regulation confined to
the purely internal and domestic com.
merce OF the state. It is Sot a reetrlct-
ion which only operates upon property
after it has mingled with and forms
part of the mass Of property within the
state. But the right TO prohih-
it Gales, 80 far as conceded to the state,
zrises only after the act OF transporta-
tion has terminated, because the sales
which tho state may forbid are of things
within it's jurisdiction"
In short, that decision holds that all
khn x.rIina
OF O state extend, though state may
not prevent their importation, and Gale
in bulk, but when mingled with the
property OF the state it becomes subject
to the laws of the state. SO that il this
case has any bearing on the one at the
bar, it is, that when the venson was
placed upon she block and retailed out,
it WAS subject to the law the same as if
killed in this state.
1t will be observed that the act in
question does not attempt to interfere
with the importation, but simply makes
1t unlawful to sell deer meat in the
state.
When we come to the decisions OF the
state courts on this question they are
very equally divided in opinion, Massa-
chusetts, Pennsylvania, Michigan,
Maine and Oregon holding such acts
unconstitutional and void, while Ohio,
New York, Illinois and Missouri hold
similar acts valid.
believe it beat for the people Of this
state that the law be sustained. The
wild game of the state belongs to the
whole people OF the state. Under the
common law the game belonged to the
sovereign. The game in our state doss
not belong to any individual or any set
OF individuals, but to the sovereignty.
The Legislature exercises that sever
eighty in trust for US. and has a right
to say what shall be or not be. as to our
game.
l am satisfied that any less stringent
game law would expose our game, and
especially our deer, to destruction. The
law as it stands 10 necessary to preserve
the deer OF our state from extinction.
Any other less stringent law could be go
easily evaded as to render it imperative
and farcical.
l am, therefore, of the opinion that
the law is reasonable exercise OF the
police powers of the state, and valid, and
that the petitioner must be remanded,
and it is 30 ordered.