Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-05-17
A SERIOUS QUESTION.



that there is no difference in the power of Con
gress to regulate foreign commerce on ardent
spirits and in their power of regulation over any
other article of commerce. All objects OF com,
merce, SO far as the power of regulation by
| Congress is concerned, are exactly on the same
footing We may DISMISS therefore. in consid'
ering the constitutionality OF the Dill, the INCL
dent that this particular commodity may De In
furious to the health and morals OF the people,
as wholly immaterial: Congress, IL rs true, IN
forming a regulation of commerce with refer
ence to intoxicants may properly consider
their injurious effect in use, and may form the
| regulation with reference to that erect But
having imposed a tax on the importation, and
| thereby recognized spirits as
LEGITIMATE COMMODITIES
of foreign commerce, the regulation of COM
merce on them must be governed by the same
constitutional rules as apply 20 all foreign com
merce. AS before stated, we express no opin-
ion as to the power of the States, without any
aid from Congress to prohibit the sale of i'm
ported intoxicants by the importers in the
original packages. If they nave nav sach power nf
which is to confer the power. The Dill is I'M
proper. if not unconstitutional, if considered as
| a declaration merely by Congress that such
power exists in the States. That is purely a
| judicial question. The Congress can enact
| laws-lhey cannot expound them. Necessarily
in enacting law on any given subject congress
determines that they have jurisdiction and
determination is the necessary incident of en-
acting a statute which of itself becomes rule
of action; the framing OF the rule, not the ex-
position of the constitution. being the end
meaning of the constitution is not a legitimate
object of legislative power.
The gist of the minority report in favor
Of the bill is contained in the following, this
report being signed by Ingalls,, Edmunds
and Wilson, of Iowa:
An importer of ardent spirits, or of any
other article of foreign production is entitled
TO no greater protection under the Constitu-
tion than is the dealer in like articles of do
mestic manufacture. The man who manufact-
ures ardent spirits III State where it is lawful
SO to do is not in condition inferior in matter
of constitutional right Co the person who i'm
ports such spirits from abroad. The one pays
an internal revenue tax, the other pays a tax
levied by the customs laws, and what Congress
may constitutionally say about one 1t may re-
peat as to the other. 1t has said that no pay
ment of internal revenue tax shall exempt the
manufacturer OF dealer in domestic spirits
from the
OPERATION OF THE LAWS
of the several States. This the courts have
SAID is constitutional. The bill under consider
alton proposes TO enact like declaration rela-
tive to the importer of foregn spirits. 1t is not
doubted that the judicial result will correspond
with that reached in the otter case. The at
q
tion between the dealers in the foreign article
by importation and those engaged in the field
of domestic commerce cannot be made success |
ful. There is nothing in the Constitution as
surfing superior advantages to foreign COM |
merce over that which is domestic. Nor is |
there anything in the bill submitted by the Sen
ate to the committee which suggests viola |
ton of the rule of uniformity prescribed by the |
Constitution. 1t proposes no new departure in |
the legislation of Congress. The legislative |
precedents cited justify its terms They have |
stood the test OF judicial scrutiny and have
been approved.
The minority furthermore offered an
to the bill striking out all after
the enacting clause and inserting the follow
ing:
That the payment of any tax, duty, impost, |
or excise upon. or in respect of, the importa- |
tion into the United States Of any fermented |
distilled or other Intoxicating liquids or liquors
shall not be held to exempt the importer |
or any other person or any such prop |
erty from any penalty, forfeiture, or proceed |
ing that now is or hereafter may be provided |
for by the laws of any State applicable equally |
to all property of the same nature. respecting |
the manufacture, sale, furnishing or possession
Of liquids or liquors; nor shall the payment of
any such tax, duty, impost or excise be held to
prohibit or
PRECLUDE ANY STATE
from imposing 6 tax duty on any such
liquids or liquors or from making regulations
!
-espect of other such liquids or liquors not i'm
ported or from inforciDg its laws operating
equally in respect of property imported and
property it imported, against any such inn
porter or person or against any such property,
whether the same be in the original package of
Importation or not
The foregoing, with the report sent to
The DISPATCH last evening upon the bill
low in the Senate, embodies, it may be said,
he acts and operations of Congress on this
ubject up to the present time. The
pinions cited above will play an important
,art in the discussion when the bill comes
,efore the Senate. Senator Vest expects to
Use the argument of the majority report,
With his admitted great ability and cunning
n debate, against those members who have
ince reversed themselves and concluded
hat under the ruling of Chief Justice Fuller,
congress has the power to do what it was
Lbsolutely forbidden to do under the ruling
# Justices Taney and Marshall.