Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-06-04
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ExEMP
TON BILL.

bill exempting States that prohibit tn,
sale of liquors from the operation of tn.
Interstate Commerce Act, SO that the righ
to export to such States is denied so far as
such prohibited goods are concerned
Some days ago we pointed out that this
issue was at hand, and then expressed
doubt concerning the wisdom of enactine
such law as the Senate has committed
itself to. The question is one of such
grave importance, and has such strength
on either side, that no hasty Judgment
should be arrived at concerning it, for as
we view it, it touches the very quick Of
national unity.
Our contemporary, the San Francisco
Chronicle, attempts to discuss the question,
but makes a sad mess of it, and proves
conelusively that it is not prepared
to take either side. It's stumbling,
however, serves to illustrate the diff
culties of the question. Thus, it
starts out with the proposition that the
kernel Of the matter is in "the interior
ence by Congress with the powers O!
the States" But it wholly overlooks the
fact that in no possible view is the pro-
posed action by Congress interference
On the formation of the Union it was
found that every one of the thirteen States
had different port, customs and commercial
regulations, and that they were so conflict
ing that exchange of commodities be-
tween the citizens of different States was
almost impossible, and at best could be
carried on only with an immense amount
offriction. Worse than that, foreign COM
merce between the States and other coun-
tries, under these conflicting regulations,
would be in Union source of infinite
Jealousy, advantage and disadvantage, and
OF constant rivalry and commercial con.
tention. 1t became apparent that there
could be no true unity without uniform
commercial regulations.
An attempt was then made to have thu
State sovereignties agree between them
selves upon uniform commercial codes fol
exchange of products and regulation of for
eign commerce. But this was found to b.
impracticable and liable at any time to @
to pieces at the will of any State to tn,
agreement When it came to the forma
ton of the Constitution, therefore, tn,
whole subject was committed to Congress
the States voluntarily surrendering theil
initial right to regulate commerce, foreign
and between the States. This surrender
as the REcoRD-UNIoN the other day
pointed out, as much, if not more than any
other, eemented the Union and gave
strength and compactness to the Federal
authority. In no sense, therefore, can il
be said that legislation by Congress upor
this subject is interference On the
contrary, it is within the clearly defined
and express power Of Congress to legis
late as it sees fit in the premises
The Chronicle then proceeds to say thai
the Supreme Court declared, in the recent
original package decision, that Congress
may except from the operation Of the com
mercial regulations established any Stats
in the matter Of articles of commercial i'm
port that the State desires to exclude. On
contemporary adds that if the question
does not touch the inherent sovereignty
&c he. 4 IL.
upon the bill should be in favor of tn,
States asking the exemption. But there i,
no such thing as inherent sovereignty il
the general Government. All the power
it has are derived from grants made by tn,
States. However, this phase of our con
temporary's argument is clearly in sup
port of the Senate measure. 1t adds. il
fertilization of that view, that local self
government must be conserved quite a
much as Federal authority, especially il
those directions where it is proved to b.
practicable, and not to trench upon 9TH
supremacy Of the general Government
Therefore, it adds-though we confess {,
utter inability to see why it is a necessar,
conclusion-"it is late day for Congress
to abandon this position and busy itself il
passing laws which either deny or affirm tn
right of the States to manage their loca
affairs for themselves; for one is just a
much an unwarranted interference as tn
Other
Now, If this is anything of argument a
all, t is upon the other tack and agains
the bill that the Senate has just passed, $
that our contemporary, In the brief spac
OF two paragraphs, has managed to fac
south By north The absurdity of treat
ing such legislation as interference i
apparent. 1t cannot be interference s
long rs the grant of RICH; TO Congress t
so legislate remains. II is regulation
it is anything at all, though it may be ur
wise regulation, for the Constitution ha
not, nor have the Courts, defined regula
ton, 50 far as it touches this question, an
hence whatever provisions Congress ma
make, conservative or prohibitive, of tn
exchange of commodities is regulation.
Bat, conscious of its own unsettled stat
of mind. the Chronicle proceeds to say. tina
sit is a moot point whether Congress ha
the power to legislate as is proposed, bu
thu, whether it has the power or not, tn
question is "whether members Of Congrc:
elected to do the will Of the people sha
sacrifice that will to the desire for Ger
traiization and the creation OF a Govern
ment which shall be supreme in all ma
ters local as well as national"
Wherein the legislation referred to ten'
10 ..ceatralizstion" it will puzzle the read
q discover. Ii is legislation, be it wise I