1900.] HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. 397 
He, therefore, finds in a right to exclude these passengers a more 
than sufficient authority to prescribe the conditions on which they 
may come in. He cites his own opinion in the License cases as 
to a right in the states to legislate locally on commerce, where 
Congress has not done so, and cites the thirty-second paper of Zhe 
federalist on this point. He declines to see, in any law or treaty 
cited, anything contradictory to the state legislation in question, 
and sees in the ninth section of article 1 of the federal constitu- 
tion no reference to anything but the slave trade. He ‘admits 
the transporting of passengers is a part of commerce, but declines 
to reckon passengers themselves as imports. He does not see that 
in resigning the regulation of interstate and foreign commerce to 
Congress the states intended to give up any power of taxation, 
and referring to Mayor of the City of New York vs. Miln, says that 
the state law in that case was sustained upon what was called the 
police power of the state. 
He closes with an assertion of the rights of the federal govern- 
ment as strong as that of Judge Miller, given in Crandall os. 
Nevada, in 1867 : 
“‘For all of the great purposes for which the federal government was 
formed, we are one people with one common country. We are all citi- 
zens of the United States, and, as members of the same community, 
must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without 
interruption as freely as in our own states ; anda tax imposed by a state 
for entering its territories or harbors is inconsistent with the rights 
which belong to the citizens of other states as members of the Union, 
and with the object which that Union was instituted to attain. Such a 
power in the states could produce nothing but discord and mutual irri- 
tation, and very clearly they do not possess it. But upon the question 
that the record brings up the judgment in the New York case, as well 
as that in Massachusetts, ought in my opinion to be affirmed.”’ 
The opinion of Justice Woodbury is important on two accounts, 
as setting forth somewhat carefully a view of the police power as 
such, and as suggesting that doctrine derived from Zhe Federal- 
zst, that the power of Congress is exclusive in cases which admit of 
only a uniform rule applicable to the entire country, which became 
that of the court by the decision in the case of * Cooley vs. Board 
of Port Wardens, decided three years later, and which by the case 
17 How., 473. 212 How., 299. 
