Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1903-06-06
Writ of Error Granted In
Iowa Prohibitory Liquor
Law Case
TO IOWA PROHIBITION
If the Decision of the Iowa Court is
Declared Wrong, It Will Practically
Open the Door Again for Utter Dis.
regard of Prohibition in Iowa-His-
tory of the Case.
special to Times-Republican.

p0rt2nt test case taken from Iowa 4
the United States supreme court 70
many years is the one in which Jus
tice Erewer has just granted wri
of error in order that the decision o
the Iowa court may be reviewed a
Il Washington Immediately. The case i!
vital 20 the Iowa prohibitory !iquo
\ law. If the supreme court of the
/ United States declares that the state
1 court is wrong, the door will be agar
opened for utter disregard of prohibit.
ton in Iowa in substantially the same
manner that was followed when tht
Original package saloons" were open
ed and maintained. The writ of error
! was granted in the case of the State
of Iowa VS.. American Express Com
I pan.. a case coming from Tama coun-
| ". where the agent OF the express
company had received sundry quart
bottles of intoxicating liquors. which
had been shipped to customers from
Rock Island, ILL.,. on each of which
there was c. O. D. collection charge
| in addition to the express charge. The
| liquors were seized and condemned
by justice of the peace. Judge Burn
| ham released the liquors and the state
appealed The state supreme court
reversed the district court and upheld
the justice of the peace.
The question at issue, and 1t was
the only question involved, was as to
- ,nh
Where were the sales actually made?
Is a c. o. ID. sale to be deemed an
absolute sale or contract or sale
which is not complete until actual de-
livery 10 the buyer? The case was
extensively argued by Attorney Gen
eral Mullan for the state. and J. Z.
Willett and j. c. Cook for the express
company AT the October term the
opinion of the court was rendered. 1t
was per curtain" decision, and 1t
contains a most interesting statement
of the issue involved and discloses
what is more Important, that neither
the state court nor other courts are
at ali unanimous as to what should be
the lule. In regard to the central
question the opinion stated:
"If the question We're res integra IN
this state, majority of the court, as
now constituted, would be inclined to
the view that under such Shipment
the carrier is the agent of the buyer
for the purpose of transportation, ana
of tha seller for the purpose OF reten-
ton OF possession and collection OF
the purchase price. and that neces-
sary Corollary title passed TO the buyer
on oelfyery to the carriers.
But the court states that the ques-
ton is foreclosed by the decision in the
case of the State VS.. the United States
Express Company. in 10th Iowa, where
i, was held that the express company
is agent of the consignor with author
i,y 10 transfer title to the property up
on payment of the purchase price. That
opinion, which was written by the late
Judge Rothrock, has stood unaues-
toned until this case and some others
like 1t appeared In the court. ana the
court says it would no doubt be chal-
lenged at this time but for the opinion
of the United States supreme court in
the Rhodes VS.. Iowa case. The Iowa
opinion has been sustained also in 9th
er states. Continuing the court said:
1--WE are now asked to change the
rule to the end that our prohibitory
liquor laws, passed In the exercise of
the police powers of the state, may be
1endered less irksome. and express
be allowed not only to trans
port liquors into the state--which of
course they may debut also to collect
the purchase price for the vendors. The
baneful effect Of such decision is cas-
lily imagined. Every one knows that an
everything of the express company case
would be followed by the establishment
In every community Of places for the
sale of ,intoxicants, which would be
quite as harmful and free from regula-
ton and restraint as We're the Original
package saloons before the enactment
of the Wilson bill. The purpose and in
tent of that act is quite generally I'M
That 1t was not intended to
Interfere with legitimate acts Of trans
rortation OF property between the
states. nor to prevent resident of this !
state from shipping liquors into 1t from
another state for his own consumption !
and use, Is freely admitted. But 1T is
just as clear to our minds that 1t was
not the intention of congress to author
lie a carrier to engage rot only in the
of property, but to act as
an agent for the seller in completing the
sale and collecting the purchase price. |
supported as we are in our position |
by respectable authority. fortified by |
The thought that we are uphOlding TIE
policy of this state toward the traffic in
and fully believing that the /
doctrine announced. while not sup
corted perhaps by the weight of judi
,ial authority. is one which will do |
nucn good and no harm, we are con-
strained to adhere to it on the broad |
ground of stare decisis, which is one of
he safeguards of our judicial system.
This decision relieves us from the ne
3essity of considering the other ques-
ion as to whether or not the goods are
protected by reason of the commerce
.lause of the federal constitution. How
.ver. some of the members of the court
would reach the same result. had it
been found that the title to the prop
.rty passed when delivered to the car
,ier in the state of Illinois. Conceding
hat to be true. they are of the opinion
hat the transaction was not in any
air sense interstate commerce pro-
ected by the constitution of the United
states from state regulation. The ex-
press company In effect engaged in the
business of selling thru agents in this
tate at. retail Intoxicating liquors.,
shipped by ftfor that purpose from the
,ice.s as it seems to some of US. to eNade
he police laws of this commonwealth,
md that the doctrine of original pack