LECTURE IX. Spirituous liquors. does not extend to the regulation of the deliv ery at points without the State of telegraphic messages received within the State; but the State may, within the reservation that it does not encroach upon the free exercise of the pow ers vested in Congress, make all necessary provisions in respect of the buildings, poles, and wires of the telegraph companies within its jurisdiction, which the comfort and convenience of the community may require.' A single tax assessed under the laws of a State upon receipts of a telegraph company, which were partly derived from interstate commerce and partly from commerce within the State, and which were capable of separation, but were returned and assessed in gross and without separation or apportionment, is invalid in proportion to the extent that such receipts were derived from interstate commerce, but is otherwise valid. 8. Spirituous Liquors. A State law prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors is not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.3 A State cannot, for the purpose of protecting its people against the evils of intemperance, enact laws which regulate commerce between its people and those of other States of the Union, 1 Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 347. 2 Ratterman v. Western Union Tel. Co., 127 U. S. 411. See also Leloup v. Port of Mobile, 127 U. S. 640; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Alabama, 132 U. S. 472. 8 Foster v. Kansas, 112 U. S. 201. unless the consent of Congress, express or im- LECTURE IX. plied, is first obtained.1 The sale of spirituous liquors by retail and in small quantities may be regulated or prohibited by State legislation, without violating the Constitution or laws of the United States.2 9. Discriminating License Taxes. Spirituous liquors. license taxes. The act of the legislature of Tennessee pro- Discriminating viding that "all drummers and all persons not having a regular licensed house of business in the taxing district of Shelby County, offering for sale or selling goods, wares, or merchandise therein, by sample, shall be required to pay to the county trustee the sum of $10 per week, or $25 per month for such privilege," applies to persons soliciting the sale of goods on behalf of individuals or firms doing business in another State; and, so far as it applies to them, it is a regulation of commerce among the States, and violates the provision of the Constitution, which grants to Congress the power to make such regulations.3 10. Discriminating Taxes. A tax imposed by a State statute upon an oC- Discriminating cupation which necessarily discriminates against 465. 1 Bowman v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co., 125 U. S. See Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623; Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S. 1; Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100; Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U. S. 86. 2 Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U. S. 86. 3 Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing District, 120 U. S. 489. See also Corson v. Maryland, 120 U. S. 502; Asher v. Texas, 128 U. S. 129; Stoutenburgh v. Hennick, 129 U. S. 141; McCall v. California, 136 U. S. 104. taxes. LECTURE IX. taxes. Food inspection. the introduction and sale of the products of another State, or against the citizens of another State, is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.1 11. Food Inspection. A law providing for the inspection of animals, whose meats are designed for human food, cannot be regarded as a rightful exercise of the police power of the State, if the inspection prescribed is of such a character, or is burdened with such conditions, as will prevent the introduction into the State of sound meats, the product of animals slaughtered in other States. The Virginia statute of February 18, 1890, makes it unlawful to offer for sale, within the limits of that State, any beef, veal, or mutton from animals slaughtered one hundred miles or more from the place at which it is offered for sale, unless it has been previously inspected and approved by local inspectors appointed under that act. It fixes the inspector's compensation at one cent a pound, to be paid by the owner of the meats. It does not require the inspection of fresh meats from animals slaughtered within one hundred miles from the place in Virginia at which such meats are offered for sale. The act was held to be void, as being in restraint of commerce among the States, and as imposing a discriminating tax.3 1 Walling v. Michigan, 116 U. S. 446. X. THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY.1 ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, PARAGRAPH 2. The Privi- LECTURE X. lege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. ARTICLE III, SECTION 2, PARAGRAPH 1. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in. . . Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority. ARTICLE III, SECTION 2, PARAGRAPH 3. The trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. ARTICLE V OF THE AMENDMENTS. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. ARTICLE VI OF THE AMENDMENTS. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a 1 C'est donc le jury civil qui a réellement sauvé les libertés de l'Angleterre. De Tocqueville. LECTURE X. The Constitution founded upon English law. speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favour, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. ARTICLE VII OF THE AMENDMENTS. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law. 'No one familiar with the common law of England can read the Constitution of the United States without observing the great desire of the Convention which framed that instrument to make it conform as far as possible with that law. One would suppose that the leaders of a revolutionary movement of eight years' duration or more, the purpose of which was to emancipate the newly formed States from the dominion of Great Britain, would have come out of that struggle with resentments arising from a sense of injury at the hands of that government which would have created a prejudice against its laws and their system of administration. On the contrary, it seems obvious from the instrument which they produced as the fundamental and organic law of a new government for a new country, that their attachment for the old laws and even for the old general form of political government remained almost unaffected. 1 This is Lecture VIII delivered before the classes of the University Law School. |