In the case of Smith v. Turner, (7 How. 392,) Justice McLean lays down the general proposition, that the power of Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the States, is an exclusive power, and on this point, he reviews the decisions of the Supreme Court, and especially Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet. 570; Heuston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 23; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 196; Brown v. State of Maryland, 12 Pet. 446; Groves v. Slaughter, 15 Pet. 511; New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 158.
A careful examination of the passenger cases, will lead to the conclusion, that although some of the Judges have not decided the question involved, upon the exclusive power of Congress to regulate commerce, a majority of the Court appear to hold that doctrine, and have put their opinions upon grounds, almost all of which apply to the California law.
JUDGES: Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Murray, C. J., concurring.
OPINION
HEYDENFELDT, Judge
The question arising in this case was fully considered and settled in " the Passengers Cases," 7 Howard, by the Supreme Court of the United States.
For eight years, that decision has remained unquestioned as a construction of the powers of the State governments over the subject in controversy, and however much there may exist a difference of opinion as to the decision of the majority of the Court, it cannot be denied that the reasoning which sustains it is very able, and the conclusion they reach is maintained by the soundest views of public policy.
We, therefore, would not feel justified in setting up the opposite doctrine, unless we felt confident that the views of the Court in that case were radically defective. Where a question can only be argued upon refined distinctions, when once settled, it ought to remain settled.
We, therefore, decide that the Act of this State, laying a tax of fifty dollars each on Chinese passengers, is invalid and void.
Judgment affirmed.