Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/260

234                               OCTOBER TERM, 1907.

MOODY. J., dissenting. 209 U.S. its being from taking cognizance of this suit, is conclusive here, and the judgment of that court should, therefore, be affirmed without reference to any other question raised or discussed. MR. JUSTICE MOODY, dissenting. I am unable to agree to the judgment in this case, for the reason that the statute here in question, as it was enforced against the property of the plaintiff in error, in my opinion was an interference with interstate commerce, which was be- yond the power of the State. It is to be observed that the court below did not construe the statute as applying to arti- cles in the course of transportation between the States and not destined for sale to consumers in the State, or, in other words, the court did not hold that the statute applied to the property here affected by it. On the contrary, the court ex- pressly refrained from passing upon the merits of the contro- versy, and dismissed the bill for want of jurisdiction. We, however, have assumed jurisdiction of the controversy, for reasons given in the opinion of the court, in which I concur, and therefore cannot escape the duty of interpreting the mean-. ing of the statute. I think we should, if it be possible, give to the statute a meaning which places its constitutionality beyond doubt. The law seems clearly to be designed. to pro- tect state manufacturers and consumers within the State. Its operatipn is limited by the words of the first section, which directs the Governor to appoint inspectors for illuminating fluids "which may be manufactured or offered for sale in the State." Far from enlarging the meaning of these restrictive words, the other provisions of the law accord with and con- firm them. The oil in tank No. 1 at least, which was neither manufactured in the State nor offered for sale in the State, is by this interpretation removed from the operation of the statute, and I think we ought so to decide. But, if it be assumed that the oil in tank No. I is subjected to inspection by the law, in my opinion the law is unconstitu-