The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-11-20
POINT DECIDED.
SUPREME COURT RULES ON INTER-
STATE COMMERCE. MATTER.
Right Of Congress to Regulate Same
Is Estnblished-Case involved Va
Iidfty of Law of Tennessee Reg
uIatfng the Sale Of Cigarettes.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 1e-The United
States supreme court today rendered an
opinion In the case Of William b. Austin
W.. the State OF Tennessee. involving the
validity OF the state law regulating the
sale OF cigarettes. The law was attacked
as an infringement OF the right Of con-
gress TO regulate interstate commerce.
The Tennessee supreme court upheld
the law. and todsy's decision sustained
that verdict, though not without disap-
prevail OF some OF the positions taken. and
then upon a very narrow margin. four
out Of the nine members joining In
dissenting opinion and another member
of the court. Justice White. placing his
assent on grounds different 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
packages were loosely thrown into bas-
kets, which were uncovered. The claim
was made that the cigarette packages
were what r. known to the law az original
packages: but without clearly defining an
original package. the court held that IL
was clear that such packages could mot
be so considered.
JuStlNt bFVWns III ItrriNb UPON ttt
case. said that the packages were obvi-
ousiy made UP with the view OF evading
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 de-
cision of the state court to the effect
that the packages were not original, was
fully confirmed.
Are an Article of Commerce.
On another phase of the case the state
court was not 50 fully indorsed The Ten
nessee court had held that cigarettes are
not articles Of commerce. With this View
Justice Brown took issue. and he deliv-
cred quite dissertation upon the subject.
Whatever is an object OF barter and sale
is. he said. an article OF commerce. and
must be so recognized. Tobacco had been
such an article for 400 years. II had been
made the subject OF taxation and. indeed.
had become more widely scattered than
any other vegetable. Probably, he added.
no other vegetable has contributed so
much to the comfort and solsce Of the
human race, This being the case. Il was
entirely beyond bounds TO say that to-
bacco was not an article OF commerce
He then took notice of the claim that
cigarettes are an especially harmful form
OF tobacco. and. while he conceded that
this might be the case. he remarked that
this claim was of comparatively. recent
origin. He held that cigarettes are as much
a subject Of state regulation as LIQUOR and
he further held that while no state law
could prohibit importation in original
packages II was entirely competent for
a legislature TO regulate the sale. because
Of general belief in the deieterious effect
of the article.
There was dissenting opinion by Jus
tice shiras. in which the chief Justice and
Justices Brewer and Peckham joined.
They based their dissent on the theory
that congress has exclusive control of In
Eerstate commerce.