588 HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE, [June 19, 
Perhaps in no other case since the civil war is there a suggestion 
that Congress should not regulate commerce lest it trench on the 
police power. 
It needs no extensive reading between the lines in both opinions 
to see that in each case the writer’s real point of view is national 
expediency—the one fearing to have Congress venture into such a 
field, the other fearing the consequences of its not doing so. The 
cases and statutes dealing with contracts in restraint of trade and 
the state’s power over them cited in this opinion would of them- 
selves furnish material for a more extended work than this. 
In 1 Geer vs. Connecticut we have another application of the case 
of Kidd vs. Pearson. Geer was convicted of having game in his 
possession for the purpose of shipment to another state, which is a 
penal offense in Connecticut. The conviction was sustained by 
the state Supreme Court, and taken on error to that at Washington. 
This case brought on another judicial debate. The law was sus- 
tained by a bare majority of the court, Justices Brewer and Peck- 
ham not sitting, and Field and Harlan dissenting. 
The majority opinion by Justice White upholds the law by an 
ingenious argument that property in game is a qualified one; that 
the state has especial authority to say under what conditions it 
shall become perfect. From this, with a large array of citations 
from civil and common-law countries and states, the conclusion is 
drawn that the state may say on what terms game can be killed. 
Having prescribed one of them that it shall not be for shipment, it 
may prevent such shipment, and in that state no one can become 
possessed of such a property in killed birds as may be protected by 
the commerce clause. 
The dissenting opinions find no difference in the ownership of 
game once killed and reduced to possession from property in other 
things, and declare the law bad as a palpabie regulation of inter- 
state commerce. Neither opinion ventures to assert that ordinary 
property can be forbidden to leave the state. A feature of this case 
is that in Kansas and Idaho similar laws had been held to be con- 
trary to the federal constitution by state and territorial courts. 
Another feature is the duty which Justice White finds in a state to 
look after a food supply for the people to avoid the evils of scarcity. 
In? Western Union Telegraph Company vs. James, a Georgia 
law fixing a penalty for failing to deliver telegrams promptly and 
VV61 C2 S., 519. 2 162 U. S., 650 (1896). 
