Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 4.djvu/238

222 222 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. States at the time the act was passed ;^ secondly, the act applies to intoxicating liquors only, leaving the case unaffected as an authority so far as its principle applies to other articles of inter- state commerce. It may be added further that the constitution- ality of the act is not unquestioned. ^ The most important power possessed by a government is the power to protect its citizens from danger, disease, and vice. This power we call the police power, and not being delegated to Con- gress by the Constitution, is reserved to the States exclusively.^ The police power has sometimes been defined in terms so broad as to include nearly all the legislative powers of a State ; but the power to make regulations for the benefit of commerce, or to pro- mote the public convenience, is distinct from the power to preserve and protect the public health, morals, and safety. Properly used, the term " police power" applies only to the latter portion of the sovereign powers of a State.* That the use of intoxicating liquors may cause pauperism, disease, and crime is common knowledge. Legislation designed to regulate and prohibit the sale of intoxicat- ing liquors, so far as the internal commerce of a State is concerned, has frequently been upheld by the United States Supreme Court as a valid exercise of the police power.^ The question presented in Leisy v. Hardin, and in Bowman v, Chicago & N. W. Railway Co.,^ on which the court in the former case greatly rely, is, whether a State can make police regulations concerning articles of inter-state commerce, when such regulations amount to a prohibition of traffic in such articles. It was decided in the negative, on the ground that it would conflict with the com- mercial powers of Congress. Congress derives its powers over inter-state commerce from that clause in the Constitution which gives it "power ... to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States." If Congress has made any regulations of inter-state com- merce, any conflicting State legislation is invalid, although made in pursuance of an acknowledged power of the State. The power of Congress within its domain must be supreme. In the absence 1 Tnre Rahrer, 43 Fed. Rep 556. ^ Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall. 129; Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 25; Foster V. Kansas,! 12 U. S. 201; Mugler v, Kansas, 123 U. S.623; Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S. i. ^ 125 U. S. 465.
 * See 41 Alb. L J. 473 ; 31 Cent. L. J. 50, 227.
 * United S ates v. Dewitt, 9 Wall. 41. '' See 3 Harv. Law Rev. 193 et seq.