Sec. 8.-Powers of Congress Cl. 3.-Commerce-Foreign State law providing that no alien passengers shall be landed until the sum of $2 is paid to the boarding officer for each passenger so landing is repugnant to the Constitution and therefore void. Passenger Cases, 7 How. 282. See also Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U. S. 275. People v. Compagnie Gen. Transatlantique, 107 U. S. 59. Quarantine and Health Regulations The expense of quarantine regulations cannot be raised by a tax on foreign-owned ships engaged in interstate or international commerce. Peete v. Morgan, 19 Wall. 581. No unconstitutional regulation of commerce is made by State law excluding healthy persons from a locality infested with a contagious disease, whether such persons come from within or without the State. Compagnie Francaise, etc., v. Louisiana, 186 U. S. 380. Congress, by an exertion of its power to regulate foreign commerce, has the authority to forbid merchandise carried in such commerce from entering the United States, and to establish standards of quality for such commodities as are allowed to enter. The Abby Dodge, 223 U. S. 166. Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 493. Game Taken in Foreign Countries Foreign commerce is not unconstitutionally regulated by New York law under which the possession of game within the State during the closed season is forbidden though the game may have been lawfully taken in foreign countries. Silz v. Hesterberg, 211 U. S. 31. Counterfeiting Notes of Foreign Banks Congress, under its authority to define and punish offenses against the laws of nations and to regulate commerce with foreign nations, may provide for punishing as a crime the counterfeiting within the United States of the notes of foreign banks, although such notes are not the issue of a foreign government. U. S. v. Arjona, 120 U. S. 479. 12703°-S. Doc. 157, 68-1—11 Sec. 8.-Powers of Congress Commerce among the Several States Definition and Nature Cl. 3.-Commerce-Interstate Commercial intercourse is an element of commerce which comes within the regulating power of Congress, and commerce among the States consists of intercourse and traffic between their citizens, and includes the purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities, as well as their transportation. Pensacola Tel. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 96 U. S. 9. Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 280. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1. Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 203. Rosenberger v. Pacific Exp. Co., 241 U. S. 48. Transportation of persons as well as of property is commerce. Commerce not only includes traffic, or buying and selling, but all those means and methods of intercourse which are necessary to the commercial unity of the Nation. It includes the transportation, with all its means and facilities, not only of the property in which they deal, but of the persons of the people; the transmission of information from State to State, including telegraphic communication, and no doubt applies as well to the intangible forces now fast coming into use in the transmission of messages as to the visible wires that stretch in physical continuity from State to State. It makes no difference whether the passenger travels for business or pleasure, or whether the message is a friendly greeting or relates to a momentous business contract. All alike, in passing from State to State, come within the regulating powers vested in the National Congress. Hoke v. U. S., 227 U. S. 308. Second Employers' Liability Cases, 223 U. S. 1. The power to regulate interstate commerce is plenary, complete in itself, and may be exercised to its utmost extent, subject only to such limitations as the Constitution imposes; it was vested in Congress in order to secure equality and freedom in commercial intercourse against discriminating State legislation, but it was not intended that the power should be exercised so as to interfere with private contracts not designed when made to create impediments to such intercourse. The Lottery Case, 188 U. S. 321. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Mottley, 219 U. S. 467. In re Rahrer, 140 U. S. 545. The Thomas Jefferson, 10 Wheat. 428. Railroad Company v. Richmond, 19 Wall. 584. Sec. 8.-Powers of Congress Cl. 3.-Commerce-Interstate In the exercise of its power over interstate commerce, it is competent for Congress to remove all obstructions upon wharves, natural or artificial, to interstate traffic or the carrying of the mails. In re Debs, 158 U. S. 564. A carrier, by engaging in interstate commerce, does not thereby submit all its business affairs to the regulating power of Congress. Employers' Liability Cases, 207 U. S. 463. Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, to prevent favoritism, and to secure equal rights to all engaged in interstate trade, and Congress may control those who are conducting interstate commerce by holding them responsible for the intent and purposes of their agents. New York Central, etc., R. Co. v. U. S., 212 U. S. 481. Harriman v. I. C. C., 211 U. S. 407. The power of Congress to regulate commerce extends only to the external commerce of the State, and has no application to commerce which is purely internal; the grant of power to Congress virtually denies the power to interfere with the internal trade and business of the separate States, except as a necessary and proper means of carrying into execution some other power expressly granted or vested. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1. U. S. v. Dewitt, 9 Wall. 41. Lord v. Goodall, etc., S. S. Co., 102 U. S. 541. Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. McKendree, 203 U. S. 514. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. I. C. C., 221 U. S. 612. Southern R. Co. v. U. S., 222 U. S. 20. The Abby Dodge, 223 U. S. 166. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. U. S., 234 U. S. 342. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Illinois, 245 U. S. 493. Wisconsin v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 257 U. S. 563. Navigation Commerce among the several States includes the navigation of public waters for the purpose of the transportation of persons and property. The word "commerce" is to be considered a generic term comprehending navigation or that a control over navigation is necessarily incidental to the power to regulate commerce, and not only gives Congress an unlimited power over the cargoes, but also enables that body to control the vehicles in which they are imported. The power to regulate navigation, however, is an implied power, and has been exercised as being necessarily implied. Sec. 8.--Powers of Congress Cl. 3.-Commerce-Interstate In his concurring opinion in Gibbons v. Ogden, supra, Mr. Justice Johnson said (p. 229): The power of Congress to regulate navigation is as inseparable from it as vital motion is from vital existence, and such power is not incidental to that of regulating commerce; it is the thing itself. Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 203. State Tonnage Tax Cases, 12 Wall. 214. Henderson v. New York, 92 U. S. 270. Gilman v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall. 724. The Brig Wilson v. U. S., 1 Brock. (U. S.) 423. Leovy v. U. S., 177 U. S. 632. Escanaba Co. v. Chicago, 107 U. S. 678. Instrumentalities of Commerce Commerce embraces appliances necessarily employed in carrying on transportation by land and water; the power of Congress over commerce extends to all the instrumentalities of such commerce, and to every device that may be employed to interfere with the freedom of commerce. Railroad Company v. Fuller, 17 Wall. 568. Northern Securities Co. v. U. S., 193 U. S. 344, holding that Congress had the power to enact the antitrust act of July 2, 1890. In Hopkins v. U. S. (171 U. S. 597) the court said: Definitions as to what constitutes interstate commerce are not easily given so that they shall clearly define the full meaning of the term. We know from the cases decided in this court that it is a term of very large significance. It comprehends, as it is said, intercourse for the purposes of trade in any and all its forms, including transportation, purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities between the citizens of different States, and the power to regulate it embraces all the instruments by which such commerce may be conducted. But in all the cases which have come to this court there is not one which has denied the distinction between a regulation which directly affects and embarrasses interstate trade or commerce, and one which is nothing more than a charge for a local facility provided for the transaction of such commerce. Interstate and foreign commerce, strictly considered, consists in intercourse and traffic, including in these terms navigation and the transportation of persons and property, as well as purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities. Mobile County v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691. Any regulation of the transportation of interstate commerce, whether it be upon the high seas, the lakes, the rivers, or upon railroads or other artificial channels of communication, affecting commerce, operates as a regulation of commerce itself. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1. Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419. Pennsylvania v. Wheeling, etc., Brdg. Co., 18 How., 421. Almy v. California, 24 How. 169. Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. Illinois, 118 U. S. 557. Tennessee v. Pullman Co., 117 U. S. 51. it to Sec. 8.-Powers of Congress Cl. 3.-Commerce-Interstate The sale and delivery of coal f. o. b. cars at the mine for transportation to purchasers in other States is interstate com merce. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Sonman, etc., Co., 242 U. S. 120. York Mfg. Co. v. Colley, 247 U. S. 21. One who as agent of a nonresident principal takes orders on such principal for the purchase of goods held in such other State, and who when the goods are shipped to him receives and delivers them in the original packages to his customers, and receives from them the price, is engaged in interstate commerce. Kehrer v. Stewart, 197 U. S. 60. Standard, etc., Mfg. Co. v. U. S., 226 U. S. 20. Crossman v. Lurman, 192 U. S. 189. American Steel & Wire Co. v. Speed, 192 U. S. 500. Cheney Bros. Co. v. Massachusetts, 246 U. S. 147. Defendant, a liquor dealer in New York, received from persons in Vermont, by telegraph and mail, express orders for liquors, which he filled by selecting the liquors and delivering them to an express company of New York for delivery in Vermont C. O. D. Held, that the transaction was one of interstate commerce. O'Neil v. Vermont, 144 U. S. 323. Transportation of freight and passengers from one State to another, or through more than one State, either by land or water, is interstate commerce. Case of State Freight Tax, 15 Wall. 232. Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. Illinois, 118 U. S. 557. Transportation of a commodity wholly within one State to an agent for reshipment into another State is interstate commerce and not subject to State control. The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557. Transportation of a commodity wholly within one State to a Gulf port, and thence carried to a foreign port under orders of the original consignee, is covered by the commerce clause and is beyond the purview of the State railroad commission. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Sabine Tram Co., 227 U. S. 111. Business carried on in Kansas by a liquor dealer maintaining warehouse on the Missouri side of the Missouri River, filling orders for Kansas customers by deliveries in his own wagon or |