The Maryville times. (Maryville, Tenn.) 1884-1944, 1890-05-28
Interstate Commerce Bill.

]. A. KAULL, Pastor.
Interstate Commerce Bill.
The liquor manufacturers find
themselves in desperate straits be-
tween the Supreme Court "Original
package" decision and the new bill
introduced into the Senate by Mr.
Wilson, of Iowa, which the Senate
Judiciary Committee declare con-
stitutlonal. They were shouting
happy at first and are already in
vading the prohibition States with
their original packages, but the.
Wilson bill, which fully meets the
suggestions of the Supreme Court
decision rises up as a spectre ad.
ministering prohibition in style
they never dreamed of. This bill
which the st. Louis Republic calls
"The Outlawry Bill" and declares
ian era marking measure" is as fol-
lows:
"Be it enacted, etc., That no State
shall be held to be limited or re.
strained in its power to prohibit,
regulate or control or tax the sale,
keeping for sale, or the transporta-
ton as an article of commerce or
otherwise, to be delivered within
its limits, of any fermented, distill-
ed or other Intoxicating liquids or
liquors, by reason of the fact that
the same have been paid thereon
any tax, duty, import or exercise TO
the United States"
Mr.. Wilson, of Iowa, who had in
troduced the bill in the first in
stance, and had afterwards report
ed it back, addressed the Senate in
explanation that it was made ne.
cessary by the recent decision of
the Supreme Court on that subject.
1t was in response to a suggestion
contained in that decision that Con.
gress could permit the exercise of a
restraining power of the state, and
it was for the purpose of giving
that permission that the bill had
been introduced and reported. The
effect of it would be to leave the
act of the state in the union to de-
termine for itself what its policy
should be in regard to the traffic in
intoxicating liquors.
Mr.. Vest opposed the bill because
it would sweep away exclusive
jurisdiction Of the United States
over interstate commerce. If Con
gress could enact this bill into {
law it could legislate in a similar
manner in regard to any other com
modify that might be subject o
attack in any state and he though
this bill would establish bad pre-
cedent. The real question, he said
} was whether Congress could dele
gate the power vested in it by tn
constitution, to any state or an.
number of states. He believed i
that it could not. To do 80 woult
be to destroy the interstate claus
of the constitution and all the pur
poses for which it was enacted
Mr.. Vest was piled with question
and suggested points by numbe
: of Senator'S which heightened hi
argument to nearly three hours
. In its course the silver bill came u
I as unfinished business and was lai'
aside to continue the discussion Q
the prohibition bill.
Mr.. Edmunds remarked upon
as q very curious and interestin
circumstance that q condition q
things had been reached where, &C
cording to the debate and accord
ing to the debate and according
. the Supreme Court, the states ha
no power to deal with the subjee
and Congress had no power to DEF
with it."
. Never before did those who bt
lieve In prohibition find themselve
so favorsbly circumstanced. Thl
bill completes the legislation need
ed to make State prohibitory law
effective. The usual cry Of "uucor
. stitutionsl," under which time ser,
ing politicians shield themselve
!. cannot be made in this case.
!. this Congress does not pass this bi
. We shall elect a Congress that will
1t is impossible to make the issu
plainer.-Central Christian Advt
cate.
! Card Of Thanks.
In behalf of the membership an