ays followed Marshall's bolder method. Thus Congress may
use its taxing power to drive out unwholesome businesses, perhaps even
to regulate labor within the States, and it may close the channels of
interstate and foreign commerce to articles deemed by it injurious to
the public health or morals. * * To date this discrepancy between
the methods employed by the Court in passing upon the validity of
legislation within the two fields of state and national power has
afforded the latter a decided advantage.

* See Justice Bradley's language in 122 U.S., 326; also the more
recent case of Western Union Telegraph Company vs. Kan., 216 U.S., 1.

* * See 195 U.S., 27; 188 U.S., 321; 227 U.S., 308. Cf. 247 U.S.,
251.

The great principles which Marshall developed in his interpretation of
the Constitution from the side of national power and which after various
ups and downs may be reckoned as part of the law of the land today, were
the following:

1. The Constitution is an ordinance of the people of the United States,
and not a compact of States.

2. Consequently it is to be interpreted with a view to securing a
beneficial use of the powers which it creates, not with the purpose of
safeguarding the prerogatives of state sovereignty.

3. The Constitution was further designed, as near as may be, "for
immortality," and hence was to be "adapted to the various crises of
human affairs," to be kept a commodious vehicle of the national life and
not made the Procrustean bed of the nation.

4. While the government which the Constitution established is one of
enumerated powers, as to those powers it is a sovereign government, both
in its choice of the means by which to exercise its powers and in its
supremacy over all colliding or antagonistic powers.

5. The power of Congress to regulate commerce is an exclusive power, so
that the States may not intrude upon this field even though Congress has
not acted.

6. The National Government and its instrumentalities are present within
the States, not by the tolerance of the States, but by the supreme
authority of the people of the United States. *

* For the application of Marshall's canons of constitutional
interpretation in the field of treaty making, see the writer's "National
Supremacy" (N. Y., 1913). Chaps. III and IV.

Of these several principles, the first is obviously the most important
and to a great extent the source of the others. It is the principle of
which Mars