The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1913-02-01

UeC1aTeSs IN reason IL Is certain tual the puF-
pose which led to the enactment of the law
was give the several States power to deal with
all liquor coming from outside their limits
upon arrival. and before sale, thus rendering
the State police authority more complete and
eficacious upon the subject"
This certainly seems to imply that the Su-
preme court, as at present constituted, is unan-
NOUS in its view that the States have the right
to regulate the sale Of liquor in any way they
may think necessary in the exercise of their
police authority. But just how far the State
can go without conflict with the right of inter-
is demanded to meet the situation is the ques-
ton, and the present enyon-Shephard-W Webb
bill Is intended to meet the situation, that
JAMES CANNON. JR..
supt. Anti-Saloon League of Virginia.
Washington ID. c., jan 29, 1919.
The opinion follows.
Frederick DeBary & Company, plaintiffs in
Error,
The State of Louisiana
In error to the Supreme Court of the State of
(January 81, 1879
Memorandum opinion. by direction of the
court, by Mr.. Chief Justice White:
DeBary Dc Company seek the reversal of
judgment Tor the amount of licens tax tAct
No lI6 OF 1908, Session Acts OF that year. page
1850 for engaging ''in business of disposing of
alcoholic liquors in less quantities than Ave gal
Ions 1t was conceded below that the business
Tor which the license was enacted consisted only
In the sale in the original packages of foreign
wine or liquor, some of which imported
through the port of New York, and
of that which was brought into the port of New
York having been there stored and subsequently
shipped to New Orleans The court held, first,
that imposing the license exertion by
the State not only of it's revenue powers, but of
its police authority brought into play for the
purpose of regulating the sale of liquor In
consequences of the provisions of the act of con-
gress known the Wilson act, &c Stat ala
chapter 72s and the decision of this court inter-
pretlng ana applying the same, 1t therefore
held that the sale Of imported liquor in the
original packages was subject to State regulation
ana hence the license was valid; second that
even II the Wilson act did not concern liquor
imported from foreign country nevertheless
the license was valid because some of the liouor
sold had been shipped to Louisiana from the
state OF New York after its Importation from
foreign country.
Without considering the second proposition
we think the construction given to the Wilson
act upon which the first proposition rests was
so obviously the result Of the text of that act
as Interpreted by the decisions of this court as
to leave no room for controversy. Pahst Brew
ing company v. Crenshaw, 1913 u. S. II; Ameri-
can Express company W Iowa, 1876 U. S. 133;
Vance " Vandercook company No. l. 40 u
y. 138; Rhodes v. Iowa, ITO Il. S. 4I2; In re
Rahrer, 14o y s. 545. 1t is true that the con-
troversies which were passed upon In the cited
cases concerned not liquor imported into the
United States from foreign countries. but only
liquors which had been brought in from one
state to another But this fact cannot be held
to distinguish this from the previous de-
csions without giving effect to distinction
without difference To hold that liounrs
brought into State from foreign country do
not become subject to the State police power
fanny conflict with the command of the statute
mat All liquors transported into any State or
territory, or remaining therein for use con-
SUMPTION, sale or storage therein shall upon
ARRIVAL in such State Territory" be subject
TO the operation and effects of the laws OF such
state or Territory and shall not be exempt
therefrom by reason of being introduced there
IN IN original packages or otherwise The word
an causes a consideration of the point of
origin OF the liquors transported to be wholly
negligible, and this irresistible conclusion as
to the meaning OF the text is rendered il pos
sioie clearer by consideration of the intent
or congress in enacting the Wilson law In
reason 1t is certain that the purpose which
LED to the enactment of thu law to give the
several States power to deal with all liquors
coming from outside their limits upon arrival
ana before sale, thus rendering the State police
authority more complete and efficacious on the
subject a purpose which would be plainly set
at naught by exemptng liquors brought into a
State from a foreign country from the operation
or the statute Indeed to adopt the construction
urged would not only give rise to the contra
dictions which the analysis of the contentious
tnus make plain. but would compel us to say
that congress intended by the Wilson law to
eonrer upon foreign producers of liquor right
winch was specifically denied to liquor OF do
mestic production.
Affirmed.
Test: