The Portland daily press., 1890-05-21
ON THE BORDER LINE.
The Question of Prohibition and
State and Congressional Rights.


WASHINGTON, May 2O.-In the Senate to-
day Mr.. Hoar presented remonstrances
signed by several Boston firms against the
great increase of duties proposed in the Nc.
Kinley bill on silk goods. pushes and vel
vets.
Mr.. Ingalls, introduced "a bill to abolish
metal money. He said he did SO at the re-
quest of the Wage Workers Political ALI
ance of Washington, d. G.
The Senate then proceeded to consider the
subjecting imported liquors to the provis-
ions Of the laws of the several states.
Mr.. Wilson of Iowa stated that the bill
was made necessary by the recent decision
of the Supreme court on that subject.
MIR. Vest said that as a member of the ju-
agree with the majority in reporting the bill
because 1t would sweep away the exclusive
jurisdiction of the United States over inter-
state commerce. minority report was
read. dissenting from the views of the ma
jority report and accompanied by a bill
to provide tina. the payment of any import
or excise tax should not exempt the i'm
porter of the article from liability to the laws
of state.
Mr.. Vest resumed his argument against
said, was whether Congress could delegate
power vested in 1t by the Constitution to any
state or any number of states. He believed
it could not. To do so would be to destroy
the interstate clause of the Constitution and
III s t sJ %ssseds sin %ss was eaSo un
bills just as the emergencies or opinions of
different states might call for that sert of
legislation.
Mr.. Hoar favored the bill. If the bill was
not within the legislative power of Congress,
then there was no more miserable nation on
the face of the earth than the United States.
He supposed there did not exist communi-
ty where the danger of permitting the unre-
stricted sale of intoxicating liquors was not
recognized and guarded against by public
this bill. or something equivalent, could be
done, 1t would be the law in the United
States for all future time. unless thel consti-
tion was amended in that respect that any
country could send Intoxicating liquor into
any state, dispose of it there and it would
not be competent for any state authority to
prohibit it.
Mr.. Hiscock asked Mr.: Hoar whether. if a
state desired to exclude manufactures CT
wool, it was within the power of Congress
to delegate to the states power to do do.
Mr.. Hoar replied that he did not go quite
that far but the question mooted was on the
boundary line between two conflicting
the exclusive power of Congress over inter
state commerce. The state had certainly
the original and primary power to say that
nobody should sell intoxicating liquor or
opium to child of 10 years. Congress had
the power to say the right to engage in inter-
allow an Englishman or citizen of another
state, by himself or his agent, to sell intox
icating liquor or opium to child of 10 years.
If that could be done, Congress might go
state or international commerce should not
be understood as permitting anybody to sell
opium or intoxicating liquors to anybody
else.
Mr.. Hiscock assumed that the presence of
the bill was due to the fact that unless it be-
came law, a state would be limited or re-
strained in power over the subject. He ac-
cepted very doubtfully the proposition that
Congress had constitutional power to dele
gate to any state the power to prohibit the
importation or sale, within its borders, OF
wheat, butter or other products of the farm
or factory. He thought it might be wise to
pass the bill and leave it to the Supreme
Court to pass upon it.
Mr.. Reagan said that if the matter was to
be debated on the propriety of regulating
liquors, that would bo one subject; but if it
was to be discussed as to the authority by
which it was to be regulated, that would be
another subject. The Supreme Court had
repeatedly decided that the power of Con-
gress to regulate interstate commerce was as
complete and perfect as the power of state
to regulate its internal commerce. What
ever might be his wish to see temperance
pr fumoted in the land, he was not willing to
lay his hands on the constitution and tear it
down.
Mr.. Edmunds remarked that condition of
things had been reached when, according to
the debate and the judgment of the Supreme
Court, the states had no power to deal with
the subject. and Congress had no power to
deal with 1t. The result was that there
one Stafp
an inherent, individual, personal right to
carry into another state what that state
might consider injurious to its safety, and
there to sell it that Congress had no power to
stop 1t and thetstates could not stop it unless
Congress gave them that power. The
Supreme Court might change its opinion
next year and say that the rule should he
the other way. He did not feel embarras sed
by the fact that the Supreme Court had
taken the longest step ever taken within,
hundred years, in the Republic, towards
Capitalization of power somewhere, either
in the Supreme Court or in Congress. He
did not believe in Capitalization of pow
er. He believed in its segregation and sep
importation of intoxicating liquors into a
state, Mr.. Edmunds claimed that once they
got there they were the subject of the state
laws. That was what the Supreme Court of
the United States would come to within the
next 20 years. 1t might be said that 1t would
States. But the power of the United States
to regulate commerce and levy taxes was no
greater within its sphere than the power of
the states to deal with commodities and the
conduct of its people. Within their
sphere. both powers were supreme and
each had to be exerted in its own order. The
Constitution had declared that Congress
SHOULD nave the power to regulate commerce
among the states and left to the states the
power to deal with the objects of commerce
after they got them.
After further discussion the bill went over
without action and the Senate proceeded to
the consideration of resolutions, offered by
Mr.. Cameron, of respect to the memory Of
the late. Representative William d. Kelley of
Pennsylvania. Remarks in euIopv of the
character and public services of Mr.. Kelley
were made by Messrs. Cameron, Morrill,.
Reagan, Sherman,' Hampton, Hawley and
Daniels. Then the Senate, as a further
mark of respect, Adjourned
GRANITE AND SUGAR.