The Minnesota pioneer. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn. Territory) 1849-1855, 1853-03-03
Constitutional Que stion.


Constitutional Question.
! For more than two centuries the traffic in in
toxicaing liquors has been licensed and regulated
/ by law; and under the ordinances for trade the
Constitution of the United States has made Ger
tam provisions for the reception and disposition OF
brandies, &c, received from foreign countries -
In the general burs, of indignation against the
traffic, called by distinguished juri.t, "a iraiHc
in the souls ard bodies OF men, " laws have heen
passed which. in their operation. wouId bar
those articles from sale. A question has hence
arisen, Is not such entire prohibition IN con-
ilict with The laws of the General Govern
meni The question first Game up IN d lesa! f1rnr
IN the State Of ssachusett~, In 1897, in an cx-
C, pliou to the con, ic,ion Of BenlIuin kiu,baH
! ior selling spiTltu0us liquor without license, which
conviction was considered null and void, GA lbe
ground that Law, prohibiting the -ae Of liquors
/ without license, was at variance with Inc laws
and Constitution OF the United States TIE Su-
pEe,ne judicial C0uft, IN this case. decided HAT
all licenses aud pr0hiotOry statutes fn wihin
the powers necessary 60 the police, internal regu-
iatIOn, and weiiure ol ihe community, and do not
in ihc least interfere with The Consultation Of the
United States A ,ery able argument was made
on This point BY the Hon. Peeg SpragGe The
question came up again IN isi5, IN m appeal OF
Samuel Thuslow from decision of he Courts ~
Massachusetts, 10 the Supfcme Cour, Of the Unit
ed states. The case argued before that
bigh tribunal by MesSrs. Webster, Chaa,e ana
IlaIlei, for the pllluiili; and A,ahel Huntington
OF Salem, for HE state Mr.. Webster argued
that Congress alone has the power 10 regulate
cou.I.i erce " Nh icrc IN nations, and among the
several States, and with the Indian tribes: and
that, While the law Of Congress auhorizcs inl-
(,rt ti,n cria =
the State prohibits all sale ami consumption and
thus renders invalid the law of the nation. The
RIGHT said he, to nnport, lnplles the right 10
sell, 20 The unrestricted Use OF all the channels Of
commerce, even the most minute 10 the consurp-
eT' IL opposition TO Mr.. Webster, Nj DAVIS
for the State, argued that police laws ''uav DC
carried 10 any extent the public weiare domlnds
If the health, the morals, and the welfare o! the
public demand tho exclusion Of an evil there IS
"a right 10 shut II out regardless Ct! revenue and
! private interest. if excessive indulgence in the
use of intoxicating drinks be an evil, II is the
righ, Of the Legislature 10 guard against it by
wise and prudent Legislation. This restraint up
on the sale of spT,ts, only follows out principle
maintained and enforced in all age, by civilized
nations -
/ NJ: Webster in reply, "agreed that the retail
trade should be regulated; that The Stale was The
sole and uncontrolled Judge Of her polio, and
ihai he claimed iof ,i,e court no poer t. rpyie.,
her decisi'n on that point. lie only claimed THAI
State laws urst Weld when the, IN conflict
! with the acis Of Congress- The censi unani-
rnousy decided that the iaH Of Massachusetts,
iorhiddine The sale in less Quantities than twenty
eight y ion., and the law Of New Hampshire for
bidd,nc The sale IN an, quantity, ",vcfe not in
consisen, with the Constitution of the United
States, nor with any acts of Congress And
the, full, established the right oi u State 20 pro-
hibii entirely tie sale Of intoxicating drinks.
! Chief Justice fancy: every Stale may regu-
late is own internal traffic, according To- IL own
judgment. aud upon lis own views of the irtere>,
and well being al It's cIlizens am not aware
that iheso principles have ever been questioned.
II any State deein, the retail and iu,cr1ii traffic
in ardent spirits injurious to ifs citizens and cal
culatrd 80 produce idleness. wee and debauchery.
| see noth,ng in the Constitution Of The United
States to prevent 1t from regulating ard resfIain-
ing he iratiic, or from prohibiting il altogether,
If II thinks proper. The Law Of New l!dmF-hre
is valid law; for although the .n sold Was
import from aUo,her State, and Congress have
aIreldy the power to regulate such inportHliohs,
Vet rs Congress has made no regulation the
subject. The traffic IA The ariIclc may DC lawfully
regulated by the Stnte, soon a. II is 'anIed in
It's territory; and tax imposed upon II, OF IL
ceuse required, or The sale altogether prohibited,
according 10 the policy whch the Stale may sup
pose TO he rs interest or It's duty 10 pursue. -
All the Associate Justices agreed with the Chief
Justice IN THIS result.
Mr. Justice Mclean: "Tha acknowledged pc
lice power Of S,lte extends often to he drsiiuc
non of property. \ nuisance may De ahated. II
Is the settled construction Of every reg iaIon nt
commerce, that no person can introduce INTO
community malignant Diseases. or anythlng which
coniami.ares IT, morals, or eniansers ia safety.
, individuals IN the enJoy men' ol Their own fi2ht.
must BE- careful not 10 lnllre The TIZhis ct others.
/ Mr. Justice Cairon: II admit ~ inevitable thai
If The State has the power Of restraint by licenses
TO an, exient, -he has the discretionary power to
Judge of lis un, and mas go TO The length Of pro-
hitting sales altogether, il such be her policy;
and that # this court cannot interfere in the case
before u, n, iher could we interfere In the ex
treme case Of eXclusinn.'
Mr.. Jusiice Daniel entirely concutred in the
decision of the court, bat protested against the
doctrine that the State cannot control The sale Of
IN imported article by the importer or N the ori
elnai bulk uauiy.
Mr. Justice Woodbury.: "There Is no contract,
expressed or implied in any act OF Congress that
the owners of property. whether the importers or
purchasers from them, shall sell their articles IN
, such quantities, or al such times as they please
within The respective States Nor ran they ex
pect 10 sell on anv other or better terms than are
allowed by each State 10 all its cnizens. go
further on this poini than OF this court, and
" .sn 20 meet the in front, and m rs worst
bearings If these laws were in the nature Of
partial or entire prohibition; TO sell certain artI-
cles within the limits OF State, as being danger
ous to public health or morals, 1t does moi seem
to me that their conflict with the Constitution
wonld be clear Whether such laws could ba
classed as police measures, regulations OF their
internal commerce ,s oflitte consequence, Il they