The Portland daily press., 1890-05-05

section 1853 of the Code Of the State Of iowa
as amended by c. 143 Of the acts of the
| twentieth general assembly in 1886, forbid
| ding common carriers to bring intoxicating
| territory. without first being furnished with
| a certificate as prescribed, was declared in
| valid, because essentially a regulation of
| commerce among the states, and not sane
Of Congress. The opinion of the court. de-
| livered by Mr.. Justice Matthews, the con-
curing opinion OF Mr.. Justice Field, and the
dissenting opinion by Mr.. Justice Harlan, ,on
behalf Of Mr.. Chief Justice Waite, MIR. JUS
tice Gray, and himself. discussed the ques-
tion involved In all its phases; and while the
determination of whether the right Of trans
portati0n of an article Of commerce from one
state to another includes by necessary impli-
cation the right OF the consignee to sell 1t In
unbroken packages at the place where the
transportation terminates was in terms re-
served, yet the argument OF the majority
conducts irresistibly to that conclusion, and
we think we cannot do better than repeat
the grounds upon which the. decision was
made to rest. 1t is there shown that the
transportation Of freight or Of the subjects
OF commerce, for the purpose Of exchange or
sale. Is beyond all question constituent Of
commerce itself that this was the prominent
idea In the minds Of the trainers of the
committed the power to regulate commerce
among the several states; that the
power to prevent embarrassing restrictions
by any state was the end desired; that the
power was given by the same words and in
the same clause by which was conferred
power to regulate commerce with foreign
nations; ana that 1t would be absurd to sup
pose that the transmission Of the subjects Of
trade from the state Of the buyer, or from
the place of production to the market, was
not contemplated, for without that there
could be no c0nsummated trade, either with
foreign nations OF. among the states. 1t is
explained that where state laws alleged to
be regulations Of commerce among the
states have been sustained, they were laws
which related to bridges or dams across
streams, wholly within the state, or police
or health laws, or to subjects of kindred
nature, not strictly Of commercial regulation.
But the transportation OF passengers or Of
merchandise from one state to another Is in
its nature national, admitting Of but one
regulating power; and 1t was to guard
against the possibility of commercial en-
barrassments which would result If one
state could directly or indirectly tax persons
or property passing through 1t, or prohibit
particular property from entrance into the
state, that the power Of regulating commerce
among the states was conferred upon the
federal government.
Matthews, ''the law Of Iowa operated upon
all merchandise sought to be brought from
another state into its limits, there could be
no doubt that 1t would Re a regulation Of
CUmm6IC6 dmOUB tu6 states, anu lie con-
cludes that this must be SO, though it applied
only to one class Of articles of particular
kind. The legislation Of Congress on the
subject of interstate commerce by means of
railroads, designed to remove trammels upon
transportation between different states,
and upon the subject Of the transporta-
ton Of passengers and merchandise,
Revised Statutes, sections 1852 to 1885, in
elusive. including the transportation Of nitro
glycerine and other similar explosive sub
or xyffh ha pOxrfon hot oo 20
"any state, territory, district, city or town
within the United States" should not be pre-
vented by the language used from regulat-
ing or from prohibiting the traffic In or trans
portation of those substances between pei
sons or places lying or being within their
respective territorial limits, or from prohib- |
iting the introduction thereof into such
limits Tor sale, use or consumption therein"
Is referred to as indicative OF the intention
Of Congress that the transportation Of COM
cept where 1t is positively restricted by Con-
gress ITSELF or by states in particular cases
by the express permission Of Congress. 1t
said that the law In question was not an in
spection law, the object of which ''is to i'm
prove the quality of articles produced by the
labor of a country, 20 fit them for exporta-
tion; or, 1t may be, for domestic use;" CID |
bons v. Ogden.9 Wheat. 1908; Turner v.
