The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1880-09-29
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Tha. the cattle interest of Texas Is among
It's chief resources for wealth, every one at
all familiar with the state and its capabili-
ties, knows. Ever since the war great herds OF
cattle have been driven out of the state TO
the eastern and western markets, though prin"
cipally to western markets. Many obstacles
have been thrown in the way of cattle men by
other states. Illinois and Kansas have done
all they could to hinder this branch of Texas
industry and enterprise, and number
of times have commissions met to DIS
cuss sporules and resolve that Texas cattle
spread disease among the cattle OF other
states. This has all been folly and the
sheerest nonsense, tho intelligent people
OF this state know well enough, and the only
motive that could have prompted this oppo-
sition to the cattle of this state must have
been business jealousy. Kansas passed h
law iorbidding the driving of Texas cattle
through It's confines, and this law has been
q source of no little annoyance to cattle
drovers, but the question has at last boon put
at rest, 80 far as the district courts OF Kansas
are concerned. Judge Lowe, Of
the district court at Fort Scott
has Just rendered decision
in which he rules that the law is unconsttu-
tional, and for the following reasons: list.
That it is in conflict with section g. article g.,
of tho constitution Of tho state Of Kansas
I'd. That 1t is in conflict with seeon 8, article
/ of the constitution Of the United States
Section 6. article G, of the constitution of the
state Of Kansas provides that all penalties
collected shall be paid into the school fund.
Section s, article |, of the constitution of the
United States provides that congress shall
have power to regulate commerce with for
eign nations, and among the several states
and with the Indian tribes" 1t may be
that this judgment will be carried to the su-
preme court of the state, but as the
reason, given by Judge Lowe are
so lucid, and seemingly SO well
taken, it is hardly possible that the
judgment Of the lower court will be disturbed,
in which event the law becomes dead letter
on the statute, book of Kansns. The Indian
nation seems disposed now to give some
trouble in tho matter, as it has taken similar
action to that of Kansas, but the difficulty is
easier of solution in the nation than in a
state, perhaps, as the dictum of the United
States court can be more readily obtained.
No state under the federal constitution, it is
clear, has any authority to interfere with
the commercial rights of any other state, and
tho passage of law to interfere with the
passage of cattle through state is clearly
as great an infringement of the commercial
rights of Texas rs it would DO to pass law
to prevent the passage of groceries, or dry
goods, or hardware. Cattle are as much
of trade as is calico, or sugar.
or nails, and 1t would be pretty state of
affairs indeed if Texas was forced to bring
oil hor merchandise into her limits by
way of the sea from New York, or Balti-
more, or Philadelphia, or Charleston, or
New Orleans. To fine man for
driving Texas cattle through Kansas is equiv
alent to eIacting an import tax from him
and will anyone say that any state in this
union has right to levy an import tax up
on the merchandise or commodities of trade
OF another state in the union, or even from
foreign government? A number of cattle
drovers have been fined in the courts of Kan
sas for driving Texas cattle through the state,
in some instances as high as $500. Ought
not the state government of Texas to INQUIRE
into this matter and see that her citizens are
protected from such an outrageous wrong |
Kansas is 4 largely Republican state, with
Republican governors Republican legislature
and Republican judges, and a, the Republican
party opposes bitterly the doctrine of states
rights, how can the law.making the executive
md the Judicial powers Of that state reconcile
such high handed, unequivocal measure of
rights as this law. in question establishes,
% their principles. Suppose Texas was to
,ut an embargo upon Kansas corn in the
hape of heavy fine upon every man who
brought it to Texas, would not the Kansas
people raise howl that could be heard from
me extremity of the union to the other, and
invoke in hot haste the authority and power
If the federal government in their behalf?
Yet Texas cattle are just as much com.
modify as Kansas corn, and more a source of
wealth to this state than corr is to Kansas
Every cent of money that Texas drovers have
'een forced to pay out to Kansas courts in
ines and costs, and every dollar expended BY
eason Of delay should be- demanded back by |
Texas, and Kansas be made to return it to
he drovers concerned.
-
The following facts and figures ara fur. |