Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/488

 § 474'/.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VIII. freedom, encroaches on the exclusive power or Congress. 1 Thus, a statute of Missouri prohibiting driving or conveying Texan, Mexican, or Indian cattle into the state between the first days of March and November is an unconstitutional reg- ulation of interstate commerce. 2 But, Congress not having acted on the subject, it is held not to conflict with the powers of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, for several states by concurrent legislation to consolidate railroad companies so as to create a consolidated corporation running a continuous line of road through several states, 3 and state statutes regulat- ing the tolls of railroad companies within state limits, making no discrimination between local and interstate rates, are con- stitutional police regulations, so far as regards the commerce clause in the Constitution, even though they affect a railroad company operating a road through several states. 4 Thus, as See Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pen- dleton, 122 U. S. 347. So long as Congress does not pass any law regulating commerce among the states, it indicates its will that inter- state commerce should be free and untrammelled. Brown v. Houston, 114 U. S. 622. 2 Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465. See Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. S. 313; Brimmer o. Rebman, 138 U. S. 78; cf. Kimmish v. Ball, 129 U. S. 217; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Haber, 169 U. S. 613. A statute authorizing the governor, upon as- certaining that disease is epidemic among sheep in any place, to desig- nate such place and to prohibit im- portation therefrom, except upon such restrictions as he and the state sheep inspector should impose, is valid. Rasmussen v. Idaho, 181 U. S. 198. See, also, Smith v. St. Louis & S. W. Ry. Co., 181 U. S. 248. But an act forbidding railroad and ex- press companies to bring intoxicat- ing liquors within the state, except under certain conditions, was held 468 void. Bowman v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 125 U. S. 465. Rhodes v. Iowa, 170 U. S. 412. A state cannot for- bid the sale of oleomargarine brought into the state from another state. Schollenberger v. Penna., 171 U. S. 1; Collins v. New Hampshire, 171 U. S. 30. Nor can a state forbid the sale of intoxicating liquors in the orig- inal kegs or packages in which they were imported. Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100. Otherwise as to retailing. See Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U. S. 86 ; cf. In re Rahrer, 140 U. S. 545. For the power of states to au- thorize bridges over their navigable waters, see Oilman v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall. 713; Escanaba Co. v. Chicago, 107 U. S. 678; People v. Saratoga, etc., R. R. Co., 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 113; Railroad Co. v. Richmond, 19 Wall. 584. 3 Boardman v. Lake Shore, etc., Ry. Co., 84 N. Y. 157. This seems tacitly recognized in many cases in the Federal Supreme Court. 4 Railroad Co. v. Fuller, 17 Wall. 560. Cf. Covington Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U. S. 204.
 * Hall v. DeCuir, 95 U. S. 485.