The Somerset reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1868-1909, 1908-12-17
Important Decision on Liquor Ship
ments.


One 81 the most important decisions
that has been banded down by the
Supreme Court of Maine, Was made
public Friday in the Piscataquis county
case of State Us. Intoxicating Liquors,
Maine Central Railroad, claimant.
BY this decision liquors mIsbranded
or adulterated, within the meaning II
L. S. Pure Food Law, may be seized
by State officers in transit, and before
they have reached their destination.
The effect Of this decision upon the
importation Of cheap liquors into the
State Of Maine, it il believed. will BE-
far-reaehing.
The following was the brief state To-
ment Of the case accompanying the
bill Of exceptions:
This IL Il seizure Of quantity of
intoxicating liquors shipped from Bos
ton in the state Of Massac husetts and
consigned 10 Henry \. BARLEY. Green
vile Junction, Ne, Piscataquis
county.
The car containing the liquors ar
rived at FOXcroN, Ne. on the morn
ing Of Sept. ~, 1907, and on the same
day, before the SAID car was trans
ferred from the tracks Of the Name
Central Railroad 10 the tracks of the
Bangor q ArOost0Ok Railroad the
liquors were seized b. the officers,
while in said car. The warrant was
duly and properly issued and served
the liquors were properly libelled. and
the claimant duly appeared and
became party. 1t is admitted that
Prof. Ora W. Knight Of Bangor, Ne
an expert chemist will testify that ali
of the whiskey is either misbranded
or adulterated or both under the pro-
visions of the United States Pure Food
Law. Act of June 30, 1906; and that
all the rum is misbranded under the
provisions of said act. That the
brandy is both adulterated and mis-
branded under the provisions Of said
act. That all other OF sal seized
liquors comply with said act. II Is
further admitted that all said LIQUORS
we're intended for unlawful sale III the
State of Maine
The case Was tried before Justice
Leslie {. Cornish at thu January term
1908, of the county Of Piscataquis, and
the ruling Of the presiding justice at
tracted much attention at the time
That ruling has now received the
sanction of the Law court.
The opinion, drawn BY Chief Justice
Emery, is as follows:
The intoxicating liquors in ques-
tion, the rum, WhiskeX and brandy
We're seized in this state in the car Of
the claimant railroad company while
in transit from another state TO q CON
CT ~ Ia. L.
they were intended for unlawful sale in
this State. The claimant contends
that having been seized while in such
transit they re protected from for
feiture and even seizure under the
State law by the commerce clause Of
the United States.
alt appears from the evidence, how
ever. that in addition 10 ceing intoxi-
eating and intended for unlawful sale
in this State, the liquors were mis-
branded, or adulterated or both, with
in the meaning of the United States
Pure Food Law approved June 30,
1906. That act of Congress prohibits
the Introduction into any state from
another state or country of any
liquors misbranded or adulterated
within the meaning of the act, and
one state TO another. they shall be
liable to seizure and confscation by
the United States and shah not be
sold in any Jurisdiction contrary to
the law of that Jurisdiction. By this
statute, Congress has in effect enacted
that adulterated or misDranded
liquors shall not be lawful articles Of
commerce between the states or with
foreign nations. As TO such liquors,
the statute removes the;federal bar
rier to the operation of the police
power of the State upon them.
Having been brought into the State in
violation Of the act of Congress, they
became subject TO the laws of the
State the moment they came within
its limits
THE claimant urges that only the
United States can enforce the actS of
Congress; that the act does not confer
upon the states the power to seize and
contiscate such liquors. This process
is not to enforce the act of Congress.
but only 10 enforce the laws of the
State. The proc eding is not under
the act Of Congress, but under the
statutes of the state. Granting that
the act of Congress does not confer
any new power upon the State. it
removes the federal barriers TO the
exercise Of the powers conferred upon
the State By its own people.
The judgment of forfeiture rem.
dered by the presiding justice was
right and the exceptions to his de-
eision must be overruled.
"EXceptions oyerruled."