"Provided, that nothing herein shall be so construed as to prevent the Board of Selectmen or the Town of Essex from subjecting the location and operation of the company's lines to reasonable regulations." With this modification, it is affirmed. The costs will be charged to appellant.

Modified and affirmed.

PROVO BENCH CANAL AND IRRIGATION
COMPANY v. TANNER.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH.

No. 72. Argued November 11, 1915.-Decided December 6, 1915.

In eminent domain proceedings, an award of one dollar for property taken for an easement does not deprive the owner of his property without due process of law if the state court recognized the right to recover for any substantial damage, but found as matter of fact that no damage whatever had been shown.

40 Utah, 105, affirmed.

THE facts, which involve the validity under the due process provision of the Fourteenth Amendment of a statute of Utah, and judgment of the Supreme Court of that State, regarding rights to flow waters and construct irrigation ditches, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. J. W. N. Whitecotton for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Charles S. Varian for defendant in error submitted.

Memorandum opinion by MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, by direction of the court.

Plaintiffs in error, having acquired easements and rights of way over certain lands in the State of Utah, con

structed thereon connecting canals to convey water intended for irrigation purposes. Relying upon the provisions of a statute of that State (Compiled Laws, 1907, § 1288 x 22) copied in the margin,' the validity of which is not contested (Clark v. Nash, 198 U. S. 361), defendant in error, Tanner, instituted the original proceeding, praying for permission to increase the carrying capacity of the canals, that the character of the enlargement and resulting damages be determined, and that, upon payment of the sum assessed and completion of the enlargement, he be decreed the right to flow water therein. Answers were filed, proof taken, and, the cause having been duly heard by the court without a jury, a decree was entered granting the relief prayed under carefully specified conditions, among them being a perpetual bond to protect against future injuries. Each of the owners was awarded one dollar as damages. Upon appeal the action of the trial court was approved by the Supreme Court. 40 Utah, 105.

Counsel for plaintiffs in error asserts here that, "after all, the whole question is, was there a taking of the property of the canal owners;" and, answering this in the affirmative, he maintains that the judgment below deprives them thereof without due process of law. But the state court, expressly recognizing the right of recovery for

1 When any person, corporation, or association desires to convey water for irrigation or for any other beneficial purpose, and there is a canal or ditch already constructed that can be enlarged to convey the required quantity of water, then such person, corporation, or association, or the owner or owners of the land through which a new canal or ditch would have to be constructed to convey the quantity of water necessary, shall have the right to enlarge said canal or ditch already constructed, by compensating the owner of the canal or ditch to be enlarged, for the damage, if any, caused by said enlargement; provided, that said enlargement shall be done at any time from the 1st day of October to the 1st day of March, or at any other time that may be agreed upon with the owner of said canal or ditch.

any substantial damage, found, as matter of fact, that none had been shown by the proof and consequently only a nominal sum could be recovered. It declared that 'nothing is made to appear upon which a finding or judgment for substantial damage can rest"-"there is no direct evidence upon this point whatever," and cited Chicago, Burl. & Quincy R. R. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, in support of the award.

The record discloses no error which we can consider (Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 86, 89), and the judgment is

Affirmed.

WEBER v. FREED, DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF UNITED STATES CUSTOMS.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY.

No. 644. Argued December 1, 1915.—Decided December 13, 1915.

That the power of Congress over foreign commerce is complete has been so thoroughly settled by former decisions of this court, that to question it is frivolous.

Congress has power to prohibit importation of foreign articles from abroad, including pictorial representations of prize fights designed for public exhibition; and so held that the act of July 31, 1912, prohibiting such importation is not unconstitutional.

The fact that exhibitions of pictures are under state, and not Federal, control does not affect the power of Congress to prohibit importation of articles from foreign countries to be exhibited.

The motive of Congress in exerting its plenary power cannot be considered for the purpose of refusing to give effect to such power when exercised.

224 Fed. Rep. 355.

Argument for Appellant.

239 U. S.

THE facts, which involve the constitutionality of the act of July 31, 1912, prohibiting the importation of pictorial representations of prize fights, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Benjamin F. Spellman, with whom Mr. Charles A. Towne was on the brief, for the appellant:

The act of July 31, 1912, c. 263, §§ 1, 2, and 3, is unconstitutional and void because in violation of Amendments IX and X to the Constitution of the United States.

Section one is unconstitutional and void and beyond the power of Congress to enact under par. 3 of § 8, Art. I, of the Constitution, commonly called the Commerce Clause, as applied to the exclusion from entry into the United States of photographic-film positives by the owner designed to be used for purposes of public exhibition in the United States under his personal management, control and supervision, and not for the purpose of traffic, sale or commerce.

Photographic-film positives, imported by the owner, designed to be used for purposes of public exhibition by him and not for purposes of traffic, sale or commerce, are not articles of commerce.

The public exhibition of motion pictures is not commerce; and hence the photographic-film positives referred to in this case, being "designed to be used" for purposes of such exhibitions, are not instrumentalities of commerce.

In support of these contentions see Adair v. United States, 208 U. S. 161; Almy v. California, 24 How. 169; Athanasaw v. United States, 227 U. S. 326; Bacon v. Walker, 204 U. S. 311; Boland v. United States, 236 U. S. 216; Bowman v. Chicago &c. Ry., 125 U. S. 465; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419; Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470; County of Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691; Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U. S. 47; Diamond Glue Co. v. United States, 187 U. S. 611; Diamond Match Co. v. Roeber, 106 N. Y. 473; Engel v. O'Malley, 219 U. S. 128; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1; Gloucester Ferry Co. v.

239 U. S.

Argument for the United States.

Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196; Hipolite Egg Co. v. United States, 220 U. S. 45; Hoke v. United States, 227 U. S. 308; Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648; Hopkins v. United States, 171 U. S. 578; International Textbook Co. v. Pigg, 217 U. S. 91; Keller v. United States, 213 U. S. 139; Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S. 1; License Cases, 5 How. 504; Lottery Cases, 188 U. S. 321; Metropolitan Opera Co. v. Hammerstein, 162 App. Div. 691; Nathan v. Louisiana, 8 How. 73; N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Cravens, 178 U. S. 389; Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168; Pensacola Tel. Co. v. West. Un. Tel. Co., 96 U. S. 1; People v. Klaw, 55 Misc. (N. Y.) 72; Pickard v. Pullman, 117 U. S. 34; Pittsburg &c. Coal Co. v. Bates, 156 U. S. 577; Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465; Second Employers' Liability Cases, 223 U. S. 1; Thorpe v. R. Co., 27 Vermont, 149; United States v. Addyston Pipe Co., 85 Fed. Rep. 271; S. C., 175 U. S. 211; United States v. Holliday, 3 Wall. 407; United States v. Popper, 98 Fed. Rep. 423; U. S. Fidelity Co. v. Kentucky, 231 U. S. 394; Weber v. Freed, 224 Fed. Rep. 355; West. Un. Tel. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 1; Williams v. Fears, 179 U. S. 270.

Mr. Assistant Attorney General Warren for the United States, submitted:

The contention that Congress cannot prohibit the importation of motion-picture films intended for purposes of exhibition is frivolous, and the court should, therefore, decline jurisdiction.

The power of Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations includes the prohibition of the introduction, importation, or transportation from abroad of any tangible object which may be used for any gainful purpose, regardless of the use which the importer himself intends to make of it. Prize-fight films are articles of commerce; and their importation for public exhibition is commercial intercourse.