New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-05-22


in onr Conf Of Errors John r., lo7, IN which Is
ws. held that Wien the powers Of the States and the
General Government came practically in collision, the
State authority would be go Tar CONTROLLED but II would
M he good In those respects in which It did no;
trayepe the provisions Of the paramount; law.
These views have also been sanctioned and enforced
by the two leading commentators on American Law
Kent and Story-whofe names are in all our COurs
received ss authority the former remarking that
fhese e1pofItioDs of the paramount powers OF the
General Government are 10 be received as correct
authority and are exceedingly clear and logical in
their deductions" Kent Conn.,, 39l, Story on the
Consf., l,072.
The principle thus frmy established by the supreme
authority and thus universally cognized il not that
which has been claimed 10 be applicable to this law
namely that it void because it may come in conflict
with power which Congress may exercise; but it Is
this that tie State law i affected by the power Of
Congress only when hat power i actually exercised
and that exercise produces conflict by means of en-
acimepts inconsistent and totally Tepugnant thai
10th carrot exist together.
Now il Is NANTES; 10 the most casual observe that
there s nothing in this law which in the slightest de-
gree intoreres with the exercise By the General Gov
eminent Of the power Of imposing duties upon the ina
portation Of foreign liquors, Of regulating COM
meroc for it does not begin 10 operate upon foreign
liquors until the importation II fully and completely
ended nor attempt 10 control the sale Of them until
they pass from the importers hands. There cen
therefore be conflict Gnd consequently no occasion
for the paramount law 70 enter the field aud sweep
an hands TO have been originally part OF State
eighty which has never been expressly taken away
and which be disturbed only b. an actual and not
by imaginary conflict with the superior jurisdcOn
an aware that reasoning from extremes never sat-
sfaciOrily proves anything 70 the rejecting mind, yet
il s sometimes allowable for the purpose Of ascertain
ing 10 wi az oxrev garces an asserted doctrine may
lead Us.
A few Instances from our everyday practice VII.
readily perform that Office for on this OCCASION
Thus we have a statute forbiddng any person to sell
any poisonous substance without having the word
Ioson" written or printed on label attached TO the
parcel in which is sold. Now it be said because
the laws Of Congress permit tie importation of arsenic
Irussic Geld opium that statute is void Can
II he said that statute which prohibits the ladng Of
vessel 10 endager her sinking overseeing is
nugaory because the ia0ing may he Of dutiahle goods
which the law Of Congress allows to be imported
10 our statute orbiddng cruelty to animals void be-
cause the law Of Congress permits the importation Of
horses and COWS and sheepi Is even our city Ordi-
nance, void which regulates tie sale and keeping of
gunpCwder, because under the law Of Congress gun
rowdor may be imported Is our statute which for
bids the importation Of foreign convicts void because
the law OF Congress allows the utmost freedom 10 our
mercantile marine in bringing foreigners to our horesl
These questions, which relate to matters which have
ever beer regarded as Justly within the scope of inter-
nal State regulation, must all be answered in the
affirmative ii We are now to hold this law 10 be uncOn-
siiiutional because affects article which the
touai law allows 10 be imported.
But there is yet another aspec; in which the untena-
bic nature OF this objection to the law is apparent.
Tie power of Congress il not the power Of regulat-
ing the sale of arces but that of laying and collect
ing taxes, duties mpOsts and excuses and regulating
commerce Now Congress has the power TO impose
its taxes either direct or indirect, upon every article
of properly That may pOssofr as well as upon the
liquor We may import. Docs il thence follow that the
States ore thus utterly deprived Of all power that
property Of al authority 10 regulate H. of oil means of
Ireventing its operating TO the destruction of the
health the morals and TIE happiness Of the people
Ii the doctrine conended for Is good for anything, it
must be good 10 this extent; and II II Ii, thea what s
State sovereignty but the idlest pageanry that was
ever set up 10 be worshped and then swept away
have been thus particular in going this whole
ground and tracing out the progress OF the principle
which reefs the validity OF the law in question that It
might be seen how long IT has been under discussion IN
our Courts how careful ly II has been considered and
how firmly has been settled the fixed law Of the land
Nay more, 10 show also how wise and necessary it Is
that the principle should be thus recognized in order
to preserve the very spirit OF our institutions and pre-
vent the ABSORPTION of all State and local sovereignty
into one common concentrated vortex whose bare eK-
istence would be destructive of the independence OF
Tie People and the responsibility TO them which our
whole system Of government depends
/ might have been content merely 10 refer 70 thc
license cares rel ored in HOrard 5Ol a. an authon-
tative and binding ainunciaton OF the law That dc
cision is Of that character for involving as It does t
Iowers of the Constitution and laws OF the General
Government, is il, pursuant TO the Constitution the
supreme law of the lnnd. Const., Art. 3. Sect.
Art. 6.
That decision made IN lt47 and involved tie
Liquor Laws Of Massachusetts, Rhode Island and
New Hampshire In The litter State the law under con-
sideTaon entirely prohibited saes-n the other States
only sales under certain quantity. The questions in
yolyed were very ebly and twice argued and by some
Of the most learned and distinguished counsel in the
nation. Each Judge delivered hs own opinion, but
the Courts unanimous in the decision that the
laws Constitutional, and that il legtmaiely
within the province of the State Legislatures enact
The principles established were these:
l. That the exercise of such power by the States
did not conflict with the grant TO Congress Of the
power 10 regulate commerce and lay mposts, because
il beg its operation where the power OF Congress
ended namely, at the point where the goods imported
passed bey ond the reach of the action of the General
Government and mingled with the great of
property in the country, and ike property generally
became subject to State authority.
2. That those statutes were purely regulations Of PO
lice and internal Government 10 secure health and
good order and thus within the general powers srig
ually vested in and reserved TO the States and the
people, and that their effort 10 reduee mposiatons
wes merely secondary and III respect affected the
power in the States.
g. That the power 10 paSs such sws exists necessa-
rly in every community, and the right in Congress 10
Ceulate commerce necessarily contemplated lmita-
tons and exceptions favor of the States az
fcotng the morals health SAT- ~ of the community
That these laws do not apply TO spiitGous liquors
az articles Of importation and commerce between the
Stes and foreign countries, but merely at 10 restrain
the retail and domestic traffic therein within the
bourda es OF the States and affect ihsm only when
they Incorporated INTO the Of property in the
Slatos.
S. That tie power over commerce such at least
10 be the conclusion Of majority OF the Court
is concuTt nj in the General Government and In the
States and where Congress has exercised the pow
the States may and as Congress has not attempted
TO regulate egislae upon the internal commerce IN
intoxicating liquors the States may DO so.
.. That even II the power commerce Is excus
lively 10 the General Government il terminate. al the