Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1891-05-29
rmportant and interesting Decisions.

1t has been well said that in the matter
of the rights of the States as compared
with the powers Of the Federal Government
the Supreme Court Of the United States
swings backward and forward like O pendu-
lum. The illustration is not q bad one. In
the cases which we reported few weeks
ago, involving questions as TO the respective
rights OF the State and Federal govern
ments, the pendulum swung in every in-
stance to the States'-rights side of the
question. In the cases we reported more
recently the pendulum swung in almost
every instance to the Federal side of the
question.
In the first case decided the Supreme
Court held that a State law taxing express
companies was in violation of that section
OF the Federal Constitution which confers
upon Congress the power to regulate CON-
merce between the States; or rather it de-
cided that the Kentucky law taxing
such companies is unconstitutional. We
think there must be some popularity IN
the Kentucky law which differentiates 1t
from an ordinary State law taxing pro-
perty. Express companies must pay taxes
upon their property just as all property
owners must do. We do not know what
this popularity is, il there be one, but we
are inclined TO the opinion that the de-
cision under consideration does not 60 TO
the extent which the language employed IN
stating its purport would lead the reader
20 suppose it does.
The next case was q Virginia case, and
the decision was against the State 1t was
that our law requiring -four manufactured
out Of the State 10 be inspected when sold
tn the State was also in violation of that
clause of the Federal Constitution which
conters upon Congress the power to regu-
late commerce among the States. That
clause hos come to be as sweeping In its
operation as the general welfare clause,
or the clause as to State laws impairing
the obligation of contracts. From time
immemorial laws have been on the statute
book of this State requiring flour
TO DO inspected; and time was when
the inspectors brand was relied
upon by many of our people TO
insure them good -four. Some very i'm
portant cases based upon these inspection
laws were decided IN the Virginia courts
years ago. but none of them went up to
the Supreme Court of the United States,
we suppose. Possibly none of these cases
involved, as presented to the courts, Fed
raj question. 1t may be that the question
of requiring -four from without the State
t. be inspected here was not raised at all.
OF course il is within the power of the
State 10 require all -four made in Virginia
and offered for sale here to be inspected.
However, inspection laws have gone out
of favor. The businessman believes in
the rule odpedi emptor. And the general
public even of old Virginia VIII not be dis
turbed by the decision that our inspection
laws, or some features of them. are un-
constitutional.
The next case was decided against the
United States. II is not very clearly stated
In the telegram reporting 1t; but ITS pur-
port seems 10 be that the acknowledgements
avs were not correctly construed in easel
before the Supreme Court from Chicago.
There was no States'-rights question in.
volved.
The next case was decision that Ter
titorial court is not United States court.
We do not wonder that three of the JUS
tees dissented. These were FunDs, GRAF
and BRowN.
The next case was to the same effect.
The next case was far-reaching one. IL
will renew the agitation Of the question OF
prohibition by States of the sale Of liquor.
The supreme Court upheld the constitu
tioraiity Of the oct Of Congress called tho
oricinaLpaeksge act, aud decided that II
was not necessary Tor Kansas TO reenac'
her prohibitory law after the passage Of
that act Of Congress In order 20 shut out
from her borders liquors In Original
packages. This is a State-rights decision
80 TO speak. and viii gladden. tho hearts Of
the prohibitionists throughout the land.
AZ was, too, unanimous decision. In
AAnsAs' one OF the results will probably be
afene~ed attempt on the part Of the anti.
promostioniSts to divide the voters upon
inc Incense question. There will soon be
lively tunes 10 Kansas, and probably in
other States. We shall keep our eye upon
the people engaged in this interesting con.
test. The short synopsis we have seen .,
the opipion OF the court shows that state
liquor-laws forbidding the sale Of liouoys
" original packages (say. as they reach h. !