Ferry Co. v. Pa. 114 U. S. 196 (29 L. ed. 158); 1 | between different States, and between the Inters. Com. Rep. 382; Brown v. Houston, 114 States and foreign countries, is within the U. S. 622 (29 L. ed. 257); Gibbons v. Ogden, power of Congress equally with the regulation 22 U. S. 9 Wheat. 1 (6 L. ed. 23); Pa. v. Wheel- of transportation itself. ing & B. Bridge Co. 54 U. S. 13 How. 518 (14 L. ed. 249).

Marshall, C. J., in Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 9 Wheat. 196, 197 (6 L. ed. 70) says:

Phila. & S. M. Steamship Co. v. Pa. 122 U.S. 326 (30 L. ed. 1200); 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 308. The power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce vested in Congress is the power to "It is the power to regulate; that is, to pre- prescribe the rules by which it shall be govscribe the rule by which commerce is to be erned-that is, the conditions upon which it governed. This power, like all others vested shall be conducted; to determine when it shall in Congress, is complete in itself, may be ex-be free from, and when subject to, duties or ercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges other exactions.

Freedom of transportation implies exemption from charges other than such as are imposed by way of compensation for the use of the property employed, or for facilities afforded for its use, or as ordinary taxes upon the value of the property within the jurisdiction of the State. Id.

no limitations other than are prescribed in the Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pa. 114 U. S. 196 Constitution. * * * If, as has always been un-|(29 L. ed. 158); 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 382. derstood, the sovereignty of Congress, though limited to specified objects, is plenary as to those objects, the power over commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, is vested in Congress as absolutely as it would be in a single government, having in its Constitution the same restrictions on the exercise of the power as are found in the Constitution of the United States."

The power of Congress to regulate commerce is not confined to the instrumentalities of commerce known or in use when the Constitution was adopted, but keeps pace with the progress of the country and adapts itself to new developments of time and circumstances. Pensacola Tel. Co. v. W. U. Tel. Co. 96 U.S. 1 (24 L. ed. 708); W. U. Tel. Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S. 460 (26 L. ed. 1067).

The constitutional power is necessarily exclusive whenever the subjects are national in character, and admit only of one uniform system or plan of regulation.

Robbins v. Taxing Dist. of Shelby Co. 120 U. S. 489 (30 L. ed. 694); 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 45; Phila. & S. M. Steamship Co. v. Pa. 122 Ü. S. 326 (30 L. ed. 1200); 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 308; Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co. v. Ill. 118 U. S. 557 (30 L. ed. 244); 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 31; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pa. 114 U. S. 196, 203 (29 L. ed. 158, 161); Mobile Co. v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691, 697 (26 L. ed. 238, 239); The Case of the State Freight Tax, 82 U. S. 15 Wall. 232 (21 L. ed. 146); Henderson v. Mayor of N. Y. 92 U. S. 260 (23 L. ed. 343).

The nonexercise of the power in respect to the regulation of commerce between the States is equivalent to a declaration that such com merce shall be free and untrammeled except in matters of local concern.

Welton v. Mo. 91 U. S. 275 (23 L. ed. 347); Brown. Houston, 114 U. S. 622 (29 L. ed. 257); Pickard v. Pullman S. Car Co. 117 U. S. 34 (29 L. ed. 785); Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co. v. Ill. 118 U. S. 557 (30 L ed. 244); 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 31; Walling v. Mich. 116 U. S. 446 (29 L. ed. 691); Corson v. Md. 120 U. S. 502 (30 L. ed. 699): 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 50; Hall v. DeCuir, 95 U. S. 485 (24 L. ed. 547); Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465 (24 L. ed. 527); Robbins v. Shelby Co. Taxing Dist. 120 U. S. 489 (30 L. ed. 694); 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 45; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pa. 114 U. S. 196 (29 L. ed. 158); Inters. Com. Rep. 382; Phila. & S. M. Steamship Co. v. Pa. 122 U. S. 326 (30 L. ed. 1200); 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 308; State R. Comrs. v. R. Co. 22 S. C. 220.

