Dissenting Opinion: Lamar, J., Fuller, C. J.

national government has exclusive jurisdiction. It is well settled that such crime must be defined by statute, and no such statute has yet been pointed out. The United States government being thus powerless to try and punish a man charged with murder, we are not prepared to affirm that it is omnipo tent to discharge from trial and give immunity from any liability to trial where he is accused of murder, unless an express statute of Congress is produced permitting such discharge. We are not unmindful of the fact that in the foregoing remarks we have not discussed the bearings of this decision upon the autonomy of the States, in divesting them of what was once regarded as their exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed within their own territory, against their own laws, and in enabling a federal judge or court, by an order in a habeas corpus proceeding, to deprive a State of its power to maintain its own public order, or to protect the security of society and the lives of its own citizens, whenever the amenability to its courts of a federal officer or employé or agent is sought to be enforced. We have not entered upon that question, because, as arising here, its suggestion is sufficient, and its consideration might involve the extent to which legislation in that direction may constitutionally go, which could only be properly determined when directly presented, by the record in a case before the court of adjudication.

For these reasons, as briefly stated as possible, we think the judgment of the court below should be reversed and the prisoner remanded to the custody of the sheriff of San Joaquin County, California; and we are the less reluctant to express this conclusion, because we cannot permit ourselves to doubt that the authorities of the State of California are competent and willing to do justice; and that even if the appellee had been indicted, and had gone to trial upon this record, God and his country would have given him a good deliverance.

MR. JUSTICE FIELD did not sit at the hearing of this case, and took no part in its decision.

Statement of the Case.

LEISY v. HARDIN.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IOWA.

L-ed 128 43f 229 431 557

43f 612 431 642 431 654 43f 762

No. 1459. Submitted January 6, 1890.- Decided April 28, 1890.

A statute of a State, prohibiting the sale of any intoxicating liquors, except for pharmaceutical, medicinal, chemical or sacramental purposes, and under a license from a county court of the State, is, as applied to a sale by the importer, and in the original packages or kegs, unbroken and unopened, of such liquors manufactured in and brought from another State, unconstitutional and void, as repugnant to the clause of the Constitution granting to Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States.

Peirce v. New Hampshire, 5 How. 504, overruled.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, on behalf of the court, stated the case as follows:

Christine Leisy, Edward Leisy, Lena and Albert Leisy, composing the firm of Gus. Leisy & Co., citizens of Illinois, brought their action of replevin against A. J. Hardin, the duly elected and qualified marshal of the city of Keokuk, Iowa, and ex officio constable of Jackson township, Lee County, Iowa, in the Superior Court of Keokuk, in said county, to recover 122 one-quarter barrels of beer, 171 one-eighth barrels of beer, and 11 sealed cases of beer, which had been seized by him in a proceeding on behalf of the State of Iowa against said defendants, under certain provisions of the code of the State of Iowa; and upon issue joined, a jury having been duly waived by the parties, the case was submitted to the court for trial, and, having been tried, the court, after having taken the case under advisement, finally "rendered and filed in said cause its findings of fact and conclusions of law in words and figures following, to wit:

"1st. That plaintiffs, Gus. Leisy & Co., are a firm of that name and style, residing in the State of Illinois, with principal place of business at Peoria, Illinois; that said firm is composed wholly of citizens of Illinois; that said firm is engaged as

L-ed 128 135 100 165 95 L-ed 128 163 102 171 12 724 659 171 22 721 858 77f 589 135 1001 135 100 fed 128 L-ed 128 80f 789

Statement of the Case.

brewers in the manufacture of beer in the said city of Peoria, Illinois, selling same in the States of Illinois and Iowa.

"2d. That the property in question, to wit, 122 one-quarter barrels of beer, of the value of $300, 171 one-eighth barrels of beer, value $215, and 11 sealed cases of beer, value of $25, was all manufactured by said Leisy & Co. in the city of Peoria, Illinois, and put up in said kegs and cases by the manufacturers, viz., Gus. Leisy & Co., at Peoria, Illinois; that each of said kegs was sealed and had placed upon it, over the plug in the opening of each keg, a United States internal revenue stamp of the district in which Peoria is situated; that said cases were substantially made of wood, each one of them containing 24 quart bottles of beer, each bottle of beer corked and the cork fastened in with a metallic cap, sealed and covered with tin-foil, and each case was sealed with a metallic seal; that said beer in all of said kegs and cases was manufactured and put up into said kegs and cases as aforesaid by the manufacturers, to wit, Gus. Leisy & Co., plaintiffs in this suit, and to open said cases the metallic seals had to be broken.

