The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-07-09

i the profession as the License Tax Cases .
the Court, speaking through Chief Justice
Waite says:
Where Congress has constitutional
power to regulate trade or intercourse
it may regulate by means of license as
we'll as other modes, and in case of such
Regulation, o license will give to the IL
censee authority to do whatever is All.
/ thorized by its terms. Thus Congress hay
| ing power to regulate commerce among
the several States and with foreign ma
lions may without doubt grant any IL
cense necessary and proper for the exer-
else of that great and extensive power
All such license confer authority and
give rights to the licensee.
But very different considerations APP
ply to the internal commerce and do,
nestle trade Of the States. over this
commerce and trade Congress has no pow
or of regulation nor any directt control.
This power belongs exclusively TO the
States.
"The power Of Congress to authorize a
business in a State is plainly repugnant
to the exclusive power Of the State over
the same subject.
1T is true that the power of Congress
to tax is a very extensive power But
Congress cannot authorize a trade or
business in State in ortder to tax it,.
at is not necessary to regard these
laws giving license to manufacture or sell
whiskey as giving such authority. SO far
as they relate to trade within State limits,
/ they give none and can give none. They
simply express the purpose of the govern
ment not to interfere by penal proceed
ings with the trade normally licensed, if
the required taxes are paid
1.-THE power to tax is not questioned nor
the power to impose penalties for the
non payment of taxes. The granting OF
license. therefore. must be regarded as
nothing more than mere form of impos-
| ing tax and of implying nothing except
that the license shall be subject to no
penalties under the national law if he
/ In these cases the court, in the opinion
rendered by Waite, Chief Justice, calls at
tention to the fact that the act of Congress
authorizing these so-called licenses calls
them Especial taxes" and that said act
expressly provides that payment Of such
taxes shall not exempt such persons from
penalties imposed by the State nor an
thorize the commencement or continuance
OF such trade or business contrary to
State laws:
This iudicious legislations. says the
court, has removed all future possibility
of the error which has been common
among persons engaged in particular
branches of business that they derive from
the licenses which they obtain under
the internal revenue laws. an authority
to carry on the licensed business inde
| pendently of State regulation and control 2
/ This legislation was simply declaratory Of
sound legal proposition and was as the
court says, to remove misunderstanding.
The same question: in a somewhat diff
ferent and larger form. came before the
| United States Supreme Court again in
| the case of Murphy vs.. The State Of
Kansas, growing out of the law of that
state prohibiting the sale and manufac-
1 ture of liquors in that State, except for
medicinal or scientific purposes The
/ plaintiff commended that this law violated
1 the Fourteenth Amendment to the Consti-
/ tuition which provides that no State shall
make or enforce any law which shall
4 abridge the privilege of communities OF
citizens of the United State. ETC. He also
contended that his brewery which was
erected at large costs before the passage
OF this law by Kansas, and in which he
/ had acquired a vested property right
would become worthless and that this
/ legislation was invalid as far as it effect
ed his right to operate this brewery Ii
/ viii thus be seen that the plaintiff rested
his case upon the broad ground that the
act was passed after he acquired title to
| the property used for brewing beer-that
| it was useless for any other purpose and
that to deny him the right to use it for
| that purpose was equivalent to confisca-
ton and would in effect dfvest a vested
tight which could not be done under the
| Constitution Of the United States. The
Court says:
Il The prohibition laws Of the State Of
Kansas are not in conflict with the Four
tenth Amendment of the Constitution of
the United States, which provides that
no State shall make or enforce any Law
which abridges any privilege or immunity
of a citizen of the United States, nor
shall any State deprive any person of life.
liberty or property without due process
OF law
-. Legislation by State prohibiting
| the manufacture within her limits Of in
/ toxicating liquors does not necessarily in
fringe any right. privilege or immunity
secured by the Constitution of the United
States.
1T belongs to the Legislative Depart
ment to exert what are known as the
police powers of the State, and to deter
mine, primarily, what measures are APP
pIopriatte and needful for the protection
OF the public morals, health and safety
and the government does not impair nor
interfere with any constitutional right Of
liberty or property when it determines
that the manufacture and sale of intoxi-
eating drinks are or may become hurtful
to society and therefore a business in
which no one may lawfully engage.
"a. A prohibition simply upon the use
Of property for purposes that are de-
clared by valid legislation to be injurious
TO health, morals or public safety of the
community, can not in any sense be deem
ed a taking or appropriation of property
for public benefit The State cannot be
stayed from providing for the discontinue
ance of any manufacture and traffic
which is injurious to the public morals
by any incidental Inconvenience which in
CividuaIs or corporations may sustain"