Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-05-22
THE CHANGE OF PRINCIPLES.

The unique phases and indefinite posi-
bilities Of the original package decision OF
the United States Supreme Court have
already occupied considerable public atten-
ton. While that aspect of the subject is by
no means exhausted, it is worth while to
give little study to the process by which
this ultimate tribunal has worked away
from the old principles governing the divi-
sion of State aud Federal authority to the
nosition which is assumed in the last de-
cision.
The opinion Of the Chief Justice in this
case quotes an opinion of Chief Justice
Taney in an exactly similar case over 40
wears ago. Without going into the rather
hazy reasoning by which Taney's ruling
was reversed, it is worth while to quote
from the former opinion, the declaration Of
a doctrine that has a broader application
than merely TO the liquor traffic. Taney
said:
Although Congress has clearly the power to
regulate such importations under the grant OF
power to regulate commerce among the several
States. vet as Congress has made no regulation
on the subject the traffic may be lawfully
regulated by the State as soon as 1t il landed in
its territory, and license required or the sale
altogether prohibited. according TO the policy
which the State may suppose to bo its interest
or duty to pursue.
This decision has not only been law with
regard TO the interstate liquor traffic up to
the present time, but the principle which 1t
states was applied and affirmed with regard
to other branches OF interstate commerce
up to n comparatively recent date. One Of
the latest and most important cases In
which Il was asserted was In the famous
Granger cases involving the regulation Of
railroads by the States In those cases II
was held BY Chief Justice Waite and the
majority Of tho court--and this part Of the
decision was not disputed by the dissenting
Justices, Field and strong-as we'll estab-
llGhed principle, that while Congress has
the power 10 regulate Interstate commerce,
II IL competent for State In the absence OF
Congressional regulation, 10 regulate that
part Of the Interstate commerce which Affects
la own citizens by beginning or terminating
within its territory.
Whether the magnitude Of corporate In
tereSts had anything 10 do with changing
this principle or not, II IL certain that the
first shift Of the Supreme Court from the
rule laid down by Taney in ls47 and 70.
pc ated by Waite In 1875, was In the next
great railroad case. that Of Wabash Rail-
way Vs. Illinois In 1885. The turning point
Of its decision was its denial Of, the prInci-
pie asserted In the Granger cases that the
State might regulate its own Interstate
commerce II Congress omitted 10 do so, and
its declaration OF the contrary rule. Justice
Bradley'E dissenting opinion very effectively
rldded the logic OF the majority ruling, and
the result Of the decision was 10 hasten the
passage OF the interstate commerce act.
But the decision marks the point at which
the Supreme Court reversed the old rule and
declared that II Congress does not provide
regulation for any branch OF Interstate
commerce, II must 60 wholly unregulated.
Now LET us see where this departure
leads. The original package case with all
its notifications and inierences comes very
near to being reductio ad dbsurdu'n. But
let us take subject In which 10 predisposi-
tionS or especial interests are likely to pre-
iudice clear view. There is no feature OF
commerce more clearly requiring legislative
regulation than that pertaining to the col
lection of debts and the settlement OF bank
ruptcies. Under specific grant OF
power by the Constitution, Congress
has at times provided q national bankruptcy
law. At the present time, however, 1t
leaves that function unperformed; and its
place is supplied by different and somewhat
diverse State laws. But Is 1t not fair
application Of this same principle, which the
Supreme Court has adopted OF late years,
that State cannot regulate the collection Of
debts or the settlement of bankruptcies Gre
ated in the operations Of trade between the
various States? The new principle pushed
to its ultimate conclusion will bring inter-
State commerce to stand-still for lack of
national regulation Of some of its most i'm
portant features.
1t may be an important question what
influences have caused the departure OF the
Supreme Court from the old principles. But
il is sufficient for the present to point out
the change which has been going and in
dicate to what lengths it may lead.