Audubon County Republican. [volume] (Audubon, Audubon Co., Iowa) 1885-1894, 1886-12-23
THE SWEENEY LAW.
The Supreme Court Of Iowa Decides II
to be Constitutional.
,ccisIou as Rendered by Just'ce Sec.
vers, tie Court being unantnious-s
Goes 60 the U. 8. supreme Court

II. Goodell VS. George Kreichbaum, sheriff;
A. Wingatc VS.. J. e, Painter, sh, riff, ard
henry Barren vs.. George w. Burnside, sheriff
labeas Corpus. The petitioners be NJ IN Gus
tody Of the several defendants as sherltfs OF
heir respective count es, CHARGED with III
ask that they be scharged, The cases above
AIMED we're argued aud submitted toget ler,
nj as they a 3 substantially al he, but a
single opinon Is deemed necessary. Dexter
Herrick 4 Allen, j. w. Carey and W. 9.
Goudy for the p tltioners, A, J. Baker at
torn general; ], II. Sweeney and Charles A.
Bishop for the defendants
Per Cariam: The petitioner Goodell at the
time he was arrested b. the sheriff was
the employment OF the Chicago, ling on "
Quincy railroad Company as. freight con-
ductor, and as such was aiding 10 moving
from the city OF Chicago To the city OF Den
YER one Of the trains Of said railroad company
loaded with mechanics delivered to said
company In the city OF Oh cago, to no trans
ported to the cities OF Denver, Omaha, Kansas
G ty and other points be- ond th State OF
Iowa, aud to points In the State Of Iowa. and
to pc nts in the States 81 Nebraska, M,ssou-
ri aud Kansas, to be delivered at said points
t. certain consgnees named. To enable sad
COM ans to perform the service above stated,
II became necessary TO run sa'dtrain over that
part OF said road OF said company, extending
from the Mississippi y the Missouri river Ia
the State of Iowa While the said petitioner
was so engaged, In thu State Of Iowa, he was
arrested by the defendant Krelchbaum, as
sheriff Of Des Molnes county, charged with
violation of chapter seventy-siy OF the Laws
OF the 2lst General Assembly of the State Of
Iowa!
The petitioner Wingate was also In the en-
ployment of the said company as ageut In the
city Of Des Molnes, in this State, and at the
I me he was arrested was engaged In the per
Torrance Of his duties as agent in selling tick
ato 10 ipf,cn Atnta hot NIT nd NO
the State Of Iowa, and he was also engaged In
soliciting and receiv ng for transportation and
collect ng tolls therefor, merchandise and traf-
tlc destined from said city Of Des Moines to
points within aud without the State Of Iowa,
and within other States While so engaged In
the performance OF said duties, the SAID Win
gate was arrested by thu d 'fendant Painter as
Sheriff OF Polk county, Iowa, charged with
having violated the provision OF the said chap
ter of the laws of the Twenty first General AS
semhlr Of the State Of iowa.
The petitioner Barron when arrested was Ia
the employ OF the Chicago & Northwestern
Railway company as an engineer engaged In
running a passenger train made up at Chicago
in the State Of Illinois, and destined to Coun-
ell Bluffs in the State OF Iowa. Said train was
carryn passengers and the United States
mails, received at different points in the State
Of Illinois, aud destined TO points In the State
of Iowa aud beyond aud also from points in
the State OF Iowa to other points in the same
Sac. While the petitioner was so engaged,
he was arrested, charged W tn the violation OF
said cha ter seventy six or the Laws of the
Twenty first General Assembly OF the State OF
Iowa. II is insisted by counsel for the petit
toner's that said chapter seventy-six Is uncon-
stitut' oial aud void because, First, II "ls re-
pugnant to section ten, article one, OF the Con-
stitution Of the United States, and Section
tweutv-one, Article one Of the Constitution
of Iowa, which provide that no law
shall be passed impalrlng the obligation OF
contracts" Second, Said statute Is con-
trary o Section eight Of article one Of the UNI
ted States Constitution, which provides that
Congress shall have power to regulate com
merce with foreign nations and among the
several States" Thrill, Said "statute Is re-
pugnant TO the Fourteenth Amendment TO the
Constitution OF the United States, and there.
fore void " Fourth, Said ''statute is void as
an attempt to interfere with the Jurisdiction
OF the Federal Courts as established by the
Constitution of the United States and the acts
of Congress.
These several propositions have been ex-
haustively argued by counsel, and In relation
| thereto we desire TO say that their solution
presents grave difficulties as to all the propo-
sitons but one, this court is not the final ar.
bitter, and III refore believing, as some Of us
do, that It is doubtful what construct on OF the
Unite States Constitution and the acts OF
Congress should be adopted under the agreed
statement OF facis we feel constrained to hold
that the statute above mentioned is not In
conflict with tn" Constitution OF the United
States or acts OF Congress rassed In pursuance
b 'reof to the end that the questions pres mt.
ed may be determined by The SURF m" Court
the United States. The petitioners will there
fore be remandcd to the custody Of the de-
PENDANTS, and such judgment will be accord
| Dglv entered