ence of the ports of one state over those of another state.7

60

58

[70] 3. Statutes Directed against Federal and Foreign Corporations-a. As to Intra-State Business. In the exercise of its power to exclude or impose restrictions on a foreign corporation,59 state may, without violating the interstate commerce clause of the constitution, control the intrastate business of a foreign corporation, even though the business of the company may be hampered and its interstate business indirectly affected;" and it may discriminate between its own domestic corporations and those of other states in regard to doing business within the state.62 More specifically, a state does not interfere with interstate commerce when as to local or intra-state business it prohibits absolutely a foreign corporation from doing business within the state, or when it pre

63

V.

65

scribes the terms on which it may enter and do business therein,64 as by requiring it to file with a state official papers giving information as to the company," or to have a known place of business and an authorized agent in the state,66 or to organize as a corporation under the laws of the state.67 Where a foreign corporation operates a factory in the state, it is not relieved from state statutory requirements by the fact that the contemplated traffic in the product of the factory may extend beyond the limits of the state.68 However, a state statute which penalizes a foreign corporation engaged in both interstate and intra-state business for suing in, or removing its cases to, the federal courts by excluding it from doing an intra-state business is invalid,69 as is also a state constitutional provision attempting to accomplish the same object as to a corporation incorporated by congress for

58. See Corporations [19 Cyc 1218,

1222].

59. See Corporations [19 Cyc 1251].

60. Ida.-Belle City Mfg. Co. v. Frizzell, 11 Ida. 1, 81 P 58.

85 CCA 194)]; Pennsylvania etc., Bridge Co., 18 How. (U. S.) 421,
Wheeling, etc., Bridge Co., 18 How. 435, 15 L. ed. 435 (where, after com-
(U. 8.) 421, 435, 15 L. ed. 435 (where, menting on the fact that congress
in holding inter alia that the erec- creates preferences among individual
tion of the Wheeling bridge, although ports by making ports of entry of
it incidentally benefited Wheeling and some and omitting others, the court
injured Pittsburg, was not such શ said: "The truth seems to be, that
preference as the constitution prohib-what is forbidden is, not discrimina-
its, the court said: "The history of tion between individual ports within
the provision, as well as its language, the same or different States, but dis-
looks to a prohibition against grant-
crimination between States").
ing privileges or immunities to ves-
sels entering or clearing from the
ports of one State over those of an-
other.... It may, certainly, also em-
brace any other description of legis-
lation looking to a direct privilege or
preference of the ports of any par-
ficular State over those of another.
Indeed, the clause, in terms, seems
to import a prohibition against some
positive legislation by congress to
this effect, and not against any in-
cidental advantages that might pos-
sibly result from the legislation of
congress upon other subjects con-
nected with commerce, and confess-
edly within its power"). ΤΟ the
same general effect that the word
"preference" applies, not to the port
itself physically but to the business
in it, see Williams v. The Lizzie
Henderson, 29 F. Cas. No, 17,726a.

al Articles intended for foreign export-Preference is not given to the ports of one state over those of another by applying to articles intended for foreign export the provisions of the Elkins Act of Febr. 19, 1903, making it an offense against the United States to accept transportation of goods in interstate or foreign commerce at less than the carrier's published rates. Armour Packing Co.

US 209 U. S. 56.

28 80C 428, 32 1. ed. 681 (af 133
Fed. 1, 82 ČČA 135, 14 LRANS 400,
and foll Chicago, etc, R. Co. v. P.
S. 209 T. 8. 90. 28 Set 439, 32 L. ed.
698 a 137 Fed $30, $3 CCA 1901
Improvement of waterways.-
It is not a preference that the fed-
eral government, for the purpose of
navigation 1:1 a river,
ore channel flowing by One
port and myosove another outlet in
a port of another state South Caro-
1A A
Georg 4, 93 U. S. 4, 23 L ed

Pilotaga-The position of
is possibly a detri

otage
to a port but

Port

Miss. State v. Louisville, etc., R.
Co., 97 Miss. 35, 51 S 918, 53 S 454.
AnnCas1912C 1150: Western Union
Tel. Co. v. Mississippi R. Commn.,
74 Miss. 80, 21 S 15.

Mo.-Security State Bank v. Sim-
mons, 251 Mo. 2, 157 SW 585; State
v. Standard Oil Co., 218 Mo. 1, 116
SW 902; Farrand Co. v. Walker, 169
Mo. A. 602, 155 SW 68.

Tenn.-State v. Kentucky Stand-
ard Oil Co., 120 Tenn. 86, 110 SW
565.

Va.-Dalton Adding Mach. Co. v.
Com., 118 Va. 563, 88 SE 167; Na-
tional Council J. O. A. M. v. State
Council J. O. U. A. M., 104 Va. 197,

51 SE 166.

61. Independent Tug Line v. Lake Superior Lumber, etc., Co., 146 Wis. 121, 131 NW 408.

62. Pembina Cons. Silver Min., etc., Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181, 8 Set 737, 31 L. ed. 650; Philadelphia Fire Assoc. v. New York, 119 U. S. 110, 7 Set 108, 30 L. ed. 342; Ducat v. Chicago, 10 Wall (U. S.) 410, 19 L. ed. 972; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall (U. Sɔ 168. 19 L. ed. 357; Augusta Bank v. Earle, 13 Pet. (U. S.) 519, 10 L. ed. 274; Hargraves Mills Harden, 25 Misc. 65, 56 NYS 937.

