Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1907-06-25

!he tuture IL IL impossible to deny that
would also include all productive III
dustieS that contemplate tho same
thing. The result would be that Con-
gress would be Invested. to the excm-
sion of the states with the mower 10
regulate, not only manufactures, nut
also agriculture horticulture stock
raising. domestic fisheries, mining in
short. every branch OF human industry
For is there one OF them that does nor
contemplate. more or less clearly. nm
Interstate or foreign market2 Does nor
the wheat grower OF the northwest or
the cotton planter of the south. plant.
cultivate, and harvest his crop with an
eye on the prices at Liverpool New
York, and Chicago? The power being
vested in Congress and denied to thr
states, II would follow as am Inevitable
result that the duty would devolve ON
Congress to regulate all OF those dcN-
cate multiform and vital intcrcsts--tnv
terests which IN their nature are and
must be local in an tho details of their
successful management"
TO REGULATE COMMERCE..
In Vcazie W.. Moore, Il How, 5j4, the
court said
The phrase TO regulate commerce
can never be applied 70 transactions
wholly internal between citizens of the
same community, or To polity ana
laws whose ends and purposes and OPP
erations are restricted TO the territory
and soil and jurisdiction OF such com
nunity Nor can il be properly corr
cluded, that. because the products "
domestic enterprise In agriculture or
manufactures, or In the arts may ulu-
mately become the subjects Of foreign
commerce. that The control of the
means or the acknowledgements by which
enterprise is fostered and protected, is
legitimately within the import OF the
phrase foreign commerce, or fairly inn
piled In any inNestlture of the power
to regulate such commerce A preten-
sion as FAR reaching as this. would eN-
tend to contracts between citizen and
citizen of the same state, would control
the pursuits OF the PLANTER, the graAiet'
the manufacturer, IN mechanic the I'M
mense opera tons or the golfers ana
mines and furnaces of the country; for
there is not one of these aNocaiions, the
results of which may no. N"come the
subjects of Foreign commerce. ana ne
borne either by turnpikos, canals. or
M s,,.,,.sI sts,tcs awards an ,ltinatn
destination. like the one above men
toned"
,t,,s ot, pr,u,rp
NHAiF'' VI '-i'
But II is claimed that as the power
10 regulate commerce is absolute, COM
plete and mainly exclusive In Congress,
The right to forbid the shipment in in
terstate trade of any Kind Of goods, ior
any reason. comes within that power.
That is TO say, under the guise OF
regulation. not necessary
for the promotion or protection Of
producing regulation,
which Congress could not have enacted,
may be enforced: or. in other words
Congress can deny a person the right 10
engage In interstate commerce for do
ing that which Congress cannot prohibit
him from doing. But, as we have seen,
Congress cannot regulate production,
and Chief Justice Marshall said in
McCulIoch VS.. Maryland.
should Congress under the pretexs
of executing its powers pass laws for
the ACCOMPLISHMENT of objects not en-
trusted TO the government IL would be-
come the painflIl duty of this tribunal.
shonId n case yeuuirins such decision
come before IL. to say that such an act
was not the law of the land"
- t.,,-x,,,.,
No PON fR ~ Fhp+ilhAi'
In my Judgment, the power TO regu~
late commerce between the states does
not carry with II the power to prohibit
commerce, unless the prohibition has
Tor It's purpose LnN IaclltdNlhlls surely
or protection OF commercial intercourse.
or the accomplishment of some other
national purpose
The power 10 regulate interstate com~
merce does not extend to the laying OK
an arbitrary embargo upon the lawfully
nor to the right TO aeteal the p9lGy oi
80 concede mar The nstionat mower tn
A. -..s,..l'.,|,, ,,.,.,ou
vim fl the yight la nrohlbit commerce
ia a,der to snSure ooI,.Iltv OF commer-
.cI,i ,,iyh, ~, IA DraNent restraint of ar
vim cnmmerce mi NOT Ia
mrnhi,,i, tbe shinment az the innocuoils
,rodncts of nroducers within a stat.
i,'bn are nnrs,,tnp a course sanctioned
n,, rho laws of the state and i'm no wise
u, itselS interfering with Interstate
' roro , n nrohibltlon of interstate
80 e. ,,,i,bi, the arbitrary no,vsr Of
Soorssss e. miyht he exercIsed SO as to
,,-ri,'9Ia The products of norticular
statee ~, sections of me country CON
erass ,ber MIGHT nrohIhit the ehinment
e. 80, ~, y,beat 10 nronnoto tba in
,I,os,s ~, WOOL M, corn
!rhn,a Go No e,itbor,tv for anv sucb
,,ro,1oei,inr INC no,yey of nrohihition
has never been sustained except as
=, ns,rst e,.ticlos rovIo,is o,. dnngnro,ts
90 ,to,,,ssl,,es If is not nossibIe to
"a 80, q s,,gees,ion fiat in resnect
hu tnr, noGSets ,hich arc nr,,,e nc
Eaneycss can nrohthi, com.
,,,,,'no a., mon, hst,voen rho states In ar
dn. "a "a entorce its conrention ~ what
would be wise police regulation of a
-
IhAffiO IN I@ol iERH TICKETS.
In the case OF Champion VS.. Ames.