458 HASTINGS——POLICE POWER OF THE STATS. [June 19, 
constitutionality.’’ That would seem to be equivalent to saying 
that the difference is not in the kind of power used but in the ob- 
ject to which it is applied and the purpose of its application. And 
the distinction between police power and taxing or commercial 
power has still to be maintained when the ostensible purpose of 
the collection of the $1.50 is merely to provide a guarantee fund 
against pauperism just as the requiring of the information is to 
guard against the same trouble. 
The immediately following case of *Chy Lung ws. Freeman was 
found by Judge Miller to differ from the last one in only two im- 
portant particulars. The plaintiff in error was a prisoner held in 
default of a bond of $500 to indemnify the counties and cities of 
California against liability for her support within two years, and 
the statute of California, unlike that of New York, did not require 
a bond for each passenger but only for certain specified classes of 
persons among whom were lewd women. To this class it was 
claimed the plaintiff belonged. 
Judge Miller * again looks ‘‘to the effect of a statute for the 
test of its constitutionality.’’ He finds that 
“if citizens of our own government were treated by any foreign nation 
as subjects of the Emperor of China have been actually treated under this 
law, no administration could withstand the call for a demand 9n such 
government for redress; or if this plaintiff and her twenty companions 
had been subjects of Great Britain, can any one doubt that this matter 
would have been the subject of international inquiry, if not of a direct 
claim of redress? Upon whom would such a claim be made? Not 
upon the state of California, for by our constitution she can hold no ex- 
terior relations with other nations. It would be made upon the 
government of the United States. If that government should get into a 
difficulty which would lead to war, or to suspension of intercourse, would 
California alone suffer or all the Union? If we should conclude that a 
pecuniary indemnity was proper as a satisfaction for the injury, would 
California pay it to the federal government?’ .... ‘‘ The passage of 
laws which concern the admission of citizens and subjects of foreign 
nations to our shores belongs to Congress and not to the states. It has 
the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. The responsibility 
for the character of the regulation and for the manner of their execution 
belongs solely to the national government.” 
He does not deny a right of the state to protect itself, ‘‘in the 
192 U. S., 276 (1875). 2 P2798 
