of the deposits so covered shall, at the close of each month, be reported on the monthly public debt statement as debt of the United States bearing no interest.
SEC. 7. That this act shall take effect thirty days from and after its passage.
APPROVED, July 14, 1890.
August 8, 1890
IN the case of Leisy v. Hardin, decided in 1890, the Supreme Court of the United States held that, in the absence of a federal law to the contrary, intoxicating liquors, being subjects of interstate commerce, might be transported from one State to another, and sold in the original packages in which they were introduced, notwithstanding the prohibitory laws of the State in which they were offered for sale. As the decision would have the effect of nullifying to a considerable extent State prohibitory legislation, protection was immediately sought at the hands of Congress. A bill "subjecting imported liquors to the provisions of the laws of the several States" had been introduced in the Senate, December 4, 1889, by James F. Wilson of Iowa. The bill was reported with an amendment May 14, 1890. May 27 the amendment was withdrawn and a substitute offered; on the 29th the amended substitute passed the Senate, the vote being 34 to 10, 40 not voting. A substitute for the Senate bill passed the House July 22 by a vote of 177 to 38, 112 not voting. The Senate refused to concur in the House amendment, and the bill went to a conference committee. The report of the committee, recommending that the House recede from its amendments, was accepted by the House, August 6, by a vote of 119 to 93, 115 not voting, and by the Senate August 7, without a division.
REFERENCES. -- Text in U.S. Statutes at Large, XXVI, 313. For the proceedings see the House and Senate Journals, 51st Cong., 1st Sess., and the Cong. Record. The Senate report of May 14 is Senate Report 993; the House Report of July 1 is House Report 2604; see also Senate Report 610, 50th Cong., 1st Sess. The case of Leisy v. Hardin is in 135 U.S. Reports, 100; see also In re Rahrer, 140 ibid., 545; Gould and Tucker, Notes on the Revised Statutes, II, 621, 622.