The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1869-03-06
VETO OF THE CHINA BILL.

y
VETO OF THE CHINA BILL.
Is the Act to tax Cinnamon in CON
fiot with the Constitution Of the UnI.
ted States?
In my first was discussed, and fully
answered the first objection-That the
act was in conflict with the Constitu-
ION of Oregon. In this will be dis
cussc,. the second objcction-that the
act is in conflict with the Constitution
Of the United States.
The grounds upon which this last
objection rests are set torth III the Fc-
TO as follows:
Again, section E, Of Article /, OF the Con.
stitution OF the United States, provides that
Congress shall have power, 'to regulate
commerce with foreign nations, and among
the several States, and with the Indian
tribes" This power, like all others vested
IN Congress, is complete in itself, aud may
be exercised TO its utmost extent, and nc
knowledges no limitations other than are
prescribed in the Constitution.
The word commerce" ns used in the
Federal Constitution, means intercourse for
Of that trade be what it may. Congress by
the uuqucs,ioned authority Of the Constitu.
ton. has undertaken to regulate commerce
among foreign nations, and among the sey-
eral States, and by that regulation, vessels
carrying passengers have rs much right TO
sail from the ports of ''the several States"
to tho ports Of this State as would those la
den with any kind Of merchandise.
al u of sIn aat ,,,sda- 49,.
sidcration nro in direct conflict with subdi-
vision 3, Of section \, Of Article I, of the
Constitution Of the United States, in this,
that section 5 imposes tax upon the "mas.
ter or chief officer in command Of any yes.
sells that shall have on board, or shall have
brought Cinnamon within this State, of FIVE
dollars per head for each and every China
man 50 brought and also hold.the vessel H..
able for such tax"
For further information upon this propo.
sition sec, Elknson vs. Deussiline, Whar.,
G. Cass., Sc; 0pin., CSC; Opin.. 2i6 !;
Brown vs.. Maryland, IL VIII, 4l9; Nathan
IS. Louisiana, How, 73; Withers VS..
Buckley, 20 How. 81.
From the foregoing it will be observed
that reliance is placed upon various de.
cisions of the Supreme Court of the Uni
3.
Turner, in Howard, is relied upon as
the leading case, and from which is made
up the first and second paragraphs of
that part of the Governors Message
above quoted; and from which it will be
seen that the Governor claims the act in
question to be a regulation of commerce.
while we claim it to be n police measure
purely, the right to exercise which was
never ceded by the Constitution to the
General Government.
The Supreme Court at the time the
decision, above referred to was made, was
composed of nine Justices FIVE were for
the judgment rendered, and four against
it. They reviewed and collatcd from
most of the authorities upon the subject,
each side contending with much impress
sivencss that former adjudications of that
court had settled the law in accordance
with their views. Whatever previous de-
cisions may have been, or the arguments
pro and con in that case, the majority
pronounced the decision that the laws of
New York and Massachusetts, imposing q
tax upon passengers for royenae purpose,
were unconstitutional and void, because
sncn measures were regulations of CON-
merce which Congress alons had the pow
er to make.
In determining what were regulations
of commerce, aud what not, it became
necessary to distinguish between the soy.
ereign police power of the State, and reg
ulations of commerce. So that while the
Court decided upon the question whether
the laws of New York and Massachusetts
were police measures, their opinions do
so clearly indicate what constitutes po-
lice measure as to leave no doubt of the
Oregon act being of that class
The opposition relies with great conf.
dence upon this decision; yet upon all
important points involved in this discus
sion I claim that not only the majority
but the whole nine Justices sustain our
position.
Asa matter of fact, there were two
cases in which the decision was made
that of Smith v. Turner from New York;
and that of Norris v. the City of Boston,
from Massachusetts, not being materially
different, they were tried together, and
the opinion of the judges were in the
main applicable to both. TO understand
propealy what was decided. it is necessa-
ry to state briefly the facts
The case of Smith v. Turner, before
mentioned, in the opinion of the court is
stated thus: "Under the general de-
nominations of tho health laws in New
York, and by the 7th section of an act
relating to the Marine Hospital, it is pro-
yided that the health commission shall
demand and be entitled to receive, and
in case OF refusal to pay, shall sue for.