UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, FEB

 RTfARV
{"newspaper_name": "The Arkansas banner.", "edition": "01", "page": "p4", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 2146, "word_count": 367, "ccnet_language_score": [0.961899995803833], "ccnet_perplexity": [711.5], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
RttARY Il.

 Samuel Thurlow, plaintiff in error, rs. the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

 This case, brought by writ of error from the supreme court of Massachusetts, involves the question of the constitutionality of the license laws of that State. The plaintiff ln error was convicted of selling imported spr- its without license, and sentenced to pay fines amounting to Sl60 By the law of Massa- chusetts, penalty of S100 Is imposed up on the sale of all wines and spirits in less quantities than twenty-eight gallons, unless the seller is licensed, and the county com- missioners chosen in each county can alone grant license; and are empowered by law not to grant any. In most oi the counties no licenses are given, and no purchase for any purpose is lawful under twenty-eIght gal Ions. The plaintiff in error denies the con- stitutionaity of this law, which has been all frmed by the supreme court ot Massachu- sets. The case has been argued before the court here, Messrs. Webster, Choate, and IIallett, counsel for Thurlow; and Hunting ton for the State. The court have had 1t un- deradyisement several days, and on the Huh the Chief Justice directed il to be continued dilu to DG IS-dISu SuIu pCiOlC tliC hiio4S Se"i' l There are at present but seven judges on the i bench, being two vacancies; and 1t IS under stood that, in question affecting the valIdl- ty of State law, the court will not set It aside unless a majority of the whole court that is, five judges-concur. The order for reargument is equivalent to a division in the court upon the question. It was contended for the plaintiff, by his counsel, that the laws of Massachusetts which authorized the with holding of licenses, was prohibitory, and therefore, as to foreign wines and spirits, re- pugnant to the power of Congress to regu- late foreign commerce; to collect revenue on imports into the several States; to the uniform apportonment of taxas and duties Ill all the States; and to the fulflment of recip- rocal treaties. The question is one of great importance, affecting the powers of Congress in these departments, and has been strongly presented to the court.-Glo5e.