State inspection laws in their application to interstate commerce are sustained in so far as they are reasonable regulations in behalf of the health, safety, and morality of the inhabitants of the States enacting them, or for their protection against fraud, and do not conflict with existing federal statutes. In Gibbons v. Ogden86 the court say: "The object of inspection laws is to improve the quality of articles produced by the labor of a country; to fit them for exportation; or, it may be, for domestic use. They act upon the subject before it becomes an article of foreign commerce, or of commerce among the States, and prepare it for that purpose. They form a portion of that immense mass of legislation which embraces everything within the territory of a State, not surrendered to the General Government; all of which can be most advantageously exercised by the States themselves."

It will later be seen that when Congress has specifically or inferentially recognized a commodity as a legitimate article of interstate commerce, it may not be excluded by a State from its borders whether by an inspection or other police regulation. And even as to all other articles with reference to which there has been no federal pronouncement, the requirements of a state inspection law must be reasonable in its provisions. "The only question within the competency of the state authorities, is,"as Prentice and Egan say, "whether the article examined is, according to commercial usages of the world, in a fit condition for commerce. It does not belong to the State to decide what articles shall be considered legitimate subjects of trade, nor to make an examination of imported articles for any other purpose than that of protecting the market."87

84 212 U. S. 132; 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 246; 53 L. ed. 441.

85 162 U. S. 650; 16 Sup. St. Rep. 934; 40 L. ed. 1105.

86 9 Wh. 1; 6 L. ed. 23.

An examination of a few of the more recent cases will sufficiently illustrate the established doctrines of the Supreme Court as to state inspection laws.

In Turner v. Maryland88 a state inspection law with reference to tobacco was upheld, which prescribed the dimensions of the hogshead in which tobacco raised in Maryland should be packed, that the hogsheads should be delivered to one of the state tobacco warehouses for inspection, and that there should be a charge of outage to reimburse the State for the inspection expenses incurred. To the contention made that the law could not properly be termed an inspection law because no provision was made for the opening of the hogsheads and examination of their contents, the court say: "Recognized elements of inspection laws have always been: quality of the article, form, capacity, dimensions and weight of package, mode of putting up, and marking and branding of various kinds, all these matters being supervised by a public officer having authority to pass or not pass the article as lawful merchandise, as it did or did not answer the prescribed requirements. It has never been regarded as necessary, and it is manifestly not neces-sary, that all of these elements should coexist in order to make a valid inspection law. Quality alone may be the subject of inspection, without other requirement or the inspection may be made to extend to all of the above matters. When all are pre-ibed, and then inspection as to quality is dropped out, leaving the rest in force, it cannot be said to be a necessary legal conclusion, that the law has ceased to be an inspection law."

87 The Commerce Clause of the Constitution, p. 155.

88 107 U. S. 38; 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 44; 27 L. ed. 370.

In People v. Compagnie Generale Trans-Atlantique,89 decided at the same time as Turner v. Maryland, the court held void as a regulation of commerce a state law, alleged to he an inspection measure, imposing a tax on every passenger, not a citizen of the United States, from a foreign country landing in the port of New York; In this case it was squarely held that inspection laws, and the words "imports" and ""exports" as used in Article I, Section X, Clause 2, of the Constitution, have reference to property exclusively, and not to persons. "We feel quite safe in saying," declare the court, "that neither at the time of the formation of the Constitution nor since has any inspection law included anything hut personal property as a subject of its operation. Nor has it ever been held that the words imports and exports, are used in that instrument as applicable to free human beings by any competent judicial authority."

In addition the court go on to say, the law in question is invalid in that it "goes far beyond any correct view of the purpose of an inspection law. The commissioners are' To inspect all persons arriving from any foreign country to ascertain who among them are habitual criminals, or pauper lunatics, idiots or imbeciles . . . or orphan persons without means or capacity to support themselves and subject to become a public charge.' ... It may safely be said that these are matters incapable of being satisfactorily ascertained by inspection. What is an inspection ? Something which can be accomplished by looking at or weighing or measuring the thing to be inspected or applying to it at once some crucial test. When testimony or evidence is to be taken and examined, it is not inspection in any sense whatever. . . . Another section provides for the custody, the support and the treatment for disease, of these persons, and the retransportation of criminals. Are these inspection laws? Is the ascertainment of the guilt of a crime to be made by inspection ? In fact, these statutes differ from those heretofore held void, only in calling them in their caption 'inspection laws,' and in providing for payment for any surplus, after the support of paupers, criminals and diseased persons, into the Treasury of the United States; a surplus which, in this enlarged view of what are the expenses of an inspection law, it is safe to say will never exist. A State cannot make a law designed to raise money to support paupers, to detect or prevent crime, to guard against disease, and to cure the sick, an inspection law, within the constitutional meaning of the word, by calling it so in the title."

89 107 U. S. 59; 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 87; 27 L. ed. 383.

In Minnesota v. Barber90 was involved a state law passed as an inspection measure which required as a condition of sale of fresh meats in the State that the animals from which such meats were taken should have been inspected in the State before being slaughtered. This was a law which, clearly, would be practically prohibitive of the importation of fresh meat from other States, and the law was very properly held void. "If," the court say, "this legislation does not make such discrimination against the products and business of Minnesota, as interferes with and burdens commerce among the several States, it would be difficult to enact legislation that would have that result."

The court also take occasion to repeat that a law, which in its operation, whatever its terms, imposes a burden upon interstate commerce is not to be sustained simply because the statute imposing it applies to all the people of all the States including those of the enacting State.91

In Scott v. Donald92 it was held that where a State recognizes as lawful the manufacture, sale, and use of intoxicating liquors, it cannot discriminate against such articles brought in from other States. "It is not an inspection law," say the court." The prohibition of the importation of the wines and liquors of other States by citizens of South Carolina for their own use is made absolute, and does not depend on the purity or impurity of the articles."

In Patapsco Guano Co. v. Board of Agriculture93 and Asbell v.

90 136 U. S. 313; 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 8G2; 34 L. ed. 455.

91 See also Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U. S. 78; 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 213; 34 L. ed. 862.

92 165 U. S. 58: 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 265; 41 L. ed. 632. 93 171 U. S. 345; 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 862; 43 L. ed. 191.

Kansas94 the various adjudications of the Supreme Court, with reference to state inspection laws are summarized and reviewed.