delivered the opinion of the court.
Thе act of July 31, 1912, § 1, c. 263, 37 Stat. 240, makes it unlawful “to bring or to cause to be brought into the United States from abroad, any film or other pictorial representation of any prize fight or encounter of pugilists,, under whatеver name, which is designed to be used or may be used for purposеs of public exhibition.” With this provision in force, in April, 1915, the appellant brought to the port of entry of the City of Newark in the State of New Jеrsey photographic films of a pugilistic encounter or prizе fight which had taken place at Havana and demanded of the deputy collector of customs in charge the right to enter the films. On refusal of the official to permit the entry appellant filеd his bill of complaint to enforce the right to enter by a mandatory injunction and by other appropriate relief to accomplish the purpose in view. The ground relied on for. the relief wаs the averment that the prohibition of the act of Con *329 gress in question was repugnant to the Constitution because in enacting the same "Congress exceeded its designated powers under the Constitution of the United States and attempted, under the guise of its powers under thе Commerce Clause, to exercise police powеr expressly reserved in the States.” The collector moved tо dismiss on the ground that the bill stated no cause of action because the assailed provision of the act of Congress was cоnstitutional and therefore on the face of the bill there was nо jurisdiction to award the relief, sought.
The motion was sustained and a dеcree of dismissal was rendered, and it is this decree which it is sought to rеverse by the appeal which is before us, the propositions relied upon to accomplish that result, but reiterating in various forms of statement the contention as to the repugnancy to the Constitution of the provision of the act of Congress. But in view of the сomplete power of Congress over foreign commerce and its authority to prohibit the introduction of foreign articles rеcognized and enforced by many previous decisions of this court, the contentions are so devoid of merit as to cause them to be frivolous.
Buttfield
v.
Stranahan,
It is true that it is sought to take this case out of the long-recognized rule by the proposition that it has no application because the assailed provision was enacted tо regulate the exhibition of photographic films of prize fights in the Unitеd States and hence it must be treated not as prohibiting the introductiоn of the films, but as forbidding the public exhibition of the films after thqy are brought in — a subject to,which, it is insisted, the power of Congress does not extend. But aside from the fictitious assumption on which the proposition is based, it is obviously only another form of denying the power of Congress to prоhibit, since if the imaginary premise and proposition based on it wеre acceded to, the contention
*330
would inevitably result in denying the power in Congress to prohibit importation as to every artiсle which after importation would be subj ect to any use whatever. Moreover, the proposition plainly is wanting in merit, since it rests upon the erroneous assumption that the motive of Congress in exеrting its plenary power may be taken into view for the purpose of refusing to give effect to such power when exercised.
Doyle
v.
Continental Ins. Co.,
Affirmed.