Power of Congress over bridges and navigable rivers.

Pa. v. Wheeling & B. Bridge Co. 59 U. S. 18 How. 429 (15 L. ed. 436); The Clinton Bridge, 77 U. S. 10 Wall, 454 (19 L. ed. 969); Miller o. Mayor of N. Y. 10 Fed. Rep. 513; S. C. 109 U. S. 385 (27 L. ed. 971); Newport & C. Bridge Co. v. U. S. 105 U. S. 470 (26 L. ed. 1143); Canada S. R. Co. v. Internat. Bridge Co. 8 Fed. Rep. 190; S. C. v. Ga. 93 U. S. 4 (23 L. ed. 782); Stockton v. Balt. & N. Y. R. Co. (U. S. C. C.) 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 411.

The Act of Congress, approved June 16, 1886, entitled “An Act to Authorize the con struction of a Bridge across the Staten Island Sound, Known as Arthur Kill," etc., is valid and constitutional under the power of Congress to regulate commerce among the States.

Stockton v. Balt. & N. Y. R. Co. (U. S.C. C.); 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 411; Decker v. Same, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 434. (See full reports of briefs of counsel in these cases.)

Said Act is not permissive merely, but gives authority and power to build such bridge, without reference to any authority or consent from the State on whose land under navigable water the bridge is to rest, and without com. pensation to the State.

Stockton v. Balt. & N. Y. R. Co. (U. S. C. C.) 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 411.

When the United States does not seek to acquire exclusive jurisdiction over land within a State, it may condemn such land for its purposes without the consent of the State. Id.

Congress has the power to fix the maximum compensation for transportation between States and foreign countries.

Canada S. R. Co. v. Internat. Bridge Co. 8 Fed. Rep. 190; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Tennessee R. Commission, 19 Fed. Rep, 679.

The power of Congress to regulate commerce with the Indian Tribes is exclusive.

Worcester v. Ga. 31 U. S. 6 Pet. 515 (8 L. ed. 483); U. S. v. Holliday, 70 U. S. 3 Wall. 407 (18 L. ed. 182); U. S. v. 43 Gallons of Whis key, 93 U. S. 188 (23 L. ed. 846).

It may also extend its regulations to Territories in proximity to that occupied by Indi

ans.

U. S. v. 43 Gallons of Whisky, 93 U. S. 188

The regulation of fares and freights receiv able for transportation of persons and goods | (23 L. ed. 846).

See also Harper, Interstate Commerce, pp. gation, but for the purpose of erecting piers, 19-29; Note 1, Inters. Com. Rep. 382; Dos Pas-bridges, and all other instrumentalities of comsos, Interstate Commerce Act. merce which in the judgment of Congress may be necessary or expedient.

WHAT IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE. "Commerce is a term of the largest import, *** The power to regulate it embraces all the instruments by which such commerce may be conducted."

Welton v. Mo. 91 U. S. 275, 278 (23 L. ed. 347, 349).

It consists in intercourse and traffic, including in these terms navigation, and the transportation and transit of persons and property, as well as the purchase, sale and exchange of commodities.

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 9 Wheat. 1, 189 (6 L. ed. 23, 68); Brown v. Md. 25 U. S. 12 Wheat. 446 (6 L. ed. 688); Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pa. 114 U. S. 196 (29 L. ed. 158); Henderson v. Mayor of N. Y., 92 U. S. 259 (23 L. ed.5 48); Mobile Co. v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691 (26 L. ed. 238); Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co. v. Ill. 118 U. S. 557 (30 L. ed. 244); Pacific Coast S. S. Co. v. Railroad Comrs. 9 Sawyer, 253; S. C. 18 Fed. Rep. 10.

It includes the transportation of persons and property, and the navigation of public waters for that purpose, as well as the purchase, sale and exchange of commodities.

Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pa. 114 U. S. 196 (29 L ed. 158); 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 382.

Stockton v. Balt. & N. Y. R. Co. (U. S. C. C.); 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 411.

The negotiation of sales of goods which are in another State for the purpose of introducing them into the State where the negotiation is made, is interstate commerce, and cannot be taxed or restricted by the State.

