Democratic Sentinel, Volume 11, Number 7, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 18 March 1887 — LEGAL MATTERS. [ARTICLE]

LEGAL MATTERS.

Decisions of the Federal Supreme Court on Several Matters of Great Interest The Bights of Drummers, Chinese, and Life Insurance Beneficiaries. Tne Supreme Court of the United States has rendered a decision setting aside the State law of Tennessee which imposed a special tax on traveling salesmen. The decision rests upon the doctrine that the statute in question was an interference with interstate commerce, and hence clearly unconstitutional. Traveling salesmen are agents and instrumentalities in commercial transactions between the States, and a Bpecial tax laid on them because of their occupation is held to be a restriction on commerce. Following is an abstract of the opinion: (Sabine Bobbins, plaintiff in error, against the taxing district of Shelby County, Tennessee; ia error to the Supreme Court of 'l'ennossee. This case arises out of the following state of facts; Bobbins was engaged in Memphis in soliciting orders for stationery for a stationery firm, ana in exhibiting samples for the purpose of effecting sales. A State law, applicable only to this one taxing district, was in force, subjecting "■drummers” and all persons not having a regular licensed house of business in the district, offering or selling goods by sample, to a tax o 2 $lO a week or $25 a month. Bobbins, who was unlicensed, was arrested, tried, convicted, and fined, and on appeal the judgment was affirmed. The case bad been brought to this court on a writ of error upon the ground that the law imposing tbe tax is repugnant to that clause if the Constitution of the United States which delares that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the several States. Tlje principal question involved is as to the constitutionality of the act which imposed the tax, and it is, in the opinion of this court, a question of great importance to the people of the United States, both as respects their business interests and their constitutional rights. In a long and carefully prepared opinion by Justice Bradley, this court holds that the Constitution gives to Congress the power to regulate commerce among the States, and that power is necessarily exclusive whenever the subjects of it are nat onal in their character or admit only of one uniform system or plan of regulation. Where the power of Congress is exclusive its failure to act indicates its will that the subject shall be left free from any restrictions or impositions, and any regulation by the States, except in matters of local concern only, is repugnant to such freedom. The only way in which commerce between the States can be legitimately affected by State ■ laws is when, by virtue of its police power and its jurisdiction over persons and property within its limits, a State provides for the security of life, limb, health, comfort, and property, or when At does those things which may incidentally affect commerce. But in making such internal -regulations a State cannot impose taxes upon a person passing through or coming iu merelyifor a temporary purpose; nor upon property imported and not yet become part of the common mass; and no discrimination can be made by any such regulation adversely to the persons or property of other States, and no regulation can be made direotly affecting interstate commerce. In the matter of interstate commerce tbe United States are, in (the opinion of this court, but one country, omd are and must he, sub.ect to one system ot regulations and not to a multitude of regulations. It seems to be forgotten that the people of this country are citizens of the United St iles as well as of the individual States, ana that they have some rights under the Constitution and laws of the former, independent of the latter, and from any interference or restraint from them. To deny the State the power to lay the tax or requixo the license in question, will not, the couit belieyes, in any perceptible degree dim nish its resources. Goods when brought into a State, in consequence of a sale by a drummer, will be liable to taxation, and as much will be realized as if the tax were imposed before the sale. To tax the sale of goods uudetvsucli circumstances before the sale, is, in the opinion of the court, clearly a tax on interstate commerce itself. If the employment of drummers injuriously affects local trade Congressimay be appealed to ito make such regulations as the case may demand; and Congress alone ean do this. The oonfusion intowhich the commerce of the country would be thrown by being subjected to State legislation on this subject would be, the court says, but a repetition of tl» disorder which prevailed under the old article*: eff confederation.

The judgment of the Sujireme Court of Tennessee lerreversed, and the iplaintiff in error is ordenfid to be discharged. Opinion by Justiog Bradley, the Chief Justice and Justices Fiejf and Gotaytdissenting on the ground that the law in question is applicable to drummers coming into tbevShelby County district from other carts of Tennessee, as -well as to those from other States, jcnd to relieve the latter from taxation imposed-.on the former would be a discrimination against the citizens of the State. OTHEB SUPREME COURT DECISIONS. Tho dceesion of the United States District Court ass .California in refusing a writ of habeas corpus to Thomas Baldwin was reversed, and the ca«o was remanded for further hearing. The case involves the rights of the Chinese under Federal laws. Baldwin was one of a party of citizens who drove number of resident Chsnase out of the mining town of Nicolaus, Cal., in February, 1886. Baldwin was arrested and charged with conspiracy to deprive these Chineses tho equal protection of the laws and of equal (privileges and immunities under the laws. Baldwin applied to the Circuit Court for a discharge upon a writ of habeas corpus, but it was refused, and he appealed to this court upon tho ground that the eharge made against him wasarct sufficient to justify his detention. The opinion, which was a long .and elaborate document, was read by Chief Justice Waite. Justices Firld and Waite dissented from a portion of tiho opinion. Justice Field is of the opinion that a forcible deprivation of rights secured by treaty to the subjects or citizens of any nation is a prevention by foroe of the execution of .a Jaw of the United States. If this is not so, thantthere is a law of the United States which can be evoked for the protection of the subjects of China notwithstanding the language of thedreaty with that country; and the same rule uotust apply with reference to the rights of the subjects or citizens of any other nation resident in the United States. Their only proteetien is to be found in the laws of the different States. In the case of the Accident Insurance Company of North America, plaintiff jm error, against l.oreita M. Crandall, appealed from the United States Circuit Court of Illinois, this court affirms the judgment of the lower court. The suit presented the question as to whether a policy of insurance against “bodily injuries effected through external, accidental and violent means,”and occasioning death or complete disability to do business, and providing that “this insurance shall not extend to death or disability which may have been caused wholly or in part by bodily infirmities or diseases, or by "the taking of poison or by suicide or self-inflicted injuries,” covers a death by hanging one’s self while insane. The court held that Crandall did not die by suicide or self-inflicted injuries, because bo was am insane person, and the killing ■was not his act—not the act of himself, 'fhe ■words “bodily infirmities or disease" do not include insanity. Regarding the clause insuring Crandall “against b«Tily injuries effected through external, accidental, and violent means,” the court holds that this sentence does not speak of what the injury “is caused by, ” but looks only to the “means” by which it is effected. No one doubts that hanging is a violent means of death. As it affects the body from without it is external, and, according to the decisions as to suicide under policies of life insurance, it cannot, when done by an insane person, be held to be other than accidental.

Perhaps the summary of good breeding may be reduced to this rule: “Behave unto all men as you -would they should behave unto you.” This will most certainly oblige" us to treat all mankind with the utmost kindness, civility and respect, there being nothing that we desire more than to be treated so by them.