OCR Interpretation


The Houston daily post. (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, January 21, 1900, Mailable Edition, Image 19

Image and text provided by University of North Texas; Denton, TX

Persistent link: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn86071197/1900-01-21/ed-1/seq-19/

What is OCR?


Thumbnail for 19

1
tl
se1
mull
58
10
Idiot
75
50
tslkit
50
69c
25
P
l75
Tiffti I
89c
fm
1
llantiH
L50
rcttteJ
195
39c
Miss
63c
33c
55c
69c
85o
110
135
i taw
35t
4jc
7K
95c
JUJ
5
150
S275
SJ5
cs fioni
H9c
lorltr to
mot1 s
at II
vorth W
IT
P5Hti i + Z > t + A + TfnVVv WSVNt WvySvv wv3w r v
QUARANTINE CASE
ibe Judgment Rendered by Ihc
J ij foiled States Supreme Court
Ls HAS A RIGHT TO PROTECT HERSELF
of LonUInn y nt Vc fixnr
tot intrrninic Comnnrcc and
Aetloji
TlliiiO0 Cnrntc of
jpeclil Correspondence
yjgton January Following ls
a 0t the opinions rendered by tbo
the United State In the
court of
Stato of Louisiana vs the
° f the
W Texas et al which Involved the
State of Teos to protect
of the
tho
Quarantluo ugalust city ot
I j
Orleaoa
c sniA of Louisiana by her governor
f Ibis c ° uit Ior dave l0 m ° a
j
iomBialni against tuu state or
V wlwnor and hct health ofllcer
objections to
nt ashad on grant
iMt U appearing to the court
itur course in this instance levu
mated and ul > Du fllcl1 vielelW
demurred and the cnusuwas
unti
Son the otal argument already
rJii printed Brief
uf complaint and tho auswor
thoy huvo hereto
as
m ire
S printed tn theso columns
Cllel Justice fuller delivered tho
iim ot the court
articles ot contcJlcM
Si ninth of the
be exercised through a
of
dl tWmM under different grants
Jf Bcre states should bo dotermlnod
it iim manner
the
thi constitutional convention
illtfe ot detail composed ot Hut
and
t Randolph lorham Hllsworth
to which the rehOlutioiiH arrived
f llecpnventlon and mindry propost
tho
< hid been refened leported on
ot Aupist D 1TST a tlraft ot a
tltatlon coBBlstlng of twontythrco
1m
e ncond section of tho ninth nrliclo
Ided that as to all disputes ami con
trsle now subsisting or that may
liter suDslst between two or more
respecting Jurisdiction or ter
jhe senate should have power
estgjate a special tribunal to finally
talne the same bj its Judgment and
m third fectlon all contiovcrsles
frersB lands claimed under different
u of two or more States wetc to be
utlr delrrmlnd
l third i etlon of the proposed elcv
rlclt proildid among other things
Jth jurisdiction of the supremo court
lli fttend o eontrovcrbles between
lor more States except stub as bhall
Wterritory or jurisdiction between
fteand citizens of another State be
iHtliinsot different States nnd be
11 Statp or the eltlzeu tliereof and
n States citizens or subjects
ItheJoth ot August Mr Itutledge s ald
Wt to octtons two and tlnee ot
nine This jrovision for dacld
pttrorerslea between tho States was
frr under tco confederation but
Ite rendered unttiesoary by the Na
flJudlcUrv aow to be established
ills jiotloc he section was strlckeu
He under their authority to alt
Weetlng ambassadors other public
rsand consuls to all cases of ad
7 and maritime Jurlsrilctlon to con
Walo which the United States hhull
iny tocemrovorsles
between two or
aateij between a State nnd citizens
wrbtatc between cltiens or dlf
between citizens
ot the bimo
wiaing hnds under grants of dlf
JW8 and between n Stute or the
Uw 0 ana orelgn Stntcs ritl
Hia3C3 afrf = Hng ambassadors
X ministers
and consuls and
1i Slalc sna11 be Iur > tlle
itt shall have original Jurls
tne other
lo i cases before
4iTL Pren8 court shall havo
both
n aa to w m
t4Sih ccPtlons nnd under
WUons as the congress shall
if Mce wo havo lo to tho
V worls controversies be
tto
> ikWr e States manifestly lu
ttJlJ lIramera ° t he Constitu
Wim hsllbcy t ahod Inclifde
r
< rf ar co troverslcs over
° rt i n
4 faction for In the orlg
Et PD tho alt
to hPD Ved ° r contrnver
trwtrl 0S < V1 of b > the sennto
fcr u m ° ycr thai1 those by thv
l fflalttMbJ iilment all were
ut It is apparent that
Vr thi 5 0t so dpl < alo and grave
l5 aabr th ° mUtCr d
aj a remarked by Mr Jus
1115 L Con vs Louisiana 131
liWfcliMCon tution made some
tejtrn mn law sucn tor cx
r > 2rrn Terss between States as
trlbutcs the Jurisdiction conferred la tho
prfeYJou3 one Into original nnd uppellato
jurisdiction but does not profess to confer
any Tho original Jurisdiction depends
yolely on the character ot the parties and
ia coiillncd to tho cases In whlcn are those
enumerated parties And those only Cali
fornia vs Southern laclfle Railroad Coin
Texas Hi V S 621 And by tho Constt
an d at orillne 0 tho statute thp
orlg nol Jurisdiction ot this court is ex
clusive over suits between States though
not exclusive over thoso betwcci a Statu
and citizens of another Stale
On thtfSlhofJaniiafy 173S Ihc clcvonth
nriiemmcnt wan ratlilcti as follows Tho
