"The whole commercial marine of the country is placed by the Constitution under the regulation of Congress, and all laws passed by that body in the regulation of navigation and trade, whether foreign or coastwise, are therefore but the exercise of an undisputed power. When, therefore, an act of the Legislature of a state prescribes a regulation of the subject repugnant to and inconsistent with the regulation of Congress, the state law must give way; and this, without regard to the source of power whence the state Legislature derived its enactment. "This paramount authority of the act of Congress is not only conferred by the Constitution itself, but is the logical result of the power over the subject conferred upon that body by the states. They surrender this power to the General Government; and to the extent of the fair exercise of it by Congress, the act must be supreme. "The power of Congress, however, over the subject does not extend further than the regulation of commerce with foreign nations and among the several states. Beyond these limits the states have not surrendered their power over the subject, and may exercise it independently of any control or interference of the General Government." Wharfage charges and tolls for the use of artificial facilities may be exacted "where Congress has not acted," although the payment is required of those engaged in interstate or foreign commerce;328 and states may, by statute, give a lien upon all vessels, whether domestic or foreign, and whether engaged in interstate or intrastate commerce, for injuries committed to persons and property within the state, and the statute may provide that for non-maritime torts, relief may be had in the state courts.329 328 Simpson v. Shepard, 230 U. S. 352, 405, 57 L. Ed. 1511, 33 Sup. Ct. 729; Keokuk Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U. S. 80, 24 L. Ed. 377; Cincinnati, etc., Packet Co. v. Cattletsburg, 105 U. S. 559, 26 L. Ed. 1169; Parkersburg & O. R. T. Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U. S. 691, 27 L. Ed. 584, 2 Sup. Ct. 732; Huse v. Glover, 119 U. S. 543, 30 L. Ed. 487, 7 Sup. Ct. 313; Ouachita Packet Co. v. Aiken, 121 U. S. 444, 30 L. Ed. 976, 7 Sup. Ct. 907; Sands v. Manistee River Improvement Co., 123 U. S. 288, 295, 31 L. Ed. 149, 8 Sup. Ct. 113. 329 Martin v. Mest, 222 U. S. 191, 56 L. Ed. 159, 32 Sup. Ct. 42, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 592; Johnson v. Chicago § 57. Boards of Trade and Exchanges.-A statute of the state of Missouri provided, among other things, that it should be "unlawful for any corporation, association, copartnership or person to keep, or cause to be kept, in this state, any office, store or other place wherein is permitted the buying or selling the shares of stocks or bonds of any corporation, or petroleum, cotton, grain, provisions or other commodities, either on margins or otherwise, where the same is not at the time actually paid for and delivered, without at the time of the sale the seller shall cause to be made a complete record of the thing sold, the purchaser and the time of delivery in a book kept for that purpose; and at the time the seller shall deliver to the purchaser a written or printed memorandum of said sale, on which he shall place, or cause to be placed, a stamp of the value of twenty-five cents." It was urged that this law was invalid because it affected sales of grain, provisions and other commodities which were, at the time of sale, in the course of transportation in interstate commerce. The Supreme Court held that the statute related to the place of sale and did not interfere with interstate commerce.330 § 58. Inspection-Quarantine, Game, Food, Liquor and Lottery Laws. "State inspection laws and statutes designed to safeguard the inhabitants of a state from fraud and imposition are valid when reasonable in their requirements and not in conflict with federal statutes, although they may affect interstate commerce in their relation to articles prepared for export or by including incidentally those brought into the state and held for sale in the original imported packages. ''331 "And for the protection of its game and the preservation of a valuable food supply, the state may penalize the possession of & P. Elevator Co., 119 U. S. 388, 400, 30 L. Ed. 447, 7 Sup. Ct. 509; Davis v. