Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/84

50 5© HARVARD LAW REVIEW hibits the transportation of trust-made goods across state lines. The contention that Congress has no power to deal with legiti- mate articles of commerce was squarely but imsuccessfully pressed by counsel in United States v. American Tobacco Co}^ The Commodities Clause, in language a simple prototype of section i of the Child Labor Law, makes it unlawful for any railroad company " to transport from any State . ... to any other State . . . any article or commodity ... in which it may have any interest, direct or indirect." " The statute was sustained in Dela- ware 6* Hudson Co. v. United States,"^^ with reference to the trans- portation of coal, a commodity harmless in and of itself. The Supreme Court decisions have been even more express and to the point. In a series of cases not considered in the majority opinion, state statutes prohibiting the movement of commercial commodities across state lines have been held invalid precisely because they were regulations of the interstate movement of in- nocuous commodities.^^ In the Husen Case the Missouri statute provided that "no Texas, Mexican, or Indian cattle shall be driven or otherwise conveyed into or remain in any coimty of this State. . . ." The court said: ^ "It is a plain regulation of inter-state commerce, a regulation extend- ing to prohibition . . . that the transportation of property from one State to another is a branch of inter-state commerce is undeniable, and no attempt has been made in this case to deny it." The case has been repeatedly followed and approved.^ In Leisy v. Hardin,^ an Iowa statute held invalid prohibited the sale in the. original package of intoxicating liquors brought from outside the state. The ground was that liquor was at that time a legitimate article of commerce. The court said : ^ "That ardent spirits, distilled liquors, ale and beer are subjects of ex- change, barter and traflSc, like any other commodity in which a right of ^* 221 U. S. io6, 132 (1911). i» Act of June 29, 1906, c. 3591, 34 Stat. 584, 585. ="• 213 U. S. 366 (1918). ^ Railroad v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465 (1877); Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100 (1890); Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania, 171 U. S. i (1898). " Page 469. » Reid V. Colorado, 187 U. S. 137 (1902); M. K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Haber, 169 U. S. 613 (1898); Asbell V. Kansas, 209 U. S. 251 (1908).
 * « 135 U. S. 100 (1890). ^ 135 U- S. no (1890).