Democratic Sentinel, Volume 14, Number 40, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 31 October 1890 — THE LAWNULL AND VOID [ARTICLE]

THE LAWNULL AND VOID

ORIGINAL PACKAGE HOUSES WILL OPEN AGAIN. The Tnlted States Court Holds that the Prohibitory Laws or lowa and Kansas as They Now Stand Are Worthless—Hany badoona Already Open. [Topeka (Kan.) dispatch.] The decision in tho Rahrer habeas-cor-pus case, which is a test of the Wilson original package law, was filed by Judge Foster of the (Kansas) United States District Court and Judge Phflllps of the Western Missouri District. Tho decision makes tho prohibitory law In Kansas inoperative so r far as original packages are concerned, and many original package houses have already been opened for business in consequence of it. In their argument the Judges eay: “In brief, the contention of the State Is that tho act of Congress enlarged the scope and operation of the act of the State Legislature, making that which was a legitimate business one day a crime the next, not under any law of Congress, but against the law of tho State. - There is nothing In the wording of the act Implying that Congress assumed such & power or intended to give such effect to this enactment. “At tho time Congress passed the Wilson bill it was well known and recognized that the Supremo Court had decided that such a State prohibitory lajr was void in so far as the dealer in imported liquors In the origlnalpackaga was concerned. In other words, there was no law and could bo no law in existence making such business a crime. It cannot be assumed that Congress desired to introduce into tho present police laws of tho State an article or subject hitherto not included by those laws." Again they hold: “That it must be kept In mind that a legislative act In conflict with tho Constitution is not only illegal or voidable but It la absolutely void. It is as if never enacted, and no subsequent change of tho Constitution removing tho restriction could validate it or breathe into it tho breath of life.” Tho result of the decision will be that the liquor business will bo carried en in Kamms without restriction until the Legislature re-enacts the prohibitory law. The Republican State Central Committee has Issued an address to the people calling upon thorn to elect only such mon as are pledged to the re-enactment of all prohibitory laws now upon the statute books of Kansas. DECISION IN AN lOWA CASE. The Prohibitory Statute Declared to Bo VnconstltiitionaL [Cedar Rapids (Iowa) dispatch.] Judge John T. Stonemah, of the Superior Court bf this City, has rendered a decision in three liquor cases brought under the lowa prohibitory statute, The doClslon'amounts to declaring tho lowa statute unconstitutional and Inoperative. During the month of June, ISDo, the St. Louis brewing firm of Anheneer, Busch A Co. opoiiod an agency In the town of Marlon, Linn County, and appointed as thdir agent at that placO Joseph Cocnen. Quantifies of brer wore shipped and transported In qtiart bottles, securely iorkod, sealed, and separately labeled, by rallfpad to plaintiff’s general agent, Williams, at Cedar Rapids, packed in boxes and barrels, whlfeh bb'xes and biirrdts were opened, and a portion of the bottles furwarded to Agent, (jootjeji at Marion in the same condition as whon siilppdij frpm St. Louis. Ccenon sold the sumo without uncorking of \ipFea|lng to customers who desired to pureliasp thp saiyo, either by single bottles or in other quantities. About this time 11. H. Abrams, pastor of the Christian Church at Marlon, began proceedings against Coonan for violating the prohibitory law, claiming that the opening of the boxes or barrel? at Cedar Rapids, In which the corked and sealed bottles wore shipped, destroyed their character as prlgipal packages., Judge Stoneman in his opinion declares the act pt, Congress known as the Wilson bill is not jhtqntfed to be retroactive In Its effect and doos not rehabilitate any statute thpt had bpen previously declared nrtconstltutlQpai and void by the United States Supreme Court. Jt is simply permission to tho several States In the future to legislate In the exercise of State police powers on a subject matter which, prior to the act of Congress, the States had been debarred by the Constitution of the United .States from dealing with. The supposed authority of Congress In the forpgoing legislation is claimed to bo derlyod from this clause of the Constitution of the United Ltates: “Art. 1, Sec. 8. The Congress shall have power, among other things, to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States and with the Indian tribes. ” It Is suggested that Congress cannot assume any power not granted by the Constitution, nor can it abdicate to the several States any power of legislation exclusively lodged In Congress by the Constitution, and It is insisted that under tho clause of tho Constitution above cited the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States and with the Indian tribes is exclusively vested in Congress. It Congress has authority to delegate its powers to the State, then it may define the police power of the State so as to include control over any and all other subjects of foreign or domestic commerce,and thus enable the several States to surround their respective territories with a cordon of impassable commercial walls. It was this very evil present under tho confederation which was sought to be obviated by the adoption of the Constitution, and the doctrine does not seem consonant with reason that Congress now has power by permissive legislation to enable the several States to defeat the very purpose of the Constitution. He therefore granted a perpetual injunction to restrain Abrams from Instituting proceedings or interfering with the businessof the plaintiff selling liquora in original packages. The case was submitted to Judge Stoneman Sept. 29, and has been in consideration since that time.