Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1890-05-28

state arS FEDERAL Power.

Ia
~ power Of declaring what shall be sold
ltsiohiu their borders, which was taken
!1way W the supreme court, and which
80 court invited Congress TO confer. II
p64ed the necessity for this action by
|1SaGring that the states did not have
. oxsr which It thought they ought to
i've. This need OF the states, % admit
"a TO exist, affords strong suspicion In
|Sesslf that the supreme court miscon-
2|ueraed the constitution In taking II
Z away. The constitution presump-
%11yu1y leaves to the states all neces-
s6oey powers, aud II expressly takes
s4s6m them only such ~ are necessary
{ ~ the federal union. 1t reserves to
('0ngfess the right to regulate commerce
& hetween the states and the court con-
Htyues this into power to require the
IGate to permit the sale of the commo-
1{ties that the general government per-
7. lnits to be carried into 1t. This Ii said
Il ~ follow by necessary implication the
sGlght to introduce such commodities,
!&oance otherwise the right Of introduction
j would avail nothing which Is true.
~ But Il does not follow that the right
ahouId avail anything TO the importers of
goods which the state forbids the sale Of
/, Il h undoubtedly the right Of a state to
s regulate the sale Of commodities within
! ~ limits, aud to prohibit such sale
!, when Il deems 1t injurious. II follows
7. that what may lie forbidden to commo-
dbies produced In the state may be pro-
sshibited TO those imported into 1t.
so will not do to hold that
foreigner has greater privileges In
~ ntate than It's citizens possess.
8 u seems 10 be very clear that II state
may prohibit the manufacture and sale
! tf Intoxicating liquor IT may prohibit its
Evaporation and sale and that no act
4 of Congress Is necessary to confer 50
obvious power. The supreme court In
i lnvitipg the passage of such IN act con-
g tlemns Its own decision.
Judge Ewing, of Pittsburg, declares
that ia any case involving this question
+ that comes before him, he will decide In
lavor Of the right of the state and give
fhe United States court a chance to re-
1peat It's decision In overruling his judg-
<mDnt !; that he has lived too long enter
E3nQ1ning a Jealous opinion Of the rights Of
~ states to acquiese In this decision
which takes away what seems to be IN
oontial state power. A question has
loon raised In Pittsburg over the right
& ~ import game for sale In Pennsylvania
~ of season, according 10 the laws OF
81 " ttate, which 10 case not distinguish
9ble from the right to sell imported
liquor In state where liquor selling Is
biddeu. The doctrine Of the supreme
~ essentially destroys the police
1Wen Of the state, In conforming its
4 &Uo 10 the laws OF other states
nna Tequiriug unanimity Of action In
61nte legislation 10 declare sale Of any
4 ~ 10 be nuisance. 1t may be said
INT ff the federal power does not suffice
~ Sscure the sale Of goods that may be
H1koely imported into the states under
6eral laws, the states will be enabled to
lhcriminate against the products Of
ffee states. hut II they do, within
Delr own territory, no wrong Ia done
that another state may very loudly
'soonpIain Ct or that II may
nGt correct by retaliatory legislation ;
1nd besides this Is discrimination
I Which the constitution may be fairly
4 oonstraed 10 prohibit That question II
I nj IN issue in case where the commo-
n 6ity sought to be forced TO sale In state
I y one that In which traffic IL forbidden
~ - ln own citizens. 1t does not seem
tAat there II any real difficulty in hold
4 Ing that while the federal power Of con-
trolling interstate legislation will Sc
II aars the entrance of goods into any state
thsir sale h possible there when the
1aWs Of the state permit such articles
ss - be sold, and not otherwise