1900.] HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. 369 
consequently, in relation to these, the authority of the state is complete, 
unqualified and exclusive.” 
‘““We are aware,” he continues, ‘‘that it is at all times difficult to define 
any subject with proper decision and accuracy. If this be so, in general, 
it is emphatically so in relation to a subject so diversified and multi- 
farious as the one which we are now considering. If we were to attempt 
it, we should say that every law came within this description which con- 
cerns the welfare of the whole people of the state or any individual 
within it, whether it related to their rights or their duties; whether it re- 
spected them as men or as citizens of the state; whether in their public 
or private relation; whether it related to the rights of persons or of 
property of the whole people of the state or of any individual within it, 
and whose operation was within the territorial limits of the state, and 
upon persons and things within its jurisdiction. But we will endeavor to 
illustrate our meaning rather by exemplification than by definition.” 
He proceeds then to illustrate this power by the extent to which 
these same passengers and shipmasters and owners would be subject 
to the jurisdiction of New York in civil and criminal actions to 
enforce liabilities they might be under or punish. offenses they 
might have committed, all in total disregard of the fact that they 
were passengers from a foreign country, or their vessel engaged in 
foreign or interstate commerce. 
Evidently what the court was in this case deciding was simply 
that the law in question was a proper exercise of what is called in 
The Federalist ‘‘the residuary sovereignty of the state.’’ Not- 
withstanding Judge Story’s dissent and his assertion that Marshall 
was with him in thinking the law unconstitutional, it is possible 
now to conclude that it was so even on Marshall’s own principles. 
This appears from the *’comment on the case in the Worth Amert- 
can Review which followed the publication of the official report of 
itin the eleventh volume of Peters’ Reports. This case appeared in 
that volume, together with the famous cases of Briscoe vs. Bank of 
Kentucky and Charles River Bridge vs. Warren Bridge. The reviewer, 
who thinks they make a great new departure on the part of the 
Supreme Court and who mourns bitterly the way things have 
changed since the great chief justice died, admits that there would 
be little to complain of in the result of the decision if it were a 
new question and the result not upheld by such radical reasoning. 
The objection he urges is that it marks a change of tendency on 
part of the court and a disposition to uphold the authority of the 
1 Vol. 46, p. 126. 
