374 BURR— THE TREATY-MAKING POWER [April 20. 



land, and ending with the echoes of the decision in Leisy z's. Hardin, 

 estabhshed, beyond all possibility of controversy, the supremacy 

 over State police power of the constitutionally expressed Federal 

 will, whether manifest in act of Congress or in treaty. The lan- 

 guage of the Supreme Court in certain cases arising out of State 

 quarantine laws perhaps best presents its recent position in this 

 regard. Thus, we have the following authoritative utterances : 



" Definitions of the police power must, however, be taken, subject to the 

 condition that the State cannot, in its exercise, for any purpose whatever, 

 encroach upon the powers of the general government, or rights granted or 

 secured by the supreme law of the land.'"*' 



" While it [an alleged right of State regulation] may be a police power 

 in the sense that all provisions for the health, comfort, and security of the 

 citizens are police regulations, and an exercise of the police power, it has 

 been said more than once in this Court that, even where such powers are so 

 exercised as to come within the domain of Federal authority as defined by 

 the Constitution, the latter must prevail."^^ 



" Generally it may be said in respect to laws of this character, that 

 though resting upon the police power of the State, they must yield whenever 

 Congress, in the exercise of the powers granted to it, legislates upon the 

 precise subject-matter; for that power, like all other reserved powers of the 

 State, is subordinate to those in terms conferred by the Constitution upon 

 the nation.'"" 



We have seen that the inefficiency of the Federal will was the 

 acknowledged weakness of the United States under the Articles of 

 Confederation ; that that weakness was appreciated and regretted bv 

 those who formed the Constitution ; that the language used in that 

 instrument was intended by them to secure the supremacy of the 

 Federal will ; and that the Supreme Court had interpreted it ac- 

 cordingly. It might seem that any possible discussion of the mean- 

 ing of Article VI. was thus foreclosed. But it may be well to 

 account for the doubts and questionings which have, as we have 

 seen, reached even to the Supreme Court. There was no uncertainty 

 in the mind or in the utterance of Mr. Chief Justice Marshall when 

 Gibbons z's. Ogden was decided. Yet in that very case he had said : 



^^New Orleans Gas Co. vs. Louisiana Light Co., 115 U. S., 650 (1885), 

 p. 661. 



.""^Morgan vs. Louisiana, 118 U. S., 455 (1886), p. 464. 



^''^Gulf, Colorado & Sante Fe Ry. Co. vs. Hefley, 158 U. S., 98 (1895)- 

 p. 104. 