Miss.-State v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 97 Miss. 35, 51 S 918, 53 S 454, AnnCas1912C 1150.

Pa.-Com. v. Standard Oil Co., 101 Pa. 119.

Va.-National Council J. O. A. M. v. State Council J. O. U. A. M., 104 Va. 197, 51 SE 166 [aff 203 U. S. 151, 27 SCt 46, 51 L. ed. 132].

64. Interstate Amusement Co. v. Albert, 239 U. S. 560, 36 SCt 168, 60 L. ed. 439 [aff 128 Tenn. 417, 161 SW 488]; Loomis v. People's Constr. Co., 211 Fed. 453, 128 CCA 125; General R. Signal Co. v. Com., 118 Va. 301, 87 SE 598.

65. Cal.-Mulford Co. V. Curry, 163 Cal. 276, 125 P 236.

Colo. Utley v. Clark-Gardner Lode Min. Co., 4 Colo. 369.

Kan.-State v. Western Union Tel. Co., 75 Kan. 609, 90 P 299; Deere Plow Co. v. Wyland, 69 Kan. 255, 76 P 863, 2 AnnCas 304; State v. American Book Co., 65 Kan. 847, 69 P 563.

Ky-Com. v. Read Phosphate Co., 113 Ky. 32, 67 SW 45, 23 KyL 2284; Associated Press v. Com., 60 SW 295, 523, 22 KyL 1229.

Mo.-Fay Fruit Co. v. McKinney, 103 Mo. A. 304, 77 SW 160.

S. D.-State v. Morgan, 2 S. D. 32, 48 NW 314.

Tex.-Western Paper Bag Co. v. Johnson, (Civ. A.) 38 SW 364; Reed v. Walker, 2 Tex. Civ. A. 92, 21 SW 687 [dist Bateman v. Western Star Milling Co., 1 Tex. Civ. A. 90, 20 SW 931].

66. New Orleans, etc., Packet Co. v. James, 32 Fed. 21; Ware v. Hamilton Brown Shoe Co., 92 Ala 145, 9 S 136; American Union Tel. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 67 Ala 26, 42 AmR 90; McNaughton Co. v. McGirl, 20 Ment. 124, 49 P 651, 63 Am SR 610, 38 LRA 3ĒT.

[a] Press dispatch company.-Ky. St $571. declaring it to be unlawful for any corporation to carry on 63. 1. S.-Kentucky Standard on business in the state without having Co. v. Tennessee, 217 U. S 413, 30 filed with the secretary of state a Set 543, 54 L. ed. 817 [aff 120 Tenn. ¦ statement designating its office in 86, 110 SW 565] (holding that inter- this state, ard its agent thereat on state commerce is not unlawfully | whom process may be served. is rot regulated, at least in the absence of Congressional action. by the en see Anti-Trust Act of March 16. under which, red by the state court, a may be ex doing domestic business in because t has indu

the state by a
orders on ar

a regulation of interstate commerce in its application to a press dispatch company. Asspciated Press v. Col.. 60 SW 225 523, 22 KyL 1929.

R

67. Plummer r Chesapeake etc.. 143 Ky 102, 175 SW 162, 33 LRANS : Com v Mobile etc. R. 64 SW 451, 23 KyL 784, 54 LRA Dia

Glue Ca

S.

the purpose, among other things, of engaging in interstate commerce.70

[71] b. As to Interstate Business. A state may not, by discriminating legislation, the imposition of burdensome conditions, or in any other way, fetter, abridge, or interfere with the right of a foreign corporation to engage in interstate commerce;"1 and statutes regulating, or imposing conditions on, foreign corporations are inapplicable and inoperative as far as the interstate transactions of a foreign corporation are involved,72 the transaction of the business of interstate commerce not being considered as "doing business in the state," within

70. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Texas, etc., R. Co.. 216 Fed. 225.

71. U. S.-Sioux Remedy Co. v. Cope, 235 U. S. 197, 35 SCt 57, 59 L. ed. 193 [rev 28 S. D. 397, 133 NW 683]; Buck Stove, etc., Co. v. Vickers, 226 U. S. 205, 33 SCt 41, 57 L. ed. 189 [rev 80 Kán. 29, 101 P 6681: Pembina Cons. Silver Min.. etc., Co. V. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181, 8 SCt 737, 31 L. ed. 650; Philadelphia F. Assoc. v. New York, 119 U. S. 110, 7 SCt 108, 30 L. ed. 342; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196, 5 SCt 826, 29 L. ed. 158; Mobile County v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691, 26 Led. 238; Pensacola Tel. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 96 U. S. 1, 2 L. ed. 708; Cooper v. E. L. Welch Co.. 218 Fed. 719; Vulcan Steam Shovel Co. v. Flanders, 205 Fed. 102; In re Selman Heating, etc., Co.. 204 Fed. 839; Parson-Willis Lumber Co. V. Stuart, 182 Fed. 779, 105 CCA_211; Butler Bros. Shoe Co. v. U. S. Rubber Co., 156 Fed. 1, 84 CCA 167 [certiorari den 212 U. S. 577, 29 SCt 686, 53 L. ed. 658]; Kessler v. Perilloux, 127 Fed. 1011.

