Rensselaer Republican, Volume 19, Number 28, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 17 March 1887 — LEGAL MATTERS. [ARTICLE]

LEGAL MATTERS.

Decisions of the Federal Supreme Court on Several Matters of Great Interest The Rights of Drummers, Chinese, and Life Insurance Beneficiaries. Tne Supreme Court of the United Stales has rendered a decision setting aside the State law of Tennessee which imposed a special tax on traveling salesmen. The decision rests u] on the doctrine that the statute in ques ion was an interference with interstate commerce, and hence clearly unconstitutional. Traveling salesmen are agents and instrumentalities in commercial transactions between the States, and a special 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 ; ill error to the Supremo Court of lenneissoe. This case arises out of the following state if facts; Bobbins was engaged in Memphis in soliciting orders for stationery for a stationery firm, and iii exhibiting samples for the purjioso of effecting sales. A State law, applicable only to tnis one taxing district, was in forco, suojec lug “drummers" and all persons not having h regular licensed houso of business in the district, offering or soiling goods by sample, to a tax of $lO a week or $25 n month Bobbins, who was unlicensed, was arrested,'tried, convicted, and lined, and on aiqieal the judgment was affirmed. The case had been brought to this court on a writ of error upon the ground that tne law imposing tno tax is repugnant,to that clause of the Constitution of the United States which delares that Congress snail have the power to regulato commerce among the several States. The piincipal question involved is as to the constitutionality of tno act which imposed the tax, and it is, in tho opinion of thiH court, a question of great importance to the people of the United States, bo:h as respects their Otßiness interests and their constitutional rights. In a long and carefully prepared opinion by Justice Bradley, this court lands tuat the Constitution gives to Congross tho power to regulate coiriinerce among tho States, and ihat power s necessarily exclusive whenever tne subjects of it are nat onal in their character of admit only of one uniform system or plan of regulation. Where the power of Congress is exclusive its /hilure to act indicates its will that the subjict shall be left free from any restrictions or impositions, and any regulation by the States, except in matters of JOcal concern only, is repugnant to such freedom. The only way in which commerce between the States can bo legitimately atiected 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 itdoesthpse things which may incidentally affect commerce. But in making such internal regulations a State cannot impose taxes tipqn a person passing through or coming in merely for a temporary purposo ; nor upon jiroperty imported and not yet become part oradiie common mass; and no discrimination centW made by any such regulation adversely to the persons or pi operty of other States, and no regulation can b"e made directly affec.ing interstate commerce. In tie matter of interstate commerce the United Stitos are, in the opinion of this court, but one country, and ere and must be, sub.ect to one system or regulations and not to a multitude of regulations. It seems to be forgotten that the people of Xhis countty are citizens of the United itaies as well as of the indiIvidiial States, and 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 tho State the power to lay the tax or require the license in question, will not. the couit belieyos, 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-w ill be realized as if the tax were imposed before tho sale. To tax the sale of goods under such circumstances before the sale, is, in the opinion of tho court, clearly a tax on interstate commerce itself. If tho employment of drummers injuriously affects local trade Congress may be appealed to to makeisuch regulations as the case may demand; and Congress alono can do this. The confusion into which tho 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 the disorder which prevailed under the old aiticles of confederation. The judgment oi the Supreme Court of Tennessee is reversed, and the plaintiff in error la ordered to be discharged. Opinion by Justice Bradley, the Chief Justice and Justices Field and Gray dissenting on the ground that the law in question is applicable to drummers coming into the Shelby County district from other parts of Tennessee, as well as to those from other States, and to relieve the latter from taxation imposed on the former would be a discrimination against the citizens of the State.

OTHER SUPREME COURT DECISIONS. The decision of the United States District Court of California in refusing a writ of habeas corpus to Thomas Baldwin was reversed, and the caBO 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 a number of realdent Chinese out of the mining town of Nicolaus, Cal., in February, 18SG. Baldwin was arrested and charged with conspiracy to deprive these Chinese of the equal protection of the lawß 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 the ground that the charge made against Inin was not sufficient to jhstify his detention. The opinion, which was a long and elaborate document, was read by Chief Justice Waite. Justices Field and Waite dissontod from a portion of the opinion. Justice Field is of the opinion that a forcible deprivation of rights secured by treaty to the'suujocts or citizens of any nation is a-prevention by force of the execution of a law es the United States, "If this is not bo, then there is a law of the United rtates which can bo evoked for the protection of the subjects of China notwithstanding tho language of the treaty with that country; and the same rule must apply with reference to the rights of the subjects or citizens of any other nation resident in the United States. Their only protection is to be found in the laws of the different States. In the case of the Accident Insurance Company of North America, plaintiff in error, against I.oretta Sf. 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 whetner 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 bv bodily infirmities or diseases, or by the t iking 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 he was an insane person, and the killing was not his act—not tho act of himself. The ■words “bodily infirmities or disease” do not include insanity. Kegarding the clause insuring Crandall "against bodily injuries effected through external, accidental, and violent cans," the conrt bolds that this sentence does >t speak of what the injury “is canard by,” but uoks only to’the “means” by which it is effected. No one doubts that hanging is a violent means qWlenth. As It affects the bodv from withoutNtis 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 bo by them, ■ There is no moment like the present; not only so, but, moreover, there is no moment at all—that is, no instant force and energy—but in the present. The man who will not execute his resolutions when they are fresh upon him can have no hope for them afterward; they will be dissipated, lost, and perish in the hnrry-skurry of the world, or sink in the slough of indolence. I—.1 —. .. _L\... ■ Pd rather be a noble, generous sinner than a stingy Methodut.