Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1913-08-09
WEBB KENYO NIQUOR LAW HELD TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

and in the language of some Of
the cases, the goods are at rest
then they have become a part of the
great mass Of goods in the state In
which they are delivered; and are sub
ject to the authority Of such states.
Until delivery the goods are In transit.
Now the plaintiff claims that this
Webb-Kenyon law has changed the
law from what it was when the Cook
Brewing Co. case was/determined: that
by that law. congress has from Its
~pienary power to regulate interstate
commerce, delegated to the states the
power, each of itself, to determine
whether or not the transportation OF
intoxicating liquors into its boundary
from other states should be flowed,
or on what terms allowed.
Assuming the Webb Kenyon act, I'M
der proper constructions, purports to
delegate such power to the state, then
the question Is can congress constitu-
tionally grant or delegate such power.
1t is conceded that such a question, r
rowed down as 1t Is by the issues IN
this case has never been affirmatively
answered by the supreme court Of the
nation; and it appears certain to me
that there is no language used in n
of the cases that have been cited, that
could be construed as inconsistent with
a negative answer to the question;
while 1t Is certain to my mind that all
the principles laid down and adhered
to in the cases. are consistent with,
and Enthusiastically point to, and the
manifest object Of the interstate clause
in the constitution, forces a negative
answer to the question.
1t seems to me that from the stand
point OF decisions, as well as from that
of reason, aside from decisions. the
whole law on the subject Is stated In
the report Of the judiciary committee
of the United States senate Of which
committee Mr.. Knox OF Pennsylvania,
was at the time, chairman. The con-
clusions in the report are as follows:
1. Interstate shipments are not COM
pleted until they reach the consignee.
with interstate shipments before they
reach the consignee constitutes q regu-
lation Of commerce.
3. Regulating interstate shipment Is
an exclusive function Of congress.
4. Congress cannot delegate any part
Of it's exclusive power to the states.
5. To remove the bar or impeachment
of exclusive federal power which shuts
the states out Of the federal domain, Is
sanctioning state law in violation Of
the constitution. and in effect to dele
SdlC a ACASid III luAiSlAoA ~ - otoeSs E#
OF course 1t cannot be claimed that
that report is at all authority in the
legal significance Of the term. Never
theless, coming as it did from a COM
mittee Of men who may be assumed to
be possessed Of a very high order Of
legal learning and ability, selected as
they are from men who constitute what
Americans delight to call the greatest
deliverative body in the world, it will
surely be looked upon by trial courts
with great favor-especially in the abb
sence of any direct judicial authority to
the contrary.
It must be steadily kept in mind, that
without exception. the decisions Of the
United States supreme court hold that
intoxicating liquors are a legitimate
article of interstate commercials
legitimate as any other article. 1t fol-
lows, that II congress can declare that
intoxicating liquors shall no longer be
deemed legitimate articles Of Interstate
outlaws-then the same declaration
can be made by congress as to and
against any other commercial article.
But the question is not, has congress
itself the power to declare any article
hitherto held to be legitimate In com
merce, no longer legitimate, but out
lawed and denied all protection in in
terstate commerce? Such question is in
no sense a vital question in the issues
before me.
But the question, is. can congress del
egate" to the states the power to, each
acting for itself, declare what shall or
shall not be legitimate articles of COM
merce between It's people and the peo-
pie Of the other states-what articles
shall or shall not be outlawed and pro-
hibited from being brought within it's
boundaries?
For, If congress can delegate such
power as to intoxicating liquor, it can
do the same as to any or all other ar
ever the words, spurious, vinous,
matted, fermented or other intoxicat-
ing J. luor'' occur the words: ANY
goods Or commodities were used In
their stead, the act would be just as
valid as 1t Is in its present shape. I'm
der a congressional statute SO worded,
our Iowa legislature could give our
Iowa dairyman a monopoly on our
Iowa butter market by making highly
penal sale Of, or keeping for sale, any
butter not manufactured in an Iowa
dairy or creamery, or the Transportation
Of any such butter into the state. And
that such %supposition is justifiable, see
the opinion of Justice Mathews In case
Of Bowman VS.. Chicago & N. w. r. Co.
1875 U. S. 465; 81 L ed. 700. We quote
the following from the opinion:
"Can it be supposed that by omit
ting any express declaration on the
subject, congress has intended to sub
NIT to the several states the decision
of the question in each locality Of what
shall and what shall not be articles OF
traffic, In the interstate commerce Of
the country? If so, 1t has left to each
state, according to its own caprice and
arbitrary will, to discriminate for or
against every article grown, produced,
manufactured or sold in any state and
sought to be introduced as an article OF
commerce into any other. If the state
Of Iowa may prohibit the importation
Of Intoxicating liquors from all other
states, 1t may also include tobacco. or
any other article, the s OF abuse OF
which it may deem deleterious. 1t may
no: choose, even, to lie governed by
considerations growing out Of the
health, comfort, or peace OF h COM
munity. It's policy may be directed to
other ends. 1t may choose to establish
a system directed to the promotion and
benefit Of it's own agriculture, manu-
facturers or arts of any description,
AMI prevent the Introduction n sale
| within its limits Of any or all articles
that it may select as coming into COM
petition with those which 1T seeks to