the city or town where a station is situated, was declared void in so far as it attempted to regulate such deliveries in other States."

1 California v. Pacific Railroad Co. 127 U. S. 1.

2 U. S. v. Coombs, 12 Pet. 72; Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517.

3 White's Bank v. Smith, 7 Wall. 646. See The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558.

4 The Wheeling Bridge, 18 How. 429: The Clinton Bridge, 10 Wall. 454; Miller v. City of N. Y. 10 Fed. Rep. 513; affirmed, 109 U. S. 385.

5 Bridge Co. v. U. S. 105 U. S. 470.

6 Canada S. R'y Co. v. Bridge Co. 8 Fed. Rep. 190.

7 South Carolina v. Georgia, 93 U. S. 4.

8 Pensacola Tel. Co. v. Western U. Tel. Co. 99 U. S. 1; Telegraph Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S. 460; Western U. Tel. Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 317; Ratterman v. Western U. Tel. Co. 127 U. S. 411; Leloup v. Port of Mobile, 127 U. S. 640; Western U. Tel. Co. v. New York, 33 Fed. Rep. 552. 9 Western U. Tel. Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 347.

§ 1015. Its applicability to transportation by water. The power of Congress over commerce among the States under the clause now being considered, being exclusive, all State laws which interfere with or obstruct it are held void as being in conflict with the provision. So it has been declared that a State statute intended to regulate, or to tax, or to impose any other restrictions upon the transmission of persons or property or telegraphic messages from one State to another, is not within that class of legislation which the States may enact in the absence of legislation by Congress.1 A State law requiring an importer to take and pay for a license before he should be permitted to sell a package of imported goods is unconstitutional.2 A statute requiring auctioneers to collect and pay a tax on sales, when applied to imported goods by him sold for the importer, was, in like manner, held void. All State laws intended to regulate, or calculated to obstruct commerce upon

5

avigable rivers or along the coast have uniformly -een adjudged to be invalid. Included among hem are: a statute granting the exclusive right to navigate waters within a State for a term of years;1 an act authorizing a bridge across the Ohio river, the bridge being found to be a nuisance and its abatement decreed. The Kentucky and Indiana Bridge Company has the chartered powers of a common carrier, and is such de facto. It is, therefore, under the Act to Regulate Commerce entitled to demand of railroad companies whose lines are interse ted by its tracks, the same reasonable, proper, and equal facilities for the interchange of traffic and for the receiving, forwarding, and delivering of property that may lawfully be demanded by other carriers under that act. The fact that statutory regulations of internal commerce are such as to preclude the literal enforcement of preexisting contracts, does not affect the validity of such laws or make them in a constitutional sense laws impairing the obligation of contracts." Such a consequence is often a necessary result of any considerable change in the general laws, as in the following instances: a statute requiring the owners of steamboats to make a statement of their residence, interest, etc., under penalty of a fine;" a statute requiring payment to port-wardens of a fee;" a law which requires the masters of vessels engaged in foreign commerce to pay a certain sum on account of every passenger brought from a foreign country into the State, or before landing any alien passenger in the State; a statute imposing a burdensome condition on a shipmaster, as a prerequisite to landing his passengers, or an alterna

10

11

12

14

tive payment of a small sum of money for each of them; a statute giving to a board of railroad commissioners power to regulate or interfere with the transportation of persons or merchandise by a steamship company between ports in different States; an act in relation to the survey of hatches of sea-going vessels; 13 a tax upon a corporation, whose only business within the State was the landing and receiving of freight and passengers ferried across a river from another State; a statute imposing limitations upon foreign corporations making contracts for carrying on commerce between the States; a law forbidding discriminations on account of race or color by railroads, steamboats, and other public conveyances, in carrying passengers, when applied to interstate comThe power granted to Congress to regulate commerce among States being exclusive when the subjects are national in their character, or admit only of one uniform system of regulation, the failure of Congress to exercise that power in any case is an expression of its will that the subject shall be left free from restrictions or impositions upon it by the several States."7

merce.

16

15

1 Wabash, St. L. & P. R'y Co. v. Illinois, 118 U. S. 557; distinguishing Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113; Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Iowa, 94 U. S. 155; Peik v. Chicago & N. W. R'y. 91 U. S. 164.

2 Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419. See Cook v. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S. 565; compare Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. 129.

3 Cook v. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S. 566; Waring v. The Mayor etc. 8 Wall. 110.

4 Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1.

5 Pennsylvania v. Wheeling etc. Bridge Co. 13 How. 518. But an act of Congress, declaring the bridge to be a lawful structure, was held a valid exercise of its power to regulate commerce, and to have annulled the le cree of the Supreme Court adjudging it to be a nuisance and requiring its abatement: The Wheeling Bridge Case, 18 How. 429; The Clinton Bridge, 10 Wall. 451; Bridge Co. v. U. S. 105 U. S. 470.

6 Kentucky & Ind. Bridge Co. v. Louisville & N. R. R. Co. 2 Int. Com. C. 162.

7 Kentucky & Ind. Bridge Co. v. Louisville & N. R. R. Co. 2 Int. Com. C. 162.

8 Sinnot v. Commissioners of Mobile, 22 How. 227; Foster v. Commissioners of Mobile, 22 How. 214.

9 Steamship Co. v. Portwardens, 6 Wall. 31.

10 Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283 (1848), four judges dissenting; People v. Campagnie, 107 U. S. 59.

11 Henderson v. Mayor, 92 U. S. 259; Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U. S. 275; People v. Campagnie, 107 U. S. 53.

12 Pacific etc. Co. v. Board of R. R. Comm'rs, 18 Fed. Rep. 10.

13 Foster v. Master and Wardens, 94 U. S. 246.

14 Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196.

15 Cooper Manufacturing Co. v. Ferguson, 113 U. S. 727; Paul_v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 163; Norfolk & W. R. R. Co. v. Commonwealth, (Pa.), 26 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 48; Indiana v. Pullman P. C. Co. 16 Fed. Rep. 193. 16 Hall v. De Cuir, 95 U. S. 485.

17 Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing District, 120 U. S. 489; Walling v. Michigan, 116 U. S. 446, 455; Brown v. Houston, 114 U. S. 622; Railroad Comnirs v. Railroad Co. 22 S. Car. 220; S. C. 26 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 29, 41; Bowman v. Chicago & N. W. R'y Co. 125 U. S. 465.

§ 1016. The extent of the power to regulate which remains in the several States.-In the absence of legislation by Congress, the States have power to regulate such subjects of commerce as are local in their nature, or limited in their sphere of operation. So, it is held that when Congress has not provided laws for the regulation of pilots and pilotage, the State may lawfully enact them.1 A State has power to improve its lands, and promote the public health, by authorizing a dam to be built across a creek, though it was previously navigable by vessels enrolled and licensed for the coasting trade; and may authorize the construction of a bridge across a river, although it is tidal and navigable. An act for the improvement of a harbor was held valid. A municipality owning improved wharves is authorized to charge reasonable wharfage fees. State laws creating liens in favor of material-men for supplies furnished to a vessel

2

3