Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/490

470 HARVARD LAW REVIEW, new nation, it was not intended by the States, except as they have said so in the Constitution, to diminish the scope of the great powers they parted with. Their aim was merely to secure greater efficiency by putting the power in stronger hands, hands that could strike with the undiminished strength of all. No part of sovereignty vanished in this process of transferring it. Of course, the general government was submitted to some restraints in the national Constitution, and whatever these are, they are an abate- ment from the fulness of absolute power in the particulars to which they relate. But, speaking generally, it is true that while one, two, six, or eight specific powers only are given to the general government, yet as regards these* it is the fulness of power that is given. So far as the general welfare and the other great ends mentioned in the preamble to the Constitution can be secured by intercourse with foreign nations, peaceful or warlike, by the post-office, or by the regulation of interstate commerce, these matters are intrusted to the general government in their fulness. In these particulars, as Chief Justice Marshall said, " America has chosen to be a nation." " In war," said that great judge in 182 1, " we are one people. In making peace we are one people. In all commercial regulations we are one and the same people. In many other respects the American people are one. . . . America has chosen to be in many respects and to many purposes a nation ; and for all these purposes her government is complete ; to all these objects it is competent. The people have declared that in the exercise of all powers given for these objects it is supreme." When, a few years ago, it was denied, as it has often been, that Congress could forbid the transmission of objectionable matter through the mails, distinguished counsel urged before the Supreme Court that since the express powers given in the Constitution were limited in their exercise to the objects for which they were in- trusted, the power to establish post-offices and post-roads was restricted to the furnishing of mail facilities. But the court re- plied : The States could have excluded this mail matter before the Union was formed ; and " when the power to establish post-offices and post-roads was surrendered to the Congress it was as a com- plete power, and the grant carried with it the right to exercise all the powers which made that grant effective." ^ Many times has this doctrine been reasserted by our highest court, that when a great "^ In re Rapier, 143 U. S. iia