The national Republican., 1867-05-03
THE COURTS.
SUPREME CouRr OF THE United STATES.

THURSDAY, May o. 1867
No. 100. The Lowell Manufacturing Company,
appellants, vs.. Tho Hartford Carpet Company.
The argument Of this cause was concluded by
Mr.. Curtis, Of counsel for the appellantt. ~
No. 40. The United ststss sx rel. David y,
Phillips, plaintiff, ys, Charles ii. Constable.
Judge Fourth Circuit, Illinois. Certilcate oi
division In opinion between the Judges or the
Circuit Court Of the United States for the South
ern District Of Illinois. This cause VAS dis
missed pursuant to the eighteenth rule Of this
| court.
| No. III. VIM. Slater's executors, appellants,
Va. Lewis Maxwell. This cause was argued by
Mr.. Frick, Of counsel for the appellants.
No. 172 United States, appellants, vs. Pic
Pioo Of al. This cause was submitted to the
court on printed arguments BY Mr. Attorney
General 6tanbery and Mr. Wills, OF counsel for
the appellants, and BY Mr. cofey, for the ap.
pellees.
No. 174 United States ex rel Murray Nc.
Cornell, plaintiff In error, VS.. Judge Edmunds,
Commissioner Of the General Land 0fhce. This
cause was argued by Mr.. McDougal, Of counsel
for the plaintiff In error.
error, vs.. Robert Donniston, 30. The argument
Of this cause was commenced by Mr.. Reynolds, oI
counsel for plaintiffs in error.
Adjourned until tomorrow Of IL o'clock.
The Ioira Liquor Cass,-Ths Argument on
tho Quesfion Of The Effect Of a Government La
osnss on tie Liquor Traffic Repeated-Hngl
Cornsy, plaintiff IN error, %. The United StdteJ
aud siS other odses,-These cases come from th,
Supreme Court Of Iowa. The plaintiff was in
dlcted under.the eighth section Of the statute oil
Iowa, entitled "An act for the suppression Of In
Temperance" for keeping place with the inten
TO sell intoxicating liquors In II. For his defenc,
he relied on license from tho United States Il
sell such liquors in his place. Tho court below
on tho trial, excluded this license as evidence
| and oonvfnfad and santanead kha nIainliH undo,
i the law.
Appeal was then taken TO this court, counse
for plaintiffs In error believing, as he states, thai
he will DO able to suggest other views than thos'
passed upon the Massachusetts cases, and which
will enable the judicial mind to roach Othe
conclusions"
II Is urged that in the familiar case Of Nc
Guire vs. Tho Commonwealth Of Massachusetts,
the court directly intimates the law to be that
In the absence Of preventing legislation by th
State, the license from the United States woult
be absolute. Upon this II Is oontendcd-Grst
that so much Of tho act Of July, 1862, as is thu
made to depend on State legislation for force an,
effect, thereby loses all character Of law and be
comes non.absoluto, unequal and not uniform
throughout the United States. II is a law, o
not, Independent Of the will Of those who enaote
II, but waiting upon q contingency which Is ab
surd. Being enacted by the sovereign 1t shoult
be holden absolute.
Doconu. lno s1ty-beNontn section Oh the lnN
Of 1862 Is void, because II makes the validity o
license depend upon contingency not arisin
In any law Of Congress, or act Of any department
Of the national Government. It attempts /
confer power upon foreign State to defeat an
nullify other provisions Of the same act. i
attempts to delegate a portion of the legisativ
power Of Congress to the States, which canno
be done; because legislative power cannot b.
delegated; because Congress can neither dele
gate nor create and confer power upon the States
Nor can 1t legislate upon the States, as such, 70
any purpose.
Third. The legislation Of Congress upon th
subject excludes State legislation from II, unles
Congress can divide Its legislative power wit
! the States; which II cannot. The States in cor
temptation Of law are older than the Constitu
tion, and arc all presumed To have been presen
at Its formation; and all tho power they no'
!; exercise Is the residue Of their original power
not given up In the fabrication Of that instru
msnt. They derive mono from II, or from th
legislation Of Congress.
The power to legislate by the States, as con
templated by the 67th section referred to, Is no
: among the powers reserved to the States, for
Is conceded to be among those conferred upol
Congress; and rs II could not be delegated,
, cannot DO exercised by the States. Such an o,
ercise Of power Is in conflict with section O. art
ole T. for the right to trade, so far as II can d,
pend on the Constitution and laws Of the Unite
States, Is privilege and immunity guarantee
by that section, which are derived by the legi
lation Of Iowa. .r
cFS,S GF tRs ss.. Of r,is IsIa ~. % II S -
Constitution Of the United States and the statui
Of Iowa, that ait Is not apparent to counsel fc
the defendant In error" and II is left for th
|. courtto determine, without further argument
The effect Of the license is discussed In substaI
TALLY the same manner as In the Massachusetl
cases. and others which have gone before IL.
n r. III tnNsR L.. n n
Cooley for Iowa.
CRININAL CoURr-Judge HSher.-Th
motion Of counsel In the case Of VIM. Z. Cleayt
for arrest Of judgment and new trial was owe
ruled by the court, Sentenced to five years in
prisonment.
The application Of Joe Ward, convicted Of
tempt ut arson was withdrawn and the accuse