Southern standard. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1851-1856, 1851-03-01

a State may do this upon inc same principles Inn
it NAV resist and prevent the introduction of dis
ease, pestilence, or pauperIsm from abroad. BUTT
nnst he remembered that disease, pestilence, and
naunerism are not subjects of commerce, although
sometimes among its attendant evils. They are
not THINGS TO be regulated and traicked in, but To
be prevented. as far as human foresight or human
means can guard against them. But spirits and
distilled liquors are universally admitted TO be sub
iects of ownership and property, and are therefore
subjects of exchange, barter, and traffic, like any
other commodity in which right of property
exists And Congress, under Its general power
tn REGULATE commerce with foreign nations NAV
nrescrbe what article of merchandise shall be adj
mitted. and what excluded and may therefore
admit. or not, as it shall deem best, the impofta
ton of ardent spirits And inasmuch as the laws
of Congress authorize their Importation, no State
has right to prohibit their introduction.
but do not understand the law of Massachu-
sets or Rhode Island interfering with the trade
in ardent spirits while the article remains part Of
foreign commerce, and IS In the hands OF the I'M
porter for sale in the cask vessel in which the
laws of Congress authorize it to be imported
These State laws act altogether upon the retail or
domestic traffic within their respective borders
They act upon the article after it has passed the
line of foreign commerce, and become part Of
the general mass of property in the State. These
laws may, indeed, discourage imports, aud dimn-
ish the price which ardent spirits would otherwise
bring But although State is bound to receive
and to permit the sale by the importer of any art-
Gle of merchandise which Congress authorizes to
be imported, it is not bound to furnish market
for it, nor to abstain from the passage of any law
which it may deem necessary or advisable to
guard the health or morals of its citizens, altho'
such law may discourage importation, or diminish
the profits of the importer, lessen the revenue
of the general government. And if any State
deems the retail and internal traffic in ardent
spirits injurious to its citizens and calculated to
produce idleness, vice, debauchery, | see moth
ing in the constitution of the United States to pre-
vent it from regulating and restraining the traffic.
from prohibiting it altogether if it thinks proper
OF the wisdom of this policy, it is not my province
or my purpose to speak. Upon that subject, each
State must decide for itself | speak only of the
restrictions which the constitution and laws of the
United States have imposed upon the States
And as these laws of Massachusetts, and Rhode
Island not repugnant to the constitution of the
United States, and do not come in conflict with any
law of Congress passed in pursuance of its au-
thonty to regulate commerce with foreign nations
and among the several States, there is no ground
upon which this court can declare them to be
void. -
First, to Gibbons VS.. Ogden, because this is
the usually referred to and relied on to prove
the exclusive power of Congress and the prohibi-
sages in that opinion, taken by themselves and
detached from the context, would seem to coun-
tenance this doctrine. And, indeed it has ALWAYS
appeared to me that this controversy has mainly
arisen out of that case, and that this doctrine of
the exclusive power of Congress- in the sense in
which it Is now contended for, is comparatively a
modern one, and was never seriously put forward
in any until after the decision of Gibbons vs.
Ogden, although it has been abundantly discussed
to tn ha ,lao
careful examination of that case, that the expires
sions referred to do not the inference drawn
from Them and were not used in the sense imputed
to them and that the opinion in that case when
taken altogether and with reference to the subject
matter before the court, establishes the doctrine
that State may, in the execution of its powers
of internal police, make regulations of foreign
commerce and that such regulations are valid.
unless they come into collision with law of Con-
gress. Upon examining that opinion it will be
seen that the court when it the expressions
which are supposed to countenance the doctrine of
exclusive power in Congress, is commenting upon
the argument of counsel in favor of equal powers
on this subject in the States and the general gov
eminent, where neither party is bound to WELD TO
the other; and is drawing the distinction between
cases OF concurrent powers and those in which the
supreme or paramount power was granted to Con-
gress 1t therefore very Justly speaks of the
States exercising their own powers in lavin,,
taxes for State purposes, although the same thing
Is taxed by Congress; and as exercising the pow
ers granted to Congress when they make reGula-
tons OF commerce. In the first case the State
power Is concurrent with that of the general poy-
ernment-is equal to it, and is not bound to Weld
In the second, it is subordinate and subject to the
superior and controlling power conferred upon
Congress. -
Judge Mclean, in delivering his opinion in the
same case, says:
"The tenth amendment of the constitution declares
that the powers not delegated to the United States
by the constitution, prohibited by it to the States
are reserved to the States respectively or to the
pie. PO
Before the adoption of the constitution the States
possessed, respectively all the attributes of soverein
y In their organic laws they had distributed their
powers OF government according to their own views
subject to such notifications the people of each
State might sanction The agencies established bv
the articles of confederation were not entitled TO the
dignifed appellation of government
The federal government is supreme in the eyer
else OF powers delegated it. but beyond this its acts
are unconstitutional and void So the acts of the
States are void when they do that which is inhibited
10 them' or exercise power which they have exclu-
sively delegated to the federal government
The power to tax is common to the federal and
state governments and may be exercised by each in
taxing the same property but this produces no conflict
of jurisdiction. y
Inc states, resting upon their original basis of
sovereignty, subject only the exceptions stated CIV
eIcise tnelr powers over everything connected with
ther social and internal condition State regulates
a uohesue commerce, contracts, the transmission of