Judicial power ot the United State snail
not
bo construed to extend to any suit In
tow or equity commenced or prosecuted
against one of tho United States by c4tl
zona ot another State or by citizens or
subjects of any foreign State
Referring to this amendment Mr Chief
Justice Walte in New Hampshire vs
Louisiana and New York vs l oulslanu Wi
u b 6 fll said Tho evldeut purpose
ot tho amendment so promptly proposed
and finally adopted was to prohibit all
Milts against a Stato by or for citizens ot
other btatcs or aliens without the con
sent of tho Slate to be sued and in our
opinion one Stato can not create a con
troversy with another SUtr within the
meaning of that term as used m the Judi
cial clauses of tho Constitution by assum
ing tun prosecution ot debts owing by
other Ptates to its citizens
c r thcn lo manaln Jurisdiction
S bi ot wmplalnt as against the
Mate of Texas it must appear that the
controversy to bo
determined Is a ton
trovcrsy arising dlrcetly between the Sttto
I i lay Art T sec 10
a controversy in Indication ot
grievances ot particular individuals
By tho constitution the StateB arc for
bidden to outer Into any treaty alli
ance or confederation grant letters ot
matquo and reprisal or without tho
Mfat provides that tho congress consent ot congress keep troops or U
u the Ian resort on appeal in all Mips ot war In time of peace enter In o <
differences now BUbslstlng any agreement or cnmpaet with another
ruw ttd State
ntBhli may hereafter arls0 between two or with a foreign power or engage
71 HT tatcs concerning boundary Juris1 n war unless actually Invaded or In such
V WVt nv other cause whntover tho tnmlncnt danger as will not admit of de
Co n lr bile 0 vcsl cs between them oilslug out
be created by tho congress ns
jaal to
Sited and whose Judgment should bo ot ut 1 bo re atlons and Intercou
rso can
Z conclusive and also that all stttle1 either by war or diplomacy
conrernlng the private right boUKb Ith tho eotwent of congressthey
bo
may composed by agreement As point
ed out by Mr Justlco Field In Vlrglua vs
Tennessee 14S V S OS 51 > there iirs
many roalters on whlrh tho different
hlates may agree that can In no respect
concern the United St lies while tliero
ire other compacts or agreements to
which tho prohibition ot the constitution
applies And as to this he quotes from
Mr Justlco Story as follows Storv in
his Commentaries section 1103 referring
to a previous part of tho same section ot
the constitution in which the clause in
question appears obsened that its lan
guage may be more plausibly Interpret
ed from tho
tenvhi used treaty alliance
or confederation and upon tho ground
hat the beiibo of each is best known by
Its accession noscltur a soclls to npply
to treaties of a political character such
as ticatles ot allfanco for put pones of
peace nnd war and tieaties of confedera
tion In which the parlien are IcikuikI
for mutual government political coopera
tion and the nxcrrlse of political bover
clgnty and treaties ot cession of nover
elgnly or confeirlng intertill political
Jurlsdli tiou or oxteinil political depend
ence or general commercial privileges
aud that the latter clatur compacts and
agreements might then erv properly
apply to such as regarded what might bo
deemed mere private rights of sovereign
ty such as questions ot boundary inter
ests In lands situate In the territory ot
each other and other Internal regulations
for the mutual comfort and convenience ot
States bordering on each other And ho
adds In such cases the consent of cou
ruled that where the consent of congress ljnalld nor could
was requisite It might be given siibjo
quently or might be implied from subso
In the abfccnco of agreement it may
be that a controversy might aiieo be
tween two States for tho determination
or which the original Jurisdiction ot this
court could bo invoked but there must
be a direct issue between them and the
subject matter must be susceptible of Ju
dicial solution And it Is difficult to con
ceive of a direct issue between two States
in respect of a matter where no effort
at accommodation has been made nor can
It bo conceded that it Is within tho Judi
cial function to inquire ii > lo the motives
of a Stale legislature lit pabslug a law or
of tho chief miglslralo ot a State In en
forcing It In Ire ciucUc ot his dbcie
tlon and Judgment Public policy for
bids the Imputation to nuthorlroil ofllriil
action of any other than legitimate mo
tives
As might be expected In view of tho m
tuio of tho Jurisdiction tho cabes are few
in which the aid of tho court has been
nought in controversies between two or
more States They are cited in Wisconsin
vs Pelican Insurance Company 127 V S
2G5 nnd aro chlelly controversies as to
boundaries
In South Carolina vs Georgia Od U S
4 14 a bill was filed for an Injunction
against tho State of Georgia the secre
