The Supreme Court has also decided, in the present case, that Congress has no right to legislate for the purpose of enforcing these clauses until the States shall have taken action. What action can the State take? If a State passes laws contrary to these provisions or clauses, they are void. If a State passes laws in conformity to these provisions, certainly Congress is not called on to legislate. Under what circumstances, then, can Congress be called upon to act by way of "corrective" legislation, as to these particular clauses? What can Congress do? Suppose the State passes no law upon the subject, but allows citizens of the State--managers of railways, and keepers of public inns, to discriminate between their passengers and guests on account of race or color--what then? Again, what is the difference between a State that has no law on the subject, and a State that has passed an unconstitutional law? In other words, what is the difference between no law and a void law? If the "corrective" legislation of Congress is not needed where the State has passed an unconstitutional law, is it needed where the State has passed no law? What is there in either case to correct? Surely it requires no particular legislation on the part of Congress to kill a law that never had life. The States are prohibited by the Constitution from making any regulations of foreign commerce. Consequently, all regulations made by the States are null and void, no matter what the motive of the States may have been, and it requires no law of Congress to annul such laws or regulations. This was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, long ago, in what are known as _The License Cases_. The opinion may be found in the 5th of Howard, 583. "The nullity of any act inconsistent with the Constitution, is produced by the declaration that the Constitution is supreme." This was decided by the Supreme Court, the opinion having been delivered by Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of _Gibbons vs. Ogden_, 9 Wheat, 210. The same doctrine was held in the case of _Henderson et al., vs. Mayor of New York, et al._, 92 U. S. 272--the opinion of the Court being delivered by Justice Miller. So it was held in the case of _The Board of Liquidation vs. McComb_--2 Otto, 541. "That an unconstitutional law will be treated by the courts as null and void"--citing _Osborn vs. The Bank of the United States_, 9 Wheaton, 859, and _Davis vs. Gray_, 16 Wallace, 220.