Colo.-Herman Bros. y. Nasiacos, 46 Colo. 208, 103 P 301; International Trust Co. v. A. Leschen, etc., Rope Co., 41 Colo. 299, 92 P 727, 14 Ann Cas 861.

Ida-Belle City Mfg. Co. v. Frizzell, 11 Ida. 1, 81 P 58.

Ind-State v. Indiana, etc., Oil, etc., Co., 120 Ind. 575, 22 NE 778, 6 LRA 579 and note.

Kan.-John Deere Plow Co. v. Wyland, 69 Kan. 255, 76 P 863, 2 AnnCas

304.

Ky-Com. v. Hogan, etc., Co., 74 SW 737, 25 KyL 41; Com. v. Read Phosphate Co., 113 Ky. 32, 67 SW 45, 23 KyL 2284.

Me.-F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Cole. 99 A 33.

Mo.-International Text-Book Co. V. Gillespie, 229 Mo. 397, 129 SW 922; State v. Standard Oil Co., 218 Mo. 1, 116 SW 902.

Mont.-McNaughton Co. v. McGirl, 20 Mont. 124. 49 P 651, 38 LRA 367, 63 AmSR 610.

N. C-State v. Trotman, 142 N. C. 662, 55 SE 599.

Okl-Fruit Dispatch Co. v. Wood, 42 Okl. 79, 140 P 1138 (holding that whatever power may be conceded to the state to prescribe conditions on

which

foreign corporations may transact business within its limits, it cannot be admitted to extend as far as to prohibit or regulate commerce among the states).

Tex.-C. B. Cones, etc., Mfg. Co. Rosenbaum, (Civ. A.) 45 SW 333; Gale Mfg. Co. v. Finkelstein, 22 Tex. Civ. A. 241, 54 SW 619.

Wis-Loverin, etc., Co. v. Travis, 185 Wis. 322, 115 NW 829. Corporations

And see 1228).

74

973

the meaning of state statutes regulating foreign corporations "doing business within the state.' The state cannot exclude a foreign corporation engaged in interstate commerce any more than it can exclude an individual so engaged." It cannot impose conditions or limitations on the right of a foreign corporation to make contracts within the state for carrying on commerce between the states," and any attempt on its part to interfere with the right of a foreign corporation to sell articles of commerce anywhere in the state and to ship them to the purchasers is an interference with interstate commerce, and is void.76 A state statute providing | keep any such office open for inspec- | ber Co., 187 Pa. 12, 40 A 1019, 67 tion, although it does not transact AmSR 560. business in the office, is not invalid as interfering with interstate commerce, since it does not regulate the business of foreign corporations or restrict them in any way in transacting business within the state, whether such business is interstate or not. Hovey v. De Long Hook, etc., Co.. 147 App. Div. 881, 133 NYS 25 [aff 126 NYS 1].

[19 Cyc

[al Statute held not interference. The New York Stock Corporations Law 33, requiring every foreign Corporation "having an office for the of business in this

transaction

State" to keep a stock book therein open for inspection by enumerated

persons, if construed as requiring a foreign corporation which

has an

office in the state for the transaction of business within the state to

72. U. S.-Star-Chronicle Pub. Co. v. United Press Assoc., 204 Fed. 217, 122 CCA 489.

Ala.-Hurst v. Fitz Water Wheel
Co., 72 S 314; Fifth Ave. Library
Society v. Rhodes, 194 Ala. 670, 69
S 918; American Amusement Co. v.
East Lake Chutes Co., 174 Ala. 526,
56 S 961; Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Bu-
cheit, (A.) 71 S 82.

Ark.-Western Union Tel. Co. V.
State, 82 Ark. 309, 101 SW 748, 12
AnnCas 82.

Colo.-Savage v. Central Electric
Co., 59 Colo. 66, 148 P 254; Herman |
Bros. Co. v. Nasiacos, 46 Colo. 208,
103 P 301.

Ill-American Art Works v. Chi-
cago Picture Frame Works, 264 III.
610, 106 NE 440 [aff 184 III. A. 502];
Lehigh Portland Cement Co. v. Mc-
Lean, 245 Ill. 326, 92 NE 248, 137
AmSR 322 [aff 149 111. A. 3601.

Mo.-Watkins v. Donnell, 192 Mo.
A. 640, 179 SW 980.

Wirtz, 17 N. D. 313, 115 NW 844, 18
N. D.--Sucker State Drill Co. v.

LRANS 134.

Okl.-Bledsoe v. W. B. Young Sup-
ply Co., 44 Okl. 609, 145 P 1125;
Fruit Dispatch Co. v. Wood, 42 Okl.
79, 140 P 1138.
S. D.-Peterson
S. D. 101, 150 NW 934.
Tex.-Shaenfield v. Hall Safe, etc.,
Co., (Civ. A.) 157 SW 462.

v. Hoftiezer,

35

Vt.-Kinnear, etc., Mfg. Co. V.
Miner, 89 Vt. 572, 96 A 333; Living-

ston Mfg. Co. v. Rizzi, 86 Vt. 419, 85
A 912.

Wash.-State v. Merrill, 83 Wash.
8, 144 P 925.

