The Portland daily press., 1900-09-22

An Important Decision An
nOunced by Law Court.
Interstate Commerce Law Forbids
Seizures on Trains,

AL III pOIOtbuO 0OOAC4OA Aeto JNoO DCOA
announced by the law court in the case
of State v. Intoxicating liquors by libel
and the Grand Trunk Railway Co.
claimant. The opinion was drawn by
Judge Whitehouse and the following com
prises the more essential parts of 1t. The
case comes to the law court on statement
Of facts:
"The liquor con cerned in this case had
been shipped at Portsmouth. New Hamp-
shire, in October, 1899, via. Boston ana
Maine Railroad and Grand Trunk Rail-
way, accompanied by q continuous way
bin, and was consigned to a person in
Lewiston, Maine. While it was standing
on the siding at Auburn 1t was seized by
the Auburn police officers taken from
the car and removed to the depository
where seized liquors are kept. AT the
time of its seizure 1t was In transit not
having been delivered to the consignee.'
1t was contended by the Grand Trunk
Railway Company OF Canada that the
seizure or this liquor by tho police officers
OF Auburn before It's delivery to the con-
signee was IN violation of the third CLAUSE
of section eight OF the first article of the
Constitution OF the United States con-
ferring upon Congress the power Ito
regulate commerce with foreign nations
J and among the several states" But the
Judge OF the municipal court held that the
= seizure was legal and declared the liquor
forfeited. From this decision the claim
ant appealed to the Supreme judicial
court. 1t is manifest that the seizure
OF the liquor IN question under the CIR
y eumstances disclosed in the agreed state
ment Of facts, must be Justified, II at
all, by the provisions Of section tnirty-
d one OF chapter twenty seven of the re-
vised statutes Of Maine, and Of chapter
72s OF the act of Congress OF August s.
1880. Section 81 of chapter 27 OF the r.
=. S. is as follows:
. ''No person shall knowingly bring
- into the state, or knowingly transport
a from place to place in the state, any In
90 toxicating liquors with intent to sell the
46 same In the state In violation OF law or
i3 with intent that the same shall be so sold
36 by any person, or to aid any person in
such sale, under a penalty OF fifty dollars
for each offence. All such LIQUORS in
IS tended for unlawful sale In the state may
be seized while IN transit and proceeded
against the same as If they were unlaw .
rd fully kept and deposited In any place -
n The act OF Congress Of August s. 1890.
an commonly known as the Wilson act is IN
these terms:
ID IAN fermented, distilled or other in
It. tOXtcated liquors or liquids transported
IL into any state or territory or remaining
- therei0 for use, consumption, sale or
u storage therein, shall, upon arrival. in
In such state or territory, be subject 70 the
operation and effect Of the laws OF such
,s state or territory, enacted in the exer-
Z, cises Of its police powers, to the same
ny extent and IN the same manner as though
5s such liquids or liquors had been pro-
n duced In such state OF territory, and shall
- not be exempt therefrom by reason OF
- being introduced therein In original
9b- packages or otherwise %
np After the decision OF the Federal court
IN Leisy v. Hardin, lS5 u. S. 100, hol1-
49, ing the right 10 sell imported liquor Ia
'Oo the original packages tres from inter
lly ference by state laws, was protected by
ia promptly interpOsed by enncting the
'1o Wilson law above quoted, declaring that
all such liquors transported into ans
state "shall, upon arrival IN such state
w "Oe subject TO the operation and effect ol
the laws Of such state"
But recognizing the paramount author
ow ity OF the federal decisions upon this sub
n iect, our own court announced It's 1udg
d. ments IA two cases which had ariser
' prior TO the passage Of the Wilson act
tn viz. state y. lntox. Liquors, Atchae
le. Burns, claimant 81 Aie., o5e and STAT
ms v. lnt0k. Liquors. Boston s. Maine Rail
h. AOANt liAiiAANt 90 ne 400
ne The construction OF the Wilson act wa
he not determined by the supreme Court O.
.tv the United states until it was brought
a.. directly in question IN the case OF Rhodes
v. Iowa, 10 ". 5. 4l3 In thnt case thl
ne Intoxicating liQuOrIin.uuestiOn was trans
Is ported under a continuous way bii
from Illinois TO q point IN Iowa by on
line OF railway, and thence by aucthc
line or railway wholly within the latte
state the place OF It's destination. Ih
rnr44 Fntft ff. 4sa
and deposited on the platform by th
eh trai1nen. lt was tnen carried by Oh
on plaintin, the station agent at that point
oh into the freight warehouse. where IL re
~ manned about an hour wnen &c wa
Ao seized by q constable under "a search war
ng rant. For his act Of moving the fgood
se from tha platform to the freight hOus
the plaintiff IN error was convicted ir
the state court under the statute OF lows
OF unlaWIuDY conveying Intoxicating
liquor "frOm one place to another IN tn
state. Whether the c0nslgnee had actun
notice Of the arrival OF the package, anC
a a reasonable opportunity TO remove 4
IN from the freight warehouse before th
=, seizure did not appear. 1t was held b.
federal court again divided, three jus
tices dissenting, that his c0nvicion wa
erroneous, for the reason that the act o
G the plaintiff IN thus moving the pack
- age was q part Of the interstate commerc
= transportation and was performed befor
a the law Of Iowa could CONSTITUTIONAL
Of attach TO it. In the majority opinion
al Is said: we think thar Interpreting tn
statute by the light OF all OF its provis
10 ions it was not Intended to aud did no
a cause the power Of the state to attach {
ce an interstate commerce shipment willis
"a the merchandise was IN transit under
- such shipment and until its arrival O
81 the point OF destination and deliver.
q. there TO the consignee. -
n Whether after actual notice to th
consignee OF the receipt of the goods 4
20 the freight warehouse, and neglect on hi
s. part to remove them after fhe lane ~
LLa L.