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

with reference to that?
THE question Is therefore directly
presented, whether, in view of these
facts the Legislature of State can, by
the charter of q lottery company, de
feat the viii of the people, authorita-
lively expressed, in relation 10 the
further continuance of such business
in their midst. We think it can not.
No Legislature can bargain away the
public health or the public morals.
The people themselves eau not do it,
much less their servants. The super
vision of both these subjects of govern
mental power is continuing in its ma
ture, and they are to be dealt with rs
the special exigencies of the moment
may require. Government is organic
ed with view to their preservation
and can not diyest itself Of the power
to provide for them. Fo. this pur-
pose the largest legislative discretion
is allowed, and the discretion can not
be parted with any more than the
power itself.n
SO, then, we have this additional ar
gument against the decision of the
Supreme Court denying to the State
of Iowa (and the other States) the
right to regulate the sale of imported
intoxicants. 1t is, that Government
itself, in the nature of things being
possessed of the power to regulate these
matters for the protection of the NOR
ais and the health and the lives and
safety of the people, is incapable of
alternating it. If incapable, how can 1t
be said that in aceeding 10 the Con-
stitution of the United States the
states alienated this inalienable power
Is there any answer to that, Mr..
President? The power is inalienable
from its very nature, so essential to
the very life Of the Government that
parting with II is a destruction of the
Government itself; and yet the Su-
preme Court, alter having announced
that doctrine in two well-considered
cases, held in the Iowa case the as
founding doctrine that it was in fact
alienatcd and could only be restored
by the permission of Congress. The
court held that this power, this in
allenable and essential power Of pro-
tecting the lives, the health, the NOR
ais Of the people of a State. conceded
In TWO former cases to have been out
side Of and unaffected by the limita-
tions and prohibitions ofthe Constitu-
tion, was in fact surrounded by the
Federal Constitution. AS to all other
parts of the Constitution this great and
essential power of the States say the
court is supreme. It falls only before
the commercial power. In the opinion
of the Supreme Court, as shown by
these two cases, the police power of
the States stand unaffected by a pro-
vision of the Constitution which ex-
pressly prohibits a State "from pass
ing any law impairing the obligations
of contracts Yet this same power
yields to prohibition which, If 1t ex-
lists at all, exists only by implication
from a grant ofpower to regulate com-
merce.
The Supreme Court has from the
power to regulate interstate COM
mcrce erected a fetch before which
the State police powers must bow.
The court holds that for tho purpose
of protecting the lives, the health, the
morals of the State, State may pro-
hibit the manufacture and sale of in
toxicants within its own borders; but
this right TO defend itself, this right to
protect the morals, and the health of
its citizens is paralyzed into helpless
imbeclity in the face of intoxicating
liquor imported from an other State
or from foreign country whilst 1t re-
mains in the original package and is
owned by the importer.
Logic of that sort, must confess,
| do not understand. If the force of
this police power of a State be so
great that the Constitution touches it
nowhere else, although acts in the
exertion of the power may be In d.
rect contravention Of the letter of the
Constitution, as decided by the court
itself, can not understand why this
great and essential power when 1t
comes simply to question Of COM
morce falls before that power and
comes within the restrictions and limi-
tations of one particular clause only
ofthe Constitution.
Let us stop and think now how we
are placed, how the people Of the
United States are placed in reference
to this matter. In Iowa-that Is the
State now which is the occasion of this
legislation--a man may not manuiac-
ture intoxicantsand may not sell them,
but that same man whose dram shop
is closed up this morning when he
undertakes to sell liquors manufac-
tured within the State of Iowa, may
reopen 1t tomorrow, if only he will
telegraph to Chicago or some other
place outside of the State and have the
liquors imported and then sell them in
the original packages.
That, with great Difference to the
court, appears to me to be an absurd
ity when applied to the great principle
of the right of self-preservation by a
State. In other words, the State of
Iowa and each of the other States is
all-powerful-for what9 To quote
some of the decisions of the Supreme
Court, for self-preseryation, for the
protection Of the lives, the health, the
morals, and the good order of its peo-
pie all-powerful to destroy business
within the State, yet falls dcfenseless
before an imported original package.
This great right which the court de-
clared was malIenable aud could not
be bargained or contracted away, this
great right of self-protecIion is a right
simply to protect the State against in
ternal attacks, leaving her open to at
tack from outside of her borders. The
State is all-powerful to protect herself
against domestic foe, but If the shaft
be shot from across her border 1t may
be directed by her own citizens to the
mark at which 1t is aimed.
That is the condition, sir, in which
the decision of the Supreme Court has
, placed not only Iowa but all the other
States In reference to what the court
, itself has decided is a matter of self
preservation.
, The court has decided that Congress