The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1900-10-13

right?"
ITO what purpose are powers hml-
ted" he asked, and to what purpose Is
that limitation committed to writing, II
these limits may, at any time, be
passed by those intended to be re
strained?" And he answered; Ger
tainly all those who have framed writ
ten constitutions contemplate them as
forming the fundamental and para
mount law of the nation, and, conse-
quently, the theory of every such gov
eminent must be that an act of the leg
islature repugnant to the constitution
IS void" Mark the word void not
doubtful or questionable but void. IL
was in this great case that we find the
maxim which has come down through
our judicial history, "the government
of the United States Is a government of
laws and not of men" Within the last
twelve months the supreme court OF the
United States, speaking by Justice
Brewer, again announced it in Railway
Company V. Tomkns.
The next great forward step of the
constitution was McCulloch V. Mary
land famous in our judicial annals, be-
vital in the relations of the national
government to the governments OF the
states. You know the two questions
involved: LIST, Has Congress power to
incorporate a bank? I'd, If it has, can
state tax it? OF this last question
Marshall said: 1T must be decided
peacefully, or remain source of hostile
LEGISLATION, perhaps hostility of a still
more serious nature; and if 1t is to be
SO decided, by this tribunal alone can
the decision be made" Unerringly he
demonstrated that the government Of
the nation is supreme Within the scope
of its powers, that it may avail Itself of
all necessary and proper means of eXer-
cising those powers, and that neither
Maryland nor any other state can in
terfere with, cripple or impede It's law
full operations as a government
At the same term the celebrated
Dartmouth college case was decided.
1t is familiar legal history that the old
college charter was held to be con-
tract. and that the legislature of New
Hampshire could not amend nor mate
rally alter it. 1t seems to me tthe de-
cision was sound, useful and salutary'
Now, almost all statutes for the organ
tzation of corporations contain provi-
sions authorizing the legislature to al
ter or amend, and so the contract itself.
AS I have already said, and as you
know from your familiarity with the
history Of the times, the subject of
commerce, and the commercial rela-
lions of the different states, was one of
the great inducing motives that led to
the adoption of the constitution. 1t
was not the only one, and perhaps not
the principal one, but it was a very
powerful one. Trade and traffic, buy
ing and selling, exchanging commodies
and carrying on the extensive opera
tions which are incident to modern civ
flization, were in mems minds then as
they are now, and win be always. Be-
fore the constitution, Maryland, Della
ware and Virginia. New York New
Jersey and Pennsylvania, Wrangled and
disputed over duties, restrictions and
regulations calculated to advance the
interests of one against the others, for
selfishness has always been the main
spring Of human action.
When the trainers of the constitution
inserted the provision vesting in con-
gress the power to regulate commerce
among the several states, they stamped
upon their work the indubitable evil
dence Of practical wisdom But what
is commerce? What is regulation?
These questions have followed the
path of our national progress. 1t has
not always been easy to answer them,
and they have left in their wake many
unsettled and indeterminate inquiries.
The present interstate commerce law is
an attempt to solve some of them and
is certainly a great forward step In the
development of the constitution l be-
lieve, and I think the belief Is shared
by our profession and by the business
interests of the country, that the the
Dry of the act is right, and that the
time will come when the great purpose
of the constitution in respect to COM
merce will be attained. 1t takes time
to build up the structure of legal right
upon the basis of acknowledged prinei-
pies, and we must remember that sue
cessful legislation seldom precedes the
acquiescence of those most largely af-
fected by it.
Gibbons VS.. Ogden, decided in 1924, is
the great source to which all must go
who would understand the scope and
import OF the commerce clause of the
constitution Again the great chief
justice had to face the pretensons of a
sovereign state and to strike down one
of it's statutes. The court there upheld
the exclusive power of congress to reg
ulate commerce among the states,