Hutchinson gazette. [volume] (Hutchinson, Kan.) 1895-1902, 1900-11-22
AGAINST CIGARETTES
Tho Tennessee Law Regarding Theh
Sale Upheld.
TIE STATE LAW CONSTITUTIONAL
Tho United States Supreme Court Decide
That State Illus Tho Right 10 Regu-
late Tho sale OF Tobacco La tho
Form Cigarettes.

Washington, d. G., Nov. lO.--The
United S,Jubes supreme court today
rendered h opinion In the case oil
William II. Austin VI. the state OF
Tennessee, incohlng the validity OF
ahe state law reguating the sale OIL
CigarCltcs, The law w'.s attacked as
an Infringement of The right of con
Eress 10 regulate Interstate com
merce.
The Tennessee supreme court up
held that law, and todNy's decision
Sustained that verdict, though not
without dlsapprowl of dhc poAlhons
taken, and then upon u very narrow
margin, -four oUt Of the nine members
jolnmg IN dissenting opinion, and
another member Of the court (Justicc
White placing his assent upon
grounds different from those an'
nOunced by Justice Brown who hand
cd down the opinion.
The case grew out Of the importa-
tlon of cigarettes into Tennessee
from North Carolina. They were
taken into the state in the ordinary
sized cigarette packages about two
by four inches, and these packages
were loosely thrown inlo buckets
which were uncovered, The claim
was made that these cigarette pack
Iges were what Ia known to the law
us original packages; but without
Clearly defining on original package,
The court held that Nj was clear that
such packages could not be so con
Rldered. Justice Brown, In passing
upon the ease said the packages were
obviously made up with the view Of
eyahing the law, and US he spoke he
held one of the little cigarette cases
mp TO the view of his auditors. On
this point the decision OF the state
court, ito the effect that the packages
wore not original was fully confirmed.
On another phase Of the case, the
stwte court was not so fully in
dorsed. The Tennessee court had held
Tint the cigarette are not an nrticle
OF commerce. With this view Justice
Brown took issue, and he delivered
quite n dissertation upon the subject.
Whatever Is an article of barter and
sale vs., he said, an article of COM
nnerce, and must be so recognized.
Tobacco had been such an arr }le for
900 years. 1t had been made 'che sub.
feet of taxation aud, indeed had be-
come more widely scattered than amy
Dther vegetable. Probably, he added,
no other vegetable has contributed so
much TO the comfort and solace OF
the human race. This being The case,
IL was entirely beyond bounds TO say
that tobacco was not an article Of
commerce.
He then took motcc of the claim
that cigarettes are am especially harm
fun form of tobacco, and while he CON
coded that this might be the case, he
remarked that this claim was Of COM
a.. pAratlvely recent origin. Still, he held
that cigarettes IRE us much a subject
of ate regulation as is liquor, and he
further held that while no state law
could prohibit importation In original
packages, 1t was entirely competent
for Legislature Ito regulate the sale
because OF the general belief In the
deleiterious efISct of the article.
There was n dissenting opinion by
, Justice ShirNs, in which the chief
juatdce and Justices Brewer and Peck.
ham joined. They based their dls:enb
ON the theory that congress has eX-
elusive control of interstate COM
merce.