tary of war and others from obstructing
or Interrupting tho navigation of the
Savannah llvor In violation ot the com
pact entered Into between the States ot
South Carolina and Georgia on tho 24th
day of April 17S7 The bill was dismissed
because no unlawful obstruction of navi
gation was proved but tho question was
expressly reserved whether i State when
suing in this court for the prevention of
a nuisanco In a navigable river of the
United States must not aver and show
that It will sustain some special and pecu
liar Injury therefrom and such ms would
enable a private person to maintain a
similar action in another court
So in Wisconsin vs Duluth S5 U S
37l 3S2 the contention that the court
could tako cognizance of no question
which cqucerns nlone the rights ot a
State in her political or sovereign charac
ter tbat to sustain tho suit she must havo
bomo proprietary Interest which Is af
Mwucjai solution Tho upon
yafai
was not passed
t Itrldgc
o this new branch ot JdrU1 IP Pennsylvania vs Wheeling
to ne Company U How 421 the court treated
thet
necessary from
JT StI 0 of diplomatic relatmns ° be tho suit ns brought to protect tbo prop
ufiUl j otner controversies
ad
klrt auothcr State or Its
settlcd
an i lbf Principle
thj 1 subjects of Judicial
Vco Wisconsin vs
dWs2632SS2S9
ttVS ci of 17ss the Judicial
WUld and the cowers el
rSt ihaii utes nrovfZ that the
b Watre 0 exclusive iurU
fa 8Utotle ot a clv na
i > siu is a party except bo
>
M
w tMl J wd i
b StJi f nnd except
in > hich latin c
et
7 > UntM n d cl use thi
Uff 180 Peal nt the
Ut0
WS i rJ dl yon la
second clauie ds
l
of tho State of Pennsylvania
crty
Uut in Debs Petitioner 155 U S o61
involving a case in the circuit court iu
whlrh tho United States had sought rcllbt
by Injunction It was observed That
while itis not the province of tho govern
ment to Intcrfero in any mere matter of
private controversy between individuals
or to use Its great powers tp enforce the
another yot when
rights ot one againat
of such
ItUhlrtcenth ovcr the wron complained are
vard aa itaTagraih OST affect the public at large and are la
St consults
which by the
respect ot matter
Uon aro Intrusted to the caro of too Na
tion nnd concerning which the Naiion
owes the duty to ail the cltlrcns of secur
Ing to their common rights then the were
fact tbat the government has no pecuniary
interest in tbo contrcersy It fot sunt
clcnt to exclude it from the courts or
prevent it from taking meaaurej therein
du
thoae canslltulonal
to fully discharge
UCb
It Is In thlB nspert lh t the bill h foro
us is franled Its gravamen is not a spe
lal mid ppuliar Injury cb i wou 4
stfjlam an action by private perton
bul lbs tflntp of toiijsUIja pri siinti h r
jSeit lit the attidtdo of parens pitrlac
trustee guardian or Topreacntatlv o her
cJtlzons
She does this from the point ot view that
tht < state ot Texas Is intentionally abso
lutely interdicting Interstate commerce as
rcsptcts tho State ot Louisiana by mau
of unheccssary and unreasonable quaran
tine regulations Inasmuch m the vindi
cation ot tho freedom of interstate com
itnorco la not committed to tho Stato
of Louisiana nnd that Statei is not en
gaged in puch commerce tho cause of
action must bo regarded not as Involving
flliy Infringement of the powers of tha
State ot loninlaoa or any special in
jury to her property but as asserting
that tho Stato is entitled lo seek relict
in this Viuy becauKc the matter com
plained of affect her citlrcns at largo
Nevertheless it tho case stated Is not ono
presenting a coutrocr > bstween theso
Stntfw the exercise of arjglnal Jurisdic
tion by this court as against the S tato
ot Texas can not be maintained
Uy title XC1I of the Hevlscd Statutes
of tho State ot Texas of 1595 The gov
ernor Is empowered o issue hU prfcla
matlon declaring quarantine on tho eoas
or elsewhere wlthlo this State whenover
In his Judgment quarantine may booms
necessary aud such quarantine may con
tinue for any length ot time as in tho
Judgment of ho governor tho rafcty and
security 0f the people may require It
Is made the governors duty to 6elect and
appoint by and with the advice and con
sent ot tho senate from the moH skillful
Physician of the State ot Tcsas ono
physician who shalt be known a health
ofllcer ot the State and shall froti pre
vious aud actWc practice lie familiar with
ot Louisiana and the State ot Texas nnd > clnw tcyet ond ple > lged to the lmporticftfl
the
nf both quarantine and sanltnton it
was hIso provided thai whenever tho
governor has reason o believe thai the
Stato ot Texas Is threatened at any point
or plate on tho oaftt border or e sewhoro
within the Stato with the Introduction or
dissemination of yellow fever con ajsion
or any other infectious and contagious
dieease that cau and should In the opin
ion of tho State health officer bo gua ded
against by State qutrantine he ahull by
