gory with ferries, and are within the State power under her inspection laws, 12 and although they cannot authorize obstructions to navigable waters, 18 in the absence of legislative restrictions, they may bridge an internal navigable river. 14 The abridgment of a right, unless in conflict with the Constitution or laws of the United States, is an affair between the Government and the State.15 States may authorize the construction of a drawbridge across navigable streams. 16 The power of Congress to authorize a bridge across a public river navigable from the sea is paramount. 17 Not everything which affects commerce amounts to a regulation of it;18 so a State may require railroads to fix and post up the rates of freight, 19 or may fix a maximum rate of charges for transportation, 20 or may levy a tax on the gross receipts,21 or may impose conditions in the charter requiring a bonus or portion of the earnings to be paid to the State. 22 A State law which prescribes the rates for different classes of railroads is not in conflict. 23 A corporation is amenable to the police powers of the State,2 and this includes railroad corporations. 25 It may require roads to be fenced,26 may supervise tracks and switches, time trains, regulate rails, the safety of beams, number of employees, regulate speed, etc.;27 or may impose penalties on conductors, and require stoppage at way stations. 28 See Supplement, post, 295.

1 Wilson v. Kansas C. St. J. & C. B. R. R. Co. 60 Mo. 184 Pennsyl vania v. Wheeling & B. Br. Co., 18 How. 432; The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557; 1 Brown, 196; The Montello, 11 Wall. 411; Peik v. Chicago &c. 94 U. S. 164; Pensacola T. Co. v. Western U. T. Co. 96 U. S. 1; U. S. v. New Bedford Bridge, 1 Wood & M. 410; People v. Platt, 17 Johns. 195; Scott v. Willson, 3 N. H. 321; Canal Comms. v. People, 5 Wend. 448; People v. Rensselaer & S. R. R. Co. 15 Wend. 113.

2 Veazie v. Moor, 14 How. 568.

3 Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 371; U. S. v. New Bedford Bridge, 1 Wood. & M. 417.

4 Carson River L. Co. v. Patterson, 33 Cal. 334.

5 Passenger Cases, 7 How. 543; Sherlock v. Alling, 93 U. S. 99; St. Louis v. McCoy, 18 Mo. 233; Lewis v. Boffinger, 19 Mo. 13; Wilson v. Kansas C. St. J. &. C. B. R. R. 60 Mo. 198; Williams v. Bk. of Michigan, Jend. 539.

6 Stevens v. Walker, 15 La. Ann. 577; The Ann Ryan, 7 Ben. 23.

7 Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113; Chicago &c. v. Iowa, 94 U. S. 155. 8 Munn v. Illinois, 63 Ill. 80; affirmed, 94 U. S. 113; Chicago &c. v. Illinois, Ibid. 155.

9 Cooley v. Port Wardens, 12 How. 299; Gilman v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall. 713; Master v. Ward, 14 La. An. 289; Master v. Morgan, Ibid. 595. 10 Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch, 87; Piscataqua Br. v. New Haven Bridge, 7 N. H. 35.

11 Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 19; People v. Babcock, 11 Wend. 586; North River S. B. Co. v. Livingston, 3 Cow. 733.

12 Gilman v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall. 726; People v. Rensselaer & S. R. R. Co. 15 Wend. 113.

13 Pennsylvania v. Wheeling Bridge Co. 13 How. 518.

14 Willson v. Blackbird C. M. Co. 2 Peters, 250; Silliman v. Hudson River Br. Co. 4 Blatchf. 411.

15 Willson v. Blackbird &c. Co. 2 Peters, 245; Woodman v. Kilbourne Manuf. Co. 1 Abb. U. S. 163.

16 Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 203; Pennsylvania v. Wheeling &c. Bridge Co. 13 How. 607; Silliman v. Hudson River Br. Co. 1 Black. 582; 4 Blatchf. 74, 395; Albany Br. Co. 2 Wall, 403; Silliman v. T. W. T. B. Co. 11 Blatchf. 288; Palmer v Comm'rs. of Cuyahoga Co. 3 McLean, 226; Pennsylvania v. Rensselaer & S. R. R. Co. 15 Wend. 113.

