The Greenville times. [volume] (Greenville, Miss.) 1868-1917, 1890-06-14

has no such power, yet Congress may
create the power and donate it to the
States. That, sir, is in effect the deci,
sion of the court in holding that the
State may exercise the power by the
permission Of Congress. There is nc
mode of expression, no legal euphem-
ism, which can conceal it.
The Senator from Missouri MIR
Vestb the other day, said the expires.
sion of the court on this point was an
otiter dictum. The Senator from
Massachusetts Mr.. Hoarl, as l under
stood him, conceded that that was the
fact, and the Senator from Texas rMr
Cokel this morning repeats II In my
opinion it is not an obiter dictum; il
Is as much a solemn decision of the
court as any other declaration made
by il in this case.
| think the decision is wrong, but
that is speculative opinion of myself
as Senator from the State of Missis-
sippi. The stubborn fact, notwith-
standing my opinion, Notwithstanding
the opinion of a large majority is, there
stands a decision of the Supreme
Court, whether right or wrong, which
denies to the State of Iowa and the
State of Kansas, and the other States
Of the Union, the right, the power to
regulate this traffic so far as imported
intoxicants are concerned. | believe
that the decision is all wrong, but still
that is the fact. | eau not ignore the
fact. can not go through the world
blindfolded, stumbling, rushing my
head and arms aud body against these
stubborn facts that impede my path
way.
Then what am to do? That same
court which denied this essential
power to the States as of their original
and inherent and reserved powers
says that they may have the power by
the permission of Congress. Now,
what is man who believes the first
proposition to do? If he believes that
the States did not and ought not to
have 1t, that 1t was not the scheme OF
the Constitution that tho States should
have this police power to regulate the
traffic in imported liquors, and the
court were to decide, as 1t did decide,
that we might give it to them, he
would say, or be justified in saying,
that "the Constitution has run the line
here and l am not going to violate 1t,
as far as am concerned" But | do
not agree with that man. | think the
Constitution runs the line of division
between State and Federal power, so
as to give or concede to the States this
reserved power. The Supreme Court
takes this power away from the State,
and at the same time tells us there Is a
way to get it back again. | say | do
not like the way to get 1t back.
protest, sir, against the mode of get
ting 1t back. But as a practical man,
when | see the States robbed of an
important attribute of their sovereign
ty, am |, because | do not like the way
in which tho wrong of the robbery
may be repaired, to refuse 10 aid in a
restoration of the improperly taken
power! If l do so upon the ground
that l do not like the way in which
the restoration is to take place, | play
the childish part of refusing right
which Is clear because some one has
Improperly coupled with 1t an asser.
tion do not like.
MIR. President, think we ought to
be practical in the affairs of life, prac.
tical IN the affairs of legislation. If
travel the road and meet ninc men
who are utterly irresponsible in law
who are above the law, aud they take
from me my property, property essen
tial to my health, property essential to
the welfare of my family, | am utterly
without the power of redress. | pro.
test to them that the taking is pure
robbery and ask them to restore my
property. They refuse but tell me
1--WE will not do it, but we will tell
you how you can get It, just go over
the way; there is body of four hun
dred men; get their permission, and
you shall have the property" Shall /
being bound hand aud foot, being
unable to help myself, refuse to take
my property back even by the permis
sion of men who think had no righ
to give the permission That is ex
actly the attitude of this case, Mr.
President.
Here stand the States effectually de
prived Of this great power, no,
theoretically merely, but actually. TIL,
Senator from Iowa tells you Iowa Il
effectually deprived of 1t. The Sen
ator from Kansas nodded assent to my
assertion on that same point, his Stat,
being affected by IL. All the Statel
are affected by 1t. Here are the i'm
ported intoxicants going into thes,
Stetes, being sold against the Stat,
power denied by the Supreme Court
and sold against the will of the State
| say nothing of the right or wrong o
the legislation of Iowa That is
matter for her decision, not for tn,
action, or even the advice of Congress
| am not in favor of her exercising he
undoubtcd power in favor Of prohibi
tion nor against 1t. | am for her ex
ercising the power as she wills and no
as any other power may will. 1t /
her business, not mine.
| should have been glad. sir il tn,
Supreme Court had held, which | be
lieve would have been right, that th,
States have tho inherent power to dea
with this question as they see proper
Having failed to do that, and by deny
ing this power, having made, as
solemnly believe, a serious wound il
the Constitution, am glad they mad,
another, because one, being a wount
of deprivation and spoliation, the othe
is wound of restoration and tn,
redress of wrong. AS the court coul,
not see that the States had this powe
originally and inherently and inalien
ably, | am glad the court could SCI
that there was way by which the,
could be allowed to exercise il.
| have detained the Senate Ionge
than | expected. The question is al
important one; and although desir'
1t to be understood and to put 1t upor