1900.] HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. 509 
Justice Field admits, the state had the general power to prohibit 
such use of property. 
Two propositions not very distinctly advanced seem to have 
settled this case—one, that of Barbier vs. Connelly, that the four- 
teenth amendment takes away none of the police power of the 
state, and the other, established by an overwhelming agreement of 
state authorities, that forbidding the making or sale of intoxicants 
is a proper exercise of that power by a state, and if prospective in 
its operation requires no compensation for damages caused by it. 
The case becomes interesting as furnishing a basis for estimating 
the relative weight in the Supreme Court of limitations on state 
power derived from bills of rights, as compared with those derived 
from the transfer of power to the federal government. 
In !Pembina, Etc., Company vs. Pennsylvania we have a new appli- 
cation of the rule of Paul vs. Virginia, that a state may exclude all 
corporations organized by other states or countries except those 
engaged in interstate commerce under the authority of Congress. 
A Pennsylvania tax of one mill on each dollar of capital stock of 
foreign corporations as a condition for opening an office in the state 
was upheld on the ground that since they could exclude the foreign 
company the Pennsylvania legislators might say on what condition 
it could come in. 
In *?Dow vs. Beidelman the question of the power of the legisla- 
ture of the state to fix rates of railroad transportation was passed 
upon. The question was found in this case to be uncomplicated 
with any other as to reasonableness or affecting interstate commerce 
or charter rights, and the power was upheld with no dissent. The 
discussion by Judge Gray of the dissensions in the court over other 
similar cases is extremely interesting, but he finally concludes that 
none of these disputed propositions arise in the case under consid- 
eration. 
A case in which the same unanimity by no means prevailed was 
*Powell vs. Pennsylvania. In 1885 Pennsylvania had passed an act 
that no person should make, or sell, or offer, or have in his posses- 
sion for purposes of sale any article designed to take the places, or 
made in imitation of butter or cheese ; that no action should be 
maintained for the price of such an article, and that the person found 
1725 U. S., 121 (March, 1888). 2 /d., 680 (April, 1888), 
2 7127 U. S., 678 (April, 1888). 
