Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1890-08-01
VERMONT, AUGUST l, 1890.

office half century ago, and which has
been for nearly fifty years the accepted
law on the subject by State Legislatures,
courts, and Dy the bar of the country.
The court now holds that intoxicants in
original packages may be sold by the
importer despite local restriction, thus
subeCting each State to irresistible, ir-
responsible, wholesale and unrestrained
deluge of intoXicants of all sorts.
Now, | believe, as my friend from
Texas said yesterday-and it is my set
tied conviction, and | do not like to
argue against my own convictons-that
this police power was reserved in the
State: that the government is the gran
tee of what powers it exercises; that
Congress has no business whatever with
this question and can not confer this
power upon the States. That is my per-
sonal belief. But unfortunately for HIM
self and myself (and in this case for the
whole country we have to accept the
constitution as construed by the Sup
rene court, and that court has said that
we are wrong. That is the situation,
and that is the difficulty with his con-
clusion.
Continuing, Mr.. Stewart said he did not
like either of the two bills-that of the
Senate or that of the House-because the
power of regulating this matter resides
IN the State 1.-The idea to me is intoler-
able" he added, ''that the States of this
country are to be subject to invasion
against the declared wish and decreed
will of the people by the people of other
States with its traffic in intoXcants, and
that is precisely the situation in which
this decision leaves US" He referred to
the decision of the Supreme court in
the New Hampshire license cases and
quoted from that decision this paragraph,
which, he said, 'sounds like prophecy in
the light of what is transpiring today all
oyer this country"
$50 hold that the State license law
was void as respects spirits coming in
from other States as articles of commerce
would open the door to an almost entire
evasion, as the spirits might be intro
duced in the smallest divisible quantities
that the retail trade would require, the
consequence of which would be that the
dealers in New Hampshire would sell
only spirits produced in other States, and
that the product of New Hampshire
would find an unrestrained market in the
neighbOrlng States having similar license
laws to those of New Hampshire.
He stood there, he said, 'for the right
of self-government in the States of this
country, and if the Supreme court has
put this question in such form that
legislation by Congress is necessary to
give it to us, let us have it. That is my
position. Irrespective of all local
matters, irrespective of the beer in New
ark. or of the beer in Chicago, or of the
beer in Milwaukee. the bourbon in Ken
lucky, or of the rum of Medford, stand
upon this ground" Two propositions
were presented. 'First, the Senate bill.
That touches only the subject out of
which this unfortunate situation arises.
1t relieves the country so far as that
particular question is concerned" Mr..
Stewart went on to say:
My friend from Arkansas says he is
opposed to the Senate bill because il
does not 60 far enough. He says that
Congress, instead of taking the subject
into its own hands and legislating di-
rectly, proposes by this bill to delegate
Il power to the States to legislate. With
great respect to my friend, deny it.
say that the clause of the constitution
which authorizes Congress to regulate
commerce among the States does not
prescribe in what manner that regulation
shall be made, and when my friend talks
about the necessity of uniform rule
applicable to all the States alike, | make
this reply: If he lived in England
where the country is a unit and the gov.
ernment is unit, and where the power
of Parliament extends all over the coun
try, and uniform rule is absolutely nee
essary, his argument might be good
In any country that is unit that argu
ment might be good, but it is practca
impossibility for Congress to regulate
commerce among the States in the man
ner in which he says it should do it. He
should consider that under our form o.
government, with this central govern
ment which Is supreme within its juris
diction, and with this congeries of States
each with local powers and local juris
dction, the case is a very different one
and | undertake to say that the only
way in which this power of the genera
government can be exercised is precise
ly in the way proposed. Why? Be
cause we have these different communi
ties composed of different elements, sit
uated in widely separated sections, liv
ing under different conditions and re-
quiring different modes of legislation
Take, for instance. the subject of TEN
perance; while prohibition may be nee
essary or may be wise in one community
it is not so in another.
Everybody knows that the enforce
ment of all sumptuary laws must rest
upon the general sentiment of the com
munity. If that is adverse you can moi
enforce such laws, and it Is unwise t.
enact them. So when Congress comes
to deal with this subject it makes gen
eral rule analogous to the local-optiol
laws adopted in many of the States
Where the State enacts IL local-optlor
law, giving local option to municipali
ties and counties, it does not delegat,