The Greenville times. [volume] (Greenville, Miss.) 1868-1917, 1890-06-14
SENATOR GE0RGE-UNBROKEN PACK.
AZ sECIsION.
s'Inter-State Commerce = Fetch Before
Which the State Power Must Bow -

- 4Elto1uls
s.Inter-State Commerce q Fetch Before
Which the state Power Must Bow"
| confess that the decision of the
Supreme Court denying to the State
of Iowa, and therefore denying to all
the States, the right to regulate the
sale of imported intoxieants struck mo
with surprise, and the more so since
that court had on two occasions before
that settled principles which are, in
my judgment, in direct antagonism to
tins decision of the court. The court
in these former opinions held that the
police powers of a State were not
touched, were not influenced, were not
Restricted by any clause of the Cansti-
tuition of the United States. They did
not put it in that broad language, but
they made these decisions with refer
ence to the effect of clause in the
Constitution which the court had be-
fore most sedulousIy enforced as
against State action and State legisla-
ti0n.
| In 81 United States Reports occurs
one of these cases. The Beer Compa-
ny against The State Of Massachusetts,
is the style of it. A charter had been
granted by the State of Massachusetts,
to this beer company authorizing il to
manufacture and sell beer within the
limits of that State. Massachusetts,
repealed that charter so far as the
power of selling beer was concerned.
The point was made by the company
In the court, that the repeal of this
charter right was in violation Of that
clause of the Constitution of the Uni
ted States which prohibits any State
from passing any law imparing the
obligation Of a contract.
The Senate will take notice that il
this charter had been made with ref.
erence TO any other article of property
not coming within what Is termed the
police powers of the State, 1t would
have been held, as IL has been held by
a long train of decisions commencing
with the Dartsmouth College case
early in the history Of the Government
down to the present time, that the
charter was contract, and being a
contract, right secured by It can not
be taken away by the subsequent leg
islation of State. That case stood
exactly in the way of the repeal II the
article mentioned in the chsrter had
not been an intoxicant or some other
article of like legal character. How
did the court answer that position,
Mr.. President2 Twill read from the
opinion of the court, on page 1872 of
81 United States Reports:
aWhatever differences Of opinion
may exist as to the extent and boun-
daries of the police power, and how
ever difficult 1t may be to render
satisfactory definition Of II, there
seems to be no doubt that 1t does ex-
tend to the protection of the lives,
health, and property of the citizens,
and to the preservation of good order
and the public morals. The Legisla-
ture can not, by any contract, dlvest
itself of the power to provide for these
objects. Thcy belong
Speaking now with reference to in
toxicating liquors
@They belong emphatically to that
class of objects which demand the ap-
phcation Of the maxim salus populi
suprema lex; and they are to be at
tained and provided for by such ap-
propriate means as the Legislative dis
crction may devise. That discretion
can no more be bargained away than
the power itself. boyd VS.. Alabama,
"a U. S., 645.'
Mr.. President, the principle settled
by this case Is this That wherever
the subjcct-matter of regulation by
State law relates to the health, TO the
good order, to the safety of the people
of that State, the power to euact that
regulation, though Ii may be in the
mode of Its exercise If applied to any
other subject In violation of the Con-
stitution of the United States, is not
. violation of that Constitution, be-
cause the Constitution Is supposed not
to have affected that particular power
of the States.
Now, | put II TO Senators, If the
police power Of a State is strong
enough to prohibit the sale and manu-
facturo of intoxicants, of beer and dis
titled spirits, and is outside Of, and
unaffected by that provision of the
Constitution Of the United States
which prohibits State from impair
ing the obligation of a contract, by
what process of reasoning can 1t be
maintained that that power is subject
to the Constitution In that other
clause which declares that Congress
! shall haze the power TO regulate COM
merce betweea Tie States And yet
the court has made both decisions. In
the one case the court has decided that
: the police power Of State Is unaaect-
ed by the restrictions of the Federal
Constitution, and in the other, that
the power is destroyed by the Consti-
tuition.
| call attention to another decision
of the same court upon the extent OF
the police power Of the State. 1t is
true that the subject of the decision
!. was not. as in the case of the Beer
Company against Massachusetts, an in
toxicant. But IL was another subject
which the court says in that very opin-
ion like intoxicants is within the police
power of the States. Before | read
}. this case it may as well be stated that
the police power Of the States with
T reference TO preserving the morals OF
= = the people is no greater and no strong
or than the police power of a State to
/. preserve the lives and the health OF
its people, aud therefore, if as have
shown in the case ofthe Beer Company
against Massachusetts, intoxicants are
, SO clearly within the power OF 9
State that the State is not restrained
: by a positive provition of the Federal
Constitution in reference to its deal
lngs with intoxicants, the same princi.
!, pie which applies to any other branch
of the police power or any other sub
iect which may be regulated by the
IS police power comes within the same
e rule. All subjects relating to the
a health, morals, safety, and good order
y of the people, and coming within the