| OCR Text |
Show -168-. senate seems to have been conceded, and the general opposition to the grant was voiced by Patrick Henry when he protested that, under the terms of the pro- posed constitution^ the states "might relinquish and alienate territorial rights and their most valuable commercial advantages*. In short, if anything should be left, it "would be because the president and senate were pleased to admit it " It v.dll be noticed, however, that neither the great Virginian nor the critics of the new constitution in general seem in any way to have feared that that constitution would deprive the states of local property rights, interfere with their social usages, or deprive them of the inherent rights of self-protection*. These dangers perhaps-, in the days of a limited immigration, a limited national intercourse, an entire absence of all general state health regulations, and of a scientific knowledge of the communicability of disease whether to the body or to the mind, they did not contemplate or considero The first case which should be considered is that of New York v Miln,2 for although in this case the interstate commerce prerogatives of the federal government rather than its treaty-making powers were directly involved and dis- cussed, the principles of local self-government on which many of the later cases hinge were clearly enunciated» The question at issue was the right of the state to require., under penalty, the Master of e-very vessel arriving from any foreign port or from any other state of the United States to make a report in writing of the name, place of birth,, last legal settlement, age, and occupation of every person on board* This was claimed to be an interference with interstate commerce* The court, however, in sustaining the regulation, held the act to be an exercise of the police power and not in conflict with the constitution as a regulation of for- eign or inters.ta.te commerce; that if it were a commercial regulation it would not be an invasion of the power of congress when tested by the rule laid down >y the court in the case of Gibbons v. 0gden,3 but the real basis of the de- cision was declared to be the reserved power of the states, The oourt (Bar"bour, J.) says « "» » « o YiTe choose rather to plant ourselves on what we consider impreg- nable positions;, They are these": that a state has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things, within its territorial limits, as any foreign nations; where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the -right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a state, to ad- vance the safety* happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its ^general welfare, by any and every act of legislation, which it may deem to. ' be conducive to these ends; and where the power over the particular subject., 'or the manner of its exercise is hot surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated* Tliat all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may, perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus sur- rendered ox restrained; arid that", consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a state is complete, unqualified and exclusive•" ~o ' " ......... (2837) 11 Pet. 102, 9 Lo Ed. 6lfi* 3(1824) 9 Vfheat. I (197), 6 L. Ed. 23, |
