The same clause which gives to Congress the power to regulate commerce among the States extends the power to commerce with foreign nations. It has been declared that "the power to regulate commerce among the several States is granted to Congress in terms as absolute as is the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations."73 This is true, and yet the control which the United States may exercise over foreign commerce is broader than that which it may exercise over interstate commerce for the reason that it is able to draw additional powers from constitutional sources other than the Commerce Clause. Thus, especially from the exclusive and plenary authority over foreign relations, granted to it, the Federal Government is able to control the admission of aliens, to provide for their deportation, to grant special commercial privileges by treaty, and to lay a total or partial embargo upon foreign commerce. In Buttfield v. Stranahan74 the court also suggest the possibility that the federal authority over interstate commerce may be. in certain directions, limited by the re-served rights of the States, which limitations would not apply to foreign commerce.75

72 For an excellent statement in detail of the specific powers of the States and of the United States with reference to navigable waters, and the manner in which these powers have been exercised, see Prentice and Egan, The Commerce Clause, pp. 95-139.

73 Brown v. Houston. 114 U. S. 622; 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1091; 29 L. ed. 257.

74 192 U. S. 470: 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 349; 48 L. ed. 525.

75 In this case the court say: "The power to regulate foreign commerce is certainly as efficacious as that to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes. And this last power was referred to in United States v. 43 Gallons of Whiskey (93 U.S. 188; 23 L. ed. 846), as exclusive and absolute, and was declared to be 'as broad and as free from restrictions as that to regulate commerce with foreign nations.' In that case it was held that it was competent for Congress to extend the prohibition against the unlicensed introduction and sale of spirituous liquors in the Indian country to territory in proximity to that occupied by the Indians, thus restricting commerce with them. We entertain sels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another."

As has been already seen, it is held that the prohibition laid upon the States that they shall not, without the consent of Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing their inspection laws, has been held to impose upon them limitations which do not apply to interstate commerce.76 "In regulating commerce with foreign nations, the power of Congress does not stop at the jurisdictional lines of the several States. It would be a very useless power if it could not pass those lines. The commerce of the United States with foreign nations is that of the whole United States. Every district has a right to participate in it. The deep streams which penetrate our country in every direction, pass through the interior of almost every State in the Union and furnish the means of exercising this right If Congress has the power to regulate it, that power must be exercised whenever the subject exists. If it exists within the States, if a foreign voyage may commence or terminate at a port within a State, then the power of Congress may be exercised within a State. This principle is, if possible, still more clear when applied to commerce 'among the several States.' "77

By Clause 6 of Section IX of the Constitution the limitation is laid upon the power granted in the Commerce Clause that" no preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another; nor shall vesno doubt that it was competent for Congress, by statute, under the power to regulate foreign commerce, to establish standards and provide that no right should exist to import teas from foreign countries into the United States, unless such teas should be equal to the standards. As a result of the complete power of Congress over foreign commerce, it necessarily follows that no individual has a vested light to trade with foreign nations which is so broad in character as to limit and restrict the power of Congress to determine what articles of merchandise may be imported into this country and the terms upon which a right to import may be exercised. This being true, it results that a statute which restrains the introduction of particular goods into the United States from considerations of public policy does not violate the due process clause of the Constitution."

76 Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. 123; 19 L. ed. 382; Brown v. Houston, 114 U. S. 622; 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1091; 29 L. ed. 257.

77 Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wh. 1; 6 L. ed. 23.

This clause has received little judicial construction. One of the few cases in which the meaning of the clause has been considered is Pennsylvania v. W. & B. Bridge Co.78 In that case it was urged that "the interruption of the navigation of the steamboats engaged in commerce and the conveyance of passengers upon the Ohio River at Wheeling from the erection of the bridge . . . virtually operated to give a preference to that port over that of Pittsburg." The court, however, say: "Conceding all this to be true, a majority of the court are of the opinion that the Act of Congress is not inconsistent with the clause of the Constitution referred to - in other words, that is not giving a preference to the ports of one State over those of another, within the true meaning of that provision. There are many Acts of Congress passed in the exercise of this power to regulate commerce, providing for a special advantage to the port or ports of one State and which very advantage may incidentally operate to the prejudice of the ports in a neighboring State, which have never been supposed to conflict with this limitation upon its power. The improvement of rivers and harbors, the erection of lighthouses, and other facilities of commerce, may be referred to as examples. It will not do to say that the exercise of an admitted power of Congress conferred by the Constitution is to be withheld, if it appears, or can be shown, that the effect of the operation of the law may incidentally extend beyond the limitation of the power. Upon any such interpretation, the principal object of the framers of the instrument would be sacrificed to the subordinate consequences resulting from its exercise. These consequences and incidents are very proper considerations to be urged upon Congress for the purpose of dissuading that body from its exercise, but afford no ground for denying the power itself, or the right to exercise it. . . . The power to establish their ports of entry and clearance by the States was given up, and left to Congress. But the rights of the States were secured, by the exemption of the vessels from the necessity of entering or paying duties in the ports of any State other than that to which they were bound, or to obtain a clearance from any port other than at the home port, or that from which they sailed. And also by the provision that no preference should be given, by any regulation of commerce or revenue, to the ports of one State over those of another. So far as the regulation of revenue is concerned, the prohibition in the clause does not seem to have been very important, as, in a previous section (8), it was declared that 'all duties, imposts, and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States;' and as to a preference by a regulation of commerce, the history of the provision, as well as its language, looks to a prohibition granting privileges or immunities to vessels entering or clearing from the ports of one State over those of another. That these privileges or immunities, whatever they may be in the judgment of Congress, shall be common and equal in all the ports of the several States. Thus much is undoubtedly embraced in the prohibition; and it may, certainly, also embrace any other description of legislation looking to a direct privilege or preference of the ports of any particular State over those another. Indeed the clause, in terms, seems to import a prohibition against some positive legislation by Congress to this effect, and not against any incidental advantages that might | result from the legislation of Congress upon other subjects connected with commerce, and confessedly within its power. Besides, it is a mistake to assume that Congress is forbidden to give a preference to a port in one State over a port in another. Such preference is given in every instance where it makes a port in one State a port of entry and refuses to make another port in another State a port of entry. No greater preference, in one sense, can be more directly given than in this way; and yet the power of Congress to give such preference has never been questioned. Nor can it be without asserting that the moment Congress makes a port in one 'State a port of entry, it is bound, at the same time, to make all other ports in all other States ports of entry. The truth seems to be that what is forbidden is, not discrimination between individual ports within the same or different States, but discrimination between States."

78 18 Wall. 421: 15 L. ed. 435.

The foregoing dicta, if accepted by the courts, would seem to dispose of the argument which has by some been made that, under the Hepburn Rate Act it will not be constitutionally possible for Congress, or its agent, the Interstate Commerce Commission, to grant differentials to different cities.