The Indianapolis journal., 1890-05-20


ernment the right to seize these funds
which the Mormon leaders are mIsusiDg,
and devote them 60 worthy and charitable
purposes. as nearly akin as possl pie 10 those
10 which the funds were dedicatedf"
After an elaborate historical review OF
the common law. the court comes to the
conclusion that Congress had the right 10
seize the property and says: congress
had before 1t acontumaclous organlzatlon
welding by its resources an immense
power in the Territory of Utah and en-
ploying these resources In constantly at
tempting TO oppose, subvert ana tnwart
the legislation of Congress and the will OF
the government of the United States.
Under such circumstances we have no
doubt of the right of Congress to do as 1t
did" The decree of the lower court Is at
firmed. Justice Bradley delivered the
opinion.
Chief-justice Fuller said that be and
Justices Field and Lamar were constrained
to dissent from this decision. The power
of Congress TO legislate over the Territories
was not incident to the treaty making
power, and its power is restricted directly
to that expressed or implied IN the Consti-
tuition. There Is no such power granted as
that involved In the act under considera-
ton. Congress unquestionably has power
to suppress poly gamy, and 1t Is lmmatcrlal
whether the crime was committed in the
name of religion. But Congress has not
power to seize and confiscate the property
of corporations because they may have
Deen guilty. OF cIlule.
MINNESOTA MEAT LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The Supreme Court also rendered an opin-
ion holding to be unconstitutional the law
of Minnesota requiring that all fresh meats
sold in the State shall be cut from animals
slaughtered within the State and inspected
twenty-four hours before slaughter. The
case is entitled State of Minnesota against
Henry ID. Barber and is of great interest
to dressed-beef men, who win the case.
Barber was convicted of selling fresh beef
slaughtered in Illinois, and which had not
been inspected before slaughter, as required
by the law of Minnesota. He alleged that
the law was an unconstitutional lnterfer-
ence with interstate commerce..
The court, in an opinion by Justice Har-
Ian. says: The enactment of similar
statute by each one of the States compos-
ing the Union would result in the destruc-
tion of commerce among the several States
90 far as such commerce is involved In the
Transporting from one part of the country
to another of meat designed for human
food and entirely free from disease. This
act provides that all cattle, sheep and
swine shall be inspected within twenty
four hours before the animals are slaugh-
tered, and that. II sach be the fact. the In,
spectors shall certify that the slaughtered
animals were found to be healthy and fiji
for human food. The sale of meat not
taken from an inspected and certified ami
NAL Is forbidden under penalty of fine or
imprisonment. As the inspection must
take place within the twenty
four hours Immediately preceding
the slaughtering. the acc by
its necessary operation excludes from the
Minnesota market practically all fresh
beef, veal. mutton. lamb or pork in what
ever form. and although entirely sound,
healthy and fit for human food, taken from
animals slaughtered in other States, and
directly tends to restrict the slaughtering
nj m a lie w hos ma 10 70 ha in lin
nesora for human food to those engaged in
such business In that State. When to this
is added the fact that the statute by its
necessary operation prohibits the sale in
the State OF fresh beef. veal, mutton, lamb
or pork from animals that may have been
inspected carefully and thoroughly in the
State where they were slaughtered and
before they were slaughtered, no doubt
commerce among the several States
1t will not do to say-certainly no judicial
tribunal can with propriety assume-that
the people of Minnesota may not, with due
regard to their health, rely upon inspection
In other States of animals there slaughtered
for purposes of human food. If the object
of the statute had been TO deny altogether
to citizens of other States the privilege of
selling within the limits of Minnesota for
human food. fresh beef, veal, mutton, lamb
or pork from animals slaughtered outside
that State. even those wholly free from
disease when slaughtered, and to compel
the people of Minnesota desiring to buy
such meats either to purchase them when
desired for their own domestic use at points
beyond the State, that object is attained by
the act in question. Our duty to
maintain the Constitution will not
Fe these obvious SG shut and our
results of the Minnesota statute. If this
legislation does not make such discrimina-
tion against the products and business of
other States in favor of the products and
hTTc nf In rr.fnr ii \
and burdens commerce among the several
States it would be difficult to enact legis-
latlon that would have such q result. The
judgment of the lower court is affirmed"
VIRGINIA TAX COUPON CASES.
The court also rendered an opinion in
favor of the coupon-holders on all points in
the several suits of Cooper. Bryan, Nc
Gahey. Elicit. Brown and Cuthbert against
the State OF Virginia, arising out of laws
passed by Virginia to present coupon-hold.
ers from compelling the State to accept
coupons in payment of taxes. The decis-
ion of the Supreme Court of Appeals OF
Virginia Is reversed in each case.
In decision in two other Virginia tar
coupon cases. the court decides in favor OF
the State on special grounds. In VashOn
against Grenhow. it holds that coupons are
not receivable for the special schoOltax OF
the State, for the reason that this special
tax was set apart prior to the passage OF
the law of 1871 establishing a contract be-
tween the State and the bond d-holders. II
also holds that coupons are not receivable
for liquor license tax. upon the ground that
the State may regulate the liquor traffic by
requiring the tax to be paid in any manner
1t sees mt.
IN FAVOR OF A TICKET BROKER.
Justice Lamar rendered the opinion ot
the court in the case of j. G.. Mccall, plant
iff in error. VS.. the people of the State Of
California, brought here on appeal from tn,
Superior Court of the city and county Of
San Francisco. Mccall was agent of tn,
Erie Railroad Company in San Francisco
1t was his business to induce travellers Il
go by his road but he sold no tickets, sim
ply taking intending purchasers to tn,
Central Pacific railroad Office, wher,
through tickets to the East were sold then
over any road the purchasers selected. III,
was arrested and convicted under q law re
quirinR license fee of persons engaged il
this line of business. He contended tha
the law was unconstitutional as an interfer
ence with interstate commerce and as al
unjust discrimination against companie
outside the State. The court sustained hi
the lower court, remanding it, with direc
with this opinion. Chief Justice Fulle
and Justices Gray and Brewer dissented.
The court also rendered an opinion affirm
ing the Judgment of the circuit court il
the suit of Cornell University agains
Erck u %hex all L, s1-D