The people's journal. (Pickens, S.C.) 1891-1903, 1900-11-29
Blood Poison
THE STATUS OF OIGARErrrs
iooacco an Article Of Commerce and
CiEarettes Subject OF state Regu-
Iation-No State Can Prohibit their
lmDOrtati0n IN OriuInaI Iba1l.~

fobacco an Article of Commerce and
CiEarettes Subject OF state Rexu-
Iatton-No State Can Prohibit their
importation In Original Packages.
The United States supreme court
nas LI rendered an opinion in tho case OF
WIN. IS. Austin vs. tho State of Ton.
nessee, involving tho question as to the
recognition to which cigarettes are
entitled under tho law.
Inc case originated In the State Of
tennessee and 1t called into question
tho validity OF the State law reyulat-
Ing the sale OF this article OF commerce.
on the ground that it WAS an infrinpo.
ment OF the right OF Congress to ro-
gulate Interstate commerce.. The
tennessee supreme court upheld tho
law and the decision OF tho u. S. gu.
preme court sustained that verdict,
though not without disapproval Of
soma OF tho positions taken, and then
upon u very narrow margin, four out
OF nine members Joining in dissent.
Ing opinion and another member of the
court (Justice White) placing his as.
sent upon grounds different from those
announced by Justice Brown, who
handed down tho opinion. Tho case
grow out OF the importation OF cigar
ottes Into Tennessee from North Caro-.
lima. They wore taken Into the State
in tho ordinary sized cigarette pack
ages, about two by four inches, and
theso packages were loosely thrown
into baskcts which wero uncovered.
The claim was mado that these cIg.
arctic packages were what is known
10 tho law as original packages but
Without Clearly defining an original
package, the court held that it was
clear that such packages could not he
80 regarded. Justice Brown, in pass-
Ing upon the case, said that tho pack.
ages were obviously made up with q
Wow OF ovading the law, and as he
spoke he held one Of the little cigar
cite cascs up to tho view OF his audi.
tors. On Jhis point the decision OF the
State court, to the effect that tho pack
ages were not original, was fully con.
lrmed.
ON another phase OF tho case the
State court was not 80 fully endorsed.
iho Tennessee court had held that
clgarettee are not an article OF com.
merce. With this Wow Justice Brown
tnok issne, and he delivered quite q
dissertation upon the subject. What
ever is an object Of barter and sale ia,
he said, an article Of commerce, and
must be so recognized. Tobacco had
boon such aE article for four hundred
years. 1t had boon made the subject
OF taxation and indeed had become
more widely scattered than eny other
vegetable. Probably, he added, no
other vegetable has contributed so
much to the comfort and solace OF the
human race. This being the case 1t
was entirely beyond bounds 10 say that
tobacco was not an article OF COM
merce. He then took notice OF the
claim that cigarettes are an especially
harmful form OF tobacco, and While he
conceded that this might b. tho case,
he remarked that this claim was OF
comparatively y recent origin. Still, he
hello that cigarettes arc rs much suu.
Ject OF State regulation as Ia LIQUOR,
and he further held that while no
State law could prohibit importation
In original packages it was entirely
competent for Logislaturo to regu.
late tho sale because Of the general |
belief In tho delctcrious effect Of the |
article.
There was a dissenting opinion OF
Justice Shiras, In which the Chief
Justice and Justices Brewer and Peck.
ham joined. They based their dissent
upon the theory that Congress has ex-
elusive control OF Interstate commerce.