Maryland. 107 U. s. 3S, So; nor could it be |
regarded as regulation of quarantine or a
sanitary provision for the purpose of pro-
tsstng the RaYsfafs Y Rsah q tAs
to the state of diseases contagious, infectious
or otherwise. Articles In such a condition
as tend to spread disease are not merchant
able, are not legitimate subjects Of trade and
commerce, and the self-protecting power of
each state, therefore, may be rightfully
exerted against their introduction, and such
exercise OF power cannot be considered a
regulation Of commerce prohibited by the
Constitution; and the observations Of Mr..
n-k II u
5O4, $50, are quoted to the effect that what
does not belong to commerce is within the
jurisdiction of the police power of the state,
but that which does belong to commerce is
within the Jurisdiction of the
power over subjects of commerce would be
to make commerce subordinate to that power
and would enable the state to bring within
the police power "any article Of consumption
that state might wish to exclude, whether
1t belonged to that which was drunk, or to
food and clothing; and with nearly equal
claims to proprety, as malt liquors and the
products of fruits other than grapes stand ON
no higher ground than the light wines of this
and other countries, excluded in effect by the
law as 1t now stands. And 1t would be only
another step to regulate real or supposed ex-
travagance in food and clothing"
And Mr.. Justice Matthews thus proceeds:
"For the purpose of protecting Its people against
the evils OF intemperance II has the right to pro-
ting liquors; Il may also prohibit all domestic
commerce in them between its own inhabitants
whether the articles are introduced from other
States or from foreigncountries; 1t may punish
those who sell them in violation of IFS laws NAV
adopt any measures tending, even indirectly and
remotely, TO make the policy effective until IL
passes the line OF power delegated 10 Congress
under the Constitution. Ii cannot, without the
consent OF Congress, express or implied, regulate
commerce between its people and those Of the
other states OF the Union In order to effect its end
however desirable such regulation might be.
Can II be supposed that by emitting
any expressed declaration on the subject, Con-
gress has intended to submit TO the several states
the decision OF the question in each locality Of
what shall and what shall not be articles of tfaic
In the Interstate commerce OF the country? IL so,
Il has left to each state, according to its own ca
against every article grown, produced, manufac-
tured, or sold In any state and sought to be in
troduced as an article of commerce into any 9TH
er. IL the State OF Iowa may prohibit the impOr-
taton Of Intoxicating liquors from all other states
i may also include tobacco, or any other article,
the use or abuse OF which it may deem deeteri-
Gus. 1t may not choose, even, to be governed by
considerations growing out of the health, comfort
or peace OF the community. Its policy may be
directed to other ends. II may choose TO estab-
lish system directed to the promotion and bene-
mt OF its own agriculture, manufactures or arts of
any description, and prevent the introduction and
sale within its limits Of any of all articles that
II may select as coming into competition with
those which IL seeks to protect. The police power
OF the state would extend to such cases, as well
as to those in WHICH it was sought to legislate in
people. In view of the commercial anarchy and
confusion that would result from the diverse exer-
tons of power by the several states of the Union,
It cannot be supposed that the Constitul ion or
Congress have intended to limit the freedom OF
commercial intercourse among the people Of the
several states"
Many of the cases bearing upon the sub
ject are cited and considered in these opin-
ions, and among Others The License Cases,
How 504, wherein laws passed by MaSsa-
chusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island,
in reference to the sale of spirituous liquors,
came under review and were sustained, al
though the members of the court who par
ticipated in the decisions did not concur in
any common ground upon which to rest
them. That of Peirce ct al. v. Netc Hamp-
shire is perhaps the most important TO be re-
ferred to here. In that case the defendants
had been fined for selling a barrel of gin in
New Hampshire which they had bought in
Boston and brought coastwise to Ports
mouth, and there sold in the same barrel and
in the same condition In which it was pur-
chased in Massachusetts, but contrary to the
law Of New Hampshire In that behalf. The
conclusion Of the opinion Of Mr.. Chief JUS
tice Taney is In these words:
"Upon the whole, therefore, the law of New
Hampshire Is In my Judgment a valid one. For,
although the gin sold was an import from another
state and Congress have clearly the power TO reg
ulate such lmportations. under the grant OF power
to regulate commerce among the several
States, yet as Congress has made no
regulation on the subject, the tram, frame
ed by the state as soon as it is landed in its terri
torv and a tax imnosed upon it, or license re-