Wis.-Bowser V. Schwartz, 152
Wis. 408, 140 NW 51.

"Our constitutional and statutory
provisions regulating foreign corpo-
rations doing business in the state
relate to intrastate business, and
not to interstate business. To at-
tempt to make them relate to inter- |
state business would make them
void to that extent, because in vio-
lation of the commerce clause of the
federal Constitution (article 1.
§ 8)." Fifth Ave. Library Soc. v.
Rhodes, 194 Ala. 670, 671, 69 S 918.
What constitutes transactions of
interstate commerce see supra §§ 19-
36.

73. U. S. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Sims, 191 U. S. 441, 24 SCt 151, 48 L. ed. 254; Copper Mfg. Co. v. Ferguson, 113 U. S. 727, 5 SCt 739, 28 L. ed. 1137.

Ala.-Cook v. Rome Brick Co., 98

Ala. 409, 12 S 918.

Ill-Havens, etc., Co. v. Diamond, 93 II. A. 557.

Kan. John Deere Plow Co. v. Wyland, 69 Kan. 255, 76 P 863, 2 Ann Cas 304.

Ky.-Com. v. Hogan, 74 SW 737, 25 KyL 41.

Pa. Mearshon v. Pottsville Lum

Tenn. Milan Milling, etc., Co. V. Gorten, 93 Tenn. 590, 27 SW 971, 26 LRA 135; Davis, etc., Bldg., etc., Co. v. Caigle, (Ch. A.) 53 SW 240.

Tex.-H. Zuberbler Co. v. Harris, (Civ. A.) 35 SW 403; Lyons-Thomas Hardware Co. v. Reading Hardware Co., (Civ. A.) 21 SW 300.

Full treatment of what constitutes "doing business" within state see Corporations [19 Cyc 1267].

74. U. S.-Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Adams, 155 U. S. 688, 15 SCt 268, · 39 L. ed. 311; Horn Silver Min. Co. v. New York, 143 U. S. 305, 12 SCt 403, 36 L. ed. 164; Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U. S. 47, 11 SCt 851, 35 L. ed. 649; Fritts v. Palmer, 132 U. S. 282, 10 SCt 93, 33 L. ed. 317; Pensacola Tel. Co. V. Western Union Tel. Co., 96 U. S. 1, 24 L. ed. 708; New England Tel. Co. v. Essex, 206 Fed. 926; Butler Bros. Shoe Co. v. U. S. Rubber Co., 156 Fed. 1, 84 CCA 167 [certiorari den 212 U. S. 577, 29 SCt 686, 53 L. ed. 658]; Kessler v. Perilloux, 127 Fed. 1011.

Ala.-American Union Tel. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 67 Ala. 26, 42 AmR 90.

Kan.-John Deere Plow Co. v. Wyland, 69 Kan. 255, 76 P 863, 2 AnnCas 304.

Ky.- -Com. v. Read Phosphate Co., 113 Ky. 32, 67 SW 45, 23 KyL 2284. N. Y.-People v. Wemple, 131 N. Y. 64, 29 NE 1002, 27 AmSR 542 and note.

N. C.-Fisher v. Traders' Mut. L. Ins. Co., 136 N. C. 217, 48 SE 667.

S. D.-Flint, etc., Mfg. Co. v. McDonald, 21 S. D. 526, 114 NW 684, 130 AmSR 735, 14 LRANS 673.

Tex.-Huffman v. Western Mortg., etc., Co., 13 Tex. Civ. A. 169, 36 SW 306. Ferguson, 113 U. S. 727, 5 SCt 739, Co. S.-Cooper Mfg.

75. U.

28 L. ed. 1137.

V.

Ark.-Gunn v. White Sewing Mach. Co., 57 Ark. 24, 20 SW 591, 38 AmSR 223, 18 LRA 206.

Ida.-Belle City Mfg. Co. v. Frizzell, 11 Ida. 1, 81 P 58. Mont.-McNaughton Co. V. McGirl, 20 Mont. 124, 49 P 651, 28 LRA 367, 63 AmSR 610.

Nebr.-Traphagen v. Lindsay, 95 Nebr. 823, 831, 146 NW 1026 [cit Cyc].

Pa-Mearshon v. Pottsville Lumber Co., 187 Pa. 12, 40 A 1019, 67 AmSR 560.

Tenn. Milan Milling, etc., Co. v. Gorten, 93 Tenn. 590, 27 SW 971, 26 LRA 135.

76. U. S.-Brennan v. Titusville, 153 U. S. 289, 14 SCt 829, 38 L. ed. 719; Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U. S. 47, 11 SCt 851, 35 L. ed. 640; McCall v. California, 136 U. S. 104, 10 SCt 881, 34 L. ed. 392; Stoutenburgh v. Hennick, 129 U. S. 141, 9 SCt 256, 32 L. ed. 637; Asher v. Texas, 128 U. S. 129, 9 SCt 1, 32 L. ed. 368; Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing Dist., 120 U. S. 489, 7 SCt 592, 30 L. ed. 694; Cooper Mfg. Co. Ferguson, 113 U. S. 727, 5 SCt 739, 28 L. ed. 1137; Aultman v. Holder, 68 Fed. 467 [aff 169 U. S. 81, 18 SCt 269, 42 L. ed. 669]; Williams v. Hintermeister, 26 Fed. 889; Indiana v. Pullman PalaceCar Co., 11 Biss. 561, 16 Fed. 193.

