A distinction is taken between a case of express prohibition of state actions and one in which the power of the states is taken away by implication. In the former case the power of the state ceased upon the adop tion of the constitution, in the latter it continues until congress acts upon the sub ject matter ; Moore v. Houston, 3 S. & R. (Pa.) 169, 179, to which a writ of error to the United States Supreme Court was dis missed. So a grant to congress of power over a certain subject matter does not in vest any particular court with jurisdiction over it until congress has enacted a law upon the subject; U. S. v. New Bedford Bridge, 1 Woodb. & M. 401, Fed. Cas. No. 15,867.
Tenth Amendment. The powers not dele gated to the United States by the tion, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectfully, or to the people.
The federal government possesses only the delegated powers defined by the constitution and all others are reserved to the states; U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 23 L. Ed. 588; from this results a different rule of in terpretation of the federal constitution from those of the states; the former is strict, the latter liberal ; Cora. v. Hartman, 17 Pa. 118; Weister v. Hade, 52 Pa. 474. See INTERPRE TATION.
All powers not conferred upon the federal government by the constitution are reserved to the states, and among the powers not surrendered by them are the police power (subject to the limitations imposed by the constitution) ; New Orleans Gaslight Co. v. Light Co., 115 U. S. 650, 6 Sup. Ct. 252, 29 L. Ed. 516; Louisville Gas Co. v. Gas Co., 115 U. S. 683, 6 Sup. Ct. 265, 29 L. Ed. 510; Patterson v. Kentucky, 97 U. S. 501, 24 L. Ed. 1115; Prigg v.' Com., 16 Pet. (U. S.) 539, 10 L. Ed. 1060; the right to control tide wa ters within the limits of the states ; Weber v. Harbor Com'rs, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 57, 21 L. Ed. 798; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U. S. 387, 13 Sup. Ct. 110, 36 L. Ed. 1018; Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. (U. S.) 212, 11 L. Ed. 565; the regulation of real property with respect to its acquisition, tenure and disposition; U. S. v. Fox, 94 U. S. 315, 24 L. Ed. 192; and the imposition of succession duties; Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 189, 23 Sup, Ct. 277, 47 L. Ed. 439; and generally the power of taxation of subject matter with in their jurisdiction; Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U. S. 491, 25 L. Ed. 558 ; Providence
Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. (U. S.) 563, 7 L. Ed. 939.
The United States has no inherent pow ers of sovereignty and only those enumerat ed in the constitution of the United States; the manifest purpose of the 10th Amendment was to put beyond dispute the proposition that all powers not so granted were reserved to the people, and any further powers can only be attained by a new grant ; Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 27 Sup. Ct. 655, 51 L. Ed. 956.
The first ten amendments do not apply to the states; Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. (U. S.) 410, 12 L. Ed. 213; Twitchell v. Pennsylvania, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 321, 19 L. Ed. 223 ; Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131, 8 Sup. Ct. 22, 31 L. Ed. 80; McElvaine v. Brush, 142 U. S. 155, 160, 12 Sup. Ct. 156, 35 L. Ed. 971; Jack v. Kansas, 199 U. S. 372, 26 Sup. Ct. 73, 50 L. Ed. 234, 4 Ann. Cas. 689; the same was held as to the first eight amendments; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78, 29 Sup. Ct. 14, 53 L. Ed. 97; and as to the 2d and 4th ; Mil ler v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 14 Sup. Ct. 874, 38 L. Ed. 812; and as to the 5th ; Kelly v. Pittsburgh, 104 U. S. 78, 26 L. Ed. 658; Da vis v. Texas, 139 U. S. 651, 11 Sup. Ct. 675, 35 L. Ed. 300; Fallbrook Irrig. District v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 17 Sup. Ct. 56, 41 L. Ed. 369; and as to the 5th and 6th; In re Sawyer, 124 U. S. 200, 8 Sup. Ct. 482, 31 L. Ed. 402 ; Davis v. Texas, 139 U. S. 651, 11 Sup. Ct. 675, 35 L. Ed. 300; and as to the 8th Amemdment; O'Neil v. Vermont, 144 U. S. 323, 12 Sup. Ct. 693, 36 L. Ed. 450 ; Eilen becker v. District Court, 134 U. S. 31, 10 Sup. Ct. 424, 33 L. Ed. 801; Pervear v. Mass., 5 Wall. (U. S.) 475, 18 L. Ed. 608. The pro vision of the 14th Amendment forbidding a state to make or enforce any law abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States does not operate to extend to the states the limitations on the powers of the federal government contained in the 10th Amendment ; In re Kemmler, 136 U. S. 436, 10 Sup. Ct. 930, 34 L. Ed. 519; Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S. 581, 20 Sup. Ct. 448, 494, 44 L. Ed. 597; or those contained in the first eight ; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78, 29 Sup. Ct. 14, 53 L. Ed. 97; but the 7th applies in an appellate federal court to a case which was tried in a state court; Jus tices of Supreme Court v. U. S., 9 Wall. (II. S.) 274, 19 L. Ed. 658.