Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-05-31

Bulletin, repeats its error concerning the
constitutional provisions upon the regula-
ton of interstate commerce. 1t says:
A substitute for the original package bill has
been reported TO the Senate, providing that liQ-
uors transported from one State TO another
shall be deemed, on reaching their destination
no longer subject to interstate commerce ruling
but 10 police and fiscal regulations of the State.
That would seem to be a reasonable provision,
but to what end? If the Constitution makes
snch property sail subject to Federal law no
Act OF Congress can stand against the Supreme
Court.
We pointed out to the Bulletin the other
day that the Constitution does not regu
late in the matter at ALL What, therefore,
can the San Francisco journal mean by
the expression contained in the last sem
tence of the paragraph quoted? The reg
ulation of commerce between the States is,
by the Constitution, committed TO Con-
gress. Unless that body therefore legis-
lates for regulation, there is no barrier to
the operation of State laws antagonistic to
such commerce. The language of the
Constitution is plain and simple and no
question now remains concerning the alb
solute power of Congress to regulate COM
merce between the States of the Union.
Its laws, then, are what the Supreme
Court passes upon, not any regulation pro-
yided in the Constitution itself, 1t follows
that Congress has the power, as the Court
in the Iowa case distinctly said, to relieve
any or all of the States from any regulative
measures deemed hardships, and this is
what the bill proposed is intended for, to
relieve the States from distribution of
goods prohibited to be distributed by State
laws, after such goods shall have COM
pleted the passage from one State to an
other
When the Constitution was adopted
there were thirteen States, and all under.
stood that the number would be increased.
Every State then held the inherent power,
said Justice Marvin, in his celebrated de-
cision, TO regulate its own commerce. to
make money and to declare what should
be receivable in payment for debt, Any
State could discriminate against another
State, and in favor of its own citizens. In
such condition there could be no har-
mony touching these matters. An effort
TO have the States agree upon common
commercial system failed. There was
then great embarrassment because of dis
eliminating regulations. Therefore, a
change become necessary. Hence the pro-
vision Section s, Article l. of the Consti-
tuition committing the whole matter of
regulating commerce to Congress, and that
one provision of the Constitution, more,
perhaps, than any other, served to make us
a nation.
Because of these considerations, we the
other day remarked that it would be the
hight of unwisdom to recommit TO the
States any power to inhibit exchange of
goods between the States. Commerce has
been defined by the Supreme Court to mean
intercourse and traffic between the people.
irrespective of State lines. Internal COM
merce is either State or interstate-that
which is State is unquestionably under the
police powers of the State; by the Consti-
tuition that which is interstate is subject
to the regulations Congress may make.
But wherever there is any conflict of au-
thority, clearly the regulations of the Fed
eral authority must prevail
The Supreme Court, in Mobile VS.. Kim
ball, said:
Whatever subjects of this power are in their
nature national. or admit only of one uniform
system or plan of regulation, may justly be said
to be OF such a nature as 10 require exclusive
legislation by Congress.
The dressed beef case OF Minnesota, so
recently decided by the Supreme Court of
the United States, clearly defines the limits
within which State may regulate COM
merce, the exchange of products. Mime
sofa, under the plea of inspection, at
tempted TO forbid the introduction into
that State of beef from cattle not killed
within that State. The Supreme Court
said:
In the opinion of this Court the statute in
question so far as its provisions require con-
dition of sales in Minnesota OF fresh beet, veal,
mutton, lamb or pork Tor human food. the
product of animals slaughtered in other States
that such animals from which such meats are
taken shall have been inspected in Minnesota
before being slaughtered, is in violation of the
Constitution of the United States and void.
1t so held under the clause committing
the whole subject of commerce between
the States TO the legislation of Congress.
That decision therefore, and the Iowa
beer importation case, were clearly in line