The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1912-06-19
ANOTHER SI:II'-RENtRS.tL.

'ri,n decision of Nh" supreme court
=, rocard 10 iii" Indiana pure food
law is RECOGNIZED as If great import
80. in UNFOLDING tn" validity of state
,~,~o food iawS. Thrs" laws. the court
',"lls. are not invalid even when they
-" he%ord the nnn"tn"ntS of the ma
ti"1Hi law. They must not conflict
with tina law or nn!lifv its enact
n7'nts. But what is not generally OBJ
served is thai this decision is in con-
'"N.ntion of a former decision by
"a" supreme court ON tn" exclusive
hnra"ter of the congressional %inris-
II. 'ion over Interstate" commerce.
+; is characteristic that i'm the adj
ii,? cation nf new questions III" SUI
r;"me court il apt I" contradict or
.,~"rso itself ono pr moro times be-
'cro the question gets on a settled
..jsia. Thus tn" crucial point of the
lacic in the Knight sugar r%"tinin.
:~s" WAS t'a,ly reversed by the rea-
pning in til" Danbury haiters' cas-.
The curious lccision by which in til"
nsular cases our island possessions
were held TO he not TERRITORY al tn"
United States in the meaning of the
constitution is ron1radictcd in the re-
cent Alaska. case in which Alaska is
held to he a territory of the United
States. The decision ON the income
tax in lSa+ was Il square reversal Of
The decision on the same tax in III"
Cos. a significant illustration of this
uncertainty appears in the decisions
IN the Interstate commerce power
as applied to railroads..
The right of congress to enact a
pure food law is founded on the in
ter-state clause of the OF
stitution. II might possibly be up
held by the general welfare clause,
Tory or shipped from n state To
articles Of food manufactured in the
District of Columbia or any terri
tory or shipped from one state to
another or imported from abroad. 1t
is, therefore. so far as its constitu-
tional foundation is concerned. on all
tours with acts of congress regulating
railroads.
The decisions on the latter question
show these metamorphoses: In the
Granger cases the supreme our
held that each state could regulate
not only the railroad traffic within
it's borders. but that Interstate traf-
fc that begins or ends within its ter
IlIoINs 81 lcIS 10 l. iCSiSih'i'h 0ocS
not conflict with national legislation.
But about ten years later, in the case
of Wabash versus Illinois. the court
ruled hat the power of regulating
Interstate is so exclusively
granted to congress hat no state leg
islation can touch it in any way
despite the fact hat the constitution
in express language recognizes that a
state might establish regulation of
the positive sort that calls for Gin
spection." This has been held to be
authority for twenty-five years and
was carried to lengths that justify
Mr.. Bryan's fear Of a twilight zone"
where congress has not and the states
can not exercise any power.
Now. the pure food decision re-
turns to the principle Of concurrent
Jurisdiction yer a subject on which
both the states and congress can leg
islate so long as the state enactment
does not ~contravene the congression-
al. The decision does not expressly
recognize that it reverses the prin-
ciple laid down in Wabash versus H.
linois. Perhaps the Judges did not
observe that it doe SO. But as that
hsrd.snd.fast theory Of exclusive