17 Silliman v. Hudson River Br. Co. 4 Blatch. 83, 400; N. R. Steamboat Co. v. Livingston, 3 Cow. 713; People v. Rensselaer &c. R. R. Co. 15 Wend. 113.

18 Del. R. R. Tax, 18 Wall. 232; South Carolina v. Charleston, 4 Rich. 289; State Tax on R. R. Gross Receipts, 15 Wall. 284.

19 Railroad Co. v. Fuller, 17 Wall. 563; State Tax on R. R. Gross Receipts, 15 Wall. 284; Munn v. .Illinois, 4 U. S. 135.

20 Ruggles v. People, 11 Chic. L. N. 204; Ohio &c. R. R. Co. v. McClelland. 25 III. 140; Galena &c. Co. v. Loomis, 13 Ill. 548; Galena &c. Co. v. Dill, 22 Ill. 204; Chicago &c. Co. v. Iowa, 94 U. S. 155; Chicago &c. Co. v. Ackley, Ibid. 179.

21 Reading R. R. Co v. Pa. 15 Wall. 284; State Tax on Gross Receipts, 15 Wall. 284.

22 Railroad Co. v. Maryland, 21 Wall. 456.

23 Chicago &c. R. R. Co. v. Attorney-General, 9 West. Jur. 347.

24 Ruggles v. People, 11 Chic. L. N. 204; Galena &c. R. R. Co. v. Loomis, 13 Ill. 543; Galena &c. R. R. Co. v. Dill, 22 Ill. 204; Ohio &c. R. R. Co. v. McClelland, 25 Ill. 140.

25 Chicago &c. R. R. Co. v. Iowa, 94 U. S. 155; Winona &c. R. R. Co. v. Blake, Ibid. 180; Davidson". State, 4 Tex. Ct. App. 545.

26 Thorpe v. Rutland &c. R. R. Co. 27 Vt. 140.

27 Thorpe v. Rutland &c R. R. Co. 27 Vt. 140; Hegeman v. Western R. R. Co. 16 Barb. 353; Chicago &c. Co. v. Reidy, 63 Ill. 43; Chicago &c. Co. v. Haggerty, 67 Ill. 113.

28 Davidson v. State, 4 Tex. Ct. App. 545.

State authority over fisheries.-On the Revolution the people of each State became sovereign over the navigable waters and the lands under them within the limits of the State,1 with the right of eminent domain over t same. 2 The title to the soil under tide-waters of newly acquired territory vests in the State after its admission into the Union.3 States may regulate the planting and growth of oysters within their territorial limits, and make laws regulating commerce in them, which will not be repugnant, although the vessel may be enrolled and licensed as a United States vessel. The grant of power in this clause does not include the control over fisheries; a State may protect or regulate all fisheries within its borders." The admission of new States gives them the same abso

lute rights as other States, notwithstanding the title was originally in the United States.7

1 Martin v. Waddell, 16 Peters, 419; Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. 74; Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; Mayor &c. v. Eslava, 9 Port. 577; Duval v. McLoskey, I Ala. 708; Kemp v. Thorp, 3 Ala. 291; Pollard v. Files, 3 Ala. 47.

2 Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; Martin v. Waddell, 16 Peters, 367; Russell v. Jersey Comp. 15 How. 426.

3 Weber v. Harbor Commrs. 6 Chic. Leg. N. 408.

4 Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. 71; McCready v. Virginia, 94 U. S. 391. 5 Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. 74.