proclamation immediately declare ald
quarantine against ncy and all such
places and direct tho Stato health officer
to promptly establish and enforce the re
strictions and conditions Imposed and in
dicated by said quarantine proclamation
nnd when froju any cause the governor
can not act and tho exigencies of the
threatened dangers rcqulro Immediate ac
tion tho Stato health officer is em
powered to declare quarantine as pre
scribed in this article and maintain tho
samo until tho governor shall officially
tako such aotlor as lie may svb proper
And further that tho laws In regard lo
State quarantine should remain and be
in full force and operation on tho cois
or elsewhere In the State s the go emo
cr health ofticcr might dltctt and i
enforced as heretofore with such addi
tional changes In station and gonernl
management as tho governor may think
proper Dlftcrences and disputes In re
gnrd to local quarantine were tn be dc
tetmlned by tho governor and all county
and municipal quarantine was made sub
ordinate lo such rulch and irguntlcn m
might be prcsCilbed b thp govcraut oi
State health officer It w b mad the
duty of any count town or city nu
thoilt on the coast or elsewhere in thi
State on Ihe promulgation of the gov
ernors prorlnnutlon declaring quawtntr o
lo provide suitable satlons and emplO
competent physicians as health otlcera
subject to the apuiovil of the governor
nnd in case < f the failure of the authol
tlea to do so the governor was cmrow
ered to act Provision was made for ths
detention of persons ar < l vessels and
for the disinfection ot vesso s and thur
cargoes and passengers arriving at tie
porta of Texas from any Infected port o
regard thereto the object of such rule
nnd regulations being to provM aifety
for the public health ot the Stito wi h
f
la
l
out unnecessary restrictions upon com
merce and travel
H is net elnrged that this stituo Is
It be If tested by its
terms Wltilo It Is truo that tho powc
itself acknowledging no limitations othc
than those prescribed in the constitution
and that where the action of the Su ci
In the exercise of their tcserved powers
comes into collision with it the Iattr
must give way yet it is a so true tha
quarantine laws belong to that class o
State legislation which is valid until dis
placed by congress nnd that suh legis
lation has been expressly recognized by
had remained silent on tbo subject It
Is
>
laa
a
a
S
0
8
la
gress may be propeily required in order district nnd for rules nnd rogulatlfm In t °
to cheok nuy Infringement of the rights
ot tho National governments and nt the
tamo time total prohibition to enter
Into any compact or agreement might be
nords between citizens of the sauio attended with permanent Inconvenience or
tlaltnlng lands under grants of dif public mischief But it was alno thete
I States were subsequently Ipaerted
third section of the eleventh ar
atdlhe words cccpt sueh as shall
1 territory or Jurisdiction omitted
MMH3 221 161 202 267 270 5 121
< l Meigs on Growth ot the Constl
211 213
M 1 and I of the second section ot
HI of tho constitution as llnally
1 read
judicial power shall extend to all
Inlaw and equity arising under this
Won the laws of he United
t and treaties made or which shall
6
Dress Goods
Alt Short Lengths and llemn nts of
TVafh nnd Wool Dros floods have been
thrown on the Hemnnnt Tables whrro you
will And hundreds of pieces suitable tor
Waists and Skirts marked nt lens than half
value This week o offer somo excep
tionally good value in lircss rattcrns
complete with lining
Lot No t Llglil dtttcrcnt rolors ami de
8lfns of Novelty lrc s Goods original
jirlco ot 5yard pattern J100 clcaianco
price complete with HnliigR Jl OS
Lot No 2 This lot consists of odd pieces
Novelty nress floods some sold ns > blsl >
na tlS5 per pattern clearance price
paltem roinpletc with linings 55
Lot No a This lot consist of slv dirfcrcut
designs of lato Novelty Suitings sult
oble for street wear these goods sold at
15 per pattetn clearance price com
plete with linings J3M
Lot No < Thle lot consists ot four differ
ent classes Of Very flue Uasslmero De
base sullahlo for tailor nindo suits
regular prlre per pattern OS clear
nnee price complete with IlulngsH 8S
Lot No r This lot consists of very lino
All Wool Novelty Sulttugs Ladles
Cloths and Covert Cloths thiso goods
sold at Vibl per pattern clearance price
complete with linings fo
Lot No C This lot consists of eleven vry
lino All Wool Plaid Skirt Patterns
worth 1 8 clearance prlie per pat
tern J2M
case of controversy
tha laws of tho United States almost from cn7ens of another Stute
tho beginning of tho government
In Morgan Steamship Company Vs
Louisiana Hoard of Health US l S
45 this was to held and Mr luetico
Miller deliveilng Ihe opinion of the court
said Tho matter Is ono in which the
nilcs that Hliould govern It may In many
