Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 4.djvu/241

225 POLICE POWER AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 225- nority of the court, in Leisy v. Hardin, well say, *' An intention is not lightly to be imputed to the framers of the Constitution or to the Congress of the United States to subordinate the protection of the safety, health, and morals of the people to the promotion of trade. " ^ Whether Congress, while having no power to make police reg- ulations, can, under its power to regulate inter-state commerce, make regulations designed to secure the safety and morals of the citizens of the United States, — regulations, for example, as to the manner in which arsenic and gunpowder are sold in the original package, or the hours or places in which the intoxicating liquors in ihe original package may be sold, is, to say the least, of doubtful constitutionality. It is certainly inexpedient from a practical point of view. It is much more important that this class of regulations should be in accordance with the regulations affecting the internal commerce of a State, concerning which Congress has no power, than that there should be a uniform rule in all the States. The practical difficulties which would otherwise arise are apparent to any one. If in any store there is one rule as to the sale of arti- cles in the original package, and another as to articles manu- factured within the State, or where the package is broken, confusion would be the inevitable result, and it would be next to impossible to enforce either law. Congress has not attempted to make any uniform regulations, and it is generally conceded that a State may to a certain extent regulate inter-state commerce to protect itself and its citizens from injury. " Doubtless the States have power to provide by law suitable measures to prevent the introduction into the States of articles of trade which, on account of their existing condition, would bring in and spread disease, pestilence, and death, such as rags or other substances infected with the germs of yellow fever or the virus of small-pox, or cattle or meat or other provisions that are diseased or decayed, or otherwise from their condition or quality unfit for human use or consumption. " ^ The somewhat fanciful reason is given that " such articles are not merchantable ; they are not legitimate subjects of trade or commerce, " and "maybe rightly outlawed. " This cannot be the true reason why regulations by the State concerning the importation of such articles are not inconsistent with the commercial powers of Congress, for, if it were, it would
 * 135 U. S. icx), 158. ' Bowman v, Chicago &N. W. Railway Co., 125 U. S. 465, 489.