Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1912-12-17
TUESDAY. oEcEMeER II, 1912.
SHIPPING LIQUOR INTO DRY"
STATES.

The Kenyon bill, introduced in con.
gress at the previous session, made
q special order" for December l6 in
the senate, and extraordinary efforts
will be made by those who are In
sympathy with its aims TO force ac-
ton at this session, says the Philadel-
phia Public Ledger.
The purpose Of this and similar
bills has been to prevent the ship
ment of liquors from a wet state
into a dry" state or into another state
In violation of the regulative or pro.
hibitive laws of the second state. The
Kenyon bill provides that no such
shipments shall be legal, whether in
original packages or not, and, more
over, that the moment liquor arrives
In any state from anywhere Il shall
be subject to the local laws relating
to liquor in the state Of destination.
huSciHOI .NtdI VI AidDuIid du
vances the argument that under the
apparently simple terms of the bill
there is concealed, Willingly or un-
Willingly, the force and effect of a
national prohibition law. For instance,
the Kenyon bill makes liquor shipped
from one state to another subject
absolutely to the laws in force in the
state to which 1t Is shipped before it
reaches the hands Of the constance.
1t requires a license to handle or sell
liquor in this state, and nc resident
or citizen Of another state can Sc
cure the privilege of selling liquor
here. The opponents of the bill de-
clare, therefore, that the effect OF
the measure would be to wipe out the
entire liquor traffic in this country,
which is a prospect that fills the
manufacturers and dealers with dis
may, while, it is needless to say, such
Is the aim of the Anti-Saloon league.
The great question is whether an
act of congress thus regulating inter-
state shipments of liquor would be
constitutional. 1t is to be noted that
previous bills introduced in congress
have been reported %unfavorably by
senate and house committees on the
ground that they constitute an at.
tempt to interfere by state action in
the field Of interstate commerce,
which is exclusively federal domain.
The leading case is that OF Leisy VS..
Hardin, in which it was held that the
citizen of one state has the right to
import beer into another state and
the right to sell it there in the orig
1nal package; and that the right Of
transportation Of an article of com.
merce from M state to another in.
cludes the right of the consignee 10
sell it in unbroken packages at the
places where the transportation ends.
This and similar decisions cover
ing not only liquor, but other sub
Jects, is founded on the established
rule, principle and constitutional dec
laration that congress alone can reg.
ulate interstate commerce, and this
principle is so well established that
the mere absence of any federal en-
actment on any subject is recognized
In law to be equivalent to a declara.
ton" by congress that Commerce in
that matter shall be free"
Very well, say the supporters of
the Kenyon bill; that is exactly what
is being urged. Up to this time con.
gress has not regulated the liquor
traffic; the power Of the states to
handle this matter and to enforce
their %regulative laws has been inef-
fective, just because congress has not
acted; hence the Kenyon bill.
The problem is not, however, SO
simple. There are some things that
even congress cannot do offhand. One
Of the prime objects in the formation
OF the republic to take the place Of
the ineffective and obstructive con.
federation, was to insure freedom Of
trade among the. several states; to
guarantee to the citizens Of all states
equal rights and the like. Congress
cannot grant the right to engage in
trade and commerce; that is an in
herent, Or ~ any rate, an inalienable
right. CHIEF Justice Marshall declar.
ed that the right OF intercourse be-
tween stats andsstate was not grant.