80. The right of eminent domain is essentially of the police power, and for State purposes is exclusively within the State. Each State in the Union regulates its domestic commerce, contracts, the transmission of estates,—real and personal—and acts upon all internal matters which relate to its moral and political welfare. Over these subjects the federal government has no power. The acknowledged police power of a State extends often to the destruction of property. A nuisance may be abated.[208] Thus a State constitution, or a statute under it, prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors, except for medicinal, scientific, and mechanical purposes, does not conflict with the clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which provides that “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The so-called “right” to manufacture or sell such articles is not a right growing out of citizenship of the United States.[209] Such manufacture or sale, or its prohibition is wholly within the power of the State to control.[210] Such control is of wholly internal affairs. The right to manufacture or sell such articles is not a right under a contract as the word _contract_ is used in the Constitution.[211] Prohibition of the manufacture and sale of such articles, save as excepted, does not deprive the citizen of his constitutional rights. Such prohibition is the policy of the supreme power in the State and is an exercise of a function within its jurisdiction. The exercise of the police power of the State by the destruction of property which is itself a public nuisance, or the prohibition of its use in a particular way whereby its value becomes depreciated, is very different from taking property for public use, or from depriving a person of his property without due process of law. In one case, a nuisance only is abated; in the other, unoffending property is taken away from an innocent owner.[212] 81. The provision of the Constitution that private property shall not be taken for public use without compensation is a limitation on the power of the federal government, and not on the States,[213] but the State constitutions usually include the limitation in their Bills of Rights: the principle is “essentially a part of American constitutional law.”[214] 82. For consequential injury resulting from the exercise of the power of eminent domain there is no redress,[215] but where such exercise of power works effectual destruction of land so as to impair its usefulness, it is a taking of property for public use and the owner is entitled to compensation.[216] The principle here is that,