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 217 U. S. 157, 179, 54 L. Ed. 708, 30 Sup. Ct. 463. 330 Brodnax v. Missouri, 219 U. S. 285, 55 L. Ed. 219, 31 Sup. Ct. 238, affirming State v. Brodnax, 228 Mo. 225, 128 S. W. 177, 137 Am. St. Rep. 613. See also Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U. S. 152, 51 L. Ed. 415, 27 Sup. Ct. 188, and House v. Mayes, 219 U. S. 270, 55 L. Ed. 213, 31 Sup. Ct. 234. 331 Simpson v. Shepard, 230 U. S. 352, 408, 57 L. Ed. 1511, 33 Sup. Ct. 729, 744; Red "C" Oil Co. v. North Carolina, 222 U. S. 380, 56 L. Ed. 240, 32 Sup. Ct. 152, affirming Red "C" Oil Co. v. Board of Agriculture, 172 Fed. 695; Patapsco Guano Co. V. North Carolina, 171 U. S. 345, 43 L. Ed. 191, 18 Sup. Ct. 862. game during the closed season whether obtained within the state or brought from abroad.' '332 Statutes of this nature, however, must not directly affect interstate commerce and must not, under the guise of an inspection fee, be a tax on such commerce.333 The subject affects only incidentally the questions discussed in this chapter, and it is not within the purview of this book to treat of the subject of interstate commerce except as affecting carriers. Food and liquors are commodities, and it has been held that a lottery ticket is a commodity in such a sense that its transportation is commerce. In a note are given decisions which illustrate the holding of the courts showing the extent of the police power of the states.334 332 Simpson v. Shepard, 230 U. S. 352, 408, 57 L. Ed. 1511, 33 Sup. Ct. 724, 744; Silz v. Hesterberg, 211 U. S. 31, 53 L. Ed. 75, 29 Sup. Ct. 10; Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519, 40 L. Ed. 793, 16 Sup. Ct. 600; Manufacturers' Gas & Oil Co. v. Indiana Natural Gas & Oil Co., 155 Ind. 547, 58 N. E. 706, 53 L. R. A. 135; Adams v. Mississippi Lumber Co., 84 Miss. 29, 36 So. 68; Re Deininger, 108 Fed. 623; McDonald v. Southern Exp. Co., 134 Fed. 284; State v. Mallory, 73 Ark. 249, 83 S. W. 955, 67 L. R. A. 778; State v. Harbourne, 70 Conn. 492; 40 Atl. 179, 66 Am. St. Rep. 126, 40 L. R. A. 610; Westheimer v. Weisman, 8 Kan. App. 78, 54 Pac. 332; People v. O'Neill, 110 Mich. 328, 88 W. 227, 33 L. R. A. 697; Selkirk v. Stephens, 72 Minn. 336, 75 N. W. 386, 40 L. R. A. 760; Ames v. Kirby, 71 N. J. L. 446, 59 Atl. 558; People v. A. Booth & Co., 42 Misc. 327, 86 N. Y. Supp. 272; People v. Buffalo Fish Co., 164 N. Y. 105, 58 N. E. 34, 79 Am. St. Rep. 622, 52 L. R. A. 807; People v. Bootman, 180 N. Y. 9, 72 N. E. 505. 333 Note 284, ante; Savage V. Jones, 225 U. S. 501, 56 L. Ed. 1182, 32 Sup. Ct. 715; McLean v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 203 U. S. 38, 51 L. Ed. 78, 27 Sup. Ct. 1; New Mexico v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 12 N. M. 425, 78 Pac. 74. 334 Quarantine Laws: Reid V. Colorado, 187 U. S. 138, 47 L. Ed. 108, 23 Sup. Ct. 92; Asbell v. Kansas, 209 U. S. 251, 52 L. Ed. 778, 28 Sup. Ct. 485, 14 Ann. Cas. 1101; United States v. Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co., 222 U. S. 8, 56 L. Ed. 68, 32 Sup. Ct. 6; Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. S. 313, 34 L. Ed. 455, 10 Sup. Ct. 862; Simpson v. Shepard, 230 U. S. 352, 406, 57 L. Ed. 1511, 33 Sup. Ct. 729; Morgan's S. S. Co. v. Louisiana, 118 U. S. 455, 30 L. Ed. 237, 6 Sup. Ct. 1114; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Haber, 169 U. S. 613, 42 L. Ed. 878, 18 Sup. Ct. 488; Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U. S. 1, 44 L. Ed. 347, 20 Sup. Ct. 251; Rasmussen v. Idaho, 181 U. S. 198, 45 L. Ed. 820, 21 Sup. Ct. 594; Compagnie Francaise, etc. v. Board of Health, 186 U. S. 380, 46 L. Ed. 1209, 22 Sup. Ct. 811; Midland Valley R. Co. v. State, 35 Okla. 672, 130 Pac. 803. Such laws, however, cannot be made a cover for discriminations and arbitrary enactments having no rea sonable relation to health, Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465, 472, 473, 24 L. Ed. 527. Pure Food: McDermott v. Wisconsin, 228 U. S. 115, 57 L. Ed. 754, 33 Sup. Ct. 431, reversing same case, 143 Wis. 18, 126 Mo. 888, 21 Am. Cas. 1315; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Abilene Cot. Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426, 51 L. Ed. 553, 27 Sup. Ct. 350, 9 Am. Cas. 1075; Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Washington, 222 U. S. 370, 56 L. Ed. 237, 32 Sup. Ct. 160; Southern Ry. Co. v. Reid, 222 U. S. 424, 56 L. Ed. 257, 32 Sup. Ct. 140; Second Employers' Liability cases, Mondou v. N. Y. N. H. & H. R. Co., 223 U. S. 1, 56 L. Ed. 327, 32 Sup. Ct. 169, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 44; Savage v. Jones, 225 U. S. 501, 56 L. Ed. 1182, 32 Sup. Ct. 715; Hipolite Egg Co. v. United States, 220 U. S. 45, 55 L. Ed. 364, 31 Sup. Ct. 364, construing federal statute. Laws of Congress supreme, Sligh v. Kirkwood, 237 U. S. 52, 59 L. Ed. 835, 35 Sup. Ct. 501. False statements of the curative effects of a drug violates Federal Pure Food Laws, United States v. Six Cases, 239 U. S. 510, 60 L. Ed. 411, 36 Sup. Ct. 190. So of a food, Weeks v. United States, 245 U. S. 618, 62 L. Ed. 513, 38 Sij. Cit. 219. Federal Law Supreme, Crescent Mfg. Co. v. Wilson, 233 Fed. 282. packages imported to state in interstate or foreign commerce not subject to prohibitory laws of state, Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100, 34 L. Ed. 128, 10 Sup. Ct. 681. See application of principle, Bowman v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 125 U. S. 465, 31 L. Ed. 700, 8 Sup. Ct. 689; Rhodes v. Iowa, 170 U. S. 412, 42 L. Ed. 1088, 18 Sup. Ct. 664; Vance v. Vandercook Co., 170 U. S. 438, 42 L. Ed. 1100, 18 Sup. Ct. 674; Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 58, 95, 41 L. Ed. 632, 17 Sup. Ct. 265; May v. New Orleans, 178 U. S. 496, 44 L. Ed. 1165, 20 Sup. Ct. 976; Austin v. Tennessee, 179 U. S. 343, 45 L. Ed. 224, 21 Sup. Ct. 132; American Exp. Co. v. Iowa, 196 U. S. 133, 49 L. Ed. 417, 25 Sup. Ct. 182; Cook v. Marshall County, Iowa, 196 U. S. 261, 49 L. Ed. 471, 25 Sup. Ct. 233; Pabst Brewing Co. v. Crenshaw, 198 U. S. 17, 49 L. Ed. 925, 25 Sup. Ct. 552; Heyman v. Southern Ry. Co., 203 U. S. 270, 51 L. Ed. 178, 27 Sup. Ct. 104; Rearick v. Pennsylvania, 203 U. S. 507, 51 L. Ed. 295, 27 Sup. Ct. 159; Adams Exp. Co. v. Kentucky, 206 U. S. 129, 51 L. Ed. 987, 27 Sup. Ct. 606; Adams Exp. Co. v. Kentucky, 214 U. S. 218, 53 L. Ed. 972, 29 Sup. Ct. 633, construing Wilson Act of Aug. 8, 1890, chap. 728, 26 Stat. 313; Ex Parte Oklahoma, 220 U. S. 191, 55 L. Ed. 431, 31 Sup. Ct. 426, dispensary law. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Cook Brewing Co., 223 U. S. 70, 56 L. Ed. 355, 32 Sup. Ct. 189 affirming same case, 172 Fed. 117, 96 C. C. A. 322, 40 L. R. A. 798, and holding that a railroad will be enjoined from refusing beer for shipment in interstate commerce, even though the shipment is to a prohibition district; Purity Extract Co. v. Lynch, 226 U. S. 192, 57 L. Ed. 84, 33 Sup. Ct. 44, discussing effect of Wilson Act and affirming Purity Extract Co. v. Lynch, 100 Miss. 650, 56 So. 316; De Bary v. Louisiana, 227 U. S. 108, 57 L. Ed. 441, 33 Sup. Ct. 739, affirming State v. Frederick De Bary & Co., 130 La. 1090, 58 So. 892; McDermott v. Wisconsin, 228 U. S. 115, 134, 