Robbins v. Shelby Co. Taxing Dist. and Corson v. Md. 120 U. S. 489, 502 (30 L. ed. 694, 699).

Foreign corporations have the same right as individuals to conduct everywhere the business of interstate transportation.

Paul v. Va. 75 U. S. 8 Wall. 168 (19 L. ed. 357); Pensacola Tel. Co. v. W. U. Tel. Co. 96 U. S. 12 (24 L. ed. 711); Doyle v. Continental Ins. Co. 94 U. S. 544 (24 L. ed. 152); W. U. Tel. Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S. 460 (26 L. ed. 1067); N. O. & M. Packet Co. v. James, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 599.

But a State may prescribe the terms upon which a foreign insurance company may do business within its borders.

List v. Pa. 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 784; Paul v. Va. 75 U. S. 8 Wall. 169 (19 L. ed. 357); Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Mass. 77 U. S. 10 Wall. 566 (19 L. ed. 1029); Phila. Fire Asso. v. N. Y. 119 U. S. 110 (30 L. ed. 342).

Intercourse by telegraph between the States

Whenever a commodity has begun to move as an article of trade from one State to an-is interstate commerce. other, commerce in that commodity between W. U. Tel. Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 347 States has commenced. The fact that several (30 L. ed. 1187); 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 306; W. different and independent agencies are em- U. Tel. Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S. 460 (26 L. ed. ployed in transferring the commodity, some 1067); Pensacola Tel. Co. v. W. U. Tel. Co. 96 acting entirely within one State, and some act-U. S. 1 (24 L. ed. 708). See W. U. Tel. Co. v. ing through two or more States, does not in Ferris (Ind.) 1 West. Rep. 211. any respect affect the character of the transaction. To the extent which each agency acts in that transportation, it is subject to the reg. ulation of commerce.

Express business when conducted by a railroad company is within the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act, but independent Express Companies are not subject to the Act, not being included in the common carriers de

The Daniel Ball, 77 U. S. 10 Wall. 557 (19 L. ed. 999); Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517 (29 L. ed.clared to be so subject. 715); U. S. v. Coombs, 37 U. S. 12 Pet. 72 (9 L. ed. 1004); Sherlock v. Alling, 93 U. S. 99 (23 L. ed. 819).

In Hardy v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 32 Kan. 717, Horton, C. J., says "That each railroad company in the case before us issued its own way bill to and from the connecting point with the defendant, and that each company was liable for the loss and damage occurring on its own road only, does not affect the question of interstate commerce. From the time the goods began to be moved from St. Louis, Mo., until they were delivered at Hutchinson, in this State, they were the subject of commerce among States, and therefore interstate commerce."

The transportation of property from one State to another is interstate commerce, wheth er the carriers engaged in moving it, or the vehicles on which it is borne, cross the line of the State or not.

Re Express Companies, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 677.

POWER OF STATES; POLICE POWER. The police power of a State extends to all regulations affecting the health, good order, morals, peace and safety of society; and under it all sorts of restrictions and burdens are imposed; and when these are not in conflict with any constitutional prohibition or fundamental principles they cannot be successfully assailed in a judicial tribunal.

Bartemeyer. Iowa, 85 U. S. 18 Wall. 129 (21 L. ed. 929); Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U. S. 16 Wall. 36 (21 L. ed. 394); Butchers Union Co. v. Crescent City Co. 111 U. S. 746 (28 L. ed. 585); Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27 (28 L. ed. 923); Boston Beer Co. v. Mass. 97 U. S. 25 (24 L. ed. 989); Patterson v. Ky. 97 U. S. 501 (24 L. ed. 1115); Stone v. Miss. 101 U. S. 814 (25 L. ed. 1079); Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U. S. 703 (28 L. ed. 1145); Blair v. Forehand, 100 Mass. 136; Bertholf v. O'Reilly, 74 The power to regulate commerce between N. Y. 509; 30 Am. Rep. 323; Metropolitan the States extends not only to the control of Excise Board v. Barrie, 34 N. Y. 657; Com. v. the navigable waters of the country and the Alger, 7 Cush. 53; Woods v. State, 36 Ark. 36; lands under them for the purpose of navi-38 Am. Rep. 22; State v. Mugler, 29 Kan. 252;

Ex parte Koehler (U. S. C. C.); 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 28.

