New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-04-24
our present act : To und ,rstAnd this question
accurately, let us see the first section. Here

scld BY p.rsnr for himself ssy otber person
ene BY sesns pursuing the p-seties medicine bns
pee" or for ,cran-pts purPse be kept -i.h issn
be Sven swsy In any tsce gbas0ev-r except In sgsl1g
bouse which or 10 any part Of sbh tavern store rro
S, ' s1e5S o , rSo,ns soa. ., ,o ot
lind sep nor shsll il be t.pt or dep1htei in scs
church place wor,hp ..crsrssn. purpose
In place where either chemical eoh.nc medic.
branch while r,r.port.tion fro Que
place TO sto,ber or stored In who1.s p1r eshin
liquor the sh sell which this state sv.a By any law
| or treaty Of the United states'
The last clause il evidently designed to prevent
any coDAictbetween the State and Federal author-
ties. II has been criticised, and supposed BY
some to exempt from the operation OF the sec.
ton. liquor which has at any time been lawfully
imported and sold under the act, or trestes Of
the United States. Such, indeed, 10 the view set
up by Mr.. Robert J. Dillon Counsel to the Cor.
poraiion in long argument, which We copy on
another page. According to Mr. Dillon, not only
10 imported liquor in the original packages ex-
cep.ed from the efectOf the law, but this exemp.
tion holds good even when such liquor hss passed
into the hands of the retsilers and lie sold out by
the glass. In making out his point, Mr. Dillon
spins q most sttenuated thread of legal reasoning.
The Supreme Court OF the United States has said
that it "Is easy, by very ingenious aod assute
constructions, to eyade the forcs OF almost
"ev,Y statute, where Court is 30 disposed"
aid 1t is possible therefore, that Court may be
found, % public law officers have been found,
disposed to evsde the force Of this. But sill it
10 obvious to every sensible map, that the fair and
natural meaning Of the clause is, that the pro-
hibi,On shall not apply to liquors, the right to sell
which at the time IF The act complained Of is given
BY any law or treaties of the United States
The verb is used in The present tense-'is Civ.
"ep," not in the past tense-has been giveu-ind
is 10 be applied AS if it were written by the law
maker at the moment Of transgression. This is
the plain intent Of the Legislature in enacting the
law, and We are confident tina. every upright Judge
will pay regard to that than to the verbal sub
t e,ies and soPhistical bubbles of lqqordeal.
ers' council. Mr.. billions unbo1nied liberty Of
dram selling will, we dare ssy, not be recognised
as allowable by the courts.
But it has been further urged that the la Y In
itself is contrary to the Federal Constitution.
Whit, then, are the rights Of the States ia re-
fpect to their internal trade and policy May
New. York regulate her own domestic Affairs or
,bal they be regulated BY South Carolina, Mis-
souri, end by and-by, perhaps by Cuba and Hs-
wall There can be but one ans yer, we should
think, with all right-thinkiDg men With all who
expect or desire to see this Uoion psrpetus.ed:
New.YOrk is sovereign in all thas relates
to her own affairs, and whether she legslstes
wisely or unwiseIy is her xn concern She may
prohibit the Unrestricted handling of gunpowder
and ofpoisOn; she may repe paupers aud con 1icts;
she may Eize and destroy obscene books and
her. But, happily, we are no. lefs to mere argu-
ment: the question has been considered aud |
decided by the highest cours known 20 the couu-
try. TIE compatibility of licensel.w with the |
Constitution Of the Nation was decided by tbs
Supreme Court Of the United States, In l3i7, |
AFTER being deliberately argued and re- argued. |
Opinions were given by six of the Judges differing
in their general reasoning, but oil agreeing in
favor of the rights of the States. We have room |
only for quotations from the opinion of Chief JUS
lice TANEY, ss follows:
{ The Constitution Of the Unitsd States declares |
bat that Constitution and the laws CT the United |
states hich shall be made in pursuan, e thereof aud
Ill treaties made, or which shall be made under the
authority Of the United States, ehsl be the supreme
aw OF the land. 1t follows, that a law Of Congress |
regulating commerce with foreign nations, or among |
he several States is the supreme law and II the isw
IF State is in COZ ct with it, the law OF Congress
must prevail, and the State law cease TO operate, |
10 far as it is repugnsnt to the law OF the United
States.
at is equally clear that the power Of Congress |
over this subject does not extesd furtner tnan tne
eoulaf ~ Wit
among the several States; and that beyond these
limits the States have never SURRENDERED ther power
over trade and commerce, and may sun exercise IL,
free from any contro ling power on the part OF Ihe
General Government Every State, therefore, may |
eulste its own internal traffic. according 10 IT'S own
Judgment sid upon its own Views oil the interest ana
we'll being OF its citizens.
been questioned. The difficulty has al ways arisen on
their applications and that difficulty IS noT presented
ip the Rhode Island and Massachusetts, cases, where
the question is how far State may reguIae or pro-
hint the sale of ardent spirits, the importation Of
which from foreign countries has been authorized by
Congress Is such law q regulation Of foreign CON-
merce or Of the Internal traffic of the State ?"
CIT is unquestionably no easy task to mark by a |
cer,in and definite line the difference betwee foreign
and domestic commerce. and 10 fix The precise point,
in relation TO every imported article whsre the para
mount power of Congress terminates and that of the
State begins The Constitution ba does not attempt
10 define these limits. They cannot be determined by
the lave OF Congress- the States neither csn by
it's own legislation eLlage It's own powers, restrict
these Of the other. And the Constitution itself
does not draw the Ike, the question is necessarily one
for judicial decision and depending altogether upon
the wof de of the Constitution.
This question came directly before the Court for
the frst time in the Ct Brown vs. The Stse of
Maryland, l2 Wkest., 4l9. And the Court there held
tina, an sriice authorized by law of Congress to be
imroIted continued to be part of the foreign COM
MERGE Of the country, while IL remained in the hands
of the in porter for sale in the original bsle package
or vessel in which il was impored that tbs authority
imnnrf IechssarilY carried with IL.