Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-05-21
DEMAND FOR ACTION.
Continued from First Page.


this point, Mr.. Vest sent to the clerks desl
and had read report OF the Judiciary Com
mittee in the last Congress laying down thu
principles for which he contended.
Mr.. Ingalls, and Mr.. Edmunds called fol
the reading of the minority report (and i
was read), dissenting from the views of thu
majority, and signed by Messrs. Wilson, o.
Iowa; Ingalls,, Edmunds and Hoar. Thi:
minority report had been accompanied by &
bill to provide that the payment of any i'm
post or excise tax shouldn't exempt the i'm.
porter of the article from liability to the
laws of State.
Mr.. Vest resumed his argument against
the pending bill. The real question, he said,
was whether Congress could delegate a
power vested in it by the Constitution to
any State or to anv number of States. be
believed that it could not. To do so would
be to destroy the interstate clause of the
Constitution and all the purposes for which
1t was enacted.
CHAOS WOULD RESULT.
So far from having any uniformity, there
would be, in that case, diversity and hostll-
ity. Missouri would shut out one article OF
Interstate commerce, Kansas another, Iowa
another and South Carolina another, and so
on until there would be chaos from one end
of the Union to the other.
At 3 o'clock the silver bill came up as the
unfinished business, and Mr.. Allison moved
that it be laid aside formally in order to
continue consideration .of the measure un-
der discussion. The motion was agreed to
and the consideration of the bill as to i'm
ported liquors was proceeded with.
Mr.Nest resumed his argument against it.
He would now, he sand, state what was the
overwhelming consideration with him. II
this bill were passed it would open UP op-
portunities for a successive series of such
bills, Just as the emergencies or opinions OF
different States might call for that sort of
legislation. The Senate was now asked to
enter the domain OF Interstate commerce,
vested exclusively in Congress, and to make
an exception as to alcoholic liquors, which
the Supreme Court had decided to be as
much an article of commerce as any other
merchandise.
JUST THE BEGINNING.
How long would it be, he asked, until
another demand was made upon Congress to
give permission 10 all the States to exclude
something else-tobacco, for instance? In
a country like this, where, from year to
year, popular excitement sprang up in diff
ferent localities and spread, permeating the
entire Union, how long would it be until
some other State found some other article
would try to bring political influence upon
Congress to pass such law as the pending
bill? He asked Senators to pause before
they threw that question into the arena OF
Congressional debate.
Mr.. Mcpherson asked Mr.. Vest whether
the right to import an article implied the
right 10 sell it. Mr.. Vest replied in the
affirmative, and quoted from the decision of
MIR. Justice Matthews, of the Supreme
Court, in the case of Ward against Mary
land to that effect.
Mr.. Hoar argued in the bills favor. II
the bill was not within the legislative power
OF Congress then there was no more miser-
able nation on the face of the earth than the
United States. He supposed that there did
not exist community anywhere where the
danger of permitting the unrestricted sale
OF intoxicating liquors was not recognized
and guarded against by public authority.
A DEPLoRABLE CONDITION.
Unless what was proposed in this bill.
(or something equivalent), could be done it
would be the law in the United States for
all future time, (unless the Constitution
were amended in that respect), that any
person living in another State or in a
foreign country could send intoxicating
Hqnors into any State and dispose of it there
through his agents, and that it should not
be competent Tor any State authority to pro-
hibit it.
Mr.. Edmunds remarked upon it as a very
curious and interesting circumstance that a
condition of things had been reached where.
according to the debate and according to
the judgment of the Supreme Court the
States had no power to deal with the sub
Ject and Congress had no power to deal with
It. The result was that there was in every
SHnkA ~
personal right to carry into another State
what that State might consider Injurious to
its safety, and there to sell it; and that Con-
gress had no power to stop it, and that the
States could not stop it unless the Con-
gress gave them that power. 1t was
only necessary to state such a proposi-
ton to show that somewhere either in the
Supreme Court or in the Senate, there was
fault in the logic of somebody. He did
not feel over-persuaded or put in a box by
what the Supreme Court had said. 1t |
might change its opinion next year and saw |
the rule had been the other way. He did |
not feel embarrassed by the fact that the |
supreme Court had taken the longest step
ever taken within hundred years in the |
Republic toward the Capitalization of now
er, somewhere, either in the Supreme Court
or in Congress. He did not believe in the !
Capitalization of power. He believed In its
segregation and separation in every respect.
EDMUNDs' IDEA.
Sneaking of the importation of intoxi- |
eating liquors into State, Mr. Edmunds |
claimed that once they got there, they were,
whether In the hands of natives or not. the |
subjects of State laws; and that was what |
the Supreme Court of the United States |
would come to within the next 20 years. 1t |
might be said that that would interfere with |
the revenue of the United States, but the |
power of the United States TO regulate COM |
meree and to levy taxes was no greater.
within its sphere, than the power of the |
States to deal with the commodities and |
the conduct of its people, within their |
sphere. Both powers were supreme, and |
each had 10 be exerted in its own order. |
The Constitution had declared that Congress |
should have power to regulate commerce |
among the States, and lett to the States the |
power to deal with the objects OF commerce
after they got there.
, After further discussion the bill went over
without action, and the Senate proceeded to
the consideration of the resolutions offered !
by Mr.. Cameron in respect TO the memory of |
the late representative, William d. Kelley, !
Of Pennsylvania. Remarks in eulogy of the |
character and public services OF Mr. Kelley |
were made by Senators Cameron, Morrill,, |
Reagan, Sherman, Hampton, Hawley and
Daniel.
AT the close Of the eulogies the Senate, as