44 Am. Rep. 634; Davis v. State, 68 Ala. 58;
44 Am. Rep. 128; Donnelly v. Decker, 58 Wis.
461; 46 Am. Rep. 637; State v. Ah Chew, 16
Nev. 50; 40 Am. Rep. 488; People v. Cipper-
ly (N. Y.) 1 Cent. Rep. 806; State v. Fitzpat-
rick (R. I.) 5 New Eng. Rep. 673; 1 Inters. Com.
Rep. 713; People v. Marx, 99 N. Y. 377; State
v. Addington, 77 Mo. 110; 12 Mo. App. 217;
Powell v. Com. (Pa.) 5 Cent. Rep. 890; People
v. Arensberg, 4 Cent. Rep. 542; 103 N. Y. 388;
Re Brosnahan, 18 Fed. Rep. 62.

States may regulate subjects of commerce
which are local and limited in their nature, un-
til Congress intervenes.

Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pa. 114 U. S. 196
(29 L. ed. 158); 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 382; Brown
Houston, 114 U. S. 622 (20 L. ed. 257);
Cooley v. Port Wardens, 53 U. S. 12 How. 299
(13 L. ed. 996); Pound v. Turck, 95 U. S. 459
(24 L. ed. 525); Gilman v. Phila. 70 U. S. 3
Wall. 713 (18 L. ed. 96); Wilson v. Blackbird
Creek Marsh Co. 27 U. S. 2 Pet. 245 (7 L. ed.
412); Escanaba & L. M. Transp. Co. v. Chicago,
107 U. S. 678 (27 L. ed. 442); Miller v. Mayor,
of N. Y. 109 U. S. 385 (27 L. ed. 971); Card-
well v. American R. Bridge Co. 113 U. S. 205 (2
L. ed. 959); Ouachita & M. R. Packet Co. v.
Aiken, 121 U. S. 444 (30 L. ed. 976); 1 Inters. |
Com. Rep. 379.

"Legislation may in a great variety of ways
affect commerce and persons engaged in it,
without constituting a regulation of it within
the meaning of the Constitution."

Hall v. De Cuir, 95 U. S. 485 (24 L. ed. 547);
Sherlock v. Alling, 93 U. S. 101 (23 L. ed. 820);
State Tax on Railway Gross Receipts, 82 U. S.
15 Wall. 284 (21 L. ed. 164); Munn v. Ill. 94 U.
S. 113 (24 L. ed. 77).

In the absence of federal legislation a State
has power to make regulations concerning
navigable water-as, by authorizing the con-
struction of dams.

Wilson v. Blackbird Creek Marsh Co. 27 U.
S. 2 Pet. 245 (7 L. ed. 412); Cardwell v. Ameri-
can R. Bridge Co. 113 U. S. 205 (28 L. ed.
959).

Or by constructing bridges.
Gilman v. Phila. 70 U. S. 3 Wall. 713 (18 L.
ed. 96); Escanaba & L. M. Transp. Co. v. Chi
cago, 107 U. S. 678 (27 L. ed. 442); Cardwell v.
American R. Bridge Co. 113 U. S. 205 (28 L.
ed. 959); The Passaic Bridges, 70 U. S. 3 Wall.
782 (16 L.ed. 799); Newport & C. Bridge Co. v.
U. S. 105 U. S. 470 (26 L. ed. 1143), and au-
thorities cited.

And by wharfage regulations.

