The daily morning journal and courier., 1907-06-25

ductiye industries that contemplate the same thing. The result would be that l congress wolud be invested, to the ex- clusion of the States, with the power
 to regulate, not only manufactures, but
 also agriculture, horticulture, stock raising, domestic fisheries, mining-in short, every branch of human industry. l For is there one of that that does not contemplate, more or less clearly, an | interstate or foreign market? Does not
 the wheat grower of the Northwest or
 the cotton planter of the South, plant, | cultivate, and harvest his crop with an
 eye on the prices at Liverpool, New York, and Chicago? The power being | vested in congress and denied to the States, 1t would follow as an inevitable result that the duty would devolye on I congress to regulate all of these deli 1 cate, multiform and vital interests-in-
 terests which in their nature are and must be local in all the details of their
 successful management"
 In Veazie vs Moore, 14 How, 574, the | Court said:
 | The phrase to regulate commerce. | can never be applied to transactions | wholly internal, between citizens of the
 same community, or to polity and
 laws whose ends and purposes and op- era tlons are restricted to the territory
 and soil and jurisdiction of such com
 munity Nor can 1t be properly con-
 cluded, that, because the products
 of domestic enterprise in agricul-
 ture or manufactures or in the arts, may ultimately become the subjects of | foreign commerce, that the control of the means or the encouragements by
 which enterprise Is fostered and pro-
 tected, is legitimately within the im- port of the phrase foreign commerce, or fairly implied in any investiture of the power to regulate such commerce. A pretension as far reaching as this,
 would extend to contracts between citizen and citizen of the same State, would control the pursuits of the planter, the grazier, the manufac- turer, the mechanic, the immense oper- ations of the colliers and mines and furnaces of the country; for there Is not one of these avocations, the results of which may not become the subjects of foreign commerce, and be borne either by turnpikes, canals, or rail- roads, from point to point within the several States, towards an ultimate destination, like the one above men, toned"
 But It is claimed that as the power to regulate commerce is absolute, com plete and mainly exclusive in congress, the right to forbid the shipment in in- terstate trade of any kind of goods, for any reason, comes within that power. That is to say, under the guise of a commercial regulation, not necessary for the promotion or protec- ton of commerce, a producing regula- tion, which congress could not have enacted, may be enforced; or, in oth- CT words, congress can deny person the right to engage in interstate com merce for doing that which congress cannot prohibit him from doing. But, as we have seen, congress cannot reg ulate production, and Chief Justice Marshall said in McCulloch vs. Mary land:
 Should congress under the pretext of executing its powers pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not en- trusted to the government, 1t would become the painful duty of this trib unal, should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say that such an act was not the law of the land"
 Ty ,,ox, i,don,apt tba nouar +o ,.ao,,. late commerce between the States does not carry with it the power to prohibit commerce, unless the prohibition has for it's purpose the facllitation, safety or protection of commercial Inter- course, or the accomplishment of some other national purpose.
 The power to regulate interstate commerce does not extend to the lay Ing of an arbitrary embargo upon the lawfully produced, harmless products of State, nor to the right to defeat the policy of a State as to it's own in- ternal affairs.
 I concede that the national power to regulate interstate commerce carries with 1t the right to prohibit commerce In order to secure equality of com mercial right, or to prevent restraint of or interference with commerce, but not to prohibit the shipment of the dn- nocuous products of producers within a State who are pursuing course sanctioned by the laws of the State and in no wise in itself interfering with interstate commerce. If prohi- bition of interstate trade is within the arbitrary power of congress, 1t might be exercised so as to exclude the pro- ducts of particular states or sections prohibit the shipment of cotton or wheat to promote the interests of wool or corn.
 There is no authority for any such proposition. The power of prohibition has never been sustained except as against articles noxious or dangerous in themselves. It is not possible to find even suggestion that In respect to natural products which are prime ne- cessities, congress can prohibit com merce in them between the States in | order to enforce it's conception of what l would be a wise police regulation of a State.
 In the case of Champion vs Ames, l 1SS U. S., 321, 1t was held that lottery | tickets are subjects of traffic and their carriage by independent carriers from one State to another Is interstate com merce, which congress may prohibit | under it's power to regulate commerce among the several States, but this was specifically placed upon the character of the business. The court said, |