Page images
PDF
EPUB

Traffic Act, 1854, as to the writs and orders therein mentioned, or in like manner as any rule or order of such court.

For the purpose of carrying into effect this section, general rules and orders may be made by any superior court in the same manner as general rules and orders may be made with respect to any other proceedings in such court. The commissioners may review and rescind or vary any decision or order previously made by them; or any of them.

The commissioners shall, in all proceedings before them under sections 6, 11, 12 and 13 of this 'Act, and may, if they think fit, in all other proceedings before them under this Act, at the instance of any party to the proceedings before them, and upon such security being given by the appellant as the commissioners may direct, state a case in writing for the opinion of any superior court determined by the commissioners upon any question which, in the opinion of the commissioners, is a question of law.

The court to which the case is transmitted shall hear and determine the question or questions of law arising thereon, and shall thereupon reverse, affirm, or amend the determination in respect of which the case has been stated, or remit the matter to the commissioners with the opinion of the court thereon, or may make such other order in relation to the matter, and may make such order as to costs as to the court may seem fit; and all such orders shall be final and conclusive on all parties; Provided, That the commissioners shall not be liable to any costs in respect or by reason of any such appeal.

The operation of any decision or order made by the commissioners shall not be stayed pending the decision of any such appeal, unless the commissioners shall otherwise order. Save as aforesaid, every decision and order of the commissioners shall be final.

27. The commissioners shall sit at such times and in such places and conduct their proceedings in such manner as may seem to them most convenient for the speedy dispatch of business; they may, subject as in this Act mentioned, sit together or separately, and either in private or in open court; but any complaint made to them shall, on the application of any party to the complaint, be heard and deter mined in open court.

28. The costs of and incidental to any proceeding before the commissioners shall be in the discretion of the commissioners.

29. The commissioners may at any time after the passing of this Act, and from time to time, make such general orders as may be requisite for the regulation of proceedings before them, including applications for and the stating of cases for appeal, and also for prescribing, di

recting or regulating any matter which they are authorized by this Act to prescribe, direct, or regulate by general order, and also for enabling the commissioners in cases to be specified in such general orders to exercise their jurisdiction by any one or two of their number; Provided, That any person aggrieved by any decision or order made in any case so specified may require a rehearing by all the commissioners. They may further make regulations for enabling them to carry into effect the provisions of this Act, and may from time to time revoke and alter any general orders or regulations made in pursuance of this Act. Every general order, and every alteration in a general order, made in pursuance of this section, shall be submitted to the lord chancellor for approval, and shall not come into force until it shall be approved by him.

Every general order purporting to be made in pursuance of this Act shall, immediately after the making thereof, be laid before both Houses of Parliament, if Parliament be then sitting, or if Parliament be not then sitting, within seven days after the then next meeting of Parliament; and if either House of Parlia ment, by a resolution passed within two months after such general order has been so laid before the said House, resolve that the whole or any part of such general order ought not to continue in force, the same shall, after the date of such resolution, cease to be of any force, without prejudice, nevertheless, to the making of any other general order in its place, or to anything done in pursuance of this general order before the date of such resolution; but, subject as aforesaid, every general order purporting to be made in pursuance of this Act shall be deemed to have been duly made and within the powers of this Act, and shall have effect as if it had been enacted in this Act.

30. Every document purporting to be signed by the commissioners, or any one of them, shall be received in evidence without proof of such signature, and until the contrary is proved shall be deemed to have been so signed and to have been duly executed or issued by the com missioners.

31. The commissioners shall, once in every year, make a report to Her Majesty of their proceedings under this Act during the past year; and such report shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within fourteen days after the making thereof if Parliament is then sitting, and if not, then within fourteen days after the next meeting of Parliament.

(Sections 32-37 provide for fees, notices, etc.) (The Rules and Forms of Procedure under this Act are printed in 2 Nev. & Mac. R. R. Cas. 2-14.)

APPENDIX IV.

NOTE ON

DECISIONS AFFECTING THE ACT TO REGULATE COMMERCE, APPROVED FEBRUARY 4, 1887;

[blocks in formation]

CONSTITUTIONALITY; POWER OF CONGRESS.

*

The United States Constitution provides: "The Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign Nations and among the States and with the Indian Tribes.'

*

Art. 1, § 8, cl. 3.

"Congress shall have power *** to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested in this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or office thereof." Art. 1, § 8, cl. 18.

"No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State."

Art. 1, § 9, cl. 5.

"No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce, or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another; nor shall vessels bound to or from one State be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another."

Art. 1, § 9, cl. 6.

"No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely neces sary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any State on imports or exports, shall be for

PAGE

860 861

Character, Quantity, Value of Goods; Classifi-
cation; Underbilling.
Competition
Furnishing Cars

Connecting Lines; Express Companies..
Stations; Yards; Terminal Facilities.
Carriage of Passengers..

Long and Short Haul; Fourth Section.
RULES OF CONSTRUCTION
RULES OF PRACTICE

861

864

864

865

866

867

868

872

872

the use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress."

Art. 1, § 10, cl. 3.