V.

that no foreign corporation shall do any business in the state without having one or more known places of business and an authorized agent or agents in the state on whom process can be served is void as far as corporations engaged in interstate commerce are concerned," and statutes requiring certificates, charters, or other papers to be filed are void or inoperative as conditions precedent to the right of a foreign corporation to engage in, or to enforce rights growing out of, interstate commerce. As to its foreign or interstate transac

tions, a foreign corporation is not required to comply with statutes providing that it shall obtain a permit to do business within the state.79

[72] F. Prohibitory Acts and Ordinances—1. In General. The constitutional power of congress to regulate commerce includes the power to prohibit.80 By virtue of this power, congress has authority to bar illegitimate articles from commerce," but not to exclude from commerce a legitimate and useful subject of commerce which is not inimical to the public safety, health, or morals.82 A state | by Gen. St. [1905] § 1358, requiring | ican Starch Co. v. Bateman, (Civ. A.) such corporation, as a condition 22 SW 771; Lyons-Thomas Hardware to doing business, to file a state- Co. v. Reading Hardware Co.. (Civ. ment of its financial condition); In- A.) 21 SW 300; Bateman v. Western ternational Text-Book Co. v. Pigg. Star Milling Co., 1 Tex. Civ. A. 90, 217 U. S. 91, 30 SCt 481, 54 L. ed. 20 SW 931. Contra Western Paper 678, 27 LRANS 493, 18 AnnCas 1103 Bag Co. v. Johnson, (Civ. A.) 38 SW [rev 76 Kan. 328, 91 P 74]; Wagner 364. v. Meakin, 92 Fed. 76, 33 CCA 577.

78. U. S.-Buck Stove, etc., Co. v. Vickers, 226 U. S. 205, 33 SCt 41, 57 L. ed. 189 [rev 80 Kan. 29, 101 P 668] (holding that the right of foreign corporations to do an interstate business cannot, under the commerce clause, be restricted as is attempted | 22 Tex. Civ. A. 33, 54 SW 425; Amer

nor

cannot prevent the importation of lawful subjects of commerce, 83 even though it has prohibited the sale of the same article by its own citizens,84 has it power to prevent the sale of a legitimate article of interstate commerce. 85 So, too, a state law prohibiting or impeding the transportation out of the state of an article of commerce is an interference with interstate commerce, and void.86 The right of a state to prohibit the importation and sale of articles inherently unworthy of commerce and unfit for the use of the people is undoubted.87 Articles or commodities so disguised as to be a cheat, calculated to lead a purchaser into buying something he did not intend to buy, may be exeluded by the state.88

[73] 2. Concerning Particular Property-a. Articles of Food.89 It is within the power of congress to prohibit the transportation, or the entry into interstate commerce, of adulterated and misbranded food products;90 and it is within the power of a state to prohibit the importation or the sale within the state of putrid, diseased, dangerous,91 or adulterated articles of food,92 but the state is without power wholly to exclude an article of food which is wholesome in its pure state merely because it is subject to adulteration with other substances. 93 A statute prohibiting the keeping, with intent to ship out of the state for food purposes, of the flesh of a calf which was under a certain ge and weight when killed will be construed to have an intraterritorial effect only. Similarly, a statute requiring veal shipped out of the state to

83. U. S. Austin v. Tennessee, 179 U. S. 343, 21 SCt 132, 45 L. ed. 224; Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania, 171 U. S. 1, 18 SCt 757, 43 L. ed. 49; Lyngv. Michigan, 135 U. S. 161, 10 SCt 725, 34 L. ed. 150; Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100, 10 SC 681, 34 Led. 128; Bowman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 125 U. S. 465, 8 SCt 689, 1062, 31 L. ed. 700; Hannibal, etc., R. Co. V. Husen, 95 U. S. 465, 24 L. ed. 527. NY-Peo. v. Buffalo Fish Co., 164 N. Y. 93, 58 NE 34, 79 AmSR 622, 52 LRA 803; Peo. v. Booth, 42 Misc. 321, 86 NYS 272.

95

have affixed thereto a tag stating, among other things, the age of the calf, does not interfere with interstate commerce. Also, a statute making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, ship, or deliver for shipment, any citrus fruits which are immature or otherwise unfit for consumption is not unconstitutional even as applied to a delivery for shipment in interstate commerce.96 While the state may regulate to secure the purity of butter and oleomargarine, and to prevent deception in the sale of products resembling butter, still, as oleomargarine is a lawful article of commerce,98 a state statute wholly excluding it from importation into a state from another state, and prohibiting its sale in the original package in which it was imported, is void as an interference with interstate commerce.99

[§ 74] b. Fish and Game.1 A state may, without unduly interfering with interstate or foreign commerce, prohibit the citizens of other states from fishing within its limits, as navigable waters, their beds and contents, are state property.2 So, too, the states may regulate the capture of wild animals, by prohibiting the killing of certain game for the purpose of exporting the same beyond state limits.3 The states may also constitutionally regulate or prohibit the exportation to points outside the state of fish and game caught or killed within state limits, and to prevent the evasion of the state fish and game laws may restrict or prohibit the free importation and sale of fish and game from outside the state, and may make it crime to have in possession such fish or game, or to sell or offer 47 LRANS 984; U. S. v. Seventy- | L. ed. 60; Schollenberger v. PennsylFour Cases of Grape Juice, 181 Fed. 629; U. S. v. 420 Sacks of Flour, 180 Fed. 518 (holding that the Pure Food and Drugs Act is not unconstitutional as an attempted exercise by congress of police power belonging to the states). 91.

