Smyrna times. [volume] (Smyrna, Del.) 1854-1987, 1856-06-11

tiohs Ihdh SUCH as apply 10 an abstract question
OF constitutional law, and the power OF this tri-
f bunal, derived from tho Constitution itself, tc
decide upon the validity of the act in question
as an expression of Legislative will.
1t is the province of the Judiciary to decide
what is law; to pronounce invalid Legislative
acts unconstitutionally passed. and To annul
such as may violate constitutional restrictions
but it may well be doubted whether a case
can arise requiring of the Judiciary the cxer-
else of an assumed power to annul any act OF
legislation which the constitution itself does
not condemn. Without veto power existing
in any other department, the Constitution OF
this State vests the whole Legislative power in
a Senate and House of Representatives who
represent the people in the exercise OF this high
est attribute of sovereignty. And when these
representatives are supposed in any act OF leg
lsation unwsely, or improperly, to restrain
what are assumed to be the rights of the peo-
pie, it is for the people themselves to correct
the evil through legislative repeal, and not by
Judicial usurpation.
The question, therefore, is whether the act
of 1855 violates the Constitution Of this State,
or of the United States The argument in res
pect to the latter has been that the restraints
which it imposes on the traffic in foreign liquor
affects the power Of Congress to regulate COM
merce, and lessons the revenue deprived from
the importation of liquor as an article of mer-
chandiZe. This question belongs appropriate.
! ly to the federal courts, in which it has been
repeatedly considered, with results which have
even been the subject of dispute in the argu-
ment of this case. That doubt would be enough
TO settle this branch of the case; for no State
| Court would declare an act of its own lepisa-
ton unconstitutional on a question of conflict
with power of Congress doubtful in itself
thaf hn fafa aff tod ria
have not been able TO define it. But we do not
so understand the decisions.
The right of the government to import, and
the right of the State to tax. regulate or re.
strict the sale Of foreign goods are both recog-
nized by these decisions-(4 Wheat Rep. BIS,
Mccullough as the State of Maryland; II
Wheat. Rep. 433, Brown Us Maryland and the
License cases on Towards Rep. 574) The
right of the one arises from the power to rcgu-
late commerce; that of the other exists as
police power, essential TO the Independence
and sovereignty of the State. The Judges diff.
fer about the precise line where imports cease
to be protected from State legislation as i'm
ports, and become, like all other property, sub
ject TO it but the dispute is not whether the
States have a right to tax or restrict imported
goods after they are broken up, or sold by the
importers, but whether these laws shall reach
Judges Daniel and Thompson go even to that
extent, while the judgement of the Court only
claims for imported goods immunity from State
legislation while unbroken in the importers
hands; and that is precisely the exception con-
tanned in the 18th section Of our law.
In what are usually called "the License
Cases." the Supreme Court decided the follow
ing principles
That laws of Massachusetts providing thai
no person should sell spirtuous liquors in les,
quantity than twenty-eight gallons, withou
a license to be granted by certain officers, anC
that such licenses should not be granted when
in the opinion ofthese officers, the public goo,
, did not require them to be granted;
The laws of Rhode Island forbidding the sale
9 of such liquors in a less quantity than ten gal
! Ions, though the liquor sold was foreign liqro
: duly imported, and was bought of the importer
: and,
g That laws of New Hampshire imposing SINH
: lar restrictions upon domestic liquor sent from
one State TO another, and sold in the origina
; cask, were none of them liable to objection a
infringing the Constitution or laws ofthe Unite
: States.
These decisions meet any objection that cal
be made against the Act of our legislature Of
these grounds. The cases were well con
: sidered and though the points ruled were ne
cessarily confined to the question of coallic
, with the authority of Congress, the validity 0
:, such laws was. fully recognized by all tn
i Judges of that Court as within the scope OF leg
:, islative power within the States.
: Chief Justice fancy said . Although Stat
!, is bound to receive and permit the sale by th
!, importer of any article of merchandise whic
!. Congress authorizes to be imported, it is nc
! bound to furnish market for it, nor TO obsiai
= from the passage ofany law which it may deer
!. necessary or advisable, to guard the health 9
!. morals of its citizens although such law ma
i discourage importation, or diminish the profit
i of the importer, or lessen the revenue of Al
r. general government. And ifany State deem
!. the retail aud internal Traffic in ardent spiri
= injurious to its sitizens, aud calculated TO pre-
dnce dcness, vice or debauchcry, | see noll
= ing in the Constitution ST the United States
:. prevent it from regulating and restraining Il
! traffic, or from prohibiting It altogether If
\, thinks proper"
= Mr. Justice Daniel said Sc Every State TIL
e is in any sense sovereign and Independent
e. possesses, ard must possess, the inherent poN
" er of controlling property he'd and owfiedWit
in lis Jurisdiction, and in virtue and under Il
O. protection its own laws; whether that 70
re troll be eAerted in taxing it, OR in deternrlr
N; its tenure, or in directing The manner Of !
nd transmission; and this too, irrespective OF Il
a. quantities ia which IT is lieldo Transferred,
tie transferred, or the sources wAenee it may ba'
e. been deriyedn
e, Mr. Justice Woodbury. said :s' From q
h first settlement 5f this county, and IN the nlc
od other nations, ancient or moliern, civilized
IL savage, it has been found ussfnl 10 discount
~ Il, nance excesses in the use OF intoxicating
II quor."
~ ME-. Justice Gler said :--s The true ilnelsti
ne presented BY these cases, AMI enc WHICH q
81 not disposed to evade, is whether the Stat
he have right to prohibit the sale and consuIn
re- ton cf an article of cornmerce which they
mi lieye to be perncious in its effects, aud /
cause of disease, paupersm and crimc II
al. not necessary for the sake of iustliying
' asa State legislation now under Consideration
wv array the appalling statistics nfmisery, paup
~ ~ ism and crime which have their origin III
' 'a use or abuse OF ardent spirits. The polcepi
afl er which Is exclusively "a lh'f States, rs ltiS
- ,,,,,,...,,t ~ ~. orrec tion I'll these urcaf bs