Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1938-03-08

ana elSIlL Outlet oLdG6S lTOII1 CTOSSulk
the boundaries of Michigan. There's
no objection to Indiana beer as such
nor is there any objection to the con-
sumption of beer as such by the peo-
pie Of Michigan. but it so happens that
Indiana has vicious law which makes
1t difficult for Michigan beer to 60
into Indiana.
The action of Michigan might ap-
pear on the surface to be unconsti-
tutional. How, it will be asked, can
one State put up an embargo against
another State? The facts are that,
when California enacted law put
ting heavy tax on the privilege of
importing beer into that State, the
United States Supreme Court in what
Is known as the Young's Market case,
in October, 1887, held that the 2lst
amendment, known as the repeal
amendment, effectually removed the
commerce in Intoxicating liquors from
the protection of the commerce clause
Of the Constitution.
Restriction Upheld.
Justice Brandeis, in speaking for
the court, held that State could, if
1t chose, set up beer monopoly and
that it could restrict importation alto
gether, or let beer come as it pleased
because the 21st amendment says that
importation of liquor into State lin
violation Of the laws thereof" is pro-
hibited
Taking advantage of that decision,
various States like Indiana and Penn
sylvania promptly saw opportunities
to give advantages to their local brew
ers by keeping out or making it diff
cult for national beers to come into
their States. Missouri and Michigan
now have retaliated with what are
known as anti-discrimination laws. In
Michigan these simply designate nine
States whose beer products cannot
enter. These two laws have been up
held in the last few weeks by three
Judge Federal courts In Missouri and
Michigan, respectively. In the Mich
igan case. the court said:
Michigan, finding the markets of
other States closed to its own industry
while its own market is open to I'M
limited competition, is free to seek
legislative correction Of an unequal
competitive condition within the limits
Of its power. It may not, of course,
exercise extraterritorial power or con-
troll the Legislatures Of its sister
States, but 1t Is Idle to deny 1t power
to regulate its own industry and con-
troll its own market to the extent that
its industries are elsewhere excluded,
and to the extent that such exclusion
threatens their economic stability, and
1t Is not an unreasonable classification
to discriminate against out-State prod
ucts in respect to their source when
the laws of the State of origin create
the evil sought to be remedied and
the classification operates equally upon
all who fall within its reach"
Europe Retaliated.
What the Federal court points out
here incidentally is substantially the
same thing that European countries
said after our Hawley-Smoot tariff
law. putting on prohibitive duties
against their products, went into effect
IN 1880. They put up reprisals, in
GLIDING exchange restrictions and
quotas to limit the entry into their
countries of American goods.
So far as our domestic trade war is
concerned, it involves for the moment
only the traffic in intoxicating liquors
and permits all sorts of graft situa-
tions to arise. In Indiana, for ex-
ample. the politicians have port of
entry" privileges, something restricted
to favored few political leaders
known as beer barons" who act as
middle men through whom alone the
wholesalers in Indiana can have out
of-State beer shipped Thus is tribute
exacted for the benefit of the Demo-
cratic State administration in Indiana.
which. incidentally, comes down here
and, from the steps Of the White
House, tries to tell upright men like
Senator Van Mugs he cannot be re-
nominated to the Senate on the Dem
ocratic ticket.
To the casual observer, it will seem
curious that such tariff system can
exist inside the United States, espe-
cially In view Of section 10 of article
OF the Federal Constitution, which
says:
mo State shall, without the consent
OF the Congress. lay any imposts or
duties on imports or exports, except
what may be absolutely necessary for
executing its inspection laws"
A One Proposition Decision.
When Justice Brandeis wrote his
opinion uphoiding the California law
which, by the way, has since been
repealed by California as . matter of
fairness to her sister States-he was
faced only with the proposition that
regulation of commerce under the
commerce clause Of the Constitution
superseded or in some way qualified
the absolute right Of States to exclude
intoxicating liquors as provided in the
@2lst amendment He refused to
sanction q rewriting, in effect, Of tho
new amendment.
No contention was made, however.
IN this case, that section 10 of article
! was being violated, or that, under
the guise Of inspection laws, what
amounted to an import duty was &C.
tually imposed on beer going into
California. There was no effort under
California law to stop the sale Of beer
manufactured inside of California, 50
the exclusion had not the remotest
relationship to the wet or dry question.
Ruling May Be Asked.
The Supreme Court OF the United
States may be asked SOME day to rule
directly on whether the 21st amend
ment has also wiped out of the Con-
stitution section 10 of article /, by
which States are forbidden to impose
import duties. Certainly the purpose
and plain meaning Of the 2lst amend
ment Il to prohibit the importation Of
bser o. other liquors into STATE In
y