58 HARVARD LAW REVIEW In all previous cases, moreover, whether arising under the in- terstate commerce clause or other grants of power to the federal government, the effect upon state pohcy of an exercise of delegated power has been held to be immaterial. As Mr. Justice Holmes said : "I should have thought that that matter had been disposed of so fully as to leave no room for doubt. I should have thought that the most conspicuous decisions of this Court had made it clear that the power to regulate commerce and other constitutional powers could not be cut down or qualified by the fact that it might interfere with the carrying out of the domestic policy of any State." Familiar exercise of the power over interstate commerce where it was clear that state pohcy over manufacture was necessarily in- terfered with is found in the acts dealing with lotteries, white slaves, pure food and drugs, Uquor, trusts and unfair competition, commodities produced and owned by railroads, cattle inspection, meat inspection, and railroad rates.^^ The manufacture of lottery tickets, of foods whether adulterated and misbranded or not, of Uquor, is quite as much matter of local control as the manufacture of cotton goods. The effect of the federal regulation of interstate commerce upon the local manu- facturing is in each case the same. The evil of gambhng, fraud, poisoning, and drunkenness is quite as local a matter, just as ex- clusively subject to state control as the evil of premature and excessive child labor. And the encouragement to the evil by ship- ment of products in interstate commerce is the same. The evil in Weeks V. United States was the misrepresentation in New Jersey by a salesman prior to the interstate shipment that a certain ex- tract was a "lemon" product. As was further said in these cases, it is immaterial that the means adopted by Congress have the character of poHce regula- tions.^ « In the Lottery Case, Champion i». Ames, i88 U. S. 321 (1903); in the Pure Food Case, Hipolite Egg Co. v. United States, 220 U. S. 45 (191 1); Seven Cases of Eck- man's Alterative v. United States, 239 U. S. 510, 514, Si5 (1916); Weeks v. United States, 24s U. S. 618 (1918); as Mr. Justice Holmes said in his dissenting opinion: ."The objection that the control of the States over production was interfered with was urged again and again but always in vain." « Hoke V. United States, 227 U. S. 308, 323 (1913); Caminetti v. United States, 242 U. S. 470, 492 (191 7); Seven Cases of Eckman's Alterative v. United States, supra; Weeks v. United States, 245 U. S. 618 (1918).
