Daily Kennebec journal., 1908-12-12
THE Law COURT. RI
Important Decision On
Liquor Shipments.
Adu|terated Liquors May Be
Seized by State Officers.
None Murder Case Is Argued On
Exceptions by Counsel.


Supreme Court Of Maine. was made
public Friday in the Piscataquis county
case Of State VS.. Intoxicating Liquors,
Maine Central Railroad, claimant.
BY this decision liquors misbranded
or adulterated, within the meaning nt
the U. S. Pure Food Law, may be
seized by State officers III transit. and
before they have reached their destina-
ton. The effect of this decision upon
the importation of cheap liquors into
the state Of Maine it is believed. VIII
be far-reaching.
The following was the brief state
men. Of the case accompanying the bill
of exceptiolis:
This is a seizure Of quantity Of
Intoxicating liquors shipped from Bos-
ton in the state of Massachusetts and
consigned tc Henry y. BARLEY. Green
vile Junction, Me, Piscataquis county.
THE car containing the liquors ar
rived at FoXcroft. Me. on the morning
on Sept. 10, 1907, and one the same day.
before the said car was transferred
from the tracks of the Maine Central
Railroad to the tracks Of the Bangor
& Aroostook Railroad the liquors We're
seized by the officers. while in said
ear The warrant was duly and prop
erlv issued and served. the liquors
were properly libelled, and the
claimant duly appeared and became a
party. 1t is admitted that Prof. Ora
w. knight of Bangor, Me. an expert
chemist will testify that all Of the
whiskey is either misbranded or adul-
terated or both under the provisions of
the United States Pure Food Law.
Act Of June 80. 1906; and that all the
rum is misbranded under the provi-
sions Of said act. That the brandy IS
both adulterated and misbranded I'M
der tine provisions Of said act. That
all other of said seized liquors comply
with said act. 1t is further admitted
that all said liquors We're intended for
unlawful sale in the State Of Maine"
The case was tried before Justice
Leslie G. Cornish at the January term.
1908, Of the county Of Plscatanuis, 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 rs follows:
'"The Intoxicating liquors in question,
the rum, whiskey 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-
signee in this State 1t is admitted
they We're intended for unlawful sale in
this State. The claimant contends
that having been seized while in such
transit they are protected from for
feiture and even seizure under the
State law by the commerce clause Of
the constitution of the United states.
cit appears from the evidence, how
ever, that in addition to being 1ntoxl-
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 80.
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
provides that if so transported from
one state to another, they shall be
liable to seizure and confiscation by
the United States and shall not be
sold in any jurisdiction contrary to the
law Of that jurisdiction. BY this
statute, Congress has in effect enacted
that adulterated or misbranded liquors
shall not be lawful articles Of COM
| merce between the states or with for
| eign nations. AS to such liquors. the
statute removes the federal barrier tr
| the operation Of the police power OF
the State upon them Having been
,t,+ i,,t~ NO -, violation
| the act of Congress, they became sub
| lect to The laws of the state the mo-
ment they came within it's limits.
| "The claimant urges that only the
| ITnitcl states can enforce the act nl
| Congress; that the act Goes not confer
| upon the states the power to Selzt
| and confiscate such liquors This
process is not o enforce the act o
| Congress. but only to enforce tha laws
Of the state. The proceeding IS no'
under the act Of Congress, but under
tie statutes of the state. Granting
that the act of Congress does not con
fer any new power upon the state, !
removes the federal barriers TO th'
exercise of the powers conferred upoi
the state by its own people.
s"Ihe Judgment Of forfeiture ren
dercd by the presiding justice wa
right and the exceptions to his dc
cision must be overruled.
exceptions overruled."
4 The rescript, covering the same case
is as follows:
Piscataauis County State of Maine
| Walter G. Foss, libelant. vs.. 1ntoXl
eating Liquors. NJ. c. r. r. Co. 3.
w. w. Flynt, it's agent. Clmnt. Re
script, Emery, c. J.
BY the Act of Congress known q
""rhe Pure Food Law" approved Jun
go 1900. misbranded and adulterate
intoxicating liquors are forbidde
transportation into any state fror
another state or foreign country, an
hence are removed from the protectio
OF the Commerce Clause Of the Fed
eral Constitution.
Such liquors brought into the Stat
in violation of the Act Of Congress
become subject to the police power {
the state Immediately upon arrive
within its territory and can be seize