The Union and eastern journal. [volume] (Biddeford [Me.]) 1854-1858, 1855-05-11

prcmc Court Of the United States some ycan
since 10 the case Of Thuhow W. Massachusetts,.
Six II the seven judges gave opinions oil Of
which led 10 the same conclusion. From tho
opinion Of one OF these, Chief Justice Tansy, We
make the following exiracts'-
"The Constitution Of the United States do
clares that that Constitution, and the laws Of
the United States which shall be Es,', II -r''r.
ancc thereof, and all treaties made, "n"L
shall be made, under the authority Of the United
States, shall be the supreme law Of tho land Il
follows, tina, q law Of Congress regulating com.
mercc with foreign nations, or among The several
States, Is the supreme law; and II tho law Of .
State Is in conflict with il, the law Of congress
must prevail, and tho Staic law ceases TO operate,
so Ear as II Is epugnant TO the law Of the United
States.
II Is equally clear that the powers Of Congress
over this subject docs not extend further than tho
regulation Of commerce with foreign countries,
and among the several States; and that beyond
these limits the States have never surrendered
their power over trade and commerce, and may
still exercise IT, free from any controlling power
on the part Of the General Government. Every
State, therefore, may regulate It's own internal
traffic, according TO Its own judgment, and upon
its own views Of the interest and well being Of its
citizens"
"This question came directly before the Court
for the first time in the case Of Brown vs.. tho
State OF Maryland, 10 Wheat. 4io. And tho
Court there held that an article authorized by
law Of Congress 10 be imported, continued to TO
a part OF the foreign commerce OF the country,
while !, remained 10 the hands Of the importer Tor
sale, in the original bale, package or vessel In
which |, was imported; that the authority given
to import necessarily, carried with Il the right 10
sell the imported article Ia the form and shape In
which il wos imported, aud that no State, either
by direct assessment or by requiring license
from the importer before be was permitted TO cell,
could impose any burden upon HIMSELF or tho
property. imported beyond what the Law Of Con.
gress had itself imposed, but that when the orig.
inal package was broken up foe use or for retail
by the importer, and also when the commodity
had passed from his hands into tho hands OF a
purchaser, 1t ceased 10 be an import. or q part OF
foreign commerce, and become subject TO the laws
OF the State, and nigh, be taxed for State pur.
poses, and the sale regulated by the State, Ike
any other property. This Understand 10 be sub
staniially the decision in the case Of Brown vs..
the State OF Maryland, drawing the line between
foreign commerce, which is subject TO the rrgula-
lion Of Congress, and internal or domestic CON.
mercc, which belongs to the State, and over
which Congress can exercise no con,rol.'
Blu. although State Is bound to receive and
to permit the sale by the importer OF any article
Of merchandise which Congress authorizes TO DO
imported II is not bound TO furnish a market for
| Il. nor TO abstaia from the passage 81 any law
which II may deem necessary or advisable to
guard the health or moIals Of its citizeas, alibo
such law may discourage importation or diminish
the profits Of the importer, or lessen the revenue
Of The Gene,al Government And II any State
deems the retail aud internal Lafis in arden,
spirits injurious to lis citizens, and calculated Il
produce idleness, vice or debauchTy, see moo.
ing in the Constitution Of the Tniied Stass 10
prevent ii from regulating aui resirai"ns inc
traffic, or from prohibiting altogether u IL
thinks proper. OF the wisdom Of tbs policy, IT'S
not my province or my purpose 10 speak Upon
that subject each State mus, decide Tor i'seii'
speak only OF the restrictions which the Cons'i-
tuition sud laws Of tbs United States have 'mpos'
ed upon the States, ..