Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/20

 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