Charles Evans Hughes

“ The pertinent point is that where the subject of commerce is one as to which the power of the state may constitutionally be exerted by restriction or prohibition in order to prevent harmful consequences, the Congress may, if it sees fit, put forth its power to regulate interstate commerce so as to prevent that commerce from being used to impede the carrying out of the state policy. ”

“ All such legislation, state and federal, proceeded upon the view 'that free labor, properly compensated, cannot compete successfully with the enforced and unpaid or underpaid convict labor of the prison.' The Court upheld the power of the state, so far as the Federal Constitution is concerned, to base nondiscriminatory legislation upon that conception, and as it appeared that the Ohio statute would be unassailable if made to take effect after sale in the original package, the statute was held to be equally unassailable in the light of the provisions of the Hawes-Cooper Act. ”

“ But because of the effects ascribed to the traffic in intoxicating liquors, the states in the exercise of their police power in relation to their internal commerce could restrict or interdict that traffic without violating the Federal Constitution. ”

“ The power to prohibit interstate transportation has been upheld by this Court in relation to diseased live stock, [3] lottery tickets, [4] commodities owned by the interstate carrier transporting them, except such as may be required in the conduct of its business as a common carrier, [5] adulterated and misbranded articles, under the Pure Food and Drugs Act, [6] women, for immoral purposes, [7] intoxicating liquors, [8] diseased plants, [9] stolen motor vehicles, [10] and kidnaped persons. ”

“ The requirement of labels, disclosing the nature of the contents, the name and location of the penal institution where the goods were produced, and the names and addresses of shippers and consignees, was manifestly reasonable and appropriate for the carrying out of the prohibition. Seven Cases v. United States, supra ”