the original package is such as to indicate an intention to sell at retail that which the state in its exercise of the police power has forbidden to be sold, Brown, J., saying,3 "The whole theory of the exemption of the original package from the operation of state laws is based upon the idea that the property is imported in the ordinary form in which from time to time-immemorial foreign goods have been brought into the country." Transportation-(a) State regulation in the exercise of the police power. 52. The construction of railways and the consequent development of systems of through transportation have required the court to consider in many cases the respective powers of the United States and of the states in regard to transportation. Before railways came into use the then ordinary appliances of internal transportation, canals and turnpike roads, were regarded as "component parts" of "that immense mass of legislation which embraces everything within the territory of a state not surrendered to the general government." 4 It was subsequently held that a state through which the Cumberland road passed could not tax coaches carrying the mail or persons traveling on the coaches in the service of the United States, but the exemption from taxation was, in the several judgments of the court, based exclusively upon the terms of the contracts between the United States and the several states through which that road ran, as made by the statutes of those states authorizing the construction of the road." Under the later cases a state may, in the exercise of its police power, regulate transportation so far as may be *P. 359. 5 'Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 203, 235. Searight v. Stokes, 3 How. 151; N., M. & Co. v. Ohio, ibid. 720; Achison v. Huddleson, 12 id. 293. A necessary for the protection, safety, and comfort of its citizens, but it may not by such regulations unnecessarily impede or obstruct interstate transportation. A state could, before the passage of the Interstate Commerce Act, require under a penalty all railroads to fix and post their rates of fare and freight and not to charge in excess therefor. A state may regulate the charges of a private warehouse for the storage of grain, although that grain be stored in the course of interstate transportation." state may fix and enforce maximum rates of fare and freight for intrastate transportation on all railways within the state, even though the people in other states may be indirectly affected thereby. A state may forbid discrimination in transportation within its territory, and constitute a commission to revise railway tariffs and to enforce the statute, for it is not to be assumed that the commission will interfere with interstate transportation." A state may forbid railways to employ in a position requiring the use, or discrimination of the form or colour, of signals "any person not having received from a state board a certificate of freedom from colour blindness." 10 A state may require railways to provide separate accommodations for white and coloured persons traveling between points within the state.11 A state may prohibit the running of freight trains on Sunday on any railway in the state.12 A state may require railways to place R. Co. v. Fuller, 17 Wall. 560. 'Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113; Budd v. New York, 143 id. 517; Brass v. North Dakota, 153 id. 391. * C., B. & Q. R. v. Iowa, 94 U. S. 155; Peik v. C. & N. W. Ry., ibid. 164. Field and Strong, JJ., dissented in each case. 'Stone v. F. L. & T. Co., 116 U. S. 307; Stone v. I. C. R., ibid. 347; Stone v. N. O. & N. E. R., ibid. 352. 10 N., C. & S. L. Ry. v. Alabama, 128 U. S. 96. "1 L., N. O. & T. Ry. v. Mississippi, 133 U. S. 587. Harlan and Bradley, dissented. C. & O. Ry. v. Kentucky, 179 U. S. 388. JJ., 12 Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U. S. 299. guard posts in the prolongation of the line of bridge trusses so that in case of derailment the posts, and not the bridge trusses, shall receive the blow of the derailed locomotive or car,18 and a state may prohibit the heating of passenger cars, other than dining cars, "by any stove or furnace kept inside the car or suspended therefrom.""14 A state may require all regular passenger trains running wholly within the state to stop at all county seats long enough to take on and discharge passengers.15 A state may forbid a common carrier of passengers to limit its liability by contract.16 A state may forbid a common carrier to limit its liability save by an agreement in writing signed by the owner of the goods, for such a requirement is the establishment of a rule of evidence, and not a regulation of contracts as to interstate transportation.17 A state may require all railways within the state to stop certain of their trains running each way daily, at stations in towns containing a specified number of inhabitants and to stop for a time sufficient to receive and let off passengers.18 A state may require railways receiving freight for transportation to a point on a connecting line to be liable for damages caused on the connecting line, for the railway may lawfully limit its contract of transportation to its own line.19 A state may authorize a municipality to prohibit by ordinance the running of any trains within its limits at a speed greater than that fixed in the ordinance.20 A state may require intersecting railways to provide 13 N. Y., N. H. & H. R. v. New York, 165 U. S. 628. 