respects be different In different locali
ties and for that icason bo hotter un
derstood and more wisely established by
the local authorities Tho practice which
should control a quarantine station on
tho Mississippi river 100 miles from the
aei may be widely and wisely iMTerent
from that which is best for the harbor
of New York Hence oven If congress
1
o
HOUSTON DAHy TOST gCJNDAV AJtOBNTNGr TANUATiY 21 1900
Lot No TThld lot connits of a few lata
Skirt Patterns m now hhades ot tovc t
Moths worth J I I complete with Un
lHK PI2
All Wool KldcrdowB worth 50c yard
Ctcaraaco price i 0u
Bo Suits
Little rtoys Double Urestled Tweed Suits
braided collar was JIPS clearance
price J2 >
llojs Tweed Suits with vests IhIrc sailor
collar trlmmtd in Soutuchc braid sold at
lW clearance price tloo
flov eed Suits with largo pallor col
lar trimmed In I rows Soutache braid
worth 2 60 clearance prlco 1 SO
Llltto Boys Fancy Trimmed Drnldtd Cloth
Suits with fancy gilt frog buttons worth
3 50 clearance price 1 75
3e quality Hoys Knco Pants at 15a
S5e quality Hoys Knee Pants at io
UDo quality Hoys Knee Pants nt 3M
Mr quality Hoys Kuie Pants at luo
Ono lot Hoys Jockey Oolf Iolu and Mili
tary Caps sold at 5i clearance pricelie
Mens Furnishings
Mrnfl Kino Laundered Shirts detai lieu
collar and 1 pair cults worth fSi nt Jn
Mens Laundered Percale Shirts collar
and cuffs attached t5c
Mens Laundered Neglige Slilrtu detained
foliar 1100 quality clearance prlie b5c
LtD I
We realize lie fact that only a lew mote weeks remain in which
to dispose of our Highcut Shoe stock and in outer to clean them out
and make ready for our magnificent line of Lowcut Shoes the pi ice
goes lower than ever
One lot of Ladles and Misses Button and Lace Shoes comprising a
variety of styles sies 13 to 5 will be pladed on our center 7Kr
counter and the price for your choice JL
One lol consisting Qfa few hundred pairs of Ladies Fine Dongola Kid
Button and Lace Shoes opera toe patent tips heel and QFin
spring heel sizes 2 to 8 choice < JUL >
One lot of Ladies Fine Vici Kid Button Shoes opera plain i nc
and patent tips sizes 4 to S at I cJ
Jurlbdlctlon over controversies or that
bort does not embrace the determination
of political questions nnd where no con
trover exists between States It 1b not ior
this court to lestraln the governor of a
State la the < uschirgc of lila executive
functions In a matter lawfully roniidejl
to his dlHcrotlon ati d Judgmeiit Nor can
wo accept the suggestion that the Ml can
bo maintained as against Ihe health nfftt r
nlone cm the theory that his coiidm t U in
violation or In excess of a valid law of
the State as the remedy for that would
clearly lie with tho State authorities and
no refusalto fulfill their duty In that re
gard ls set up In truth It i difficult to
how this record there could be a
aea on
or J
would not have followed that tho exercise controversy between the btato JU
J without
of tho police power of the Stato In this
regard nlthqugh necessarily operating on
interstate commerce would bo therefore
invalid Although from tho nature and
subjects of the power ot regulating com
merce It must be ordinarily 02 cl6ed
by the National government exclusively
this has uot been held to be so where in
relation to the particular subject matter
different rules might bo aultablo In dif
ferent localities At the same time con
gress could by affirmative nctlon displace
the local laws substitute laws of Its own
and thus correct any Unjustifiable and
oppreeslvo exercise ot potver by Stato
legislation
The complaint here however Is not that
the laws of Texas In respect or quar
antine are invalid but that the health
complained of Is Sate action and acts nt
State officers In nbits or excels or their
powers can not be laid bild of as In theut
selves committing one State lo a dlstlnrl
collision with a sister Stit
In nnr Judgment ihls bill dcu not s t
tin facts wblih show that the SNite q
Texas has jc authorixH or cjncrmrd
the alleged arllnu ot her health offler
tt > make It her own r > r from which H
lana and tho Individual defendants
involving a controversy between tun
States and such a controversy ns wa
have said Is not presented
Demurrer sustained and bill dism ssc < i
Mr Justicp White concurred In tho re
suit
Mr Justlco Harlan concurred in result
but said
Taking the allegations of tho bill to be
be done this
true as upon demurrer must
suit can not be regarded as ono relating
only to local regulations that incidentally
affect interstate commerco and which tnc
adopt and maintain in the an
State may
fience of National regulations on the sub
Jcct On the contrary it the allegations
808 810 812 Prairie Avenue
authorities laws ond authorities another State but
tlon of Infectious diseases and destroys
tho possibility of any commerce between
New Orleans and Texas Now it Texsa
has no right by IU offlrcra to establish
