The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1890-06-21
is something here that looks like ga

Is something here that looks IKE
fault in the logic"
The Supreme Court itself has decId
ed more than once that State. i'll the
exercise of its police power, winch IS
Just as exclusive as the power OF Con
gress to regulate commerce among the
States, can put any restriction IN pieaSes
upon a traffic within lis borders which
it holds to be Injurious to the health or
morals of the people. 1t was on this
ground that the prohibition laws OF
Kansas were sustained, though they
resulted in the destruction of valuable
property without compensation. ms
police power cannot be used TO prevent
the buying OF an article outside the State
and having it delivered to the purchaser
within the State, because that IS inter
State, commerce; but when II IS sad
that 1t cannot be applied to the selling
within the State of the article SO bought,
but that such article is free from the con-
troll of the police power SO long as 1t is
disposed of in the original package,
there seems to be serious trenchIng
upon the States prerogative instead OF
an upholdlng of that of the Nation.
The prohibition law of Iowa was not
framed for the regulation of commerce
but for the protection of the people
and was an exercise of the police power
against a traffic deemed to be injurious
to the public interests. States regulate
the transportation and sale of gun
powder and other explosives. Are their
laws for that purpose of no avail while
these articles are in package brought
from other States? They prohibit or
regulate the sale ofpoisons and adultera-
tions. Can these be disposed of without
regard to the restrictions Of law when
they are brought from other States or
from foreign counties and kept in the
Original packages7" 1t is plain that
a clearer definition of the limits OF
inter State commerce and of the police
power of States is needed, and 1t IS
questionable whether this decision of
the Supreme Court can be accepted as
sound, though, of course, it is authorlta
tive so long as 1t stands, for the Sup.
RENE Court makes the constitutional
law of the land, whatever the COnStitu
ton itself may mean.
1t is proposed IN Congress, in &C
cordance with suggestions thrown out
by the Judges, to get around the effect
of this decision by an act conceding
to States the power ''to prohibit, regul-
ate, control or tax," &C., the liquor
traffic, without being limited or restrain
| ed by the fact that the articles OF that
traffic have been imported from other
States. There seems also to be fault
in logic in this proposition. II has
been laid down that such prohibition,
regulation and control, so far as it re
lates to liquors imported from one State
into another, is an interference with
inter State commerce. The regulation
of such commerce is not only an eXcIu
sive power of Congress, but it IS made
so by the Constitution Of the United
States. How, then, Can Congress itself
curtail any part of it to the States2 Can
Congress by its own act change the
purpose and effect of the Constitution
II 1t remit its power or delegate it to a
State in one matter, where is this
mingling of national and State authority
to stop? 1t is our belief that the whole
matter has been put in muddle by al
unsound decision of the Supreme Court
of the United States if that decision Is
rightly construed in the current dis
| cusSIOn.