400 OLEOMARGARINE. 



But this belongs a little farther down, more properly, and I will pass 

 from that to the second main proposition that I wish to lay before you, 

 and that is that Congress has no police power to delegate, and never 

 did have. In the case of Rahrer, which is in 140 U. S., the Supreme 

 Court disposes of that matter in a very few words at page 155 : 



It is not to be doubted that the power to make the ordinary regulations of police 

 remains with the individual States and can not be assumed by the National Govern- 

 ment. 



The clear and weighty language of Mr. Justice Catron in the license 

 cases in 5 Howard, quoted at some length at pages 557 to 559 of this 

 Kahrer case, has already been read to you by Judge Springer, so I will 

 not trouble you with it again; but I ask your special attention to the 

 case of Plumley v. Massachusetts, which is the case upon which our 

 friends, the enemy, principally rely as to the attitude of the Supreme 

 Court. In that case the Supreme Court distinctly held, at page 471, 

 that the grant to Congress of authority to regulate foreign and inter- 

 state commerce did not involve a surrender by the States of their 

 police powers; and such has been the uniform holding of the Supreme 

 Court as far back as Prigg v. The Commonwealth, 16 Peters, 529, 

 which was decided at the January term, 1842, in which Mr. Justice 

 Story, speaking for the entire court, says that the 



police power extends over all subjects within the territorial limits of the States, and 

 has never been conceded to the United States. 



So I say that not only can Congress not delegate any police power to 

 a State, but also that it has not any to delegate. But just suppose, 

 now, for the purposes of argument, that Congress has the power and I 

 am obliged to concede that as to my particular client Congress has the 

 power in the District of Columbia suppose that Congress has the full 

 police power over the subject, I still contend that this bill, as to neither 

 its first nor second sections, proposes an exercise of the police power. 



That we may inquire into this, notwithstanding the title and language 

 of the act, is too clear for argument. I wish to read you from the lan- 

 guage of the court, speaking by Mr. Justice Harlan, in the case of 

 Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S., 623. I read first from page 661 : 



It belongs to that department [speaking of the Legislative Department] to exert 

 what are known as the police powers of the State, and to determine primarily what 

 measures are appropriate or needful for the protection of the public morals, the 

 public health, or the public safety. It does not at all follow that every statute 

 enacted ostensibly for the promotion of these ends is to be accepted as a legitimate 

 exertion of the police power of the State. There are limits beyond which legisla- 

 tion can not rightfully go. 



Then, a little farther down the page : 



The courts are not bound by mere forms, nor are they to be misled by mere pre- 

 tenses. They are at liberty, indeed are under a solemn duty, to look at the sub- 

 stance of things whenever they enter upon an inquiry whether the legislature has 

 transcended the limits of its authority. If, therefore, a statute purporting to have 

 been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety 

 has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of 

 rights secured by a fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge and, 

 therefore, give effect to the Constitution. 



And in delivering this opinion the court quoted at large from cases 

 in New York and a number of other States in which the identical lan- 

 guage in some instances, and in others the substance of it, has been 

 used. In any event, that is the clear language of the Supreme Court. 



Again, on on page 663 of this same report, the opinion proceeds: 



Undoubtedly the State, when providing by legislation for the protection of the 

 public health, public morals, or the public safety, is subject to the parrnount 



