to the general prohibition on the states contained in the constitution, restraining them from laying such imposts or duties, and without it the power would not reside in the states; the exception was made, because without it the tax would have been within the prohibition.66 § 54. The subject-matter of inspection laws-Do not operate upon persons.-The constitutional provision authorizes the states to lay a tax on "imports" and "exports" for executing their inspection laws. The words, "imports" and "exports," have never, in this country, neither in the colonies before the revolution, nor since that time, been held to embrace or operate upon anything but personal property, they are not applicable to free human beings, and a state law imposing a tax or duty of one dollar for each and every alien passenger who shall come by vessel from a foreign port to the ports of the state enacting the law, is not an inspection law, but a regulation of foreign commerce, and is repugnant to the federal constitution, and, therefore, invalid. 67 § 55. What articles are subject to state inspection laws.The decisions of the supreme court of the United States have defined four classes of articles or commodities which are subject to the operation of state inspecton laws, namely: (1) articles produced in a state, and which are to be retained there for domestic use and consumption, and local commerce; (2) articles produced in a state and which are to be exported to a foreign country; (3) articles imported into a state from a foreign country; and (4) articles shipped into one state from another state."8 § 56. The object of state inspection laws.-Some of the objects of state inspection laws are: (1) To improve the quality of domestic products, and to prepare and fit them for exportation and for becoming articles of foreign and interstate commerce, and to preserve the credit of our exports in foreign 66 Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419 (6:678). 67 People V. Compagnie Gen. Transatlantique, 107 U. S. 59, 63 (27:383); Henderson v. Mayor of New York, 92 U. S. 259, 275 (23: 543). 68 Patapsco Guano Co. v. Board of Agriculture, 171 U. S. 345, 361 markets; (2) to fit domestic products for domestic use, consumption and local commerce; (3) to ascertain and determine the fitness of both domestic and imported articles, for domestic use, consumption and local commerce; (4) to secure the safety of domestic articles while they remain in the country and before they have become articles of foreign or interstate commerce, and to identify them as the growth and products of the state; and (5) to protect the public health, morals and safety, and to prevent and suppress frauds upon the community and imposition on the public generally, in the sale of articles for domestic use, whether such articles be domestic products or foreign or interstate importations." § 57. The method and means of executing inspection.-A product or an article of commerce is inspected by looking at it, or by tactual manipulation, or by weighing or measuring the package; or by opening the package and examining its contents and taking out a sample and certifying that it is merchantable or unmerchantable; or by chemical or scientific analysis; or by applying to it at once some crucial test, which, according to the known laws of nature and the established laws of commerce, is decisive of the character of the article.70 And inspection laws may require that products shall be put up in packages of a certain form and of certain prescribed dimensions, and made of certain materials, either on account of the nature and character of the product, or to enable the state to identify the products of its own growth, and to furnish the evidence of such identification in the markets to which they are exported; and may require. such products to be carried to warehouses of its own designation for inspection, and the packages containing them tagged, numbered and branded, and the name of the owner or consignee placed thereon; and may require the owner or consignee to pay storage on such products while in the warehouse, the 69 Turner v. Maryland, 107 U. S. 38, 59 (27:370); Patapsco Guano Co. v. Board of Agriculture, 171 U. S. 345, 361 (43:191); Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419 (6:678); Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1; Neilson v. Garza, 2 Woods, 290, Fed. Cas. 10,091; Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S. 461 (39:223). 70 People V. Compagnie Gen. Transatlantique, 107 U. S. 59, 63 (27:383); Turner v. Maryland, 107 U. S. 38, 59 (27:370); Patapsco Guano Co. v. Board of Agriculture, 171 U. S. 345, 361 (43:191); Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S. 461 (34:455). cost of inspection, whether by analysis or otherwise, and the cost of labor in receiving and discharging them."1 § 58. Distinction between the power to enact inspection laws and the power to levy duty for their execution.-There is a clear and substantial distinction between the power of the states to enact inspection laws, and the power to lay a tax on imports and exports for their execution; the former is derived from the general powers of municipal government reserved to the states, whilst the latter is derived from the exception carved out of the general prohibition on the states against the levy of duties upon imports and exports. The existence of the substantive power to enact the law is a condition precedent to the incidental power to levy the tax for its execution. If the inspection law enacted by the state be in conflict with the commercial power of the United States, or any other power vested by the constitution in the federal government, the state enactment will be void and the tax levy falls with it.72 The enactment of inspection laws by the states is sometimes referred to their general powers of municipal legislation, and sometimes it is referred to what is called their police power." 