522 HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE.  [June19, 
shipped to him at that place a carload of liquors. August 9, 1890, 
he sold from that carload a keg of beer which was a separate and 
distinct package as originally shipped, and also on that day he 
sold a pint bottle of whiskey, which was a ‘‘ separate and distinct 
package enclosed in the original wooden box in which it was 
shipped.’’ Rahrer owned none of the liquor, but was simply agent 
for Maynard & Hopkins. 
Rahrer had been informed against properly and a warrant issued 
and he was then held by the sheriff. He was not a druggist and 
had no permit as such and had applied for none. The Circuit 
Court discharged him and the state authorities appealed. The act 
of Congress known as the ‘‘ Wilson Bill,” providing that liquors 
from other states should be subject on their arrival to the opera- 
tion and effect of the laws of the state into which they were 
brought, enacted in the exercise of its police powers, ‘‘in the 
same manner and the same extent as if produced in that state,’’ 
and should not be exempt by reasons of being introduced ‘‘in the 
original packages or otherwise,’’ took effect one day before this. 
sale took place. The Supreme Court held that Rahrer must answer 
to the state law. 
Chief Justice Fuller describes the police power as 
“‘the power to impose restraints and burdens upon persons and prop- 
erty in the conservation and promotion of the public health, good order 
and prosperity. It belonged originally to the states, has never been sur- 
rendered to the government nor directly restrained and is essentially 
exclusive.” 
Then Justice Bradley’s position in Civil Rights cases, that the 
fourteenth amendment did not extend the sphere of congressional 
legislation, but only put a negative on certain action by the states 
and authorized Congress to enforce that negative as endorsed : 
“In short, itis not to be doubted that the power to make the ordinary 
regulations of police remains with the individual states and cannot be 
assumed by the national government, and in this respect it is not inter- 
fered with by the fourteenth amendment.” 
After finding this police power of the states thus broadly defined 
exclusive, he finds the national power to regulate commerce also 
exclusive. But this time he puts this qualification into the de- 
scription of national power: it is exclusive ‘‘ when the subjects of 
that power are national in their nature.’’ He, however, immedi- 