6 Martin v. Waddell, 16 Peters, 419; U. S. v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. 337; Passenger Cases, 7 How. 555; Bennett v. Boggs, Bald. 76; The Martha Anne, Olcott, 22; Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. 71; Dunham v. Lamphire, 3 Conn. 268; Russell v. Asso. of The Jersey Co. 15 Ho .426; Weston v. Sampson, 8 Cush. 347; Peck v. Lockwood, 5 Day, 22; Arnold v. Mundy, 1 Halst. 1; Stuttsman v. State, 57 Ind. 119; Parker v. Cutler M. Corp. 20 Me. 353; Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 371; Fleet v. Hegeman, 14 Wend. 42; Commonwealth v. Weatherhead, 110 Mass. 175; State v. Hockett, 29 Ind. 302; Gentile v. State, Ibid. 409.

7 Woodman v. Kilbourne Manuf. Co. 1 Abb. U. S. 164; Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1; Pennsylvania v Wheeling &c. Br. 18 How. 421; Gilman v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall. 713.

State taxation.States may impose a license tax on foreign corporations. A statute controlling operations of foreign insurance companies is not a regulation of commerce;2 so, an ordinance imposing a city tax is not a violation of the Constitution, even though the business extends beyond the limits of the State; 4 so, a State law -imposing a tax on brokers dealing in foreign exchange is not in conflict.5 Giving a license by a municipal corporation is not a regulation of commerce. State license acts are not unconstitutional.7 A State may levy a tax on business and persons within its limits; so it may tax railroad property and telegraph lines within its limits; may tax professions, occupations, and trades; 10 may regulate and license the practice of law. 11 A tax by a State on its own corporations, or their property or franchises, is not in couflict, 12 although the capital be invested in shipping.13 When Congress has not interposed to protect the property --of persons and corporations employed in Government -service from taxation, State taxation is not obnoxious. 14 A tax on water-craft in which goods are sold by retail is valid, although the goods were brought from another State, 15 See Supplement, post, 296.

9

1 Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168; Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 10 Wall. 576; Louisiana v. Lathrop, 10 La. An. 398; Louisiana v. Ogden, 10 La. An. 402; Louisiana v. Fosdick, 21 La. An. 434.

2 Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168; Insurance Co. v. New Orleans, 1 Woods, 89; Home Ins. Co. v. Augusta, 93 U. S. 116.

3 Home Ins. Co. v. Augusta City, 93 U. S. 116.

4 Osborne v. Mobile, 16 Wall. 482. And see Home Ins. Co. v. Augusta, 93 U. S. 116.

5 Nathan v. Louisiana, 8 How. 73.

6 Chilvers v. People, 11 Mich. 43; People v. Babcock, 11 Wend. 586. 7 License Cases, 5 How. 504.

8 Nathan v. Louisiana, 8 How. 73.

9 People v. C. P. R. R. Co. 43 Cal. 398; Thompson v. Pacific R. R. 9 Wall. 579.

10 Nathan v. Louisiana, 8 How. 73; Missouri v. North, 27 Mo. 480; Biddle v. Commonwealth, 13 Serg. & R. 405.

11 Bradwell v. State, 16 Wall. 139; Cohen v. Wright, 22 Cal. 194; Aiken v. State Board of Health, 11 Chic. L. N. 35.

12

Delaware R. R. Tax Case, 18 Wall. 232.

13 Berney v. Tax Collector, 2 Bailey, 654; South Carolina v. Charleston, 4 Rich. 289.

14 Lane Co. r. Oregon, 7 Wall. 77; National Bank v. Commonwealth, 9 Wall. 353; Thomson v. Pac. R. R. Co. 9 Wall. 591.

15 Harrison v. Mayor, 11 Miss. 581.

Licenses.-A license for the sale of goods, if imposed on all persons engaged in the same business, is not inconsistent with this provision;1 but a license tax discriminating against products of other States is in conflict; 2 so, a State cannot impose a license tax on a traveling agent from other States.8 Although letters-patent grant exclusive rights to make and vend, yet the State may regulate the use of that right as to merely internal commerce or police.4 Although Congress may regulate licenses to carry on trade within a State for internal revenue purposes, yet the power of the State to tax, control, or regulate the business is not incompatible.5 Cities may exercise all powers constitutionally conferred on them. The United States licenses will not warrant carrying on a business in violation of a State law. State prohibitory laws are operative against such licenses; 8 so a license under the Internal Revenue Act is no bar to an indictment under a State law. A city council regulating the sale of intoxicating liquors is not unconstitutional; 10 so, a city ordinance exacting a license tax for the sale of beer or ale by the cask brought in for sale is not in conflict. The State may regulate the sale of intoxicating liquors, 12 and require a license for the same,13 or prohibit the sale altogether.14 1 Dist. of Col. v. Humason, 2 McArth. 162.

