[440] Hippolite Egg Co. v. U. S., 220 U. S. 45 (1911).
[441] Hoke v. U. S., 227 U. S. 308 (1913).
[442] U. S. ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Delaware & H. Co., 213 U. S. 366 (1909).
[443] Opinion of Prof. W. W. Willoughby, quoted by J. Y. Brinton, “The Constitutionality of a Federal Child Labor Law,” 62 University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 501. See 2 Willoughby on the Constitution, 738.
[444] A further argument in behalf of this legislation is that it would harmonize conflicting state laws which unduly operate in favor of certain manufacturers in their use of interstate commerce.
[445] Brief of Samuel Untermyer and Louis Marshall, Regulation of the Stock Exchange, p. 652 ff. This brief argues the matter at greater length than does the report of the Pujo Committee (p. 119 ff.), made the previous year and is in reply to the brief of counsel on behalf of the New York Stock Exchange (Regulation of the Stock Exchange, p. 570 ff.).
[446] Chapters II and IV. See also Burton v. U. S., 202 U. S. 344 (1909), where there is a dictum that the statute designed to prevent the postoffice from being used in aid of fraud “has its sanction in the power of the United States, by legislation, to designate what may be carried in the mails, and what must be excluded therefrom; such designation and exclusion to be, however, consistent with the rights of the people as reserved by the Constitution.”
[447] U. S. v. Musgrave, 160 Fed. Rep. 700 (1908).
[448] Regulation of the Stock Exchange, p. 657. The proposal in the Pujo Bill to deny unincorporated stock exchanges the use of the telephone or telegraph for the transmission of their quotations, raises the question whether Congress may exercise such indirect control under the guise of regulating interstate commerce. This question is discussed in the briefs (Regulation of the Stock Exchange, p. 570 ff. and p. 660 ff.), and is outside the purview of the present essay. From the brief review which I have attempted of the interstate commerce cases, however, it does not appear that they lend any support to the proposition contended for by the Pujo Committee. Generally speaking, the same principles are applicable, in relation to the power over interstate commerce as in relation to that over the mails as furnishing a means by which indirect control may be exerted. But it is proper to point out two possible differences: (1) an exclusion from interstate commerce is prima facie a “regulation” within the meaning of the grant in the Constitution; an exclusion from the mails, on the contrary, is not made “to establish postoffices,” and it would seem, therefore, that the inhibition would have to be justified as “necessary and proper” to this end; (2) postal facilities are established and maintained by Congress for use, upon the same terms, by everyone standing in the same relation to the government, and it is therefore possible to argue that a denial of these facilities would be improper, when an equally arbitrary regulation of interstate commerce might not be. Neither of these differences, it may be added, is so clear as to be controlling; the first seems to me of probable importance, but the second, while it has been suggested, is of doubtful validity.
[449] U. S. v. Musgrave, above.