The previous Acts of Congress regulating commerce are:

The Act of March 3, 1873, R. S. §§ 43864390, regulating the transportation of live stock, held constitutional in:

[blocks in formation]

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).

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

Marshall, C. J., in Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 9 Wheat. 196, 197 (6 L. ed. 70) says: "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. no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution. *** If, as has always been understood, 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 U. 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 commerce shall be free and untrammeled except in matters of local concern.

Welton v. Mo. 91 U. S. 275 (23 L. ed. 347); Brown v. 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); 1 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.

The regulation of fares and freights receivable for transportation of persons and goods

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

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.

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 construction of a Bridge across the Staten Island Sound, Known as Arthur Kill," etc., is valid and constitutional under the power of Congressto 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 compensation 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. Ià.

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 Whiskey, 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 (23 L. ed. 846).

See also Harper, Interstate Commerce, pp. 19-29; Note 1, Inters. Com. Rep. 382; Dos Passos, Interstate Commerce Act.

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 43); 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.

The Daniel Ball, 77 U. S. 10 Wall. 557 (19 L. ed. 999); Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517 (29 L. ed. 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 com merce."

[ocr errors]

gation, but for the purpose of erecting piers, bridges, and all other instrumentalities of commerce which in the judgment of Congress may be necessary or expedient.

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

Whenever a commodity has begun to move as an article of trade from one State to another, 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.

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

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

The power to regulate commerce between the States extends not only to the control of the navigable waters of the country and the lands under them for the purpose of navi

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.

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 v. 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. The transportation of property from one 585); Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27 (28 L. State to another is interstate commerce, wheth-ed. 923); Boston Beer Co. v. Mass. 97 U. S. er the carriers engaged in moving it, or the 25 (24 L. ed. 989); Patterson . Ky. 97 U. S. vehicles on which it is borne, cross the line of 501 (24 L. ed. 1115); Stone v. Miss. 101 U. S. the State or not. 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 N. Ý. 509; 30 Am. Rep. 323; Metropolitan Excise Board v. Barrie, 34 N. Y. 657; Com. v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53; Woods v. State, 36 Ark. 36; 38 Am. Rep. 22; State v. Mugler, 29 Kan. 252;

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 is interstate 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 declared to be so subject.

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

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. Cipperly (N. Y.) 1 Cent. Rep. 806; State v. Fitzpatrick (R. I.) 5 New Eng. Rep. 673; 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 713; People v. Marx, 99 N. Y. 377; State 2. 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, until Congress intervenes.

An unconstitutional provision in a state statute taxing commerce is not cured because included 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 national commerce by a State is void.

|

"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."

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 Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 9 Wheat. 1 (6 L. Creek Marsh Co. 27 U. S. 2 Pet. 245 (7 L. ed. ed. 23); Passenger Cases, 48 U. S. 7 How. 283 412); Escanaba & L. M. Transp. Co. v. Chicago, (12 L. ed. 702); Brown v. Md. 25 U. B. 12 107 U. S. 678 (27 L. ed. 442); Miller v. Mayor, Wheat. 446 (6 L. ed. 688); U. S. v. Holliday, of N. Y. 109 U. S. 385 (27 L. ed. 971); Card-70 U. S. 3 Wall. 407 (18 L. ed. 182); Crandall well v. American R. Bridge Co. 113 U. S. 205 (2 v. Nevada, 73 U. S. 6 Wall. 35 (18 L. ed. 745); L. ed. 959); Ouachita & M. R. Packet Co. v. Southern Steamship Co. v. Port Wardens, 73 Aiken, 121 U. S. 444 (30 L. ed. 976); 1 Inters. U. S. 6 Wall. 31 (18 L. ed. 749); Paul v. Va. Com. Rep. 379. 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 Gallons 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 v. 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 (26 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. Pullman 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. Taxing Dist. 120 U. S. 489 (30 L. ed. 694); Fargo v. Mich. 112 U. S. 230 (30 L. ed. 888); Phila. & S. Steamship Co.v. Pa. 122 U.S.336 (30 L.ed, 1200); Pullman S. Car Co. v. Nolan, 22 Fed. Rep. 276.

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 construction of dams.

Wilson v. Blackbird Creek Marsh Co. 27 U. S. 2 Pet. 245 (7 L. ed. 412); Cardwell v. American R. Bridge Co. 113 Ú. 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 authorities cited.

Conway v. Taylor, 66 U. S. 1 Black, 603 (17 L. ed. 191); Fanning v. Gregoire, 57 U. 8. 16 How. 524 (14 L. ed. 1043) Starin v. N. Y. 115 U. S. 248 (29 L. ed. 388).

State statutes imposing obstruction to navigation 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. 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); Newport & C.Bridge Co. v. U. S. 105 U. S. 470 (26 L. ed. 1143).

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. Parkersburg, 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 regulation 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 v. Thompson, 118 U. S. 90 (30 L. ed. 115).

A State may grant an exclusive ferry right.

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 o. 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, 493; Higgins v. 300 Casks Lime, 130 Mass. 1; State v. North, 27 Mo. 464; Re Watson, 15 Fed. Rep. 511.

A state law requiring a license to sell im

« PreviousContinue »