The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1890-04-08
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
JUDGE HUGHES OPINION OF The
MEAT INSPECTION LAW

MEAT INSPECTION LAW
Result Of she contested Hebm"" '"'
,asetoh, .si,n 20 the supreme ''"''
and Heard ... "a PRIVILEGED Cas-" by INA"
BODY.
Judco Robert W. Hughes, Of She United
states Circait Court, rendered an adverse
ouir4on yesterday upon the constitution
/ality Of The inspection tax upon drcsseo
meats.
The case is a test one, growing out % an
arrest. fine and Imprisonment Of Armour "
Co.'S representative. William HOFFMAN, III
Norfolk. Va. for noncompliance with the
law enacted at the late session Of the Cen
eral Assembly, providing that all dressed
meats delivered in the cities from limit
of 100 miles beyond the state Of Virginia
shall De taxed one cent per pound
The agent who was arrested, was suDs,
ouently released on a writ 81 Aaoeas corpus
from Judge Hughes Court m TINS 'i,.'
and the case was set for trial IN Norfolk OF
Tuesday, April LIST.
ARGUED is NORFOLK.
M. 600 y,,e deliberately aruled on lhat
dov l.x Attorne, General X. l". i"i 800
81 Nr Robert Hughes. oi NoIlvlh' ~ 49,, ~,
~. 90 - Ar NJ. j. Campbell, oi 'hic"t"'
III i.nfain ". II. White, OF NviioiN' wv
"""rn,si Ncssrs. Armour GO. a. lne c3n-
clualon Of the arguments 'HuA' 49,
formed the counsel that De wouiu "''''''
tis orinion in this CITY Yesterday
,crorlinplv. at .O5 O'Clock yesterday Hi-
,ornoon fndec Hughes assembled the behch
and delivered his opinion.
Acknowledgement Scott was present Tor
the state. and Captain ". II. Nhiie jot
Armour q Co. Mr.. John Lnders, 'I'' oi
mis- civ. and Mr.. Pickett. OF Noii9iA' urea,
inspect0rs. were also present, "lu wy,
number of the members Of the bar Oh inc
city. c.... ,.,i,,,,os i'm
Judge Hughes was thirty .hNe minutes in
delivering his opinion. Following Is " i"''
text Of 10:
TIE OPINION.
circnit court OF the United states, Eastern
District of Virginia. at Norfolk
TX marie william Rcbman-On petition Tor
writ OF hahcas corpus;
william Rchaan is the agent OF Armour
A Co. of Chicago. Who are Shippers OF ll'eli
dressed beef from Chicago 20 No'loik TOT size
A recent net OF the Legislature OF virginia
imp0~es "a charge OF one cent lonuu i"i 30
spfctlon. upon fresh meat intended i9i 3 'i. 't
,t,c,s Ia ni,rdrrd miles and more from the
l',' o % isnol,fer. requires 10 TO be inspcc-
led before 10 Is offered tor sii'i anu lH
me OF $50 10 500 for selling WITHOUT }"
''This law was disrcgaflcl by Reoman as
violating the Constitution OF the lhitNl
States lie made 90 sale OF peer "hlch h"u
moi hccn inspected. was arrested and tried iy
IN iustice of the peace of NOfiulk, ana hhti
$50 FOR the Ofensc. Refusing 10 pay me hne'
he was impi isoned in the city Jml OF NoiloiH'
con his petition for tne VIII OF naoeiS coilu-'
al. 81 I..H [.
fiou whether the law a. virginia common
called the Fresh Meat Inspection ACT. i7 lN
violation OF the lcdcml constitution.
.lhs ~urrcmp Court nl the [ nltti states ms
held fn uiauN cnsf. ihHi the clulsc OF tcfloh
= Of Article Isl of the National Constitution
which gives fO Cong css power 70 ittui~t'
commerce with foreign nations ana ainphr
the states. and with the inulah ulntS'
nigcs the power exclusively TO 'v4-
guess. and that when congress ieiiHihA
from cXcrcisiu. 10 ln relation To- amy euNeV
commerce ina that respect ls ficc, aud cdnuui
I,a infer cr .ed with hN the states. Inc most
imioriint OF thc cases establishing lna'
uriuciple ar. cited hV The court IN brown VS.