Keokuk N. L. Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95
U. S. 80 (24 L. ed. 377); Northwestern Union
Packet Co. v. St. Louis, 100 U. S. 428 (25 L.
ed. 688); Cincinnati, P. B. S. & P. Packet Co.
v. Catlettsburg, 105 U. S. 559 (26 L. ed. 1169);
Parkersburg & O. R. Transp. Co. v. Parkers-
burg. 107 U. S. 691 (27 L. ed. 584); and the
improvement of harbors; Mobile Co. v. Kim-
ball, 102 U. S. 691 (26 L. ed. 238); or by regu-
lation of pilots; Cooley v. Board of Wardens,
53 U. S. 12 How. 299 (13 L. ed. 996); Ex
parte McNeil, 80 U. S. 13 Wall. 236 (20 L.
ed. 624); Wilson v. McNamee, 102 U. S. 572
(26 L. ed. 234); but pilot regulations in conflict
with Acts of Congress are void; Spraigue .
Thompson, 118 U. S. 90 (30 L. ed. 115).

A State may grant an exclusive ferry right.

|

Conway v. Taylor, 66 U. S. 1 Black, 603 (17
L. ed. 191); Fanning v. Gregoire, 57 U. S. 16
How. 524 (14 L. ed. 1043) Starin v. N. Y. 115
U. S. 248 (29 L. ed. 388).

State statutes imposing obstruction to navi-
gation are void.

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 9 Wheat. 1 (6 L.
ed. 23); Pa. v. Wheeling & B. Bridge Co. 54
U. S. 13 How. 513 (14 L. ed. 249); Pa. v. Wheel-
ing & B. Bridge Co. 59 U. S. 18 How. 429 (15
L. ed. 436); The Clinton Bridge, 77 U. S. 10
Wall. 454 (19 L. ed. 969); Newport & C. Bridge
Co. v. U. S. 105 U. S. 470 (26 L. ed. 1143).

An unconstitutional provision in a state stat
ute taxing commerce is not cured because in-
cluded in the same Act with valid provisions.
Phila. & S. M. Steamship Co. v. Pa. 122 U.
S. 326 (30 L. ed. 1200); 1 Inters. Com. Rep.308.
Generally any tax or burden laid on nation-
al commerce by a State is void.

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 9 Wheat. 1 (6 L.
ed. 23); Passenger Cases, 48 U. S. 7 How. 283
(12 L. ed. 702); Brown v. Md. 25 U. B. 12
Wheat. 446 (6 L. ed. 688); U. S. v. Holliday,
70 U. S. 3 Wall. 407 (18 L. ed. 182); Crandall
v. Nevada, 73 U. S. 6 Wall. 35 (18 L. ed. 745);
Southern Steamship Co. v. Port Wardens, 78
U. S. 6 Wall. 31 (18 L. ed. 749); Paul v. Va.
75 U. S. 8 Wall. 168 (19 L. ed. 357): "The
Daniel Ball," 77 U. S. 10 Wall. 557 (19 L. ed.
999). See also Erie R. Co. v. Pa. 82 U. S. 15
Wall.282 (21 L. ed. 164); Phila. & R. R. Co. v.
Pa. 82 U. S. 15 Wall. 232 (21 L. ed. 146); Balt, &
O. R. Co. v. Md. 88 U. S. 21 Wall. 456 (22 L.
ed. 678); Welton v. Mo. 91 U. S. 275 (23
L. ed. 347); Henderson v. Mayor of N. Y. 92 U.
S. 259 (23 L. ed. 543); Chy Lung v. Freeman,
92 U. S. 275 (23 L. ed. 550); U. S. v. 43 Gal
lons of Whisky, 93 U. S. 188 (23 L. ed. 846);
Foster v. Port Wardens, 94 U. S. 246 (24 L. ed.
122); Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Husen, 95
U. S. 465 (24 L. ed. 527); Hall v. De Cuir, 95
U. S. 485 (24 L. ed. 547); Pensacola Tel. Co.
v. W. U. Tel. Co. 96 U. S. 1 (24 L. ed. 708);
Cook v. Pa. 97 U. S. 566 (24 L. ed. 1015);
Guy . Baltimore, 100 U. S. 434 (25 L. ed. 743);
Mobile Co. v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691 (26
L. ed. 238); Webber v. Va. 103 U. S. 344 (20
L. ed. 565); W. U. Tel. Co. v. Texas, 105 U.
S. 460 (26 L. ed. 1067); Head Money Cases,
112 U. S. 591 (28 L. ed. 801); Gloucester Ferry
Co. v. Pa. 114 U. S. 196 (29 L. ed. 158); 1 Inters.
Com. Rep. 382; Brown v. Houston, 114 U. S
622 (29 L. ed. 257); Walling v. Mich. 116 U. S.
446 (29 L. ed. 691); Pickard v. Pullman S. Car
Co. 117 U. S. 34 (29 L. ed. 785); Tenn. v. Pull-
man S. Car Co. 117 U. S. 51 (29 L. ed. 791);
Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co. v. Ill. 118 U. S.
557 (30 L. ed. 244); Robbins v. Shelby Co. Tax-
|ing Dist. 120 U. S. 489 (30 L. ed. 694); Fargo .
Mich. 112 U. s. 230 (30 L. ed. 888); Phila. & S.
Steamship Co.v. Pa. 122 U.S.326 (30 L. ed. 1200);
Pullman S. Car Co. v. Nolan, 22 Fed. Rep.
276.

