Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1838-12-06
CHANCELLOR KENT's OPINION.


in the of Brown tie State of Mar, land, aud
Gbbonsvs Ogden.
CHANCELLOR KENT's OPINION.
Questions.
l. Is the law OF the Legislature Of Massachusetts.
passed the l9h Of Aprll. and emitted " An act 10
regulate the sale OF Spninous Liquors eonsttn
tonal and consistent with the revenue Laws OF the
United States
2. In what manner can y violation 81 the License
Laws Of Nassaehuseus be catiied into the Supems
Court OF the Unud States
These two questions have bern submitted ~
a. counsel, fer my opinion thereon by gentleman
ofthe city Of Boston. who considers himself iute-
rested IN the inquiry.
Opinion.
l. The act alluded 10 declares that " no licensed
Innb.lder Reisler. common Niciualrr or other
person. except licensed Apotheearie.. Physicians
aud Others, who may sell spirituons liquors 10 be
used 10 the arts for medical purposes only, shall
sell any Brandy Rum, orohe, spifltuous liqunis OF
any mixed liquor. pan OF which Is spifitnous, Ia
less quantity Than !ieen gallons. and thft 10 be de
livered and carried ava, all at one taae. under
penalty from : 10 To 800 lot each offence
The former Statute IN relation 10 this suhec', Of
the Goth Of April 1887, declared hat no licensed Inn
holder or other rerson should sell any intoxicating IL
ouor on Sunday, under the penalty ri SO and thai
any person should have hees three tunes convicted Of
breach Of the act or II nc An chapter - de Hets
I'd Skats!es he should br liable to severe specified
uetallies and punishment. il Is Ia br Observed that
the 47h chapter referred 10 las - sections aud Sc
,e,al distinct offences and pcnalles aIe DECLARED IA
IT. all relative 10 The regulation oil htcnses aud sci.
ling OF spitliuous liquors.
have aitenti,sl, cons drtea tie FIRST question,
and have satisfied myself Ihat lie Statute OF lasl
April therein mentioned. ~ tot iepugnant - thr
constitution or laws al the Unned States. am 81
opinion that The Staini. N question relates t" tic
internal Police and government oi tie Common
wealth oil Massat hUseus. and that II was competent
"a. he FI4fn M al
laws oil The Unued States hase no conecru "llh
the internal regulations ot tEr Slatts- These
regulations belong exclusively 10 tic power an1
authority Of the State GuveIumruts, ahd they
may pass What snmptnats laws they please IN rr.
sfaut OF the inferior commerce al The STATE and al
the manners and hahlts oil lhe residents therein. All
such regulations. however stem they may be. resi-
entirely the wisdom aud sen>c OF eApcdicn-
CIV and policy Of the local Legislature, provided
thcy be consistent with the Constitution OF lhe
State.
In the case OF Brotcn rs. ht STATE Of Maryland,
Q2 Wheaton, 49, thr validity oil State law, r.
straint Of the importation laws and ioielgn com
mefce OF the Gnncd Siaies WIS fully discussed AID
considered. .flhe doolnne OF that case MS thai a
State LcREs eire could not tn Pose tax On goods
imported Mo ttc qoois ,rtrt "A nc hands If lie
porer and m baH, aud that aught 10 tnpotl The
tce under the laws OF Congress- and tncnt oil
the duty, c1rfed with igl 10 sell II, hee Of any
previous charge, dulN TAX thetco lad by the
the case admitted that after the atiiDie had been
sold or passed ntu The bands OF the lrtad dealer.
and became Moor pora' ed with the general OF
property. subject IN all respects 10 state te-
gulaIinn. 1t setmtd TO be conceded N the argu-
neuts in that case, thai power III HE state to con
trul the use Of the auloe alter bad passed OFT Of
the hands ol the lnIoaer would rlr ally aud essen
TALLY affect the reht # the importer 10 import ion
who would pun, base OF tie Importer, IT ht
could not At etwatds and dispose Of the Article
III. Iltt, 4 la
ed without gong lar ~ tie denial OF The States
to regulate. N their discretion, the internal com
nerce OF the State. II was admitted 10y the Coufr
IN The case Of GtbbOHS rs. Ogden g Wheaton 203.l
that State Inspection aws health laws, and laws ior
regulating the internal commerce Of the State, Nc..
were not wllhin the powers granted 10 Congress.
We may add that the power regulating auction sales,
aud ha~hets aud pedafs and markets, are ali within
the discretionary power OF the State Legislature ms
much as the power concerning the sale of LOTTERY
tickets, the preservation oil the health and morals
Of the citlztns, by interfering wIlh the sale OF oh
noxous articles, These and thousand other cases
that mig hl be pnI ala all "llhln The general supefn
tending discretion the State governments as part
of their own constitutional control over their IN.
ternal trade and dealings aud customs.
| CONSIDER Tins 10 be the doefrlne Of the cases of
Gibbons Ogden aud of Btoea The state of
Maryland, both OF Which were decided under the
liberal and sound judgment OF thie Justice Mar
shall and am persuaded that thu act OF Massachu-
sets 81 April last would have been regarded by the
Supreme COuii, when they decided the case oi
Brown, entty free from constitutional Oh ectloo,
Tor thai Statute does not touch the lmpoieI except
very ndu city. Ii only goes TO restrain the telaIl
fsprhuOus liquors under the quantity OF fifteen gal
Ions at u time, and II esdcntly assumes that tie
article has PASSED hom the importer into the inter
nal commerce of the country.-fhe importer may
sell IN that qusutliy and upwards al home, Ior
pouatlon To other States.
And II ia, we've doubtful under the decision
IN the case Of BrD,cH, YET there is more lax CON
suucllon State aufhoIiiy IN the late of Ne,
York rs. Min. (ll Peters, 1889 Thclc Ia,
Court repeat all the exceptions IN idvor OF State
control over imported Articles mentioned IN the Tor
cases; and show decided leaning IN their favor
They go SO far as Ia say that State Law winch con
Germs tlIe welfare Of The people within State, aud
relates 10 then dunes as men and citizens, aud 10
persons and things wIthin its Jursdct,on is a regu-
l1ion concerning the Internal police oi State.
No doubt the sumpuaty law in question, prohibiting
the sale Of spniuous liquors, falls within the nghtu
ooguzance Of lle State Governments according To
The doctrines u the SbEreme Court Of The Unted
State. and am very decidedly Of tie opinion that
II would be iruitlss 10 appeal To the Supreme Couft
OF me lnied STATES against decision If the Snpremc
JUDICIAL Court Of Massachusetts III favor VI the vail
duty vi the Slalelaw
2 As am oil opir ion that the Act Of April 1898
shot against the constitution or laws OF the United
states, The second question becomes unnecessary
ct ~, The gentlemen who have done me the homo,
TO consult me- may still be disposed to Try the OK
pertinent, should that case advise thai whenever
sun Is brought Tor penalty Tor selling contrary 10
The Act that the defendant den VI to the Kill ar de.
cIaraon, o. set up by way Of defence tina, the Acts
fepugnantto the Constitution o the Unned States
and If overued. as he would be, that he ,sppe,l IN
the Supreme judicial Count OF the State aud # the