The DeSmet leader. (DeSmet, Kingsbury Co., Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1891, 1890-05-24

ages, the Iowa court holding such sale
unlawful. The United States supreme
court, in the folio wing exhaustive de-
clsion, reverses the decision OF the
state court, and remands the case for
further proceedings not inconsistent
with this opinion.
THE TEXT OF THE DECISION
The power vested In congress ito regulate
commerce with foreign nations, and amoug the
several states, and with the Indian tribes" is
the power TO prescribe the rule by which that
commerce is to be governed, and il power
complete in itself. acknowledging no Iimita-
tious other than those prescribed in the consti-
| tuition II II co-extensive with the subject on
| which IL acts and cannot be stopped at the ex-
| ternal boundary OF a state, but must enter It's
| interior and must be capable OF authorizing the
| disposition OF those articles which II intTOduc-
| es, so that they may become mingled with the
common mass OF property within the territory
| entered. Gibbons v. Ogden wheat, l; Brown
v. MARYLAND IL. Wheat. 4l9.
| And while, by virtue Of its jurisdiction over
| persons and property within It's limits, state
NAV provide for the security OF the lives limbs,
| health and comfort Of persons and the pToteC-
| tIon OF property 30 situated, yet subject mat
| ter which has been contided exclusively to con-
Rress by the constitution Is not within the 1ur-
| isdictiOn of police power or the state unless
| placed there by congressional action. Hender
son v. Mayor OF New York. 90 U. s. 800: r. r.
| Co. =. Husen. 95 U. 5. 465: Walling v. Michi-
| gan, ll6 u. s 448; RObbinsv v. Shelby Taxing
| District, l. 20 Y. 4. 4S9. The power TO regulate
commerce among the states is unit, but If
particular subjects within It's operation do not
! require the application of general or UNIFORM
| system. the states may legis' ate in regard TO
| them with q view to local needs and circnm-
| stances, until congress otherwise directs. but
| the power thus exercised by the states is not
| identical In it's extent with the power TO reRu-
| late commerce among the states. The power
| to pass laws in respect TO internal commerce,
| inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws
| and laws in relation to bridges ferries aud high
| ways, belong to the class OF powers pertaining
| to locality essential To local intercomTunica-
| tion, to the progress and development OF local
| prosperity, and to the protection. the safety
and the welfare OF society. originally necessart-
| ly belonging to, and upon the adoption or the
| constitution reserved by the states, except so
| far as falling within the scope OF power con-
| fded TO the general government. Where the
| subject matter requires a uniform system as be-
| tween the states, the power controlling 1t IL
| vested exclusively in congress and cannot
| be encroached upon by the states, but
| where, in rela ion to the subject matter,
| different rules may be suitable for different To-
| calties, the states may exercise powers which,
| though they may be said to partake OF the ma
| ture Of the power granted to the general gov
| ernment. are strictly not such. but are simply
| local powers, which have full operation until or
unless CrcumscTtbed by the action OF congress
! in effectuation Of the general power Cooley v.
| Port WaTdens, IL How, 299
| 1t was stated in the 32d number OF the Feds-
| ralist that the state might exercise concurrent
| and independent power In all cases but three:
| First where the power was lodged exclusively
| in the Federal con stitutiOn; second, where IL
| was given to the United States and prohibited
| to the states; third, where from the nature aud
subjects of the powe-. IT must he necessarily eA-
| ercsed by the national government exclusively.
| But it IL easy TO see that congress may assert
! an authority under one Of the granted powers,
which would exclude the exercise by the states
| upon the same sui ject Of different but simi-
| lar power, between which and that possessed
| bv the general government no inherent rcpug-
| nancy existed.
| the general government IL one which must nee
| essarily be exercised nv it, and congress re-
mans silent. this Is not only not conces-
| sion that the powers reserved by the state
| may be exeTted az IL the specific power had
not been elsewhere reposed, but. on the con-
| trary, the only legitimate conclusion IL that
! the general government intended that power
| should not be atfirmatiyely exercised, and the
| action OF the states cannot be permitted TO
| effect that which would be incompatible with
| such Intention. Hence, inasmuch an inter
| state commerce, consisting In the transpOrtA-
tion, purchase, sale and exchange Of oommod-
| tiles, IL national in its character, and NUT
| be governed by a uniform system, 30 long as
| congress does not pass any law To regulate II,
| or allowing the states so TO do IL thereDv In
| dicates it's will that such commerce shall he
| free and untramnIeed County OF Mobile
| KimbaIl, lO2. u. s. 69l: Brown ss. Houston.
