Dodge City times., 1890-07-04
Tne Way Out.

The Hutchinson News sent letters I
one hundred Of the leading lawyers Q
rhe state, asking them what, in thei
opinion, was the best way out Of the di
ieInma in which the state of Kansas
placed in regard to the prohibition Ia,
By the late decisions of the courts
The News publishes several Of the lei
ters in last Sundays issue, and as the
are to the point, we reprint some o
them:
Hon. Thomas P. Feplon, Leaven
worth, says: ''Your printed card O
June 26th is received, in which yo,
ask me to give the readers of the New
my opinion on the way out of the di
emma prohibition has been placed il
b. the recent decision of the Unitet
States supreme court and by Judg'
Caldwell. l cheerfully respond to you
request, and trust, as you suggest, t.
the good will Of the people of Kansa.
for my compensation. have, as yor
know, lived among them. that is, tht
people Of Kansas, for more than fifty
years, and upon any public question
have always been willing to express
my opinion, and to trust to that good
will for my compensation, in the de.
cent respect Of my fellow-citizens.
Now, in answer to your question,
don't see myself, that there IS any di.
lemma in the case, that prohibition has
been placed in by the decision to which
you refer. Prohibition in Kansas is
simply a creation of Kansas laws,
whether constitutional or statutory
makes no difference; if its effect is, in
given case, to prohibit commerce
among the states Of the union, then
such prohibition is usurpation Of pow
er on the part of the state of Kansas,
and is, according to the decision re-
ferred to, in so far as it interferes with
commerce among the states, null and
void.
The reason for this is as plain to be
seen as the sun at MONDAY, and why?
Because when the constitution Of the
United States was adopted by the peo-
pie Of the United States, certain pow
ers were conferred upon the federal
government and denied to the states of
the Union. Among these powers the
following were conferred upon con-
gress by section 8 of article l, viz:
Sec. 8. Congress shall have power
to levy and collect taxes, duties, i'm
posts and excises; to pay the debts and
provide for the common defense and
general welfare of the United States,
to borrow money on the credit of the
United States; to regulate commerce
with foreign nations and among the
several states, and with the Indian
tribes; to establish uniform rule of
etc., and other powers
not necessary to mention.
Now, if the power to lay and collect
taxes, to coin money, to establish
uniform rule of naturalization, and all
other powers expressed and exercised
by congress only, how can it be
with any degree of sense claimed that
the power to regulate commerce among
the several states is not equally within
the executive power Of congress-?
Would any sane man say that Kansas
would have the right to establish a uni
form rule Of naturalization, either by
its constitution or statute laws, or to
.oin money? And yet the power to
regulate commerce among the several
states is as expressly granted to con-
;ress as any Of the above powers spok-
N of. Now the supreme court of the
United States the tribunal established
~ the constitution itself to decide in-
lily all questions arising under it has
lccided that liquor is an article Of com.
nercc, and this in accordance with the |
Universal history Of the commercial
of the world since COM
nerce between civilized nations began,
nd Judge Caldwell only decided that |
he case before him came within the |
'ule established by the supreme court |
f the United States, and whatever his |
rivate opinions may have been, he was
0und by the supreme national tribu-
al. So, in answer to your question
S to ''the way out of the dilemma"
simply say there is no dilemma; it is
mere question of submission and
bedlenee by every citizen and every
ficer of the state and federal govern
lent to the decision of the 6nal and
upreme tribunal. 1t is the old ques-
ion raised by Calhoun in '35 as to
'hether South Carolina was bigger
han the federal government, and could
nnul by its legislative action the tariff
AVIS of the United States.
1t is the same question in principal
S was asserted by JEFF Davis and his
ssociates in 81; that the several
tates could secede at pleasure
nd thus break up the national gov