191-'.] OF THE UNITED STATES. 359 



the doctrine of the supremacy of the State poHce power. It had 

 been more briefly enunciated in an earher case, however, in which no 

 reference was had to the treaty power. In New York vs. Alihi'-'*- 

 the Court said : 



" We choose rather to plant ourselves on what we consider impregnable 

 positions. They are these : . . . That all those powers which relate to merely 

 municipal legislation, or what may, perhaps, more properly be called internal 

 police, are not thus surrendered or restrained ; and that, consequently, in 

 relation to these, the authority of a State is complete, unqualified and 

 exclusive."="^ 



In the so-called License Cases'-^* the States of Massachusetts, 

 Rhode Island and New Hampshire had passed statutes in the nature 

 of prohibition acts. Under them convictions had been had, which 

 were sustained in the Supreme Court. It was urged that the Acts 

 were unconstitutional attempts to regulate commerce and were in 

 conflict with treaty stipulations ; they were defended as having been 

 passed in the exercise of the State police power. In the Rhode 

 Island case, the brandy purchased by the indicted defendant was in 

 the original package in which it had been imported from France. 

 It was unanimously held that the State laws were all constitutional, 

 and that the treaties did not by their proper construction apply. 

 Six justices delivered opinions, differing from one another in the 

 reasons adduced for sustaining the constitutionality of the Acts. And 

 in subsequent opinions they again dift"ered as to what were or what 

 were not the raiioncs decidendi of the case. From those opinions 

 may be collected expressions of belief in the supremacy of State 

 police powers. Said Mr. Justice McLean : 



" The Federal government is supreme within the scope of its delegated 

 powers, and the State governments are equally supreme in the exercise of 

 those powers not delegated by them nor inhibited to them. From this it is 

 clear, that while the supreme functions are exercised by the Federal and 

 State governments within their respective limitations, they can never come 

 in conflict. And when a conflict occurs, the inquiry must necessarily be, 

 which is the paramount law. . . . 



" When in the appropriate exercise of these Federal and State powers, 

 contingently and incidentally their lines of action run into each other; if the 

 State power be necessary to the preservation of the morals, the health, or 

 safety of the community, it must be maintained.""*" 



''-II Peters, 102 (1837)- ""5 How., 504 (1847)- 



-""Ibid., p. 139. '«Ibid., pp. 587. 592. 