Tenn-Motlow v. State, 125 Tenn. 547, 145 SW 177, LRA1916F 177. Tex-Ex P. Massey, (Cr.) 92 SW

1086.

Wash-Hathaway v. McDonald, 27 Wash. 659, 68 P 376, 91 AmSR 889. 84. Buffalo v. Reavey, 37 App. Div. 228, 55 NYS 792. 85. Collins v. New Hampshire, 171 U. S. 30, 18 SCt 768, 43 L. ed. 60;

Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100, 10 SCt 681, 34 L. ed. 128; Dabbs v. State, 39 Ark. 353, 43 AmR 275.

86. Kidd

9 SCt 6, 32 L. ed. 346; State v. Indi

V. Pearson, 128 U. S. 1,

94

vania, 171 U. S. 1, 18 SCt 757, 43 L. ed. 49 [rev 170 Pa. 296, 33 A 85]; In re Scheitlin, 99 Fed. 272; In re Brundage, 96 Fed. 963 [rev on other grounds 180 U. S. 499, 21 SCt 455, 45 L. ed. 639]; Ex p. Scott, 66 Fed. 45; In re Worthen, 58 Fed. 467; In

re
In re Ware, 53 Fed. 783; Peo.
v. Bishopp, 44 Misc. 12, 89 NYS 709
[aff 106 App. Div. 266, 94 NYS 773].

92. Crossman v. Lurman, 192 U.
S. 189, 24 SCt 234, 48 L. ed. 401 [aff
171 N. Y. 329, 63 NE 1097, 98 Am
SR 599]; Peo. v. Price, 257 Ill. 587,
101 NE 196, AnnCas1914A 1154; Peo.
v. Schmidt, 218 N. Y. 256, 112 NE
755.
V. Pennsyl-
vania, 171 U. S. 1, 18 SCt 757, 43 L.
ed. 49.

93. Schollenberger

[a] In other words (1) an article which congress taxes and recognizes as a proper subject of foreign and interstate commerce cannot be totally excluded from a state merely because it is subject to adulteration with substances injurious to health. Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania, 171 U. S. 1, 18 SCt 757, 43 L. ed. 49. (2)

ana, etc., Oil, etc., Co., 120 Ind. 575, Although a state has power to regu

22 NE 778, 6 LRA 579.

127.

see infra

S. 189, 24

73.

87. American Express Co. v. Beer, 107 Miss. 528, 65 S 575, AnnCas1916D Illustrations of exercise of power 88. Crossman v. Lurman, 192 U. Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S. SCt 234, 48 L. ed. 401; 461, 15 SCt 154, 39 L. ed. 223; Arbuckle v. Blackburn, 113 Fed. 616, 51 CCA 122, 65 LRA 864 [app dism 191 U. S. 405, 24 SCt 148, 48 L. ed. 239]; Sawrie v. Tennessee, 82 Fed. A 561, 85 AmSR 395 and note; Hathaway v. McDonald, 27 Wash. 659, 68

615; State

Rogers, 95 Me. 94. 49

late the introduction of an article,
including a food product, so as to
insure purity of the article imported
(see infra § 108), (3) such police
power does not include the right to
wholly exclude an article of food
which is a legitimate article of com-
merce (Schollenberger v. Pennsyl-
vania, supra; Minnesota v. Barber,
136 U. S. 313, 10 SCt 862, 34 L. ed.
455; Arbuckle v. Blackburn, 113 Fed.
616, 51 CCA 122, 65 LRA 864 [app
dism 191 U. S. 405, 24 SCt 148, 48
L. ed. 239]).

94. State v. Peet, 80 Vt. 449, 68
A 661, 130 AmSR 998, 14 LRANS
677.

95. Peo. v. Bishopp, 106 App. Div. 266, 94 NYS 773 [aff 44 Misc. 12, 89 NYS 709].

96. Sligh v. Kirkwood, 237 U. S. 52, 35 SCt 501, 59 L. ed. 835 [aff 65 Fla. 123, 61 S 185].

McAllister, 51 Fed. 282; In re Gooch, 44 Fed. 276, 10 LRA 830. Md.-McAllister v. State, 94 Md. 290, 50 A 1046; Fox v. State, 89 Md. 381, 43 A 775, 73 AmSR 193.

99. U. S.-Collins v. New Hampshire, 171 U. S. 30, 18 SCt 768, 43

Mass.-Com. v. Huntley, 156 Mass. 236, 30 NE 1127, 15 LRA 839.

N. Y.-Waterbury v. Egan, 3 Misc. 355, 23 NYS 115.

Pa.-Com. v. Paul, 9 Pa. Co. 196, 10 Pa. Co. 332.

Contra State v. Addington, 77 Mo.

110.