341

342

100

e115 f

"3d. That the property herein described was transported by L115f said Gus. Leisy & Co. from Peoria, Illinois, by means of rail- 135 ways to Keokuk, Iowa, in said sealed kegs and cases, as same 34 L-ed 128 was manufactured and put up by them in the city of Peoria, Illinois.

“4th. That said property was sold and offered for sale in Keokuk, Iowa, by John Leisy, a resident of Keokuk, Iowa, who is agent for said Gus. Leisy & Co.; that the only sales and offers to sell of said beer was in the original keg and sealed case as manufactured and put up by said Gus. Leisy & Co. and imported by them into the State of Iowa; that no kegs or cases sold or offered for sale were broken or opened on the premises; that as soon as same was purchased it was removed from the premises occupied by Gus. Leisy & Co., which said premises are owned by Christiana Leisy, a meinber of the firm of Gus. Leisy & Co., residing in and being a citizen of Peoria, Illinois; that none of such sales or offers to sell were made to minors or persons in the habit of becoming intoxicated.

"5th. That on the 30th day of June, 1888, the defendant, as

s 10 SC 681

e188

360

188

361

119 f

242

Statement of the Case.

constable of Jackson township, Lee County, Iowa, by virtue of a search warrant issued by J. G. Garrettson, an acting justice of the peace of said Jackson township, upon an information filed charging that in premises occupied by said John Leisy there were certain intoxicating liquors, etc., seized the property therein described and took same into his custody.

"6th. And the court finds that said intoxicating liquors thus seized by the defendant in his official capacity as constable were kept for sale in the premises described in the search warrant in Keokuk, Lee County, Iowa, and occupied by Gus. Leisy & Co. for the purpose of being sold, in violation of the provisions of the laws of Iowa, but which laws, the court holds, are unconstitutional and void, as herein stated.

"7th. That on the 2d day of July, 1888, plaintiffs filed in this court their petition, alleging, among other things, that they were the owners and entitled to the possession of said property, and that the law under which said warrant was issued was unconstitutional and void, being in violation of section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, and having filed a proper bond, a writ of replevin issued and the possession of said property was given to plaintiffs.

"From the foregoing facts the court finds the following conclusions:

"That plaintiffs are the sole and unqualified owners of said property and entitled to the possession of same and judgment for one dollar damages for their detention and costs of suit; that so much of chapter 6, title XI, of the Code of 1873, and the amendments thereto, as prohibits such sales by plaintiffs as were made by plaintiffs, is unconstitutional, being in contravention of section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States; that said law has been held unconstitutional in a like case heretofore tried and determined by this court, involving the same question, in the case of Collins v. Hills, decided prior to the commencement of this suit and prior to the seizure of said property by defendant; to all of which the defendant at the time excepted."

Judgment was thereupon rendered as follows:

"This cause coming on for hearing, plaintiffs appearing by

Statement of the Case.

Anderson & Davis, their attorneys, and the defendant by H. Scott Howell & Son and Wm. B. Collins, his attorneys, and the cause coming on for final hearing on the pleadings on file and the evidence introduced, the court makes the special finding of facts and law herewith ordered to be made of record and finds that plaintiffs are the sole and unqualified owners and entitled to possession of the following-described personal property, to wit: 122 one-quarter (1) barrels of beer of the value of $300; 171 one-eighth (1) barrels of beer of the value of $215, and 11 sealed cases of beer of the value of $25.

"That, plaintiffs being in possession of said property by virtue of a bond heretofore given, said possession in plaintiffs is confirmed. The court further finds that the writ issued by J. G. Garrettson, a justice of the peace, under which defendant held possession of said property and seized same, is void, same having been issued under sections of the law of Iowa that are unconstitutional and void.

"That plaintiff is entitled to one dollar damages for the wrongful detention of said property.

"It is therefore ordered and considered by the court that the plaintiffs have and recover of defendant the sum of one dollar damages, and costs of this action, taxed at $-.

"To which findings, order and judgment of court the defendant at the time excepts and asks until the 31st day of October, 1888, to prepare and file his bill of exceptions, which request is granted and order hereby made."

A motion for new trial was made and overruled, and the cause taken to the Supreme Court of Iowa by appeal, and errors therein assigned as follows:

"I. The court erred in finding that the plaintiffs were the sole and unqualified owners and were entitled to the possession of the intoxicating liquors seized and held by appellant. "II. In finding that the plaintiffs were entitled to one dollar damages for their detention, and for costs of suit.

"III. The court erred in holding that the sales of beer in 'original packages,' by the keg and case, as made by John Leisy, agent of plaintiffs, were lawful.

"IV. The court erred in its conclusions and finding that so