A state law, requiring the master of every vessel in the foreign trade to pay a certain sum to a state officer for every passenger brought from a foreign country into the state, is void; Smith v. Turner, 7 How. (TJ. S.) 283, 12 L. Ed. 702. No state can grant an exclusive monopoly for the navigation of any portion of the waters within its limits upon which commerce is carried on under coasting licenses granted under the author ity of congress; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 1, 6 L. Ed. 23; the rights here in con troversy were the exclusive right to navigate the Hudson river with steam vessels. See also, on this point, Gilman v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 713, 18 L. Ed. 96; The Dan iel Ball, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 557, 19 L. Ed. 999; Craig v. Kline, 65 Pa. 399, 3 Am. Rep. 636. But a state law granting to an individual an exclusive right to navigate the upper waters of a stream which is wholly within the limits of a state, separated from tide waters by falls impassable for purposes of navigation, and not forming a part of a continuous track of navigation between two or more states, or with a foreign country, is not invalid ; Veazie v. Moor, 14 How. (U. S.) 568, 14 L. Ed. 545; and see McReynolds v. Smallhouse, 8 Bush (Ky.) 447. A statute for bidding common carriers to bring intoxicat ing liquors into the state without being fur nished with a certificate that the consignee was authorized to sell intoxicating liquors in the county is invalid ; Bowman v. Ry. Co., 125 U. S. 465, 8 Sup. Ct. 689, 1062, 31 L., Ed. 700. And so is an act taxing a corpo ration of another state, owning a railroad which is a link in an interstate line, for the privilege of keeping an office in the state; Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Com., 136 U. S. 114, 10 Sup. Ct. 958, 34 L. Ed. 394. And a tax on persons and property received and land ed within one state after being transported from another was held a tax upon Interstate commerce and a regulation thereof upon a matter which is within the exclusive power of congress ; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Penn sylvania, 114 U. S. 196, 5 Sup. Ct. 826, 29 L. Ed. 158.
When the State Power is Ewclusive. The states may authorize the construction of highways, turnpikes, railways and canals between points in the same states and regu late the tolls thereof ; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Maryland, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 456, 22 L. Ed. 678; the building of bridges over non navigable streams and regulate the naviga tion of the strictly internal waters of the state, such as do not by themselves, or by connection with other waters, form a con tinuous highway over which commerce is or may be carried on with other states or for eign countries ; Veazie v. Moor, 11 How. (U. S.) 568, 14 L. Ed. 545; The Montello, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 411, 20 L. Ed. 191; id., 20 Wall. (U. S.) 430, 22 L. Ed. 391; and this rule obtains even if goods or passengers, over such highways between points in the same state, may have an ultimate destination in other states, and, to a slight extent the state regulations may be said to interfere with interstate commerce; Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co. v. Illinois, 118 U. S. 557, 7 Sup. Ct. 4, 30 L. Ed. 244 ; the states may also exact a bonus or even a portion of the earnings of such corporation as a condition to the grant of its charter; Society for Savings v. Coite, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 594, 18 L. Ed. 897; Provi dent Inst. for Savings v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 611, 18 L. Ed. 907; Hamilton Mfg. Co. v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 632, 18 L. Ed. 904 ; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Maryland, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 456, 22 L. Ed. 678 ; Ashley v. Ryan, 153 U. S. 436, 14 Sup. Ct. 865, 38 L. Ed. 773. The power to enact police regulations relating exclusively to in trastate trade cannot be interfered with by congress; U. S. v. De Witt, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 41, 19 L. Ed. 593; Patterson v. Kentucky, 97 U. S. 501, 24 L. Ed. 1115; State v. R. Co., 152 Wis. 341, 140 N. W. 70; U. S. v. Vassar, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 462, 470, 471, 18 L. Ed. 497. The remarks of Chase, C. J., in this ease contain the substance of the whole doctrine : "Over this (the internal) eommerce and trade, congress has no power of regulation or any direct control. This powei belongs exclusive
ly to the states. No interference by congress with the business of citizens transacted with in a state is warranted by the constitution, except such as is strictly incidental to the exercise of powers clearly granted to the leg islature. The power to authorize a business within a • state is plainly repugnant to the exclusive power of the state over the same subject." Regulation of intrastate commerce belongs to the state subject to the condition that prescribed rates must not be so unreason ably low as to deprive the carrier of his property without due process of law; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 526, 18 Sup. Ct. 418, 42 L. Ed. 819. See RATES.
It was at one time thought that the ad miralty jurisdiction of the United States did not extend to contracts of affreightment between ports of the United States, though the voyage were performed upon navigable waters of the United States; Allen v. New berry, 21 How. (U. S.) 244, 16 L. Ed. 110. But later adjudications have ignored this distinction as applied to those waters; The Belfast, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 624, 641, 19 L. Ed. 266; The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 558, 587, 22 L. Ed. 654; Lord v. Steamship Co., 102 U. S. 541, 26 L. Ed. 224. • Under this power the states may also pre scribe the form of all commercial contracts, as well as the terms and conditions upon which the internal trade of the state may be carried on ; United States v. Steffens, 100 U. S. 82, 25 L. Ed. 550.
State statutes affecting interstate com merce have been sustained as follows: One directed against color blindness; Nashville, C. & St. L. R. v. Alabama, 128 U. S. 96, Sup. Ct. 28, 32 L. Ed. 352; requiring inter state locomotive engineers to obtain a li cense after a qualifying examination, and imposing a penalty for operating without such license ; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 8 Sup. Ct. 564, 31 L. Ed. 508; forbidding a contract limiting liability for injury ; Chi cago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Solan, 169 U. S. 133, 18 Sup. Ct.. 289, 42 L. Ed. 688; Peirce v. Van Dusen, 78 Fed. 693, 24 C. C. A. 280, 69 L. R. A. 705; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Hughes, 191 U. S. 477, 24 Sup. Ct. 132, 48 L. Ed. 268; requiring telegraph companies to receive dispatches and to transmit and deliver them with due diligence, as applied to messages from outside the state; West ern Union Telegraph Co. v. James, 162 U. S. 650, 16 Sup. Ct. 934, 40 L. Ed. 1105; for bidding the running of freight trains on Sunday; Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U. S. 299, 16 Sup. Ct. 1086, 41 L. Ed. 166; requir ing railroad companies to fix their rates annually for the transportation of passen gers and freight and to post a printed copy of such rates at all their stations; Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Fuller, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 560, 21 L. Ed. 710; forbidding the consolida tion of parallel or competing lines of rail ways; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Kentucky, 161 U. S. 677, 16 Sup. Ct. 714, 40 L. Ed. 849 ; regulating the heating of passenger cars and directing guards and guard posts to be placed on railroad bridges and trestles and the approaches thereto; New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. New York, 165 U. S. 628, 17 Sup. Ct. 418, 41 L. Ed. 853 ; requiring track connections and facilities for the interchange of cars and traffic at railroad intersections ; Wisconsin, M. & P. R. Co. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287, 21 Sup. Ct. 115, 45 L. Ed. 194. A statute regulating receipts for deposits of money is not a burden on, or regula tion of, interstate commerce, simply because such receipts are likely to be transmitted to other states or foreign countries; Engel v. O'Malley, 219 U. S. 128, 31 Sup. Ct. 190, 55 L. Ed. 128. The Arkansas "Full Crew" act is not unconstitutional under the commerce clause, congress not having acted in regard thereto ; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Ar kansas, 219 U. S. 453, 31 Sup. Ct. 275, 55 L. Ed. 290.