1. General police power of state to protect and regulate fish and game see Fish and Game [19 Cyc 1006 et seq].

2. McCready v. Virginia, 94 U. S. 391, 24 L. ed. 248 [aff 27 Gratt. (68 Va.) 985]; Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. (U. S.) 71, 15 L, ed. 269; Dize v. Lloyd, 36 Fed. 651 (holding that L. [1886] c 296, providing that the possession of oyster-dredging instruments on a boat is prima facie evidence of intent to dredge, is not unconstitutional, as a regulation of interstate commerce or as an interference with navigation); Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. No. 3,230, 4 Wash. C. Č. 371; State v. Harrub, 95 Ala. 176, 10 S 752, 36 AmSR 195, 15 LRA 761; Dunham v. Lamphere, 3 Gray (Mass.) 268 (semble); State v. Medbury, 3 R. I. 138.

3.

Geer v. Connecticut. 161 U. S. 519, 16 SCt 600, 40 L. ed. 793.

4. Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519, 534, 16 SCt 600, 40 L. ed. 793 (where it appears from the opinion of White, J., that this state power may be rested either on the fact that the ownership of feræ naturæ is common and public, and not private, or on "the duty of the State to preserve for its people a valuable food supply"); U. S. v. Smith, 115 Fed. 423; Organ v. State, 56 Ark. 267, 19 SW 840; State v. Northern Pac. Express Co., 58 Minn. 403, 59 NW 1100;

it for sale.5 Indeed, the passage by congress of
the so-called "Lacey Act" which provides in sub-
stance that foreign game, when transported into
any state, shall be subject to the laws of that state,
enacted in the exercise of its police powers, to the
same extent as if such game had been produced
within such state," has taken away all questions of
interstate commerce and given the states entire
freedom to prohibit the importation of game into,
or the exportation out of, its own territory, as well
as power to prohibit the sale of imported game."
While the state may prohibit a common carrier
from receiving for transportation certain named
birds or animals, after fish or game, lawfully
caught, captured, or killed have been delivered to
an interstate carrier for interstate transportation,
they are articles of interstate commerce, not sub-
ject to the state police power; and where they
have not only been lawfully caught or killed with-
out the state, but are also intended to be transported
to a point beyond the state, the state has no power
to interfere with their transportation through the
state or with their being temporarily within the
state for some lawful purpose.10 An act of congress
which declares that all migratory game and insec-
tivorous birds which do not remain permanently
the entire year within the borders of any state or
State v. Rodman, 58 Minn. 393, 59
NW 1098. Contra Terr. v. Evans, 2
Ida. (Hasb.) 658, 23 P 115, 7 LRA
288; Terr. v. Nelson, 2 Ida. (Hasb.)
651, 23 P 116 (holding that Rev.
St. § 7193, prohibiting the exporta-
tion of fish from the state, is in-
valid as an interference with the in-
terstate sale of merchandise); State
v. Saunders, 19 Kan. 127, 27 AmR 98
(where it is held that a prohibition
on the exportation of prairie chick-
ens is void).

Validity of statutes forbidding exportation of dead game out of state see Fish and Game [19 Cyc 1016].

5. U. S.-New York v. Hesterberg, 211 U. S. 31, 29 SCt 10, 53 L. ed. 75 [aff 184 N. Y. 126, 76 NE 1032, 3 LRANS 163 and note (rev 109 App. Div. 295, 96 NYS 286)] (holding that commerce is not unconstitutionally regulated by the provisions of L. [1900] p 22 c 20, under which the possession of game within the state during the closed season-except upon giving the bond provided by the statute against its sale-is forbidden, although the game may have been lawfully taken in foreign countries during the open season there); In re Deininger, 108 Fed. 623. Contra In re Davenport, 102 Fed. 540.

Cal-Ex p. Maier, 103 Cal. 476, 37 P 402, 42 AmSR 129 and note (holding valid a state statute against the sale or offering for sale of meat, although legally killed in another

state).

Il-Peo. v. Booth Fisheries Co., 253 111. 423, 97 NE 837; Magner v. Peo., 97 Ill. 320.

La. In re Schwartz, 119 La. 290, 44 S 20, 121 AmSR 516.

Md. Stevens v. State, 89 Md. 669, 43 A 929.

Mich.-Peo. v. Lassen, 142 Mich. 597, 106 NW 143; Peo. v. O'Neil, 110 Mich. 324, 68 NW 227, 33 LRA 696.

Minn. State v. Shattuck, 96 Minn. 45, 104 NW 719, 6 AnnCas 934.

Mo-State v. Heger, 194 Mo. 707, 93 SW 252; State v. Judy, 7 Mo. A. 524; State v. Randolph, 1 Mo. A. 15.

or

N. Y.-Peo. v. Booth, 105 App. Div. 184, 93 NYS 425 [rev 42 Misc. 321. 86 NYS 272]. Earlier New York statutes were construed not to apply to fish game taken outside the state. Peo. v. Bootman, 180 N. Y. 1, 72 NE 505, 2 AnnCas 226 and note: Peo. v. Buffalo Fish Co., 164 N. Y. 93, 58 NE 34, 79 AmSR 622, 52 LRA 803.

