Five Mile Beach weekly journal., 1917-01-26
Interests Hard Hit
From the Brooklyn Eagle.

From the Brooklyn Eagle.
No single blow struck at the liquor
interests of the United States eve did
so much damage as the Z to 2 decision
of the Supreme Court, affirming the
constitutionality of the Webb-Kenyon
law, permitting any dry State to pre-
vent shipments of alcoholic liquors
from outside Its borders TO persons
within those borders In the American
Year Book for 1918, DIR. Ferdinand C..
Iglehart estimated that, If sustained,
this law would destroy from Is to 20
per cent. OF the liquor business" in
this whole country. In the judgment
of many this is an under estimate.
But, outside of its direct effect, the
stimulus to the State prohibition
movement Is tremendous. clubbing
about Interstate commerce Is ended.
The traffic is hanOed over to the States.
They can do what tehy please. Mere
possession of liquor may for the first
time be punished. That it came from
another State is no defense. OF course,
the law of Georgia and Of some other
States preventing the circulation Of any
newspaper or magazine containing
liquor advertising is still to be passed
upon.
When the original package case was
before the Supreme Court, however,
this present decision was ad umbrated.
The court had to hold that Congress
alone could regulate interstate COM
merce, and that alcoholic beverages sent
from John Smith III Kentucky to Peter
Jones in,Ohio belonged to such COM
merce, hence that they were free while
in sealed packages from State interfer-
ence. But it Distinctly laid down the
idea that Congress might authorize the
States to occupy a part of its field of
interstate commerce regulation. Con-
gress has done just that, and the Su-
preme Court merely stands by its
former position. William Howard
Taft was President of the United
States during the long fight to enact
the Webb-K Kenyon bill. Mr.. Taft is an
able lawyer. He is now teaching law
at Yale. But when the bill came be.
for him he vetoed it as unconstitutional.
1t was passed In both houses over that
veto.
Some keen observers may regret the
trend of the Federal court of last resort
toward leaving State exercise of the
police power absolutely unhampered.
But a court which had sustained the
State of Kansas in se'zing and destroy
ing liquors without compensation, as q
legitimate exercise of the police power,
was not likely to regard property
| claims as having much weight when il
considered the Webb.K Kenyon legisla,
ton. Prohibitionists all over the LAND
are, of course, delighted with this de-
cision. The opinion of Chief Justice
| White meets their full approval. They
have no sympathy with the dissenting
reasoning of Justices Holmes and Van
Devanter. Next to a national constI
t~utlonal amendment prohibiting the
manufacture or sale of anything con-
tanning alcohol, they have ranked this
Webo- Kenyon measure as of impor.
lance to their movement.
AS a matter of speculation, 1t is clear
enough that no question could have
arisen over a national law barring
liquors from all interstate commerce.
That would have worked uniformly
on all common wealths. Wise or un-
wise, it would have been an exercise oil
legislative discretion moi to be interfer-
ed with by the courts. But the effect
of this la " Is to allow shipments be-
tween two wet States and to stop them
between two dry States, OF one wet
State aud one dry7State. Lucky is the
liquor seller whose stock is In a State
not yet carried for prohibition, and
whose customers are in the same State,
or others also wet. The element of
Discrimination was there. The Gu
preme Court has decided that it is
justifiable discrimination. The ruling
is final. Even speculation has be-
come q waste of words.
In, identally it may be said that the
old States rights issue is somewhat be-
logged by the decision. The powers
of the States are increased. Yet we
imagine that John q. Calhoun, who
was a real logician, would have been
shocked by the notion of having al y
powers delegated by Congress to the
States. He might even have held that
taking such powers as a national
grant was an abdication of his whole
theory of the national compact embod-
led in the Constitution. No Hamil-
tonian can object to the principle OF
daIauotioA II DC anfirolu in oOonrd