The Green Bag
10
The old man spoke, and argued thus,
“My dear good sirs,” quoth he, “Declare for either one of us, ITwill bring no grief to me.
“If you decide that I am right, I shall obtain my fee;
But should he win this, his first fight, He will my debtor be." The parties both have long since died. And all the jurors too; This issue they could not decide, Pray, reader dear, can you?
What Legislation by Congress is Desirable to Give Effect to State Liquor Legislation? By FREDERICK H. Cooxa, or THE NEW YORK BAR T is well established that the re served powers of a state in clude the power to prohibit the sale, manufacture and transportation of in toxicating liquors. That is, within the limits of the state.1 Yet in Bowman v.
Chicago, &c. Ry. Ca,’ and Leisy v. Har din“, the result was reached that such power does not extend to prohibiting the transportation of such liquors into the state at any rate, in the absence of enabling legislation by Congress. It is my present purpose to consider what legislation by Congress is most likely to
give effect to legislation by a state, by way of prohibition of such transporta tion into its territory. But, before discussing the particular case of transportation of intoxicating liquors, I propose to show that there are decisions of the Supreme Court,
later than these two, that seem to go
far toward sustaining the general propo sition that the power of a state to pro hibit the sale, manufacture and trans
portation of an article includes, as an incident, the power to prohibit the transportation thereof into the state. Thus a state has power to prevent the sale and transportation of diseased cattle,
and
such
power
includes the
power to‘ prohibit the transportation
thereof into the state.‘
So as to quar
antine regulations preventing the trans
portation of persons.‘
So the state has
power to prevent fraud or deception in sales, and such power includes the power to prohibit, or at any rate, to impose restrictions upon transportation
into the state”
So the state has powe
‘ See Asbell v. Kansas, 209 U. S. 251 (1908). ‘ See Com agm'e Francaise d0 Navigation, &c. v. Louisiana talc Board of Health, 18 U. S. 380,
‘ Mugler v. Kan-m8. 123 U. S. 623 (1887).
387 (1902 .
a 125 U. S. 465 (1888;. 3135 U. S. 100 (1890
(1894).
0See
lumley v. blarsachuxetts, 155 U. S. 461