Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/87

53 THE CHILD LABOR LAW CASE 53 But what was that power? The States were, unquestionably, supreme; and each possessed that power over commerce which is acknowledged to reside in every sovereign State. "This power (said Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, page 196, 9 Wheat.), like all others vested in Congress, is" complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are pre- scribed in the constitution. ... If, as has always been understood, the sovereignty of Congress, though limited to specified objects, is plenary as to those objects, the power over commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, is vested in Congress as absolutely as it would be in a single government, having in its constitution the same restric- tions on the exercise of the power as are found in the constitution of the United States." In Brown v. Maryland^ after referring to the oppressed and degraded state of commerce previous to the adoption of the Con- stitution, the Chief Justice said: "It may be doubted whether any of the evils proceeding from the feebleness of the federal government contributed more to that great revolution which introduced the present system, than the deep and general conviction that commerce ought to be regulated by Congress. It is not, therefore, matter of surprise, that the grant should be as ex- tensive as the mischief, and should comprehend all foreign commerce, and all commerce among the States." In Welton v. Missouri ^* the court gave clear expression to the rule: "The power to regulate conferred by that clause upon Congress is one without limitation; and to regulate commerce is to prescribe rules by which it shall be governed, — that is, the conditions upon which it shall be conducted; to determine how far it shall be free and untram- melled, how far it shall be burdened by duties and imposts, and how far it shall be prohibited." And in Houston &" Texas Ry. v. United States^ the court, in sum- marizing the law, declared: " First. It is imnecessary to repeat what has frequently been said by this court with respect to the complete and paramount character of the power confided to Congress to regulate commerce among the several States. It is of the essence of this power that where it exists it dominates." " 12 Wheat. (U. S.) 419, 446 (1827). ^ 91 U. S. 275, 279, 280 (1875). ^ 234 U. S. 342, 350 (1914).