commerce, in any degree impugn this reasoning. These powers are entirely distinct in their nature from that to regulate commerce; and though the same means may be resorted to, for the purpose of carrying each of these powers into effect, this by no just reasoning furnishes any ground to assert, that they are identical.[1] Among these, are inspection laws, health laws, laws regulating turnpikes, roads, and ferries, all of which, when exercised by a state, are legitimate, arising from the general powers belonging to it, unless so far as they conflict with the powers delegated to congress.[2] They are not so much regulations of commerce, as of police; and may truly be said to belong, if at all to commerce, to that which is purely internal. The pilotage laws of the states may fall under the same description. But they have been adopted by congress, and without question are controllable by it.[3]
§ 1067. The reasoning, by which the power given to congress to regulate commerce is maintained to be exclusive, has not been of late seriously controverted; and it seems to have the cheerful acquiescence of the learned tribunals of a particular state, one of whose acts brought it first under judicial examination.[4]
§ 1068. The power to congress, then, being exclusive, no state is at liberty to pass any laws imposing a- ↑ See Corfield v. Cargill, 4 Wash. Cir. R. 371, 379, &c.
- ↑ 9 Wheaton's R. 203 to 207, 209.
- ↑ 9 Wheaton's R. 207, 208, 209.
- ↑ 1 Kent's Comm. Lect. 19, p. 404, 410, 411. See also Rawle on the Constitution, ch. 9, p. 81 to 84; Sergeant on Const. ch. 28, p. 291, 292.—There is a very able and candid review of the whole subject by Mr. Chancellor Kent in his excellent commentaries. (1 Kent's Comm. Lect. 19, p. 404.) I gladly avail myself of this, as well as of all other occasions, to recommend his learned labours to those, who seek to study the law, or the constitution, with a liberal and enlightened spirit.