14 N. Y., N. H. & H. R. v. New York, supra. 15 Gladson v. Minnesota, 166 U. S. 427; cf. L. S. & M. S. Ry. v. Ohio, 173 id. 285; I. C. R. v. Illinois, 163 id. 142. 16 C., M. & S. P. Ry. v. Solan, 169 U. S. 133. 17 R. & A. R. v. P. T. Co., 169 U. S. 311. facilities for transferring cars used in the regular business of their respective lines.21 A state may provide that all railways doing business within the state shall be liable in damages to their employees for any negligence of the railway's servants.22 A state may require railways to construct and maintain cattle guards and fences under a penalty of double damages.23 A state may authorize the recovery from railways of double damages for cattle killed or injured at a point where the railway might, but did not, fence.24 A state may authorize its railroad commission to require a railway to erect and maintain stations at designated villages.25 A state may prohibit or restrain the sale of wines or liquors imported from foreign countries or brought within its territory from another state, though introduced in an original package or otherwise, or manufactured in the state.26 A state may prohibit the sale of an adulterated food product, even though it is brought from a foreign country.27 A state may so regulate the operation of draw-bridges over navigable waters that the traffic on the water and the traffic on the land shall be so conducted as to interfere as little as possible with each other.28 A state may grant and control the exercise of ferry licenses.29 A state may establish port regulations for its harbours.30 A state may au 23 M. P. Ry. v. Humes, 115 U. S. 512. "M. & S. L. R. v. Beckwith, 129 U. S. 26. 25 M. & S. L. R. v. Minnesota, 193 U. S. 53. The License Cases, 5 How. 504; Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall. 129; Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 25; Foster v. Kansas, 112 id. 201; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 id. 623; Act of 8th August, 1890, 26 Stat. 313, c. 728, legislatively limiting the operation of Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100. "Crossman v. Lurman, 192 U. S. 189. 29 Escanaba Co. v. Chicago, 107 U. S. 678. Fanning v. Gregoire, 16 How. 524, 534; Conway v. Taylor, 1 Black, 603. 30 The James Gray v. The John Fraser, 21 How. 184. thorize a municipality to forbid the use of steam power by railways within the municipal limits.31 33 On the other hand, a state, by its police regulations, could not, before the passage of the Interstate Commerce Act, enforce with respect to interstate transportation, a prohibition of a charge of the same, or a greater, toll for a shorter than for a longer distance in the same direction.32 After the passage of the Interstate Commerce Act such a regulation was a fortiori beyond the power of the state." A state may not require all trains carrying interstate passengers to stop at a station where other adequate accommodations were furnished by the railway, especially where the stoppage of through trains at that station requires them to run over a branch line taking them several miles out of their direct course.34 A state may not require a railway to stop at all county seats, a sufficient time to take on or let off passengers, such express trains as are run only for the transportation through the state of passengers between two points in other states, especially when by other trains adequate accommodations are provided for all local and through transportation to and from each county seat.35 A state may not require, under a penalty, a report to the state authorities of the name and occupation of every passenger.36 A state cannot forbid a common carrier to bring into the state intoxicating 32 22 W., S. L. & P. Ry. v. Illinois, 118 U. S. 557. Waite, C. J., and Bradley and Gray, JJ., dissented. "L. & N. R. v. Eubank, 184 U. S. 27. Gray and Brewer, JJ., dissented. G., C. & S. F. Ry. v. Hefley, 158 id. 98. "I. C. R. v. Illinois, 163 U. S. 142. * C., C., C. & St. L. Ry. v. Illinois, 177 U. S. 514; Gladson v. Minnesota, 166 id. 427. "Sinnot v. Davenport, 22 How. 227; Foster v. Davenport, ibid, 244. New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 102, from the judgment in which Marshall, C. J., and Story, J., dissented, though not formally, is practically, overruled. |