The Roswell daily record. [volume] (Roswell, N.M.) 1903-current, 1907-06-25
Show grounds in same old place

duction, and Chief Justice Marshall
said in Mccullough VS.. Maryland:
SHOULD Congress under the pre-
text of executing its covers pass laws
for the accomplishment of objects not
entrusted to the government, it would
become the painful duty of this tribu-
nal, shoul a case requiring sucn a
decision come before it, to say that
such an act was got the law of the
land"
In my Judgment, the power to regu-
late commerce between the States
Ices o carry with it the power to
prohibit commerce unless the prohibi-
ton has for its purpose the facilita-
ton, safety or protection of CONNER
cial intercourse, or the accomplish
ment of some other National purpose.
The power to regulate Interstate
commerce does not extend to the lay
ing of an arbitrary ambargo upon the
lawfully produced, harmless products
of a State, nor to the right to defeat
the policy of a State as to its own in
ternal affairs.
l concede that the National power
to regulate Interstate car
ries with it the right to prohibit com
merce in order to secur equality of
commercial right, Or to prevent re-
oli liz u VI LIN Will Vii
merce, but not to prohibit the ship
ment of the innocuous products of pro-
ducers within a State who are pursu-
ing a course sanctioned by the laws
of h State and in no wise in itself
interfering with interstate commerce.
If prohibition of interstate trade is
within the arbitrary power of Con
gress, it might be exercised so as to
exclude the products of particular
states or sections of the country. Con
gress then might prohibit the ship
ment of cotton or wheat to promote
the interests of wool OF orn
There is 40 authority for any such
proposition. The power of prohibition
has been sustained except as
against articles nOXious or dangerous
in themselves. 1t is not possible to
find even a suggestion that in respect
to natural products which are prime
necessities, Congress can prohibit com
merce in them between the States in
order to enforce its conception of
what would be a wise police regula-
ton of a State.
In the case of Champion VS.. Ames,
1873 U. s., 321, it was held that lottery
tickets are subjects of traffic and
their carriage by independent carriers
from one State to another is inter
state commerce, which Congress may
prohibit under its power to regulate
commerce among the several States,
but this was specifically placed upon
the character of the business. the
court said, through Mr.. Justice Harlan
1T is a kind of traffic which no n
can be entitled to pursue as of right"
The Curt also said:
6" The power of Congress
to regulate commerce among the
States, although plenary, cannot be
deemed arbitrary, since it is subject
to such limitations or restrictions as
are prescribed by the Constitution.
This power, therefore, may not be ex-
ercised so as to infringe rights secured
or protected by that Instrument"
The right to regulate their dOmes-
tic affairs is secured and protected
to the States by the Tenth Amend
ment reserving to the States respec-
lively, or to the people, the powers
not delegated to the United States.
In Gibbons VS.. Ogden, 9 Wheat. III
the Court said with regard to the right
of intercourse between State and State
that that right was derived not from
the Constitution, but from those laws
whose authority is acknowledged by
civilized nan throughout the world"
Under the articles of Confederation
the States might have interdicted in
terstate trade, yet when they surren-
dered the power to deal with COM
merce as between themselves to the
general government 1T was ~undoubted-
ly in order to form a more perfect
union by freeing such from