The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-12-22

eighth and Fifty-ninth Congresses, shows that am in accord with the spirit and purpose of the resolution.
 Your resolution embraces (D the regulation of the interstate traff1c in aicol. ollie liquors, and (2) the payment of the special tax required of liquor dealers by the Federal Government.
 Power Not in Congress.
 <. Of course you know that Congress has no power to pass prohibition law. Such power was not granted to Congress. but was reserved to the States respectively. All legislation had or attempted by Congress on the sub ject of the interstate traffic In alcoholic liquors is predicated upon the com- merce clause of the Federal Constitu- power ITO regulate commerce with for eign nations, and among the several States. and with the Indian trihes."d This power of Congress to regulate commerce among the States belonging exclusively to Congress and cannot be exercised by any State. The history of such legislation will doubtless be of interest to you.
 Prior to the year 1890 the several States of the Union had. passed laws. as police regulations, differing to some extent in their provisions, in some cases prohibiting the sale and in oth- CTS regulating or controlling the sale of intoxicating liquors within their re- spective boundaries. Some years ago Iowa attempted to prevent the carry ing on of the liquor business in that State by parties from the outside. On review by the Supreme Court of the United States thes Iowa law was held to be unconstitutional because that law by it's operation and effect was "essen- tially a regulation of commerce among the States and not sanctioned by au- thority expressed or implied. of Con gress." Bowman ~s. Nv. Ky. Co.,. 125 U. S. 4s5.) Afterwards in the case same court held. as a logical sequence of the decision in the Bowman case. that the right to sell and import from one State into another State intoxf- eating liquors in the original or un- broken package could not be interfer- l cd with by any State law in the ab- sence of Federal legislation removing the restriction. Gt,.as Of the S9nh SGmmeroe cree 1 fers upon Congress the exclusive pow CT to regulate commerce between the States. So that the effect of this de- cision was to deny to States the pow- toxicating liquor transported from one State into another while they remained in the original package and had not become mingled with the mass of the property within the State.
 Remedy for Situation.
 | In the opinion of the court in this
 case of Leisy VI Hardin, 1t was indi- 1 cated by expressions like the following
 at the remedy for this situation could be found in Congressional Iegis- lation. 1 quote some of these express
 sions:
 Yet a subject matter which has 1 been confided exclusively to Congress
 by the Constitution is not within the | Jurisdiction of the police powers of the
 State unless placed there by Congress
 sional action" U35 U. S., D. 10S); hence, inasmuch as interstate com- l merce. consisting in the transportation, | purchase. sale and exchange of com modities is national In it's character, and must be governed by a uniform
 system, so long as Congress does not
 pass any law to regulate .t, or allow
 the States to do so. .. (p. 10s) 1;
 can State, in the absence of
 legislation on the part of Congress, prohibit either importation from abroad l or from a sister State. or when im-
 ported prohibit their sale by the .m- | porter?" (p. 110): essentially | d regulation of commerce among the
 States. and not sanctioned by the au- thority, express or implied, of Con- i gressS (p. 111). "The States
 cannot exercise that power (to regulate | interstate commerce) without the as-
 sent of Congress" (p. 11O;
 "the responsibility is upon Congress, so far as the regulation of interstate | commerce is concerned. to remove the restriction upon the State in dealing
 with imported articles of trade within