Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/262

 236 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. MoooY, J., dizenting. 29 U. 8. a drove of cattle, whoe long interstate journey was intxupted, for humane reason, to give them & few days of rest and refreah- ment. With respect to this oil, no business whatever was done in the State except that which was required to conduct the tr__netion of interstate commerce begun in another State and to be completed in a third State. The single conderation that the property enjoys in Tennessee the protection of the laws of the State cannot be enough to justify state taxation. If that were so, all property in the course of interstate transportation would he subject to state tax in every State through which it should pa. I conclude that the oil in question was actually in the course of tratmportation between the States, was delayed in the State of Tennessee only for the purpose of conveniently continuing that transportation, and-was, therefore, protected from state taxation by the commerce lause of the Constitution. Co v. Errol, 116 U.S. 5.17, 525; Kelley v. Rhoad, 188 U.S. 1. Cases of. taxation upon property before it has fatered the channel of interstate transportation, or after the transporta- tion has finally ended, seem to me to have no application. In the fortact cla the property is taxable bcause it has not ceased to be a part of the mass of the property of the State, and in the latter class because it has come to rest as a part of the mass of the property of the State. Between those two points of time it is exempt from the taxing power of the State. In every case whre the tak has been sustained there were facts present regarded as essential by the court, which are absent here. The property had either not began it interstate journey, as in Coe v. Erroll, ub. sup., and Damond Match Company v. � Ontonagon, 188 U.S. 82, or it had ended that journey and was held for sale in common with other property in the State, as in Brown v. Houston, .114 U.S. 622; Pittsburg Coal Company v. Bates, 156 U.S. 577, and American $tel & Wire Company v. .Speed, ub. sup. MR. JUSTICE HOLMES COIlClII'S.