Houston. IA L. a., at page O5l. dt cldto pm
ISL ana iced mot bee enumerated here. ln
quite IA number Of subsequent cases, the Nu-
memo Court has laid down the same doc
ifiuc ~ applying 10 10 "a constantly varying
condition of faCts. Inc circuit courts OF 90,
Tuifrd states and the supreme courts oi
eeveral Of the States, have announced this
view Of the law. and enforced IL Ia manA
.nsae countuu before them. Aud no doctrine
H. more firmly established than THIS Is ih
American Jurisprudence. Indeed. Mt jus.
lice Bradley in stockton vs.. Baltimore ana
N.Y.K Co.. 81 Federal Reporter, II, IN "a
Circuit Court case, has said very cuinpehdl-
ouSly. that "thc power oi congress Us su-
preme over tie whole subject loi interstate
commerce.. uuimpCdeo aud unembaiiassfd
bv STATE lines or state laws; that, IN tnls
matter. the country is one. ana the work ~
be ace, mpli.hed is national; that STATE ln-
forests stale ionlOuslcS and safe pitludiccs
Nis
matters OF foreign und Interstate commerce
there are mo- states
moi have been formed. under the constiu-
ton of I-s4-g but Tor the necessity which
was felt for "a fundamental provision lhhi
should absolutely exempt commerce Dee
tween the states nom AN cucumbrances and
obstruction by any aud every state. Ahd
the miraculous growth Of the American
Union iu population wealth. ana fiospell,A
Is in all probability, rs largely due 10 the per-
fect freedom of trade between the STAT 81
as 10 any other cause.
,rress over interstate commerce. this absl-
lute freedom OF trade between the states, cA-
ISIS concusroutly with the inherent and matt
urnl power Of The states, 10y police. lnsptc-
lion and even tax laws, 10 regulate thci ill.,
ferunI affairs and 90 provide Tor the safety OF
their OAn immuulilcs 1T "a also tfue lhai
thi, right of the State. lu frequent Instances,
does conflict or seems To conflict. win iNc
exclusive power of Congress over the mstru-
menfnliffes and commodities OF Interstate
commerce. And therefore. whenever this
apparent conflict arises. the courts, uoth
STATE and Federal. are called upon 20 perform
ma. duty sometimes difficult and occasion
aliv inVidiOus, OF defining the relative pow
crs OF the TWO authorities.
APPARENT CONFLICT.
ON this subject the supreme Court has laid
down some general principles as guide, ln
eases Ofapparent conflict In i,'iir9sd go; VS..
Husen. %. L. -. 1OJ, tine Count said while
we unhcsitutingly admit that state may
mass laws for the protection OF lie. liberty on
tropertV within its borders; while 10 may
nreVent persons and animals suffering con-
inofous or infectious diseases. or cOuNicis,
from entering the state; kfnilc, Tor me pni-
pose of selt-pfOtecion, ~ may cstibilsh
auarautiuo and reasonable inspection laws.
n may not interfere with transportation INTO
and through TIE state. beyond what rs anso-
Iufely necessary for MS scil-protection. "ihc
notice power of "a state cannot obsTuct Tor
eign OF inter State commerce neA ond the nee
ucs.ifV of its exercise And, as MS range
same times comes very near 10 The field COM
nifted nv the Constitution 10 Congress. 10 is
INC duty OF the courts TO guard Nlsilant4
against any needless Intrusion
I'm henderson against Mayor. Of New lOrk,
~. =. q. -, the supreme 'vuii sa.d ~.
must occur very often That me snaoing
xvhich marks the line between one class oi
lerISlation and another is very nice aud NOT
easily distinguishing. bnt however diihcnlt
mis- may be- 10 is clear. that whenever The
stetilfe 81 "a state nNades the domain of
lcnisiation which belongs exclusively TO
tsonercs-. 10 is void. mo- matter under what
ever class OF powers IL may iall, or how
.l,saiv allied 10 powers conceded 10 belong TO
~ states" The right of "a stale TO protect
,,erSeu bv necessary and proper laws against
,,anncr- aud convicted criminals from abroad
-, only arise from "a vital necessity for rs
cxercisc. ana cannot be carried beyond the
scope OF that necessity. ,. .
IN bowman against Railway Go 10 1. -
a.. in.tice Field said 10 page SOC. ''lt is per-
mans impossible To state any rule when
Ny, "A dcteriniuc in all eases where the right
10 sell an imported article nAuet the CONNER
''laI no,ger oi the federal government ends,
and the power Of the state % restrict iuithCf
sale mas commenced. Perhaps no safer rule
can be adopted than the one laid down pm
pro,gn against Maryland. ~ Wheaton, i69.
mai the commercial power continues unnl
ihc articles imported have become mingled