rrguUiloM that unreasonably or unnires
wrlly hurdrn commerce between lhat
State and Ixmislaqa and If the Stale of
Louisiana Is rnUtlcd under tho constitu
tion to have tbr > mlldl of burh re uli
ion tcttcd In a Judicial tribunal then
>
tills court should put the defendants to
tlieli answer and the ciubo ahould pro
ceed to a final decree upon lu merits
But I am of opinion thai I ho State of
Loulslmi in Its sovereign or corporate
capacity can not bring any petlon In this
toiirt on account of tho mattera set forth
in its bill The ease involves no property
llileiert of that State Nnr In 1iulislnna
charged wllh mi dun nnr luii < it any
power to icguIHi > interttato cnniinrreo
Congicts alone has aulhotlly In that re
spect When tho constitution gi in tills
court Jurisdiction of eantroverhleabptwjen
States It dd not thereby nulliurlo a rfiato
lo bring another Stato to tho bar of thl i
euuit fpr tho ptirpoM of testing the cou
Htttutlonallty of local atatuloj or icgula
tloiiB that do hot affect the property or
the powers of tha complaining State In Its
fcovcrcign or corporal capacity but which
at most affect only the rights of Individual
citizens or corporation engaged lit Inter
state commerce The word controver
sies In the clauses extending the Judicial
powers of tbo United States to rontrovor
tlos between two or more States and to
contiovcrsles between o State and cltl
zctis of npollier Staie and OV word par
ly In the clause declaring that this coift
bhall hvc original JurlMietlon o all ease
In which a State shall be a party refer
to conlroveislcs or cases that are justicia
ble as between tho parlies I hereto and not
to controversies or cam that do not in
volve flther Iho propeity or pevora ot the
State which complains In Us sovereign or
corporate capaolty tbat lu peoplo arc in
juriously affected In their rights by the
Ic iFlatlon of another State The cltlzmt
of the complaining State may In prop r
cases invoke Jpclcial protection of their
property or rights vten assailed by the
ra r hv ruin and regulations frsned of the bill bo true
Save of the their State with ttoclr con
beyond the necesslllea can not even
orc hv him thereunder PHcc gono
Zt Vl Interstate situation and established a quarantinebjh sent make their case iu case and tompsl
an embargo In ct or YSuiiaS mi ten that T abjplutcly subversive of all tho offending State end Its authorises to
T and Louisiana appear aa defendants In an action brought
the Stato or Texas and that the governor commerce between
tja pcommere0 between Texas and In this court If this be not ko we wer
h e commere0
aWand en7orceil Jiho S he haa NCw Orlyns This court has often de I wong in New HtmmUrr vs LouMi
States have the power to 0S If ft 7G in vlich case It was held
thn wftVniTSXmlrnRh Protect health of their people by police that one State could col byukln charge
Itoo imoosttlon of un embargo vvithMit regulations ilircetcd to that end and tbat of demands or Jebta held by Its cltlzena
rLnrd to motive bift charws that the regulations of that charater are not to bo aKiliist auolboi State acquire ihe Ight to
nUes and relations are ore rlnnt disregarded because they may indirectly bring a ault in Its name In thi court
Interstate commerce agaipst a debtor State
thati calefl for partcuUr exigency oT incidentally affect
and aro purposely framed with the ilpw But when that principle has fteon iu r tMU cxpreSi ray inability to concur
to benefit the State or Texas and th nounced It has always been said tini IM in lnat pirt ot tho opinion of the court
cltv of Galveston in particular at ho cx i pollco power or a State ran not be so e relating to the claube of tho eonatltution
riensc of tbr Snte of Louisiana nnd espe cried as to obstruct foreign or Interstate extending ihe Judicial power of tho United
clally of the cltv of New Orleans commerco beyond tho necessity for Its et states to controversies between a Stato
But in order that a controversy between crdec and that tbo courts must guard anj cltltens ot another Stat tin rc > r
Ptates Justiciable In this eo irt cai hi vigilantly agaluqt ncc < lless intrusion upn etlt6 la a controversy of lhat sort the
held to exist something more must he the field committed to congress f Kalroiti r gay tha whero none exist between
put forward than tnV th eltU ns cf ono Company vs Husen S3 V8 013 statea It Is not for this court to restnln
State are Injured by the nialidnitntstratinn Hennlngton > s Georgia 163 V 8 39J 1I the governor of a State In tho ds = harga
nf hn l w of another Tho Statei can 318 Missouri Kansas and Texas llotlway 0f his executlvo functlona in a matter
not wake war or enter luto treatl s vs Haber 1 V S 013 62S C30 The confided to his discretion and Judgment
thoueh they may with the consent of con present suit proceeds distinctly on the But how can tho governor of a Stato hs
