The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-11-20
CIGARETTE LAW UPHELD
STATES MAY REGULATE SALE OF
THE PAPER-COVERED "SMOKES."
Decision by the Federal Supreme
Court Affirming a Ruling of the
Tennessee Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 19.-The United
opinion in the case of William b. Aus
tin VS.. the State of Tennessee, involving
the validity of the state law regulating
the sale of cigarettes. The law Was az
tackled as an infringement of the right of
Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
The Tennessee Supreme Court upheld the
law and to-day's decision sustained that
verdict. though not without disapproyal of
some of the positions taken, and then on
a very narrow margin, four out Of nine
members joining in a dissenting opinion.
and another member of the court Justice
Wnite). basing his assent on grounds diff
ferent from those announced by Justice
Brown, who handed down the opinion.
The case grew out of the importation
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 pack
ages were loosely thrown into baskets
which were uncovered. The claim was
made that these cigarette packages were
what is known to the law as original
packages, but without clearly defining an
original package the court held that it
was clear that such packages could not be
so considered. Justice Brown, in pass
ing on the case, said the packages were
obviously made UP with the view of evad-
ing the law and as he spoke he held one
of the little cigarette cases up to the view
of his auditors. On this point the DECISION
of the state court, to the effect that the
packages were not original, was fully con-
hrmed
On another phase of the case the state
court was not so fully Endorsed. The Ten
nessee court had held that the cigarettes
are not an article of commerce. With
this view Justice Brown took issue, and
he delivered quite a dissertation upon the
subject. Whatever is an object of sale
and barter is, he said, an article of COM
merce, and must be SO recognized. To-
bacco had been such an article for four
hundred years. 1t had teen made the sub
Ject of taxation and ,ndeed had become
more widely scattered than any other veg
etable. Probably, he added, no other veg
etable has contributed much to the
comfort and solace of the human race.
This being the case, ii was entirely be-
yonG bounds to say that tobacco was not
an article of commerce. He then took no.
uce Of the claim that cigarettes are an
especially harmful form of tobacco, and
while he conceded that this might lie The
| case he remarked that this claim was of
comp aratively recent origin. Still, ne held
that cigarettes much subject of
state regulation as is liquor and he 'ur-
Their held that while no state law could
prohibit Importation in original packages,
it was entirely competent for a legislature
to regulate the sale because of general
belief in the deleterious effect of the ar
t:cle.
There was a dissenting opninion by JUS
tice Shiras IN which the chief and ius-
| tice and Justices Brewer and Peckham
| joined. They based their dissent upon the
theory that Congress has exclusive control
| of interstate commerce
The United States Supreme Court to-day
| took recess for two weeks.