396 HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. [June 19, 
Of the five judges of the majority, McLean and Wayne assert the 
supremacy and exclusiveness of the power of Congress over inter- 
state and foreign commerce, and the same supremacy and exclu- 
siveness in the police power of the states, though with some falter- 
ing in the latter on the part of Justice Wayne. The other three 
decline to discuss the exclusiveness of Congressional power, but all 
five find in the laws a tax on passengers which no state has 
authority to exact, and for which the police power in any view fur- 
nishes no justification. 
Justice McLean, especially, builds two sovereignties and assigns 
to one under the name of the commercial’ power the absolute dis- 
position of all foreign and interstate commerce without so much as 
even a suggestion from the other, and to that other under the name 
of police power a like absolute control of domestic commerce and 
general local government. He admits that no clear dividing line 
exists between the two, that on each side the one is constantly 
passing into each other, but trusts to the resources of his court to 
reconcile them when they clash. It is not much wonder that 
Chief Justice Taney, and Justices Daniel, Nelson and Woodbury 
with him, were disturbed by the prospect of such a task, at a time 
when the churches of the country were splitting it into northern 
and southern, and the dispute between the two sections was just 
reaching the crisis which was allayed by the compromise of 1850. 
The chief justice declares that the question involved in these 
cases is, whether under the constitution the federal government 
has the right to compel the states to receive and permit to remain 
in association with their citizens every class of persons whom it 
may be the policy or pleasure of the United States to admit from 
abroad. 
1“ Tf the people of the several states of this Union reserved to them- 
selves the power of expelling from their borders any person or class of 
persons whom they might deem dangerous to their peace or likely to 
produce physical or moral evil among their citizens, then any treaty or 
law of Congress invading this right and authorizing the introduction of 
any person or description of persons against the consent of the state, 
would be an usurpation of power which this court could neither recog- 
nize nor enforce. I had supposed this question not now open to dis- 
pute. It was distinctly decided in * Holmes vs. Jenison, * Groves vs. 
Slaughter and * Prigg vs. Commonwealth. If these cases are to stand 
the right of the state is undoubted.”’ 
17% How., 466. 244 Pet., 540. BW ehelas 449. #76 Fei... 536; 
