Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/246

 220 OCTOBER TEI:CM, 1907. Opinion of the Court. 209 U. 8. foreign markets. Ch'utsman v. Northrop, 8 Cowen, 46; Pa/apsco Guano Co. v. Board o/Agriculture, 171 U.S. 356. All inspection laws may have a remote and in some cases a considerable influence on commerce, as is recognized in the cases above cited, but it is not every statute passed under the police power of the State that is void because it in some way affects commerce between the States. Many ageneie employed in interstate commerce are subject to the proper police power of the State. Hennongton v. GeorF/a, 163 U.S. 299; Lake Shore Ry. Co. v. Ohio, 173 U.S. 285; N.Y. &c. R. R. Co. v. N.Y., 165 U.S. 628; Erb v. Morasch, 177 U.S. 584; $rn/th v. A/abama, 124 U.S. 465; Richmond &c. R. R. Co. v. Patterson, 169 U.S. 311; Mo. &c. R. R. Co. v. Ha0er, 169 U.S. 633; Nashville &c. R. R. Co. v. Alabama, 128U. S. 96; L., N. O. & T. P. R. R. v. Mi,rissippi, 133 U.S. 589; P/ezsy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537; $m/th v. Stale, 100 Tennessee, 494; Pittsburg &c. Coal Co. v. Lou/s/ana, 156 U.S. 590, 600. MR. JUSTICE MCKENI'A, after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of' the court. It is contended by defendant in error that this court is with- out jurisdiction because no matter sought .to be litigated by plaintiff in error was determined by the Supreme Court of Tennessee. The court simply held, it is said, that, under the laws of the State, it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for any purpose. And it is insisted "that this holding involved no Federal question, but only the powers and jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Tennessee, in respect to which the Supreme Court of Tennessee is the final arbiter." Opposing these contentions, plaintiff in error urges that whether a suit is one against a State cannot depend upon the declaration of a statu, but depends upon the essential nature of t, he suit, and that the Supreme Court recognized that the statute "added nothing to the axiomatic pr/nciplc that the State, as a sovereign, is not subject io suit save by its own

