About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Mr. Chief Justice Taney U.S. 573 (1847)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0289 and id is 1 raw text is: JANUARY TERM, 1847. 573 License Cases.-Mi. Chief Justice Taney's Opinion. Mr. Chief Justice TANEY. In the cases of Thurlow v. The State of' Massachusetts, of Fletcher v. The State of Rhode Island, and of Peirce et al. v, The State of New Hampshire, the judgments of the respective State courts are severally affirmed. The justices of this court do not, hQwever, altogether agree in the principles upon which these cases are decided, and I therefore proceed to state the grounds upon which I concur in affirming the judgments. The first two of these cases depend upon precisely the same principles ; and although the case against the State of, New Hampshire differs in some respects from the others, yet there are !mportant prin6iples common to all of them, and on that account it is more convenient to consider them together. Each of the cases has arisen upon State laws, passed for the purpose of discouraging the use of ardent spirits within their respective territories, by pro- hibiting their sale in small quantities, and without licenses previously obtained from-the State . authorities. And the validity of each of them has been drawn in qhestion, upon the ground that it is repug- nant to that clause of the constitution of the United States which confers upon Congress the' power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the 'everal States. The cases have been separately and fully and ably argued, and the questions which they involve are undoubtedly of the highest importance. But the construction of this-clause in'the constitution has been so fully discussed at the bar, and in the opinions delivered by the court in former cases, that scarcely any thing can be sug- gested at this day calculated to throw much adtditional light upon the subject, -or any argument -offered which has not heretofore been considered, and commented on, and which may not be found in the reports of the decisions of this court. It is not my pufpose to enter into a particular examination of the various passages in different oflinions of the cou.rt, or of sope of its members, in former dases, which have been referred to by counsel, and relied upon as supporting the construction of the constitution for which they are respectively contending. And I am the less in- clined to do so because I think these controversies often arise from looking to detached passages in the opinions, mihere general expres- sions are sometimesused, which, taken by themselves, are suscepti- ble of a construction that the court never intended should be gi- en to them, and which in some instances would render different por- tions of the opinion inconsistent with each other.' It is only by look- ing to the case under.consideration at the time, and taking the whole' 6pinion together, in all its bearings, that we can correctly understand the judgment of the court. The constitution of the United States declares that that .constitu- tion, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pur.-

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most