OLEOMARGARINE. 103 



paragraph 2 of section 10 of Article VIII, and the other is paragraph 

 3 of section 8 of Article I. I call the attention of the committee and 

 of every lawyer in the Senate and the House and the country to these 

 provisions. They are as follows: 



" No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts 

 or duties on imports or exports except what may be absolutely neces- 

 sary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties 

 and imposts laid by any State on imports or exports shall be for use of 

 the Treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject 

 to the revision and control of the Congress." Art. VIII, sec. 10, 

 par. 2. 



Now bear in mind that this is the clause of the Constitution which 

 is invoked in justification of the first section of the bill. It must rest 

 there, or it can not rest any place in the Constitution of the United 

 States. The next provision is, "Congress shall have power * * * 

 to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among" the several 

 States, and with the Indian tribes." (Art. I, sec. 8, par. 3.) 



The confusion which has arisen in the minds of many jurists and 

 statesmen in construing these constitutional provisions is due to a 

 misconception of the police powers of the States. 



The police powers of the States are inherent in the States themselves, 

 and can not be exercised or controlled by Congress. Neither of the 

 constitutional provisions just read can be construed as granting to 

 Congress the power to interfere with or regulate matters in a State 

 which are the proper subject of police regulation or power, nor can 

 either of them be construed as implying that there are certain police 

 powers which the States may not exercise without the consent of 

 Congress. 



In this connection I desire to call the attention of the committee to 

 a decision of the Supreme Court in 125 U. S. , page 489. This is the 

 case of Bowman v. The Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company 

 In that case the court, referring to a previous decision of the court on 

 the subject, said : 



"Upon this point the observations of Mr. Justice Catron in the 

 License Cases (5 How. , 504, 599) are very much to the point. Speaking 

 of the police power, as reserved to the States, and its relation to the 

 power granted to Congress over commerce, he said : 'The assumption 

 is that the police power was not touched by the Constitution, but left to 

 the States, as the Constitution found it. This is admitted ; and when- 

 ever a thing, from character or condition, is of a description to be 

 regulated by that power in the State, then the regulation may be made 

 by the State, and Congress can not interfere. But this must always 

 depend on facts subject to legal ascertainment, so that the injured may 

 have redress ; and the fact must find its support in this, whether the 

 prohibited article belongs to, and is subject to be regulated as part of, 

 foreign commerce or of commerce among the States. If, from its 

 nature, it does not belong to commerce, or if its-condition, from putres- 

 cence or other cause, is such when it is about to enter the State that 

 it no longer belongs to commerce, or, in other words, is rot a com- 

 mercial article, then the State power may exclude its introduction, 

 and as an incident to this power a State may use means to ascertain 

 the fact; and here is the limit between the sovereign power of the State 

 and the Federal power that is to say, that which does not belong to 

 commerce is within the jurisdiction of the police power of the State 