[75] c. Cigarettes. A state statute prohibiting or burdening in any way the sale of cigarettes is void as applied to cigarettes shipped into the state from other states and sold in the original package;12 but a legislative restriction on, or prohibition of, the sale of cigarettes is within the police power, provided it does not apply to original packages or make any discrimination against cigarettes imported from other states.13

[§ 76] d. Advertising Matter. As a matter of local police regulation, to protect people on the streets from annoyance, the scattering or distributing of advertising matter in public streets may be forbidden even as against a foreign corporation engaged in business which constitutes interstate commerce.14

Whether flight of wild birds from one point to another constitutes commerce see supra § 37.

12.

Sawrie v. Tennessee, 82 Fed. 615; Iowa v. McGregor, 76 Fed. 956; In re Minor, 69 Fed. 233; State v. Lowry, 166 Ind. 372, 77 NE 728, 4 LRANS 528 and note, 9 AnnCas 350 and note; McGregor V. Cone, 104 Iowa 465, 73 NW 1041, 65 AmSR 522, 39 LRA 484; State v. Goetze, 43 W. Va. 495, 27 SE 225, 64 AmSR 871.

[§ 77] e. Natural Gas. A state statute prohibiting the transportation or piping of natural gas from the state, and imposing penalties for so doing, is void as an interference with interstate commerce.15 So a state statute prohibiting the trans[a] Power of state discussed.- | Kan. 786, 153 P 557; State v. Sawyer, In speaking of the power of a state, 113 Me. 458, 94 A 886, LRA1915F the court in a New York case said: 1031 and note. "It may close the game market throughout the state during the period of prohibition, in order to remove temptation from poachers and pot-hunters, who are not apt to run the risk of taking game out of season if they cannot sell it. To do this effectively it may be necessary to close the market as to game taken without the state, as well as within, for there are no marks by which birds killed in Michigan can be distinguished from those killed in New York, When enacting a game law the legislature may provide for its ready enforcement, not simply by making the possession of game during the closed season presumptive evidence of a violation of the statute, but it may go farther and, in order to prevent evasion, fraud and perjury, may prohibit the possession of game in this state during the closed season, even if it was taken in another state and brought here during the open season." Peo. v. Bootman, 180 N. Y. 1, 10, 72 NE 505, 2 AnnCas 226.

General application of statutes for-
bidding sale or possession, during
closed season, of fish and game to
fish and game imported into state
see Fish and Game [19 Cyc 1011].
6. 31 U. S. St. at L. 187 c 553.
Constitutionality of Lacey Act see
infra § 120.

7.
Ex-
Eager v. Jonesboro, etc.,
press Co., 103 Ark. 288, 147 SW 60;
Wells v. State, 79 Ark. 349, 96 SW
189; State v. Heger, 194 Mo. 707, 93
SW 252; Peo. v. Bootman, 180 N. Y.
1, 72 NE 505, 2 AnnCas 226 and note.
8. Cameron v. Terr., 16 Okl. 634,

86 P 68.
9. Bennett v. American Express
Co.. 83 Me. 236, 22 A 159, 23 AmSR
774, 13 LRA 33; Peo. v. Fargo, 137
App. Div. 727, 122 NYS 553.

10. McDonald v. Southern Express
Co., 134 Fed. 282; Peo. v. Booth Fish-
eries Co., 253 Ill. 423, 97 NE 837.

11. U. S. v. McCullagh, 221 Fed. 288; T. S. v. Shauver, 214 Fed. 154 (holding invalid the act of March 4, 1916, and basing the decision largely on the views of the court in Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519, 16 SCt 600, 40 L. ed. 793, where, however, the validity of a state statute was in question); State v. McCullagh, 96

13. Austin v. Tennessee, 179 U. S. 343, 21 SCt 132, 45 L. ed. 224 [aff 101 Tenn. 563, 48 SW 305, 70 AmSR 703, 50 LRA 478].

14. International Text-Book Co. v. Auburn, 155 Fed. 986; International Text-Book Co. v. District of Columbia, 35 App. (D. C.) 307.

15. West v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 221 U. S. 229, 31 SCt 564, 55 L. ed. 716, 35 LRANS 1193 [aff 172 Fed. 545] (holding that prohibiting the construction of pipe lines for natural gas, or the transportation of the gas by such lines except by domestic corporations whose charters shall provide that the gas shall be transported only between points in the state, and shall not be transported, nor delivered, to any person or corporation engaged in transporting or furnishing gas to points outside of the state, and giving to such domestic corporations the exclusive right of eminent domain and the use of the highways, all of which is attempted by Okl. L. [1907] c 67, unconstitutionally interferes with interstate commerce, and cannot be justified as an exercise of the police power of the state to conserve its natural resources); Haskell v. Cowham, 187 Fed. 403, 109 CCA 235; Manufacturers Gas, etc., Co. Indiana Natural Gas, etc., Co., 155 Ind. 545, 58 NE 706; Avery v. Indiana, etc., Oil, etc., Co., 120 Ind. 600, 22 NE 781; State v. Indiana, etc., Oil, etc., Co., 120 Ind. 575, 22 NE LRA 778, 6 579. See also Consumers' Gas Trust Co. v. Harless, 131 Ind. 446, 29 NE 1062, 15 LRA 505 (where the act of Febr. 20, 1889, was held not to prohibit the piping of petroleum and natural gas out of the state, and that therefore it was not in conflict with the commerce clause of the constitution).

V.