A state license or tax discriminating against
products of other States is void.

Welton v. Mo. 91 U. S. 275 (23 L. ed. 347);
Webber v. Va. 103 U. S. 344 (26 L. ed. 565);
Walling v. Mich. 116 U. S. 446 (29 L. ed. 691):
State v. Furbush, 72 Maine, 498; Higgins e. 300
Casks Lime, 130 Mass. 1; State v. North, 97
Mo. 464; Re Watson, 15 Fed. Rep. 511.

A state law requiring a license to sell im

ported goods in the original package is void.
Cook o. Pa. 97 U. S. 566 (24 L. ed. 1015);
Brown v. Md. 25 U. S. 12 Wheat. 419 (6 L. ed.
678).

A State cannot levy a license tax or impose
any other restriction upon the citizens or in-
habitants of other States for selling or seeking
to sell their goods in such State before they
are introduced therein.

Corson v. State, 120 U. S. 502 (30 L. ed. 699);
1 Inters. Com. Rep. 50; Robbins v. Shelby Co.
Taxing Dist. 120 U. S. 489 (30 L. ed. 694); 1
Inters. Com. Rep. 45; Re Hennick (D. C.) 1
Inters. Com. Rep. 66; Rash v. Halloway,82 Ky.
674: Graffty v. Rushville (Ind.) 5 West. Rep.
858; State v. Pratt (Vt.) 4 New Eng. Rep. 357;
1 Inters. Com. Rep. 299.

Fargo v. Stevens, 121 U. S. 230 (30 L. ed.
[888); I Inters. Com. Rep. 51.

Case of the State Freight Tax, 82 U. S. 15
Wall. 232 (21 L. ed. 146); W. U. Tel. Co. v.
Texas, 105 U. S. 460 (26 L. ed. 1067); Erie R.
Co. v. N. J. 31 N. J. L. 531; Pickard v. Pull-
man S. Car. Co. 117 U. S. 34 (29 L. ed. 785);
Com. v. Housatonic R. Co. (Mass.) 3 New Eng.
Rep. 449; Phila. & S. M. Steamship Co. v. Pa.
122 U. S. 326 (30 L. ed. 1200); 1 Inters. Com.
Rep. 308.

A statute requiring the payment of a cer-
tain sum for every passenger brought from a
foreign country is invalid.

Passenger Cases, 48 U. S. 7 How. 283 (12 L.
ed. 702); People v. Compagnie Générale Trans-
atlantique, 107 U. S. 59 (27 L. ed. 383); Hen.
But it was held in State v. Long, 95 N. C. derson v. Mayor of N. Y. 92 U. S. 259 (23 L.
582, that the license tax imposed upon drum-ed. 543); Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U. S. 275
mers by section 28, chap. 175, Revenue Act N. (23 L. ed. 550).
C. Laws 1885, does not conflict with the Con- Receiving and landing passengers and freight
stitution of the United States. The rebate al- is incident to their transportation. All re-
lowed from the drummers' license tax to mer-straints by exactions in the form of taxes upon
chants paying a purchase tax, by section 25 of
said Act, does not discriminate against nonres-
idents, since all persons, irrespective of their
residence, engaged in the business therein des-
ignated, are entitled to its benefits.