nress mako comparts and agreements ground that the regulations established by said lo have an executive function to
its of
When there Is no agreement whsse breach I the autboritlea of Texas under statute disregard the constitution th United
might create It it controversy hnwrett go beyond what ls necessary to protect the
the Jntroduc
States does not arise unless th aclonlTeopl of that State against
States How can his State authorlzo him
to do than It is one thing to compel the
governor of n Stall by Judicial order t >
lake affirmative action upon u designated
subject It is quite a different thing t >
aay lhat being directly charged with Iho
execution of a statute he nay npt bo re
strained by Judicial order from taking
such srtlon as he deems proper Iven If
what he IS doing ind prnppres ft > do ls
forbidden by Iho supreme Jaw of the land
Ills official character gives hjm no Jin
lJhL j Ji
Men Laundered Percale Shirts with two
detached collars ucat patterns at 50c
Mens Ver Pine Qtiollt Neglige Shirts
detached cellar open trout and back
very dreps Worth jl > o at lic
Mens Heavy Wool Ovcrshlrts t 2io
Men s Wool Sweaters sold at Jl OS cleat
snir price 1H
One lot Mens Casilmrre Finished Pant
good quality 5o
One lot Mens Welt Made Tweed PlnWhed
Panto In pin checks were 1150 clear
ance pilrr Mo
f0 Patra Mens Good Quality Jean Pants
at Uic
Mcna Heavy Navy Itluc Flannel Pants
worth IJoo at Jl a
Men Cst6imere Pa ts well lande and
guirauteod not to rip worth JJ50
at It
See tho lots of Mens Underwear we
oiler this week lit lOe Sdc 35c 50c V5t
All aro gteatly reduced Some worth
double
Embroideries
It we bnught them now w < could never
offer these prlres but these goods w tn
hoiigbt by our Now York buyer mtmtha
ago when the nppnrtunlty to buy tlieui
ehenp prenentcd Itself
TAH1U No 1Contolns Kmbrolderlos
worth Sc and 10i at 5u
TAI1LF No 2 Contains lhnbrotdillefi
wnrth ijc 15e and le at 10e
TAIILi No 3 Contains Umhroldvrlea
worth Mi and 25o at toi
19
Clcnriug Sale of
Ladies Furnishing Goods
At UivLadies Outing Skirt Patterns
worth a e at ipp
At lOcLadles Croihel Underskirts worth
75C at 355
rf
M 7r < v oi r Vir v 7ir r v v7 7 > r vi7i fi < i i < i i i i i i j t
i
I
>
Continuation of Our January Clearing Sale
Prices cut deeper than ever on all Winter Goods all Broken
j Lots Odds and Ends and Remnants have been marked
with the view of making quick work of them
i
M
I
j
1
At 10c Ltdwa terse nibbedlitrce flned
Union Sulis wottti trc at iiac
At VcTtc and 1 w qnamies S ni and
Near SUV IViUcatits nt fcV a
5e Cor ris Standard at Wo J
We Misses Corseti brokeniUes at 15o J
I M and Jt W High Grade Con cU broken j
ict vl f <
Jl 00 C 11 La Sprite Coracts at Mc Jj
Jl M French Corets SonuMte nt ffo
tiW 1 O French Corsets at 150 J
Ready = Mace Dept I
Lsdlc Imitation French Flnnntl Wasts J1
newest makes and colors U qualily e
at Wu J
Finest quality Taltcta Silk Waists bluk o
and colors tho theapest In this lot is J
worth 5 00 ollicrs me wolhv more a
liarauee sale price JJ J J
Ladles Pi nnle nnd Cnllio Wrippern Hglit o
and dirk oloni 7e ami 5S qnalltlc J
MuiuIhv bo
All Jackets Plush and Cloth
Capes Infants and Childrens
Cloaks and Reefers at greatly
reduced prices
One lot ot Ladies demiine Donjioli Kid Button Slioes extra
values low or high heels spoiled patent tips at
One lot of Boys Shoes tine dongola stock tip spring heel
extension sole cloth op lace sizes 10 to I J choice
Mens Fine Satin Calf Dress Shoes lace or congiess plain or
tip toes sizes G to 10 choice
Mens extra quality Satin Calf Shoes lace or congress plain
or tip toe sizrs G to to choice
Mens best giadc Satin Calf Shoes lace or congress plain or
tip toes sizes 6 to 10 at
ALKEM
munlty fiom J ldlctal authority cxeitcd for
the prottctlou of the constitutional rights
of othera against hs Illegal action He
can not bo Invested by his Slato with any
direction or Judgment to vloluto the coo
blllilllon of the United SuleH
The court nlco nays that it tan not ac
cept the HiiRgoailiin that the bill tun be
maintained as against the health otllcer
nlnno on the theory that his toiidun lh in
violation or lu cxeiSx of a valid Uw of Hi
Stute aa ihr teiiiodv for tiiit would li
with lh Stale
lo Mill tliir
Mr dueller Brown concurring la the
remit
I am not prepared to say that It the
Stato of Texas bad placed an embargo
upon the entire commerce botwwn Louis
iana nnd Texas the Stato ot Loison
would not bo sufdcionily rcpr ta l o
of the great body of her citizens to nuic
tain this bill
Iu vlaw of the solicitude which fron
titqe immemorial States have mmlfesiei
for the Interest of their own citltcn of
the raw that wars aro frequently waited
by Stales in vindication of ind vlduat
rights ot which the last war with Kng
l nd tbo opium war of ISlu ibclwcen Orcat
Hrltnlc and Chinaau < tho war which is
now being carried on In Sooth Africa b < t
