Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1839-11-28

hSmenf, that "all cases IN Law and Equity
arising under This Constitution" shall be
determined by the Federal Court My
adopting the opinion ofrhe Court even in
preference to his own. will, doubt not, be
very gratifying proof, to the Constitution
loving Cato, of my devotion to that sacred
instrument. "Calo" admits that lover
things imported State may institute reg
ulation." What Cato" means hy the
elegant phrase '.institute regulation" am
unahIe 10 comprehend; since il is Que nol
to he found in the law books, or in the Con-
slilulion. But this "regula'ion" he tells
US is moi to proceed to "prohibition."-
Has the intelligence ever reached EN-
met Lodge hat The people of South Car
olina in 1885 by an Act of Assembly. i'm
posed a tax of one thousand doliarS on
Ilawkers and PedIars? Does breaking up
trade amount to "prohibition!" If so
we have by express Law prohibited"
Pedlars from '.sellins or exposing 10 sale
any goods wares or merchandise" whether
simported" or not. And our Courts have
never questioned the constitutionaIty Of
this Law. l will moi quarrel with Cato"
about terms; but shall simply proceed to
show the incidents apperlaiung to the
..instilu,ed regulation" of which lie speaks.
First, then the People Of South Carolina
have right to regulate the place and
manner in which one shall dispose of his
Merchandise. This is illustrated by the
case Of the Pedlar already cited. That
they have right to define the quantity
is likewise manifest from an existing law
in relation to retailers themselves; "Cato"
mey possibly know from experience, that
a retailer cannotre recover for a less quantity
of Ii, lor than n quart. That we have
a right TO prescribe The person is equally
clear i, heing penal offence in this
State for any one to trade with slave
Upon the consli,uIionaIltv of these laws
our Courts have already decided.
But "Caro" still insists 'rhat there is no
constitutional right To prohibit the sale
of auv article of commerce in which there
is capital aud labor" iflhe sapienr" "Ca,o"
will turn to the ODD page of the Acts Of
Assembly of 1921 he will find that South
Carolina has .'prohibitcd" the introduction
or circulation Of any books or pamphlets"
calculated 90 disturb the peace or securi-
ty" Of her citizens. would like to he in
formed by one so learned In the Law az
Cato" surely ia, since he has undertaken
TO instruct our Legislators. whether looks
and pamphlets are ''articies Of commerce in
which there is capital and labor!"
But have wasted too much time al.
ready, upon the ro'lumanlade Of This va.
poring scrihber. Nothing, as before said,
but The consideration. that some, eucn more
ignorant than Cato" himself, might he
influenced by his unrneauing jargon about
liberty and laws, would eyer have induced
me TO notice so silly production. Whilst
we are discussing The propriety of alter
ing or repeating law already upon our
statute hook, "CatD" ia raining about
constitutions g. commerce. believe that
,ce, The citizens of s. Carolina are freemen.
| believe. (.CaIo's" opinion to the contra
ry. Notwithstanding. that we no,c possess
the right Of making such la,os as ire see fit,
for cur o,cn gnnrnment, and that when we
lose This right we will cease to he freemen!t
IT, then. the people Of S. Carolina choose
to alter, or repeal the present license laws,
or any other ia,0 upon their statute hook.
can not perceive that they are doing
more than, as freemen, they haze right 10
to do. EDGEFIELD.