A statute requiring the inspection of tobac
co and prescribing the charges therefor is not
a regulation of commerce.

Turner v. Md. 107 U. S. 38 (27 L. ed. 370).
The right to make, use and vend a patented
article is subject to the power of the State
to regulate.

Authorities cited. Hockett v. State (Ind.) 2
West. Rep. 770; New v. Walker (Ind.) 6 West.
Rep. 869; Brechbill v. Randall (Ind.) 2 West.
Rep. 731.

Whether a statute discriminating against
patented articles would be valid, questioned.
Brechbill v. Randall (Ind.) 2 West. Rep. 731.
The Missouri Statute prohibiting the driv-
ing of cattle of other States into that State
within certain months is void.

Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S.
465 (24 L. ed. 527).

A statute giving a right of action to recover
a penalty against telegraph companies for fail-
ure of duty to transmit telegrams, is not a vi-
olation of the commercial clause of the United
States Constitution.

W.U.Tel.Co.v. Ferris (Ind.) 1 West. Rep.211.
A statute granting exclusive rights to tele-
graph lines and imposing taxes on messages are
void.

Pensacola Tel. Co. v. W. U. Tel. Co. 96 U. S.
1 (24 L. ed. 708); W. U. Tel. Co. v. Texas
105 U. S. 460 (26 L. ed. 1067).

But intercourse between the States by tele-
graph is commerce and not subject to state
interference.

W.U. Tel. Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 347 (03
L. ed. 1187); 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 306; W. U.
Tel. Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S.460 (26 L. ed. 1067):
Pensacola Tel. Co. v. W. U. Tel. Co. 96 U. S.
1 (24 L. ed. 708).

A state statute which levies a tax upon the
gross receipts of railroads for the carriage of
freights and passengers into, out of, or through
the State, is a tax upon commerce among the
States, and therefore void.

such transportation or upon acts necessary to
its completion, are invasions of the exclusive
power of Congress.

Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pa. 114 U. S. 196
(29 L. ed. 158); 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 382.

The State has no power to levy a tax upon
the earnings of a sleeping car company en-
gaged in the business of transporting passen-
gers from one State to another.

Ind. v. Woodruff S. & P. Coach Co. 1 Inters.
Com. Rep. 198.

Wharfage is subject to local state laws,
Congress having passed no Act to regulate it;
and by those laws its reasonableness must be
determined; and where wharfage charges are
reasonable, the application that is made of the
proceeds in no way concerns those who pay
them. Their appropriation to maintain, ex-
tend, light and police the wharves is unobjec-
tionable, although a profit may be realized by
lessees from the city which owns them.

Id.

Ouachita & M. R. Packet Co. v. Aiken, 121
U. S. 444 (30 L. ed. 976); 1 Inters. Com. Rep.
379.

Reasonable compensation for the use of ar-
tificial facilities for the improvement of navi-
gation is not a tonnage duty, although pre-
scribed according to the tonnage of the vessels.

Huse v. Glover, 119 U. S. 543 (30 L. ed. 487).
The State statute requiring the inspection of
every sea going vessel arriving at New Orle-
ans is a regulation of commerce and void.

Foster v. Port Wardens, 94 U. S. 246 (24 L.
ed. 122).

A State may tax the gross receipts of rail-
ways made up in part from freights on goods
from other States.

Case of the State Freight Tax. 82 U. S. 15
Wall. 232 (21 L. ed. 146); The Delaware R.
Tax, 85 U. S. 18 Wall. 206 (21 L. ed. 888);
Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Md. 88 U. S. 21 Wall.
456 (22 L. ed. 678).

Property brought to a depot for the purpose
of transporting outside of the State, while re-
maining there is still liable for state taxes.

Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517 (29 L. ed. 715).
A State may prescribe the terms upon which
foreign corporations may do business within
its borders; Paul v. Va. 75 U. S. 8 Wall. 168 (19