Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 4.djvu/245

229 POLICE POWER AND INTER-STATE COMMERCE. 229 1. Henderson v. The Mayor of New York^ was a case where the State law before the court imposed in effect a tax of a dollar and a half upon every immigrant landing at the port of New York. The State sought to defend this act as an exercise of its police power, claiming that its purpose was protection against pauper immigrants. The court held, however, that as the burden fell alike on all immigrants, without regard to their condition, it went beyond its professed purpose, and was not a valid exercise of the police power. What the powers of the State in the premises were, was expressly left open. "Whether in the absence of such action [ by Congress ] the States can, or how far they can, by appropriate legislation protect themselves against paupers, vagrants, criminals, and diseased persons, arriving in their territory from foreign sources, we do not decide. " ^ 2. In Railroad Co. v. Husen,^ the law in question prohibited the introduction into the State during eight months of each year of any Texan, Mexican, or Indian cattle. This was defended on the ground that it was designed to keep diseased cattle out of the State ; but the court held that as the law applied to sound cattle as well as to diseased cattle, it went beyond the necessity of the case, and the act was therefore void. So far from denying that the police powers of the State may be applied to inter-state com- merce, the court expressly admit that to be the law. " While we unhesitatingly admit that a State may pass sanitary laws, and laws for the protection of life, liberty, health, or property within its borders ; while it may prevent persons and animals suffering under contagious or infectious diseases, or convicts, etc., from en- tering the State ; while, for the purpose of self-protection, it may establish quarantine and reasonable inspection laws, it may not in- terfere with transportation into or through the State beyond what is absolutely necessary for its self-protection. " * Referring to the case of Henderson v. Mayor of New York and Chy Lung v. Free- man, ^ decided at the same time, the court say, " Neither of these cases denied the right of a State to protect herself against paupers, convicted criminals, or lewd women, by necessary and proper laws, in the absence of legislation by Congress, but it is held that the right could only arise from vital necessity. . . . They deny validity to any State legislation professing to be an exercise of . _^i 1 92 U. S. 259. ' Ibid. 275. 3 95 U. S. 465. ^ Ibid. 472. *» 92 U. S. 275.