twcn Ureal IHllaln and thp TrttisVaati
It publir arc all notable examples of
the further fact lhat ticatie are outers 1
into for Hie protection of Individual
rights lhat Intpruptloral tribunals jro
cpnuantly beingestablished for th U
J
k
1 <
J50
75 c
125
150
195
iWens Heavy Sole Railroad Shoes made of best material St Louis box
or plain round toe congress only sizes 7 lo 10 O r n
value sjoo at JU
808 810 812 Prairie Avenue
9
0a
a <
If
necessarily follows that the two Slates f
In controversy within the meaning of tho
constitution
that hip
Finally wo are unable to hold
bill
mav be maintained as presenting a
between a Stato and
tlemeni of rights of private pat Ho it
would aeem a atrango anomaly If a Stan
cf this Union which ih prohlbltid by tin
cqiMlltutlon from levying wjtr upon an
other State could uot Invoke the authority
of Hilt court hy suli lo iilso an embargo
which had been established by anotha
Slate againat its eltUena and their prop
erty
An Ilibargo thoigli not an net of war
It tuqumtlv reported to a prellmlnaiy
iqiliurltlif and no tefuMl > dc lai Ilnn uf wir and May bo treat
dtitv lu Ihut iigard Ix w H nudei IHiiiu < inninsinnees u a atifil
tip 4iiul iiiit H Is dlftlrvilt to hoc bow on j tent wmiw belli Tho cake nmdr by tin
Illfa refold then could be a iotuiowif j bill i Hie cxtrema ono or it total BtOiptr >
beivren the Statof Liinlsiiin i nnd the In < t all i ommert between tho most mi <
dividual defendnnls vvltboiit lirvulvlug n portnnt elly in lOiil ianii ond tho entn
ontroveray betweoi the Statfa Hut tho i Stale of Tovas and while I fullv agr >
Important question prexented In llilu cu e
If tho Stato of UmhUmt In Itu aovej
clgu capacity can sue at all In rcspsct ot
tho matters act out In the hill Is
whether the regulations being enforced by
tho health officer are In violation if Iho
constitution of the United Stoles Tho
opinion of tho court will bo construed as
meaning that oven If Loulslimi bo en
titled In her sovereign capacity lo com
plain of thoso regulations as repugnant
to tho constitution of tho United States
It could not proceed In this court against
the defondnnt health officer mid that Its
only remedy Is to appeal to the authorities
of Texas that Is to the governor of that
State who has power to control his co
defendant tho health officer and who ban
approved tho regulations in qiioMtlon I
am not aware of any decision supporting
this view It tho rcgulitlons In question
aro In violation of the constitution ot ra
United States the defendant health ofll
cer I submit may without any previous
apeal to tha governor of Texas be re
strained from enforcing them tllher at
tho suit of individuals Injuriously affected
by their being enforced or nt tho suit of
Louisiana In Itx corporate capamty pro
vided that Stato could sue at all In re
spool of mth matters
Although unable to assent to the grounds
upon which Ihc oourt rest Its opinion
t concur In the Judgment iHsnilsalng tba
suit solely upon Ihe ground lhat tho Stato
of Louiflana In Us hoverclgn or rorponm
capacity ehn j ot sue on account of the
mauorx ict out In tho bill
that rcsott cm not be rail to Hits iourt
to vindicate the rlghth of Individual cltl
zena or any particular number of Indi
viduals whoro ft Stato hnl assumed to
prohibit all kinds of eximmercewith tho
chief eltyot unlhcr State I think her
motive for doing so Is the proper sub
ject of Judicial Inquiry
It Is liue that itidlvlduil citizens whole
rights inn seriously affnclod by it system
of nonlntercour c might perhaps main
tain a bill nf this kind but to make the
remedy affective it would be nec < vnvary tti
Institute u multiplicity ot sult3 lo carry
on n litigation practically against n Stu
In tho courts of that State and to u sume
the entire pecuniary burden ot sueh lltt
gallon when nil tbo inhabitants ot the
complaining Stato aro more or less in
terested la the result
Hut the objection to the present bill Is
that It does not allege the stoppasuof all
commerco between the two State but be
tw cen the city of New Orlcaiu and thi
State of Texas The controversy s not
one in which tho citizens of Loulshnt
generally can be otiUmed to b infer
ested but only the citizen of New Or
leans nnd It therefore seem lonie thit
the male is not tho proper patty com
plainant
Severest Trial
UnfU recent years woman everett
Iriit his been the bringing of children
into the world
Todiy nearly a l the sicknest pain
discomfort and dread are avoided by
thqse expectant mothers who use
Mothers Friend ilut wonder
ful liniment mid famous by thi great i
good it has done It is used externally
That is the only sensible and safe way
to relieve mornWgr tickness headache
tjphiness swollen hard or rUing Iweast
The bearingr cf children ne d so Iof r
be dreaded lVfotrrfifsFrUhahaskHtwa
called a Godsend by mothmall over
a <
Ibis land Sold at d ior 5
V
c

xml | txt