It is

an impairment of contract obligations and void. held, however, that all contracts are made subject to the state's power of regulation in the interest of the public welfare. Thus, it has been held that a charter issued to a corporation to carry on the lottery business may be repealed by a subsequent statute forbidding the lottery business altogether. Where two private parties contract to go into the liquor business, a subsequent law prohibiting the liquor business is valid, although it makes impossible the performance of the contract.

§ 604. Federal powers and their exercise. The federal government is a government of delegated powers. In this it differs from the state governments which are governments of residuary powers. The federal government has only those powers which are especially granted in the constitution or those reasonably implied. The state government has all the powers that belong to government except those exclusively granted to the federal government, those denied to it by the federal constitution, or those denied to it by its own fundamental laws. A state law is valid unless it can be shown that it is in conflict with some provision of the state or federal constitution; on the other hand, a federal statute is void unless it can be shown that there is some expressed or implied authority in the federal constitution authorizing the passage of such an act. Where congress is given power over a subject its power is complete and it is subject to no limitations except such as may be found in the federal constitution itself. Thus, it has been held that since congress has the power to regulate commerce, its power over commerce

is complete and, therefore, it can prohibit the sending of lottery tickets from one state to another. Over some subjects, such as bankruptcy, congress and the states have concurrent power. In case of a conflict, the federal powers are always supreme.

§ 605. Territories, dependencies and new states.The federal constitution does not expressly give to the federal government the right to acquire new territory. But this right has been held to exist and is implied from those groups of powers delegated to the federal government which give it complete control over the external relations of the government. The constitution does provide, however, that "the congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States." It has been held from this grant, and from the implied powers to acquire territory, that the United States has full governmental power over all the territories of the United States not incorporated into states. In such territory, the power of the federal government is supreme and plenary, subject only to such of the fundamental, constitutional limitations as are applicable thereto. Thus congress can prescribe the form of government, make the laws, and govern in the minutest detail the territory of Alaska or any other territory of the United States, subject only to the limitations noted above.

The constitution provides that "new states may be admitted by the congress into this union." Under this authority the federal government may incorporate new territory into states whenever it sees fit. Thus is given to congress the control of the question of admission of new states into the union.

§ 606. Interstate commerce.-The federal constitution gives to congress the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." Commerce comprehends any kind of commercial or business intercourse. Commerce carried on solely within the state is not subject to the control of the federal government, but when that commerce is among the states or with foreign nations it is subject to federal control. Commerce is said to be foreign or interstate when it involves intercourse across state boundaries, or with foreign countries. The question frequently arises as to when interstate commerce begins and ends as such. The rule is that commerce begins from the time a continuous journey is begun whose ultimate destination takes it across the boundary of the state; it is said to end only when the object of the journey has reached its destination and has been sold or the original package in which it was shipped has been broken or its contents used. During the period that the object is engaged in interstate commerce it is subject to the control of the federal government, and is not subject to regulation or control by the state.

The power to regulate commerce includes the right to regulate methods of transportation, to fix rates, to make regulations for the safety and convenience of the public, and to prevent commerce being used for purposes or by businesses which derogate from the public welfare. all these regulations, however, the federal government is subject to the special limitations of the federal constitution.

In

§ 607. State regulation and taxation affecting interstate commerce.-Any legislation by the state discriminating against interstate commerce, as such, is void. Thus a law taxing articles from other states more than

domestic articles is void. A state law providing oppressive regulations on the sale of beef when shipped in from other states, while not applying to beef slaughtered within the state, is void, as interfering with interstate commerce. A state tax upon interstate commerce, as a tax upon the gross receipts of a railroad, part of which was received from interstate commerce, is void. But a state may tax such property as has a taxable situs within the state, even though the property is engaged in the business of interstate commerce. A state can not make any regulations materially interfering with interstate commerce or the right of persons to engage in such.

§ 608. Federal treaty-making power.-The federal constitution provides that the president "shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators present concur." Just what the limits of the treaty-making power are have never been definitely determined. The general theory seems to be that the federal government can do anything through its treaty-making power that is customarily done through treaties, subject only to the express limitations in the federal constitution. Thus, it is possible for the federal government to do by treaty what it can not do by legislation. For instance, it can make a treaty with another country, providing that the citizens of that country shall under certain conditions inherit land. in this country, even though the constitutional provisions of the state involved prohibit such inheritance. In supporting this position in the case of Geofroy v. Riggs, the Supreme Court said: "The treaty power as expressed in the constitution is in terms unlimited, except by those restraints which are found in the instrument against the government itself and that of the states. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what