1900.} HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. 483 
rogate from the power of the state to execute its laws at the same time 
and in the same place. The one does not exclude the other except 
where both cannot be executed at the same time. In that case the 
words of the constitution itself show which must yield. Without this 
concurrent sovereignty referred to the national government would be 
only an advisory government. Its executive powers would be nullified.” 
The conviction was upheld. 
In ex parte‘ Clarke a similar case from Cincinnati was similarly 
decided. Judges Field and Clifford again dissent on the ground 
that the acts punished were violations of state law, and that the 
act of Congress itself could not make violations of state law pun- 
ishable by United States authority. Judge Bradley’s reasoning, 
that the acts of the defendants were violations of federal as well as 
of state statutes in a matter which the constitution had permitted 
Congress to act upon, seems unanswerable. 
In *Newton vs. Commissioners, decided at the same term, an 
Ohio county seat had been by an act of the legislature ‘‘ perma- 
nently’’ located at a certain place in consideration of the doing 
of certain things by the people of the locality. A subsequent 
act authorized the removal of the county seat. This was sought to 
be prevented in the federal court on the ground that it was impair- 
ing the obligation of the contract, but the court held that the loca- 
tion of a county seat is an exercise of political power which could 
not be bargained away. 
In *Stone vs. Mississippi a lottery company had obtained, in 
consideration of the payment of $5,000 to the state treasury for the 
use of the University and an annual payment of $1,000, together 
with one-half of one per cent. on all receipts for tickets sold, a 
franchise to conduct a lottery for twenty-five years. The state hav- 
ing adopted a constitution forbidding such lotteries, the company 
sought to enjoin the state officers from enforcing it. But the 
Supreme Court holds, on the authority of * Beer Co. vs. Massachu- 
setts and ° Fertilizing Co. ws. Hyde Park, that the power of a state 
could not be limited by such an agreement, and the doctrine that 
no contract of a state can be held to limit its police power, so cau- 
tiously advanced in Fertilizing Co. vs. Hyde Park, was distinctly 
established. 
1700 U. S., 400 (1879). UE Sy 78. 
2 Id., 548 (1879). 5 Td., 659. 
3701 U. S., 814 (1879° 