2 Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 430; Conner v. Elliott, 18 How. 593; Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. 123; Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275; Missouri v. North, 27 Mo. 464. But see Davis v. Dashiel, Phil. N. C. 114. 3 Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275; State v. Browning, 62 Mo. 591. 4 Patterson v. Kentucky, 11 Chic. L. N. 183; 7 Am. L. R. 83.

5 License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462.

6 Logansport v. Seybold, 5) Ind. 225.

7 License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 470; McGuire v. Commonwealth, 3 Wall. 387; Pervear v. Commonwealth, 5 Wall. 475.

8 Thurlow v. Massachusetts, 5 How. 504; McGuire v. Commonwealth, 3 Wall. 337; License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462; Pervear v. Commonwealth. 5 Wall. 430; Bertholf v. O'Rielly, 18 Am. Law. Reg. N. S. 119; Metropolitan Board of Health v. Barrie, 34 N. Y. 657; State v. Almond, 4 Am. D. R. 533; California v. Coleman, 4 Cal. 467.

9 Pervear v. Commonwealth, 5 Wall. 480; Commonwealth v. Owens, 114 Mass. 252.

10 License Tax Cases, 5 How. 624; Dowham v. Alexandria, 10 Wall. 173; Beall v. State, 4 Blackf. 107; Lunt's Case, 6 Me. 412.

11 Downham v. Alexander, 10 Wall. 173. See Huntington v. Cheesbro, 57 Ind. 74.

12 Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall. 129; Groversville v. Howell. 70 N. Y. 287; O'Dea v. State, 57 Ind. 31.

13 License Cases, 5 How. 504; 13 N. H. 536; State v. Wheeler, 25 Conn. 290; Perdue v. Ellis, 13 Ga. 536; Ingersoll v. Skinner, 1 Denio, 540; Jones v. People, 14 Ill. 16; Santo v. State, 2 Iowa, 165; State v. Donohey, 8 Iowa, 396; Corwin v. Kimball, 41 Mass. 359; Corwin v. Clapp, 71 Mass. 97; Keller v. State, 11 Md. 525; State v. Moore, 14 N. H. 451; State v. Peckham, 3 R. I. 289; City v. Ahrens, 4 Strob. 241.

14 Bertholf v. O'Rielly, 18 Am. Law Reg. N. S. 119; Metropolitan Board of Excise v. Barrie, 34 N. Y. 657; Anderson v. Commonwealth, 13 Bush, 485. See Supplement, post, 297.

Commerce with Indians.-Under this power, Congress may prohibit all intercourse with Indians, except under a license, or may punish all crimes committed within the Indian country not within the limits of a State, or may prohibit traffic in liquors within or without the limits of the State, or may prohibit the introduction of spirituous liquors into a plac near an Indian reservation, although within the limits of a State. The whole intercourse with Indians is vested by the Constitution in the United States,5 although carried on within the limits of a State. Its legislation is in its nature exclusive, and a plea of acquittal in an Indian court under Indian laws for an offense punishable under the laws of the United States is bad. An Indian is not a foreign citizen or subject, but he may be a resident alien in a State. In all intercourse with foreign nations as to commerce, Indians are considered as within the jurisdictional limits of the United States.10 Indians do not submit themselves to all the laws of a State because they seek its courts for the preservation of rights and the redress of wrongs.11 An Indian may maintain an action in a State court to enforce his right to the enjoyment of property, real or personal.12 They may file a bill in equity, on behalf of themselves and the residue of the nation on the reservation, to restrain a