,-illl_~llllfllilwllrlw.l «W.uh V.. N ,H i n i . .‘
/"/ 4' %
1;
i
i paralize this branch of quick transportation. ’
t when th? question of yroteotion by the Inter-State Commerce
; clause of the Constitution is presented at all in Instruction N0. 2, ‘I
I it ismede to depend on inch of Knowledge on the part of the Agent,
' I
j of the Company making the delivery,aand of his making delivery with-
f out delay——-——~and this, notwithstanding the protection of the In—
, ter—Stnte Commerce provision extends until the actual delivery of
the 33705“: to ‘rfle Sihi}1§u33’.‘.f
I on aware that this{Honorahle Court has ruled, in cases sim—
ilar to this finding, at rariance from those herein expressed, but
I an eonstrained to believe and to urge that the Court's views were
; no doubt in great measure,influenoed by a desire to protect the cit—
x t ’ izens of our Commonwealth against the haneful influences of an easy
method of proourin: mean whiskey; and while the purpose is laudible
in the extreme, it should he remembered that the vest interests of
the nation, and inter—State relations are such, as to justify the
wisdom of the framers of our Constitution to delegate this intert-
ent function to the Congress of the United States, To allow the
legislature of the State to hamper the operation of that provision
of the Federal Constitution would bring about the mischief which
the powers delegated to Congress were intended to remedy; and if it
leys within the power of the States to enact measures restricting
r the shiyment of merchandiee from one State to another, then it could
) with equal propriety he urged that the other yowers delegated to
Congress could be qualified by State Legislatures.
We, for the reasons herein set out, respectfully ask a reversal
, of the judgment of the Court below,
Adams Express commany,
BY
, Lawrence Maxwell, Jr., Of Counsel. Attorney.
_ ,7 H V i . V. , . “W_i¢v