Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1891-06-14
supreme-Court Teachings.

Suprene-Court Teachings.
We mentioned the other day that sec
ton 10 Of Article of the Federal Oonstitu-
tion named certain powers which the
several States could not exercise without
the consent Of Congress We added that
we eould not imagine how tho States
RIGHTS trainers Of that Constitution had ever
been brought 10 consent to insert that sec
tion in the Constitution. But there is the
list of the powers thus denied to the
States: and there can be 40 argument on
the subject. mo State shall without the
consent Of Congress lay any imposts or
duties on imports or exports " No state
sbalI. without the consent OF Congress, lay
any duty Of tonnage, keep troops or ships
of war in time of peace. enter into any
agreement or compact with another State,
or with foreign power or engage IN wal"
etc., etc.
In the original-package case the Su-
preme Court Of the United States
discussed some Of the points thus
raised. One point made was that a State
could not pass constitutional law
taxing in the original packages liquors
brought into that State from another
State. Another point was that even II
Congress had, as it was contended 1t had
done. passed law giving the several
States the power TO lay such a tax, this
power could not constItutionally be exer-
cised under a State law passed before the
consent Of Congress had been obtained TO
its passage, but must be exercised, If at
all. under State law passed after Con-
gress had consented to confer the power
desired upon the State.
These are nice points. and they were not
ignored by the Supreme Court, but met
boldly-too boldly, we think, if we may
dare to express such an opinion. We now
quote from that tribunals opinion-not
decision:
"The differences Of opinion which have arisen
In tho court upon this subject have been not
from n denial OF the power OF Congress, when
exercised, but upon the question whether the In
action OF Congress was IN itself equivalent TO the
affirmative interposition OF bar to the opera
tion OF an undisputed power possessed by the
States.
"The court recalls no decision giving color 20
the idea that when Congress acted its action
would be less potent than when It kept silent
"The trainers OF tho Constitution never in
tended that the legislative power Of the nation
should find itself incapable Of disposing Of sub
ject matter specifically committed TO its charge.
The manner Of that disposition involves no
ground for adjudging the act Of Congress In
operative and void.
"The court did not annul the State law, but
simply limited its operation 20 property strictly
within the States jurisdiction. In tho present
case the petitioner was arrested on August Q,
$780, the day after the act Of Congress had gone
into effect. Rahrer was thereby prevented
| from claiming the right 10 proceed IN defiance
| Of the laws OF the State upon the implication
| arising from congressional inactlon. The law
| Of Congress did not use terms OF permission 70
the State 10 net, but simply removed m impedi-
ment 70 the enforcement Of the State laws In re-
| spect TO imported packages ia their original
| condition, created by the absence Of specific
utterance on its part. 1t impaired no power "a
tho State not then possessed, but allowed i'm
ported property TO fall az once upon arrival
within the local jurisdiction.
1.-THE liquor arrived in Kansas prior 10 tho
| passage Of the act Of Congress, but there IS nc
| question presented OF the right Of the importer
| TO Withdraw the property from the State, nor is
| Il perceived that the congressional enactment is
| given retrospective operation by holding IL
| applicable TO n transaction occurring after II
| took effect Il is not the case OF a law enacted
| In the Unauthorized exercise Of power ex
| clusiyely conided to Congress, but Of Law
| which il was competent for the State TO pass, but
| which could not operate upon articles occupy
| ing certain situation until the passage OF the
act Of Congress. That act removed the obstacle
and no adequate ground Is perceived for holding
that re- enactment of the State law was required
before it could have the effect upon imported
which it had always had upon domestic pro
perty.
| "Jurisdiction attached, not in virtue OF tn
| laws Of Congress, but because that law place.
property whore jurisdiction could attach"
As we have intimated, there seems to u
TO be a flaw in this argument. Perhaps
not. 1t may be our own fault that ",
cannot understand the argument vel
enough to concur IN all of It. Neverthe
less we will make the single comment tina
if it be o sound argument, then Virgins
might keep ships-of-war and engage in wa
at any time she might choose TO do so, anC
rely upon Congress to give its consent t
her doing so after she had kept her Ship
and been engaged in war for any length O
time. Surely the length of the time il
not decisive of the question Of constitu
| tionality.