The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-04-26
THE O,NEIL CASE.

| cussed by those Journals, ou' '""' " =
I. discussed some of the questions involved III
IN. caser two weeks before the others did
Tur TIMES keeps no copy of the files OF the
Trerald and Post. but it knows very wen 'ne
noints in the O'Neil case presented Dy e@eh
A. il knows that presented by the DISPATCH
| Not 70 show that there is no relation whatever
between them. but to point out the deep s'en'-
fcance of that made by the Herald NE
TINES will this morning make full exposition
| of the O'Nel case.
The Constitution of the United States pro-
yides that Congress shall have power 10 'egu-
late commerce between the States. After an
obstinate struggle it was finally determined
by the Supreme Court that this is An exc'u-
siye power, equivalent to a prohibition upon
| the States to enact any statutes that aoIuse
the perfect freedom of commerce between
them. and. pressing this doctrine forward
| 10 its logical conclusions. the Court heiu
in Broicn rs. No1yiond. II Wheat. 4l9'
| in 1927. Chief-Justico Marshall delivering lis
opinion. that goods coming into one state
from another. must not be taxed by the latter
until their original bulk is broken, and they
have become mingled IN common with the
property OF the latter State. This doctrine
was so entirely reasonable that 1t never met
with any criticism in the United States until
recently. and has many times been reafilrmed
bv the court. But in 1889 the case OF LeiSy
o1oinst Hardin. 1875 L. s. r.. 100, came before
the court. and the court applied the principle
TO case where liquors were imported
into State governed by prohibition
laws. IT held that the State OF Iowa could
impose no tax upon ardent spirits imported
into il from another State until the original
packages in which they had been imported
were broken. and the separate parcels OF IL
ouors had been scattered into and become part
of. the general property of Iowa. This was
perfectly natural ana logical application OF
the principle. but it broke up all OF Iowa
prohibition legislation. and hence q great
howl arose from all the prohibltionists IN the
United States. While this howl was in its
finest form of ecstacy, O'NeiPs case came
before the Supreme Court, and was decided
some few weeks back. The case was this;
Vermont is a prohibition State and has very
severe laws against the sale of liquor O'Neil'
a Vermont LIQUOR seller, finding his occupa-
ton gone. opened his shop in Waterford. n.
Y inst across the line that divides the two
States. on a railroad that runs from Water
ford. n. Y. to Rutland. VT. and he regularly
sent sealed Jugs of liquor from Water
ford 10 parties in Rutland by express
C. O. d. Happening to be in Vermont
he was arrested for violating Vermonts
anti.liquor laws, prosecuted, convicted OF
AK distinct ofenses. and sentenced TO pay TO
the treasurer Of the State fines aggregatlng
50 40 and the costs of the prosecutions taxed
nj SAP. 96. and TO be confined at hard labor IN
the house of correction in Rutland for one
month, and in case the fine and costs should
not be paid on or before the expiration OF this
months imprisonment. TO be confined there at
hard labor until all the fines we're paid, so
that the total period of confinement did not
exceed seventY-nine years.
O'Neil claimed that the doctrine OF the
original package" case made the Vermont
| law void. but the Supreme Court Of the
United States held that that doctrine had
nothing whatever 10 do with the case. 1t held
/ that as O'Neil retained practical possession Of
his iues of whisky until the Rutland pur-
chaser paid the express man for them, and
! delivered them to him. the sale never really
| took place in New York State, but really took
Mace in Vermont, and therefore that O'Neil
practically violated Vermonts laws in the
transaction. Mr.. ONeh was simply q
smart Aleck" who quite misunderstood the
real import and meaning Of the original
package" case.
| The Dispatch's comment upon the Neil
case was that it was IN conflict with the
Original package" case Of Le'Sy Us. Hardin,
in which We think our neghbor was very
clearly wrong. But now for the meat in The
matter as commented on by the New York
Herald.
The Fourteenth Amendment TO the Con-
stitution Of the United States. adopted directly
after the war, forbids any State to abrldge tie
privileges and immunites of citizen of the
! United States This at once raised the very
serious question. what are the privileges and
| immunties of citizen of the United States:
And in the famous slaughter House" case
tie Supreme Court held that privilege and
/ immunity of citizen of the United States
must be one that inheres in him by rea-
son of his character Of citizen of the United
States. such as the right to protection on the
high seas, the right TO petition Congress, &c.
This definition has never been entirely salts
factory The prevailing tendency Of opinion
has been that it cut the amendment down TO
a limit that is too narrow.
The first eleven amendments to the Consti-
tuition were adopted 100 years ago. and imme-
diately after the adoption of the Constitution,
when the public mind was filled with appre-
tensions that the Constitution had too far
centralized power in the Government of the
United States. They contain many guaran-
tees of the citizens rights such a declara-
ton that cruel and unusual punishments shall
not be inflicted. nor excessive bail required,
nor excessive fines imposed together with a
number OF others But the Supreme Court at
once held that these amendments growing
out of failure Of Federal power were in
tended TO be restrictions on Congress alone,
and in nowise upon State legislation.
When the case OF the Chicago Anarchists
was before the Supreme Court, Hon. j. Ran
dolph Tucker. of Virginia. contended that
the privileges and immunties of a citizen of
the United States spoken of by the Four
teenth Amendment. were all such rights as