of other nations, also, furnishes the same admonition. In Switzerland, where the union is very slight, it has been found necessary to provide, that each canton shall be obliged to allow a passage, to merchandise through its jurisdiction into other cantons without an augmentation of tolls. In Germany, it is a law of the empire, that the princes shall not lay tolls on customs or bridges, rivers, or passages, without the consent of the emperor and diet. But these regulations are but imperfectly obeyed; and great public mischiefs have consequently followed.[1] Indeed, without this power to regulate commerce among the states, the power of regulating foreign commerce would be incomplete and ineffectual.[2] The very laws of the Union in regard to the latter, whether for revenue, for restriction, for retaliation, or for encouragement of domestic products or pursuits, might be evaded at pleasure, or rendered impotent.[3] In short, in a practical view, it is impossible to separate the regulation of foreign commerce and domestic commerce among the states from each other. The same public policy applies to each; and not a reason can be assigned for confiding the power over the one, which does not conduce to establish the propriety of conceding the power over the other.[4]
§ 1063. The next inquiry is, whether this power to regulate commerce is exclusive of the same power in the states, or is concurrent with it.[5] It has been- ↑ The Federalist, No. 42, 22.
- ↑ The Federalist, No. 42.
- ↑ The Federalist, No. 11, 12.
- ↑ See the opinion of Mr. Justice Johnson, 9 Wheaton's R. 224 to 228.
- ↑ In the convention, it was moved to amend the article, so as to give to congress "the sole and exclusive" power; but the proposition was rejected by the vote of six states against five.[a 1]
- ↑ Journal of Convention, 220, 270.
