Indiana American. [volume] (Brookville, Ind.) 1833-1861, 1854-09-01
gntsrntins Gale.
(cepyrght secured according TO Law
2HI MYSTERIOUS PARCHMENT.
OR
THE SATANIC LICENSE.
CHAPTER XII.
THE ISSUE.

|
'(I sec) 10 argue 'gainst the grain
or,like the stars, incline msn 10
What they're averso themselves 10 do
For whom disputes are weariod out,
IT'S interest stiil resolves the doubt.r
Scribner, you may say what you
please about the character OF these men
and their business oil that does not
touch the question Of right in their case.
| hold that n man has an inalienable
right to buy what he pleases in this re-
public, and sell II again, II he chooses.
But the law you are asking for, says he
shall not. IL prohibits a man from hav-
ing 1t about his premises.
You are mistaken, sir. AS | under
stand Il, any man can keep 1t for his own
use, but has no right to sell II to others
as beverage.
That is the same thing. According
to your own understanding OF the law,
no one can purchase II with view of
uatiicking in 1t. Is not that your idea
of il 2
My view Of the law is, that no one
has right to deal in II except for medi-
cal and mechanical purposes.
Ii man purchase quantity for the
purpose Of retailing it as beverage, by
this law it can be destroyed. Is that
the idea!
Certainly.
| Well, sir, do not hesitate to say that
such law is cruelty unjust and oppres-
sive.
To be consistent, then, you must pro-
nounce other laws unjust and oppres-
sve. Suppose you pay your money for
u dog, and he runs mad and endangers
the lives OF the citizens; will the law
spare him because he is your property
We have law which makes II the duty
OF public officers to destroy the imp le-
ments Of gamblers do you consider
that an unjust and oppressive law B.
We have law which sezes and des-
troys counterfeit money, and all dies and
plates for making it, no matter how
much they cost the owner; do you think
that is an unjust aud oppressive law -
We have laws which prohibit men from
dealing in lottery tickets, tainted me ats,
and all contraband goods; do you con-
slider those 'crnelly unjust and oppres-
sive'
understand all that. But bring up
as many laws as you will OF that stamp,
they do not change the character or
severity Of the law you are asking for
in the least. 1t is maniIestly unconsti-
rational. and everv man Of intelligence
must see il SO, said Morrison sharply.
You have harped good deal on the
unconstitutionalify OF the law now,
have the goodness to tell me wherein il
Is so.
Well, sir, that will do. The consti-
tuition Of the United States gives to
Congress the power Of regulating foreign
Commerce. Congress has, by law, au-
thorized the importation Of spurious
liquors. The law which you propose
comes in collision with that Jaw, and
tins subverts its constitutional power. |
Your argument, Mr.. Morrison, would
appear more plausible If II referred TO
the whole trade in spirits. But il does
not +; IL only covers importations, which |
is less. than one sixth oil all that is sold In |
our country. Granting, therefore, the
validity of your argument--which | do
not-when you confne II TO importa-
tions, Il has but little weight.
cannot tell how the matter appears |
TO you; but TO my mind IL IL clear that
such law would contravene the law OF /
Congress and the constitution Of the |
United States.
That Is very strange opinion for a
legal gentleman to give, certainly.
should think q wel-lnlormed child would
know that Congress has no power or
right TO force the sale Of liquor upon |
any OF the states. This clause, which
is In the constitution, may throw some
light upon the subject: The powers
not delegated TO the United States by
the constitution, or prohibited by II TO
the states, are reserved TO the states
respectively, or TO the people," Now,
u Congress has made law whereby |
liquors may be imported into the coun-
try, IL is clear they have no right to force !
those liquors upon the individual states.
We have n case at hand which clearly |
illustrates this point. BY an act of Con-
gress. the importation of negroes into
tbs country was lawful up TO isos.-
Prev ious 20 that time some OF the states
abolish.,d slavery, and by law made II
crime for any. person to introduce ana
hold them as slnves. But believe the
objection was ,Sever urged that the law
was unconstitutio nal because IL coniiic-
ted with the law O Congress allowing
their Importation.
Yes, but there Is ol. 70 very important
.lanse In ,ho .ans,,,,, ion which you
have studiously avoide. ': 'Congross
snail have power to regula g co'nnie1eo
with foreign nations, and among ,"e
several states, and With ne indian
tribes That certainly says nat Con
gress shall have power to regula 70 c, 'm-
nerce among the states. Now. l., Co. u
yress has passed a law allowing the i'm.
Dortaton OF liquors into the country, IL
IS plainly implied in this passage that
every state law interfering with or con- +,
ravening the sale OF that liquor in the |
several states is unconstitutional.
The phrase, among the several states,''
has always been understood as mean
ng between state aud state and nev-
sr as touching internal trades between
'itlzens Of tho same state. BY turning
10 Story's celebrated Commentary on 3
he Constitution, you will find the fol- II
owing: Commerce among the statos Il
means commerce which concerns moro K
states than one. IL Is not an apt phrase II
10 indicate the mere interior traffic of a a
single state. The completely internal 81
commerce of state may be properly Il
considered as reserved TO the state t. "A
'elf.' |, Is very plain, therefore, that VI
ho clause In the constitution under con-
'iderutlon has no reference whatever 10 b
my law which an individual state may c.
'nact to control business or traffic In. Il
ernal to itsolf. And Il seems to me sl
hat no legal gentleman OF standing
would peril his reputation by giving q n
contrary opinion. "
You are paying quite compliment to q