St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-09-24

tempted regulation of such commerce
and an invasion of the power exclu-
sively conferred upon congress. and its
nOn-action with respect to any particu-
lar commodity is declaration OF its
purpose that the commerce in that COM
modify shall be free. When this law
will be tested by the decisions of the
supreme court of the United States it
will be found that it develops the limits
of the state jurisdiction and needlesSly
obstructS interstate commerce. In Brown
VS.. Maryland, Chief Justice Marshall
says:
There is no difference in effect between
power TO prohibit the sale OF an article ana
power to prohibit its introduction. The one
would be a necessary consequence of the
other. Commerce is intercourse. One OF
Its most ordinary ingredients is traffic. 1t is
incOnceivable that the power TO authorize
this traffic. when given in the most compre-
hensive terms, with the intent that Its EN-
cheney should be complete, should cease at
the point when its continuance is indispen-
sable to its value. Sale is the object of i'm
portation. Congress has a right not only TO
authorize importation. but to authorize the
importer to sell.
In Railway Company VS.. Husen, 90
United States. the court says:
We admit that the deposit in congress OF
the power to regulate commerce among the
states was not surrender of that which may
properly be denOmnated police power. Its
generally said to extend to making regula-
lions prOmotive of domestic order. morals.
health and safety. But whatever may be the
nature and reach Of police power of state,
it cannot be exercised over subject con-
ferred exclusively to congress. Neither
THE UNLIMITED POWER OF
the state tax, nor any of its police powers,
can be exercised to such an extent as to work
a practical assumption of the powers con-
terred upon congress"
While state may pass sanitary laws,
while it may prevent persons and ami
mails suffering under contagious dis
eases from entering the state, it may
not interfere with transportation into
or through the state beyond what is alb
SOlutely necessary for self protection.
A state cannot encroach upon the
power of congress to regulate interstate
commerce to go to the extent of prOhlb-
iting the introduction of a sound COM
mercial commodity. A state may eX-
clude any infected article of commerce
reaching the importer, but this law ex-
cludeS the sound and infected alike,
and declares it unfit for human food
under the guise of a health regulation.
Such a law transcends the police
power, for it attempts to OBJ
struct commerce, and if it can
pr0nlDlt SOUND dressed meat, IL may pro-
hibit the importation and sale of any
commodity, and, as said, thus COM
menced, anarchy and confusion would
result from the diverse eXertions of
power by the general states of the
Union. The case of Powell VS.. Penn,
127 U. S., does not override the decis-
ions above. No conflict arose between
the police power of the state and the
power of congress to regulate interstate
commerce in that case, and nothing
therein said is incOnsistentent with the
previous decisions of the court in regard
to the commercial clause of the cOnsti-
tuition. That the law violates Art. 4,
Sec. 2, think is manifest. have come
to the conclusion that the law is not
proper and lawful exercise of the police
power of the state and is unconstitu-
tional. The petitioner is discharged.