ll4U. s. 622, 63l: Wabash T. Co. va Illinois,
| lls U. s. 557: Robinsvs Shelby Taxing Dis
| tf1ct, lSO y. - RSS, 4ob
| That ardent spirits distilled liquors ale and
| beer. are subjects OF exchange, barter and traf-
| ic like any other commodity In which right
| Of traffic exists. and are 80 recognized by the
| usages Of the commercial world. the laws Of
| congress aud the decisions Of courts, Is not de-
MED Being thus articles OF commerce, can
! state. In the absence Of legislation on the part
| OF congress-, prohibit their importation from
| abroad or from sister state2 or when imported
| prohibit their sale by the Importer Ii the i'm
portstion cannot be prohibited without the con-
| sent of congress. when does property imported
| from abroad or from, sister state, NO become
| part of the common mass OF property within a
| state as TO be subject to its unmpeded CONTROL ?
In Brown v. MARYLAND supra the act OF the
| state Legislature drawn In question was held in
| valid as repugnant to the prohibition OF the
| constitution upon the states to lay any impost
or duty upon imports or exports, and to the
| clause granting the power to regulate COM
! nerce; and IL was laid down by the great mag
| istrate who presided over this court for mole
| than third Of a century, that the point Of
| time when the prohibition ceases and the
| power OF the state to tax commences, IL not the
Instant when the article enters the county, but
| when the importer has so acted upon II that IL
| has become Incorporated and mixed up with
| the mass of property In the country. which
happens when the ORIGINAL package il no long
| er ouch in his hands: that the distinction In
| obvious between a tax which intercepts the I'M
| port as an import on its way to become moor
| porated with the general mass Of property, and
a tax which hnds the article already incorpor-
ated with that mass by the act OF the importer:
| that as to the power To regulate commerce, none
OF the evils which proceeded from the feebleness
OF the federal government, contributed more to
| the great revolution which introduced the pres
| cut system than the deep and general convc-
| ton that commerce Ougnt TO be regulated by
congress: that the grant should be as extensive
| "a the mischief, and should comprehend all tor
eign commerce and all commerce among the
states: that that power was complete in itself,
| acknowledged TO limitations other than those
prescribed by the con stltution. was extensive
| with the su bject on which 10 acts and not to be
| stopped n The external boundary Of a state, but
must be capable OF ent ering ts Interior: that tho
| right TO sell any article impor ed WAS an inse =
| arabic incident to the right 10 import IL: aud
that the principles expounded In the case ap-
piled equally 10 importations from sister state
| ManifestIy this must lie so, for the seme public
policy applied TO commerce among the states as
to foreign commerce, and not reason could be
assigned for contding the power over the one
which did not conduce to establish the Dr0prie-
ty OF cOnidlng the power over the other. Story
Const 1906. And although the precise ques-
tion before Us was not ruled In Gibbons v. Og-
den and Brown " Marvand, yet we think IL
was virtually involved aud answered and that
| this Is demonstrated, RmCng other cases, in
Bowmsn '. Chicago Il Nor shwestern Railway,
Co., l25 u. 4. 465. In the ls Ter case, section
1853 OF the Code OF the 81 ate of iowa as amended
bv 1a3 Of the acts 90 the went ieth genei al
| sembly In 1885, torbidding common carriers 10
| bring Intoxicating liq"ors into the state from
any other state or territory, wiShont first being
| furnished with q certificate as prescribed. was
| declared invalid, because essentially reRuiA-
| tion OF commerce among the states, and not
sanctioned by the authority, express or implied.
OF c ngress The opinioa OF the court, delivered
ky Mr.. Justice Matthews, the concuE.iug opin-
ion Of Mr. Justice Field, and the dissenting
opinion Of Mr.. Justice Harlan, on behalf OF Mr..
Chief Justice Waite, Mr.. Justice Gray, and
| himself d'scussed the question involved in
| all It's phases: and while the determination of
| whefh her the right Of transportation OF an arti-
Gle OF commerce from one state TO another In
cludes by necessary implication the right OF
the constance 20 sell IL In unbroken packages
| at the place where the transportation teTmin-
ates was In terms reserved. yet the argument Of
majority conducts irresistibly TO that oonclu-
| SION. and We think we cannot do better than re-
peat the grounds upon which the decision was
| made 10 rest IL IL there shown that the trans
portation Of freight or OF the subjects OF com
merce. for the purpose OF exchange or sale. is
beyond all question q Constituent OF commerce
Itself: that this was the prominent idea I'm the
minds Of the trainers Of the constitution. when
20 congress was committed the power 70 Scsu-