57 L. Ed. 754, 33 Sup. Ct. 431, discussing the meaning of "original package," and reversing McDermott v. State, 143 Wis. 18, 126 N. W. 888; State v. Intoxicating Liquors, 104 Me. 502, 71 Atl. 758; State v. 18 Casks of beer, 24 Okla. 786, 104 Pac. 1093; American Exp. Co. v. Miller, 104 Miss. 247, 61 So. 306, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 120; Crescent Brewing Co. v. Oregon S. L. R. Co., 24 Idaho 106, 132 Pac. 975; Kirkpatrick v. State, 138 Ga. 794, 76 S. E. 53; State v. Miller, 66 W. Va. 436, 66 S. E. 522. By Act of Congress passed over the President's veto by the Senate February 28, 1913, and by the House March 1, 1913, known as the Webb-Kenyon Act, it was enacted, "That the shipment or transportation, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, of any spirituous, vinous, malted, fermented, or other intoxicating liquor of any kind, from one state, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, into any other state, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, which said spirituous, vinous, malted, fermented, or other intoxicating liquors is intended, by any person interested therein, to be received, possessed, sold, or in any manner used, either in the original package or otherwise, in violation of any law of such state, territory, or district of the United States, or place noncontiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is hereby prohibited." For discussion of this Act, see Atkinson v. Southern Exp. Co., 94 S. C. 444, 78 S. E. 516, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 349; Atkinson v. Southern Exp. Co., 94 S. C. 457, 78 S. E. 520; Adams Exp. Co. v. Commonwealth, 154 Ky. 462, 157 S. W. 908, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 342; State v. Grier, 88 Atl. 579; United States v. Oregon & W. R. & Nav. Co., 210 Fed. 378. War time prohibition valid, Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries and Warehouse Co., 251 U. S. 146, 64 L. Ed. 194, 40 Sup. Ct. 106. Transportation by automobile violates Reed Amendment, United States v. Simpson, 252 U. S. 465, 64 L. Ed. 665, 40 Sup. Ct. 364. Lotteries: Carriage of lottery tickets by a common carrier in interstate commerce may be prohibited by Congress, Lottery case (Champion V. Ames), 188 U. S. 321, 47 L. Ed. 492, 23 Sup. Ct. 321. See also Francis v. United States, 188 U. S. 375, 47 L. Ed. 510, 23 Sup. Ct. 334; Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U. S. 197, 48 L. Ed. 679, 24 Sup. Ct. 436; United States v. Northern Securities Co., 120 Fed. 721; United States v. Whelpley, 125 Fed. 617; State v. Lowry (Ind.), 166 Ind. 372, 77 N. E. 728, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 532; People v. A. Booth & Co., 42 Misc. 331, 86 N. Y. Supp. 272; Re Gregory, 219 U. S. 210, 55 L. Ed. 184, 31 Sup. Ct. 143. For a discussion by the Supreme Court of the principles of the text, and citing authorities, see Sligh v. Kirkwood, 237 U. S. 52, 59 L. Ed. 835, 35 Sup. Ct. 501. Blue Sky Law: Held invalid, Alabama & N. O. Transp. Co. v. Doyle, 210 Fed. 173; Compton v. Allen, 216 Fed. 537; citing cases. State laws valid prior to Congressional action, Merrick v. Halsey & Co., 242 U. S. 568, 61 L. Ed. 498, 37 Sup. Ct. 227; Hall v. GeigerJones Co., 242 U. S. 539, 61 L. Ed. 480, 37 Sup. Ct. 217; Caldwell V. Sioux Falls Stock Yards Co., 242 U. S. 559, 61 L. Ed. 493, 37 Sup. Ct. 224. Inspection Laws: Oyster inspection law held invalid as an interference with interstate commerce, Foote V. Stanley, 232 U. S. 494, 58 L. Ed. 698, 34 Sup. Ct. 377. Peddler's License Law invalid, Stewart v. Michigan, 232 U. S. 665, 58 L. Ed. 786, 34 Sup. Ct. 476. An additional tax on sales where profit sharing coupons are given is valid, Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis Company, 240 U. S. 342, 60 L. Ed. 679, 36 Sup. Ct. 370. Migratory Bird Law: State statute not in |