Summary

Portrait of Melville Fuller Melville Fuller Stoutenburgh v. Hennick — Opinion of the Court

The conclusions announced in the case of Robbins were that the power granted to congress to regulate commerce is necessarily exclusive whenever the subjects of it are national or admit only of one uniform system or plan of regulation throughout the country, and in such case the failure of congress to make express regulations is equivalent to indicating its will that the subject shall be left free; that in the matter of interstate commerce the United States are but one country, and are and must be subject to one system of regulations, and not to a multitude of systems
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Melville Fuller Melville Fuller Stoutenburgh v. Hennick — Opinion of the Court

Commerce between a citizen of Baltimore, which Hennick is alleged to be in the prosecution in this case, and citizens of Washington, or of the District of Columbia, is not commerce 'among the several states,' and is not commerce between citizens of different states, in any sense. Commerce by a citizen of one state, in order to come within the constitutional provision, must be commerce with a citizen of another state
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature