Baxter Springs news. [volume] (Baxter Springs, Kan.) 1882-1919, 1890-10-25

vp under lt; contracts which depend upon
Y for their construction arc void; Il consti.
tutes protection to no one who has acted
under II, and no one can DO punished Tor
having refused obedience 20 10 before the
decision was made. And what 10 true OF an
act void IN toto 10 true also ~ to any part
of an not which Is found to be un"onstitu-
tlonal and which consequently Is 20 DO re-
garded rs having never nc any time boon
passed and In legal force"
How then can tho &C; OF Congress In quos.
tlon have the effect and operation claimed
for II by the attorneys for the State. FIR it
must he kept In mind that leg slatiVo act
In conflict with the Constitution Is not only
illegal or voldable, but IL Is abs olutely void.
For Illustration, section 10 OF article OF
the Federal Constitution declares that mo
State shall pass any bill of attaindor, * post
ficto Nv, or law lmparting the obligation OF
contracts" suppose state should pass any
OF these prohibited nets and after it, passage
the Constitution should DO amend BY tho
assent OF tho requisite number Of states. and
the foregoing section dropped altogether, so
that there was no longer any restriction on
the States In this particular. Would any
one contend that prior enactment In the
face of the Constitution dead at the time OF
It's enactment for the want of life giving
power, W Luld at once arise from its tomb
and became living, actual, lawful thingY
Suppose the Legislature OF Kansas, In
these times OF imputed financial distress,
should enact law providing that In all
cases OF judicial sales OF real estate here
after made on foreclosure OF mortgages
there should be stay OF execution for one
year after judgment. Such law would
seem fair on It's face. and would be Ia gem
erai terms like that Of the Prohlbltorv law OF
the State. The courts unquestionabiy woihd
hold that rs to judgment rendered or mort
cages executed prior to such enactment tho
statute WINS laop' rativs and void, bccauBs 10
impaired the obligation OF contracts. and
wns In violation of section ten, article one,
Of the Constitution; although 1t might De
held to lie n valid law rs to su bsequent con-
tracts, good In part and bad in part Now.
suppose tho Constitution should be amended
and section ten should be excluded, could It
be maintained that this act OF the Legis'at'
ure would become a va ID law as to prior
contracts without further legislation?
Where Is the distinction between the sup.
posed case and tho case nc bar? In either
case the Legislature undertook to legislato
on a matter forbidden to Il by the ConstItu.
ton; 1, the one case prohibited In terms
and In the Their taken away and denied to
1t by delegat on OF all power ever the sub.
ject matter TO Congress.
III
Is to be upheld uDon the theory, as claimed
by It's advocates In the debate thereon In
the Senate OF tho United States and In the
argument at this hearing, that Congress,
In the exercise OF Its power to regulate
commerce among the States and with
foreign nations simply decided or de-
clared that it, jurisdiction should be con.
fined to certain subjects. matter OF COM
merce, or that certain subjects matter
and things which may be considered
subjects of commerce, should thereafter DO
excluded from it's jurlsdict on under the
commercial clause OF the Constitution, and
the traffic In Intoxicating liquors should
thereafter BIO class fled and RENTED to the
subjects with the police power OF the Stnte,
such law under every rule OF con.
structlon must be prospective in tho
operation. And 1t must further BIO
conceded that as the right OF the
State to treat such an article of commerce,
as subject to laws passed by the State In the
exercise OF tho police power, comes Tor the
first time and alone from the enactment of
the Wilson bill. until the State passes law
thereafter forbidding such traffic, 1t has
never exercised the power or the discretion,
call It what you may, lodged In It by Con-
gress. From this conclusion we see no log
ical escape.
The operation and scope OF criminal laws
should not be enlarged by implication, but
they should be strictly construed And
where there Is any we'll founded doubt as to
any act being a public offcnse, especially
one not nahum in Sc, II should not be de-
clared such, but should rather be construed
In favor of the liberty Of the cltlz>n. Itfol.
lows that the petitioner Is entitled to bo dis
charged, and It Is accordingly so ordered