State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1831-1836, 1836-04-26

Judge OF the tendency of publications, il
assumes a power in Congress TO act upon
and carry into effect the judgment which
may he formed of them by the States. That
no such power exists has been already
shown, and the argument will not be again
repeated. But certain acts of Congress,
which have been supposed to form prece-
dents for this species of Legislation, require
to be noticed. 1t will be remembered that
the question is not now whether Congress
! possesses the Constitutional power to make
| this law; but whether such power can be
dericed from the State laws, or, in other
! words, whether the State laws, per Sc, inn
pose an obligation or confer power on
| Congress, to punish its officers for violating
them. The minority admit that ifCongress
ossess original constitutional power over
| the subject, it may so punish its officers
The friends of this measure .conceding that
no such original constitutional power over
"incendiary publications" exists, seek to
derive it from the authority Of State legis-
ution. In favor of this dericatiue power,
| the act of the 25th of February, 1903, en-
| titled "an act TO prevent the importation Of
certain persons into certain States, whereby
the laws thereof their admission is prohib-
tied" has been supposed to be precedent
! This act, on examination, will be found to
| have 10 bearing OH the question of deriva-
tive power 1t was passed in virtue Of an
original Constitutional authority i'll Con-
gress over the subject on which it operated.
! The act, it will be observed, was passed in
! 1903, and provided for the punishment, not
specially of the officers Of Government, but
of all persons who Should be concerned in
the importation Of slaves into any State
which had prohibited, or should prohibit,
/ their importation. 1t did not refer to the
State laws for a description Of the offence,
but fully defined it. Now for the constitu-
tional ground on which this act rested. The
9th section of the Ist article of the consti
tut N, so far as is material to this question,
is us follows: "Hhe migration or inporta-
ton of such persons, as any of the States
now existing shall think proper TO admit,
shall not be prohibited by Congress prior
to the year one thousand eight hundred
and eight" This article was a temporary
and limited restriction on the general pow
er of Congress, ito regulate commerce"
Without it, Congress might have immedi-
atcy prohibited the importation of slaves
into all the states bur, with it, Congress
could not until the year 1903, prohibit their
importation into any Of the States that
!
the power of Congress to prohibit their i'm
portation into such States as Shouid no, Mink
proper to admit them, this article ofthe con-
s,ituton imposed no restriction. Previous
to the year 1903, several of the States hay
ing prohibited the admission Of SiaueS, the
original authority of Congress over the
subject, under the power 'to regulate COM
merce," came into full operation so far as
| it respected those States, and under that
power the act under consideration was
| passed. 1t is, therefore, apparent that this
act is no precedent for the dcrivatiVe pow
er commended for, but is only an example of
the exercise of original constitutional au-
| thority. The act of February %, 1899,
entitled, "An act respecting quarantine and
| health laws" rests also on the same consti-
tutonal basis. That act, in substance, re-
cogniZes the validity of the quarantine and
! health laws of the States, and directs the
reuenue and other officers Of the government
10 cooperate ,ciM The State authorities IN
! their erecution. These laws act upon u
subject on which the powers of the Gen
cral Government and those Of the State
Governments We're peculiarly liable to pro-
duce conflicting legislation. The General
Government hns the exclusive power to
CIRCULATE commerce with foreign nations
and among the States" Health regulations,
being matters Of internal police, belong on
" to the States. The laws which might be
passed by the two authorities, under these
two powers, would frequently operate on
precisely the same thing. The same cargo
of goods which was the subject of COM
mcrcc, might also contain the seeds of dis
ease. In order TO promote the objects OF
! commerce, congress might desire that I'M
rnediatcly on the arrival of the cargo, it
should he landed and put on sale at the
usual place for carrying on the business OF
merchandise. The State, TO prevent the
danger of infection, might wish to prohibit
the landing Of the cargo within lis port OF
destination for period Of time Here were
two opposite independent powers, each
exercising an acknowledged constitutional
authority, and their legislation coming di-
rectly in conflict. What was to be done
( Congress declared that it would so exercise
its power of regulating commerce as not to
interfere with the reasonable health laws OF
the States. The term reasonable is used
because the act prescrlbes certain boun-
darirs, beyond which Congress would not
suffer health laws to operate. This act is
undoubtedly, precedent 10 show com
menduhle disposition in the General Gov
eminent to prevent lis powers from con-
ncling with those of the States. But it is
no precedent to prove that Congress can
derive any constitutional power from the
State laws, or that it can cooperate in their
execution by any species of legislation pro-
hhited to Congress by the consritution.-
1t is ut most, an example Of the voluntary
forbearauce Of Congress to exercise, III a
manner not forbidden, one of its acknowl-
edged powers. 1t is also to he remarked
in regard TO this law, that it imposes no
penalty on the officers of government for
negocting to cooperate in the execution of
the health laws. A person appointed 10
! a. ,,,,Iar tho GpueraI Governments IL