Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1913-08-09

tives concurred. And Senator Kenyon,
the sponsor of the bill, and who esp
ecially urged it, in season and out OF
season, in the debates in the senate
on the bill, said:
"That honest lawyers, frank WITH
themselves, must concede that the
questions involved r exceedingly
troublesome, but inasmuch as the 81.
preme court has expressly left open
the question 1t would e that this
was a proper cas- to place the mat
ter squarely before them In order
that a question of great Importance
might be determined"
Indeed, it cannot be doubted but
that Senator Kenyon, while urging
the passage of the bill, felt grave
doubts as to its constitutionality.
While the construction and inter-
probation of the constitution or OF
statutes, given by the chief executive
or heads of the executive departments
is in the exercise of their official du-
ties and prerogatives, will In no n
be regarded by the courts as author
itative, will nevertheless be careful
ly considered and given weight, esp
ecially where the language they con-
strue and interpret Is of doubtful I'M
port And the same may be said with
reference to the opinion or arguments
of individual senators and represen-
tatives, given or made in debate IN
their respective chambers.
With both the>yery able and thor
oughly considered opinions of At
torney General Wickersham, and the
4, - .-l1 GO Of prncidnnf TAFT
| which on it's face shows the president
considered the matter Thoroughly
and conscientiously and with
impartiality, before me, and backed
as they are by the unequivocal legls.
Ilative opinions of Senator Root n
Senator Sutherland and Representa-.
tive Brantley, and the admitted
doubts of Senator Kenyon, cannot,
even in advance Of closely examining
the act, help ~distrusting It's constltu-
tionality, and this Is especially true,
for that Notwithstanding the proml-
nence that has been given the act
and the great store that has been laid
on It by a large class of our good PEG.
pie, not a single opinion from any
eminent constitutional. lawyer, prl-
waite or official, holding the act con-
stitutional, has been submitted or
called to my attention. The objec-
tons urged by the president, attorney
general and the senators and repre-,
sentative above named, to the act,
are founded on the constitutional
provision, whereby
Congress shall have power-to
regulate commerce with foreign ma
lions and among the several states
and to make all laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the foregoing powers
and all other powers vested by this
constitution in the government OF the
United States or in any department
or office thereof"
If any proposition of law is. by the
decisions Of the supreme court OF the
United States, made individually 9
tain, It is that the power OF congress
to regulate Interstate commerce Is
exclusive and paramount; and that q
failure or neglect OF congress to ex-
pressly declare by statute or other
wise. what things are or are not ie'
Ultimate articles of interstate conf
merce, does not authorize q state 20
IN any manner regulate, bur-
den or forbid commerce be-
tween its citizens and the
citizens of other states in any ar
ticle recognized by the commercial
usages of the world as legitimate ar
ticles of commerce. Decisions OF the
United States supreme court are IN
unison as to such propositions. And
decisions of that court are In great
number, that intoxicating liquors are
a legitimate article of interstate COM
merce, and as such entitled to the
same protection In interstate transit
as other legitimate articles. only
cite one Of the numerous cases.
Adams Express Company vs.. Ken
tucky. PA u. s., 21S; SO L. ed. 972.
The principles or propositions
above stated are quite summarily set
out in the case Of Louisville X: 90.
VS.. Cook Brewing Co., 222 U. s., 70; 81
l.. ed. 355, in language as follows:
"By a long line Of decisions even
prior to Leisy VS.. Harden. 135 U. >.
100: "a l.. ed. 1913; April %, 1890. 1t
has been ~indisputably determined:
a-"That beer and other intoxtcat-
ing liquors are a recognized and leg1t-
innate subject of interstate commerce.
b-"That 1t is not competent 1or
any state to forbid any common car
rier to transport such article from a
consignor in n state to a consignee
in another;
c-.That until such transportation
is concluded by delivery to the con-
signee, such conditions do not be-
come subject to state regulation, re
straining their sale or disposition"
Then the court further says:
"The Wilson act, which subjects
such liquors to state regulation, al.
though still in the original packages,
does not apply before actual delivery
to such consignee, where the ship
ment Is interstate"
The opinion in the case was with,
out dissent; It was handed down In
November, 1911; and it is 80 pointed,
clear and comprehensive In Its scope,
as to make a review or citation OF
the cases preceding it on the subject
wholly unnecessary; and we may Ger.
tainly rest on the proposition That
the law down to the time OF the NJ
legged taking effect Of the Webb-ken.
49, oo+ woe 90 ia declared In that