There are matters of state concern the regulation of which undoubtedly
involves some regulation of interstate commerce, but which because of their local
character and their number and diversity nay never be fully dealt with by
congress.4   Very important distinction made here is that the SC law was against
both intrastate and interstate commerce (Applicable to interstate and intrastate
traffic alike) and the court also alluded to their dicta in the Cooley case, which
found highways to be peculiarly of “local” concern.  The holding also stressed
that questions of the “reasonableness, wisdom, and propriety” of the regulations
are not for the court to decide, but rather, for the state legislature.
NOTE: This would seem like a copout argument today, considering the huge Fed
investment in the highway system.  Of importance is also the recurring idea that
there has been an inception so many other ways to regulate commerce “within the
several states” that the commerce clause must either be stretched to cover all of
these aspects of just be shortened to reflect the fact that these other regulatory
means exist.