73 § 59. Commercial classification of the subjects of inspection laws. The commercial status of the articles which are the subjects of inspection laws and upon which they operate are: (1) Articles which at the time of inspection have not become articles of commerce; and (2) articles which have become articles of commerce, by having been brought into one state from another or from a foreign country.75 § 60. Inspection laws act on articles of commerce in the exercise of the police powers of the state. As shown in a pre 71 Turner v. Maryland, 107 U. S. 38, 59 (27:370); Patapsco Guano Co. v. Board of Agriculture, 171 U. S. 345, 361 (43:191); Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S. 461 (34:455). 72 People v. Compagnie Gen. Transatlantique, 107 U. S. 59, 63 (27:383); Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465 (24:527). 73 Patterson v. Kentucky, 97 U. S. 501 (24:1115); Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. S. 313, 330 (34:455); 74 Turner v. Maryland, 107 U. . S. 38, 59 (27:370). 75 Woodruff v. Purham, 8 Wall. 123 (19:382); Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Louisiana, 156 U. S. 590, 600 (39:544); Patapsco Guano Co. v. Board of Agriculture, 171 U. S. (43:191). vious section,78 state inspection laws operate upon articles which have become articles of foreign and interstate commerce or which have been brought from a foreign country or from one state into another, and which have thereby been brought under the commercial power of congress. In such cases, the valid state inspection laws proceed from and are an exercise of that power of governmental self-protection reserved to the states, commonly called the police power, and which must be exercised in such manner as not to infringe or trench upon the commercial power of the national government." The acknowledged power of the states to protect the morals, health and safety of their people by appropriate legislation, sometimes touches, in its exercise, the line separating the respective domains of national and state authority; but in view of the complex system of government which exists in this country, presenting, as it does, the rare and difficult scheme of one general government, whose actions extend over the whole, but which possesses only certain enumerated powers, and of numerous state governments, which retain and exercise all powers not delegated to the union, the judiciary of the United States. will not strike down a legislative enactment of a state, especially if it has direct connection with the social order, the health, and the morals of its people, unless such legislation plainly and palpably violates some right or power granted or secured by the federal constitution, or encroaches upon the authority delegated to the United States for the attainment of objects of national concern. It is the settled doctrine of the supreme court of the United States that, while the reserved police powers of the states cannot control the prohibitions of the federal constitution nor the powers of the government created by it, yet the grant to congress of authority to regulate foreign and interstate commerce did not involve a surrender by the states of their police power; and it was in contemplation of the continued existence and operation of the separate ́system of laws, from whatever source derived, existing at the time in each state of the union, and regulating the rights and duties of all the inhabitants within its jurisdiction, including those 76 Ante sec. 55. 77 Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S. 461 (39:223); Patapsco Guano Co. v. Board of Agricul ture, 171 U. S. 345, 361 (43:191); Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania, 171 U. S. 1, 30 (43:49). engaged in interstate commerce, that the constitution was framed and adopted, and the government of the United States, with all its powers, was ordained and established; 78 and it has, consequently, been held by the supreme court that a state may enact laws and prescribe regulations applicable to carriers engaged in interstate and foreign commerce, to insure the safety of persons carried by them, as well as the safety of persons and things liable to be affected by their acts while within the territorial limits of the state.79 § 61. Same-Harmony with the commercial power.-The supreme court of the United States, from its organization, has, in its decision in all cases brought before it involving the question, steadily and assiduously avoided any conflict between the commercial power of the general government and the police power of the states, with equal fidelity maintaining the supremacy of the former in the exercise of the powers vested in it by the constitution, and preserving unimpaired the sovereignty of the latter in the powers reserved to them; and that court has uniformly recognized state legislation, which is designed for legitimate purposes, as not, within the meaning of the constitution, necessarily infringing upon the commercial power or any other power which has been confided expressly or by implication to the national government. It is an axiom in our system of government, established by an unbroken line of decisions, that the power of the state to impose restraints and burdens upon persons and property in 'conservation and promotion of the public health, morals, safety, good order and prosperity, is a power originally and always belonging to the states, and which was not surrendered by them to the general government, nor directly restrained by the constitution of the United States; and the exercise of this power by the states is essentially exclusive, for "it is not to be doubted that the power to make the ordinary regulations of police remains with the individual states, and cannot be assumed by the national government.'' 80 The commercial power of the general govern 78 Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S. 461, 482 (39:223); New Orleans Gas Light Co. v. Louisiana Light & H. P. & Mfg. Co., 115 U. S. 650 (29:516); Smith v. Ala., 124 U. S. 465, 476 (31:508). 79 Smith v. Ala. 124 U. S. 465, 476 (31:508). So Wilkerson v. Rahrer, 140 U. S. 545, 5C5 (35:572); Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27, 31 (28:924); Smith v. Ala. 124 U. S. 465, 476 |