St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-09-24
OPINION BY JUDGE NELSON.
The Law Interrupts Free Traffic
Between States-NOt Necessarily
a Police Regulation.

The Law Interrupts Free franc
Between States-NOt Necessarily
Police Regulation.
After giving a brief summary of the
Inspection law under which the original
action was brought, and review of the
arguments presented by the attorneys,
Judge Nelson says:
''By its title the act purpOrts to be for
The protection of the public health, and
It is urged that upon its face it does not
deal with commerce and does not dl-
rectly invade the domain Of interstate
commerce, but merely regulates the
sale of an article of commerce after it
has become a part of the mass OF the
property of the state. The states
have never yielded to the federal
government control of their in
Eernal commerce or their right to
self-proteetion. They have plenary
powers to protect the lives, health, COM
fort and safety of all persons and the
protection of all property within the
State. Health inspection and quaran-
tine laws are among the recognized law
full legislation of state and are neces
sary and advisable for the public wei
fare. They are Self-defenSive, and no
federal power is touched upon by their
enactment. Such laws may incidentally,
III many instances, affect Interstate COM
merce, yet are not necessarily regula-
Hon of it. If the law of the state OF
Minnesota is proper and reasonable
exercise of its police powers, 1t
violates no provision OF the eonstitu,
ton of the United States. There has
been a conflict for many years, and
much legislation in respect to the ex-
tent of the powers reserved to the states
I'm the federal constitution. The con-
troversy is perennial. The supreme
court of the United States has explained
in many later cases its previous deci-
sion. Yet the line of demarkation be-
tween the delegatCt powers of congress
and the reserved powers of the states is
not defined with such accurate precision
that it is easy to determine this bound
airy limit in all cases, but the supreme
court always has stood firm and tena-
ciOuSly
RESISTED EVERY ATTEMPT
of a state to encrOach upon the eXclu-
sive power of the federal government
under the commercial clause of the
constitution and there is a consensus
Of opinion among the judges upon the
subject. The council for the state
urges that this statute is reasonably
self-protective law.
The states, as said, are clothed with
plenaTy police power and large discretion
in its exercise for the protection of pub
lie health and comfort, but in order to
determine whether the act of the state
is really a usurpatiOn of power, the
courts are requested to look at the effect
and operation of the law, and are not
bound by mere form. In Henderson VS..
Mayor, l12, United States. Mr.. Justice
Miller, speaking Of the police power of
the states, said:
Whatever may be the nature and extent Of
the power, where not otherwise restrained,
no definition and no urgency for its use can
authorize a state to use it in regard 10 a SUBJ
iect matter which has been confined exclu-
biVely to congress by the constitution. 1t is
clear from the nature Of our complex form of
government, that whenever statute of a
state invades the domain of the legislation
which belongs exclusively to the congress of
the United States, it is void.
No matter under what class of powers
it may fall, nor how closely allied to
powers conceded to belong to the states.
While it must be admitted that the line
of distinction between what is
LEGITIMATE POLICE REGULATION
and what constitutes an interference
with commerce is dim and shadowy, il
10 ScIllCu lLdI NuCu q IdM ICdCucu DC-
yOnd its prOfeSSed object and into the
domain of the federal government, nc
matter what may be its title, or in what
form the details are expressed, it is un,
constitutional. The practical operation
of this law excludes the importation OF
all dressed meat to be sold for manu-
featured food from animals slaughtered
outside of the state. 1t excludes, with
out reference to its quality or condition
what is known to be an article of com
merce by the usages of a commercial
world. 1t says to all persons engaged
In the business of selling dressed
meats for food in the state: YoI
must have the animal from which
the meat is taken inspected by local in
spectors in the state within twentyfoul
hours before slaughtered or suffer eX
IRENE penalties. 1t is not questioned
that some dressed beef is an article o
commerce, but this law is attempted t.
be maintained as reasonable legisla
ton of the mode of sale after it has be
come part of the mass of property o
the state. In the argument the counSe
stated that private families could i'm
port for their own use, and that inn
keepers are not prevented from buyin!
dressed meat outside of the stat
and bringing it in for use.' |
this is a true Interpretation o
the law, how does such meas
ure protect the public health? Does
not conclusively show that the legisla
ture was not Influenced by conSidera
tiOns for the public health, but it
policy was directed to other ends? Tn
authorities establish the propositions
first, that no article of commerce can b.
excluded from importation and sale il
a state by the statutes like the one il
question; second, that any act of stat
interfering in any way with
THE FREE TRAFFIC
between citizens of different states /
any articles of commerce. is an al