New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-05-22
JUDGE EDMONDss REPLY.
TNmrr BurLDmcs, No. III Broadway,

"intemper8ncc, PduIerlsIn ana Crme passed Apfll
o. 1885, in reference to the three questions propounded
70 me- namely: I. Whether it Is constitutonaly in
the power of the Legislature TO prohibit the domestic
traffic in intoxicating hquorsi 2. Whether the means
prescribed by the act 10 enforce this prohibition are
lawful and g. If the act any part Of it be valid,
upon what officers does the duty of enforcing it de-
yolve'
There are two az poets in which it is alleged that the
act is nugaory-one in ts attempt to prohibit the sale
Of intoxicating liquors. ard The other in the
-serttd 70 70 ens6fce that prohibition.
las TO THE LEGALITY OF rHE PRoHiBITIos.
The objection &c this part Of the oct seems to be
unde on the idea atbecause Congress has imposed
duty ON the article thus allowing its importation and
pIiedIy its sale ofterward is not competent for the
State sovereignty to interfere in any with its
sale even after ii has passed from the hand of the i'm
porter.
The idea involved is that because Congress has
power TO allow the importation Of such liquors and has
exercised it, therefore the States exercise power
over them, either TO regulate prohibit their sale
afterwsrd because they may adopt such measures by
prohibiting all sales to render the importation
iirey useless and thus produce conflict Of the enact
ments of the two sovereignes in which conflict the
law Of Congress must prevail and the State law give
way.
This idea IL not novel some seem to consider il.
The danger Of such a conflict was early apparent 10
the great and good minds upon whom devolved the
tack Of framing the Constitution of the United States.
1t was discussed before the people when that nstru
ment was submitted to their approval One OF the
amendments then adopted was pointed directly at IT.
IL hos since then been frequently and very fully dis
ousscd In our highest tribunals and is definitely
settled by the highest authority in the land.
IL was observed in The Federdlst mo. 32l that the
State Governments would clearly retain all those nights
Of sovereignty which they had before the adoption of
the Constitution of the United States and which
not by that Constitution exclusively delegated TO the
Union. The alienation Of State power would exist in
only tlrce cases-one where the Constitution in ex-
press terms granted an exclusive power another,
where il granted in instance authority TO the
Union, and in another prohibited the states from
exercising like authority; aud the third, where Il
granted on authority TO the Union 70 which SINH.
lar authority in the States would be absolutely aud
totally contradictory arc rerugnant
The tenth article of the amendments TO the Consti-
tuiion enacts that the powers not delegated 10 the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it
TO the States reserved TO the States respectively
or 20 the people
The question has been several times before the Su-
preme Court of the United States in Sturgss
CroBninshield, 4 Wheat, 1872, where the insolven;
laws of the States were involved once IN Houston VS..
Moore, Wheat, !, where the power OF the States
over the militia when called into service by the United
States was discussed; once in Prog Commonwealth
Of Pennsylvania, l6 Peters, 539, where the Fugitive
Slave law was nvolvod; once in New York VS.. Min,
IL Peters io2, where the State power 10 regulate Tor
State Of Maryland, IL Wheat, al, where the State
power to license the sale of imported goods was over
thrown; and now more recently in the license cases
Thuriow w. Massachusetts &c, Hopard, \. {. r.,
5O4 where the power Of the State Legislatures TO regu
late and In measure to prohibit the sale OF ntoxica-
ting liquors is fully recognized.
And uniformly the doctrine of The Federa!'st was
sustained.
In one of those cases Chief-Justice Marshall de-
slared that though Congress has power 10 enact
bankrupt law, yet the States have power 10 enac, m
solvent laws even though il I've extremely difficult to
draw line Of distinction between them-so difficult
indeed that must IN great degree be arbitrary and
discretona and he added Ii in the opinion of Con-
"cress uniform laws concerning bankruptcy ought
mot 10 be established it doss not follow that State
Legislation on the subject must cease . IL Is net
the right to establish these uniform laws but their
"actual establishment, which is inconsistent with the
partial acts Of the States.
In another Of those cases Mr.. Justice Washington
m delivering the opinion Of the Court, even in case
where he declared the laws amounted 10 full execu
ton of the powers conferred on Congress- said that the
power of the State Governments to legrlate on the
same subject having existed prior TO the Constitution
and not having been prohibited by that instrument
remains with the States, though subordinate 10 the
paramount law of the General Government operating
on the same subject. Mr.. Justice johnson in the
same case said be could not perceive with what
sectness could from the possible abuse Of power
reason away the actual possession of by the States,
declared the idea 10 DC branch of the exploded doc
Urine that within the scope in which Congress may
"legislaie the States sha not Mr. Justice Story in
that case declared that mere greut OF power in az.
Ermative terms TO Congress docs not per transfer
exclusive sovereignty on such subject TO the latter
and be added thar where there concurrent authority
IN cases Of conflict the State laws give way those OF
Congress, and tie State laws far and so far only
as such geographically eTisi must yield" Such he
declared the general principles by which his
Judgment guided IN every investigation Coasti-
tuiional points, and he did hot know they had ever
been seriously doubted They commend themselves
"by their intrinsic equity and have been amply JUST
fed by the opinions Of the great men under whose
guidance the Constitution was framed well as by
he practice of the Government OF the Union. To
desert ihcIl would he 10 deliver ourselves over "a
endless doubts and Gificulties and probably 10 haz-
siu ue ezis,enee Of The Constitution Itself.
Ses are the principles this subject established By
IS Sssf'e1-e e0ert Of the United Ssaics which. al
A.s ~ oo1h'ct betwc,n State aud natOuai au-
all must yield. ~ "A0Se J""s"o"'
The States have yielded aecoxsin.,v. .,a .h..o,o.
the point has come before the $40 49, 80
docTine has prev alsd. Ia fcnas .ir,S,s /, - -,
TO the militia, Moore Houston -. 49,
l79. Ia Mass0ctaseffs, in regard TO de a. y -
he States of insolyent laws blanchard ~ p 'cn1 "
Mass. H., To- Ia C0EEocticaf, where irnn.,S;. -
by state authority 10 improve the RAJ cation az @
was held good though Congress had cstablshs.s =
port Of delivery on the riveT, Thames Bank "
lovel, IS Conn. r. SOC. "a tie Usif,a Cireai, IN
kassoS Aassts, where erecting bridge over nAvie-
able river held 70 BE- valid, United States vs. New
Bedford Bridge, Wood g. MA, +ol. IN Maryland
where il held that State has right 10 tax resi-
dent citizen for has interest ia ships registered under
the laws Of the United States Howell State of Ms
syisnd, GAFs r., IA. IN Delarars where the State