Sec. 8.-Powers of Congress Cl. 3.-Commerce-Intrastate may legislate to prevent the spread of crime, or pauperism, or disturbance of the peace. It may exclude from its limits convicts, paupers, idiots, and lunatics and persons likely to become a public charge, as well as persons afflicted by contagious or infectious diseases. Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 471. See also New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 142. Henderson v. New York, 92 U. S. 259. Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U. S. 277. Forms of commercial contracts.-The States may prescribe the forms of all commercial contracts, as well as the terms and conditions upon which the internal trade of the State may be carried on. Covington, etc., Brdg. Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U. S. 204. While any restriction as to the evidence of a contract relating to interstate commerce may be said to be a limitation on the contract itself, yet this remote effect, resulting from the lawful exercise by a State of its power to determine the form in which contracts may be proved, does not amount to a regulation of interstate commerce. Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Patterson, 169 U. S. 311. So-called "blue sky" law. Statute which requires dealers in securities evidencing title to or interest in property to obtain a license from a State officer is not invalid as applied to disposition within the State of securities transported from other States. Merrick v. Halsey, 242 U. S. 568. Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co., 242 U. S. 539. Caldwell v. Sioux Falls, etc., Co., 242 U. S. 559. Contra Geiger-Jones Co. v. Turner, 230 Fed. 233. Bracey v. Darst, 218 Fed. 482. Alabama, etc., Transp. Co. v. Doyle, 210 Fed. 173. Censorship of motion-picture films.-Statute creating a board of censors of motion-picture films and making it the duty of the board to examine and censor films to be publicly exhibited in the State, including those brought from other States. Mutual Film Corp. v. Ohio, 236 U. S. 230. Statute of limitations.-Section 16 of the act to regulate commerce, as amended June 29, 1906, that all complaints for the recovery of damages shall be filed with the commission within two years from the accrual of the cause of action, supersedes State statutes of limitations otherwise applicable to such cases. Meeker v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 236 U. S. 412. Slavery. The power over slavery was considered by a majority of the court to belong to the States, though the point was not necessary to a decision of the case. The subject was local in its character and in its effect, and the transfer and sale of slaves 1 See same subject, pp. 649 and 742. Sec. 8.-Powers of Congress Cl. 3.-Commerce-Intrastate interstate could not be separated from this power. The court said: Each State has a right to protect itself against the avarice and intrusion of the slave dealer; to guard its citizens against the inconveniences and dangers of a slave population. The right to exercise this power by a State is higher and deeper than the Constitution. The evil involves the prosperity and may endanger the existence of a State. Its power to guard against or to remedy the evil rests upon the law of self-preservation-a law vital to every community and especially to a sovereign State. Groves v. Slaughter, 15 Pet. 508. Foreign corporations.'-Right of States to exclude.-The State may exclude the foreign corporation entirely; it may restrict its business to particular localities, or it may exact such security for the performance of its contracts with its citizens as in its judgment will best promote the public interest. The whole matter rests in the discretion of the State. Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall, 181. See also Security, etc., Co. v. Prewitt, 202 U. S. 246. New York v. Roberts, 171 U. S. 658. Ashley v. Ryan, 153 U. S. 436. Maine v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 142 U. S. 217. Home Ins. Co. v. New York, 134 U. S. 594. Philadelphia, etc., S. S. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 326. Cooper Mfg. Co. v. Ferguson, 113 U. S. 727. State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575. Delaware Railroad Tax, 18 Wall. 206. Railroad Company v. Peniston, 18 Wall. 5. State Tax on Railway Gross Receipts, 15 Wall. 284. Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519. Ducat v. Chicago, 10 Wall. 410. Hamilton Co. v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. 632. Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 177 U. S. 28. Standard Oil Co. v. Tennessee, 217 U. S. 413. Exception as to corporations engaged in interstate and foreign commerce.-Whilst there are exceptions to this rule, they embrace only cases where a corporation created by one State rests its right to enter another and to engage in business therein upon the Federal nature of its business; as, for instance, where it has derived its being from an act of Congress and has become a lawful agency for the performance of governmental or quasi governmental functions, or where it is necessarily an instrumentality of interstate commerce, or its business constitutes such commerce, and is therefore solely within the paramount authority of Congress. In these cases the exceptional business is protected against interference by State authority. Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 652. See also Pembina, etc., Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 186. Ducat v. Chicago, 10 Wall. 410. Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404. Fritts v. Palmer, 132 U. S. 288. See same subject, pp. 294 and 339. Sec. 8.-Powers of Congress Cl. 3.-Commerce-Intrastate Excise tax on foreign corporation.-Imposition of a State excise tax as a condition of admitting a foreign manufacturing corporation engaged in both local and interstate commerce to do business within the State, based upon the amount of its authorized capital stock, without limitation of the amount of the tax, constitutes an unlawful burden on interstate commerce. International Paper Co. v. Massachusetts, 246 U. S. 135. Locomobile Co. v. Massachusetts, 246 U. S. 146. The imposition of a State tax as a condition of admitting a foreign corporation engaged in interstate commerce to do business within the State, based upon the amount of its authorized capital stock, and of a franchise tax based upon capital, surplus, and undivided profits, constitutes an unlawful burden on interstate commerce. Looney v. Crane, 245 U. S. 178. It is often difficult to draw the line between the power of the State and the prohibitions of the Constitution. Whilst it is commonly said that the State has absolute control over the corporations of its own creation, and may impose upon them such conditions as it pleases, and like control over its own territory, highways, and bridges, and may impose such exactions for thier use as it sees fit, on the other hand it is conceded that it can not regulate or impede interstate commerce nor discriminate between its own citizens and those of the other States prejudicially to the latter. Railroad Company v. Maryland, 21 Wall. 472. Requiring foreign corporations to file statements.-Statute requiring foreign corporation engaged in interstate commerce to file certificate or statement with State officer held unconstitutional. Buck Stove, etc., Co. v. Vickers, 226 U. S. 205. International Text-Book Co. v. Lynch, 218 U. S. 664. Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U. S. 47. Cooper Mfg. Co. v. Ferguson, 113 U. S. 727. Northern Securities Co. v. U. S., 193 U. S. 197. Service of process upon agents within the State of a foreign corporation doing interstate business does not burden such com merce. International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 579. Transaction of domestic business.-A State may restrict the right of a foreign corporation to engage in business within its limits or to sue in its courts so long as interstate commerce be not thereby burdened. Interstate Amusement Co. v. Albert, 239 U. S. 560. Imposing condition on right to sue in State court.-Statute which provides that no action shall be commenced or maintained in any of the courts of the State by a foreign corporation on any contract, agreement, or transaction made or entered into in the Sec. 8.-l'owers of Congress Cl. 3.-Commerce-Intrastate State by such corporation unless it shall have appointed a resident agent upon whom process may be served in any action to which it may be a party, is invalid as to the right of a foreign corporation to sue in the State courts on a cause of action arising out of an interstate transaction. Sioux Remedy Co. v. Cope, 235 U. S. 197. A provision in a contract of sale of an artificial-ice plant by which the foreign corporate seller agreed to furnish an engineer who should assemble and erect the machinery at the point of destination, and should make a practical efficiency test before complete delivery, is relevant and appropriate to the interstate sale of the machinery, and therefore does not justify the courts of the State to which the machinery was shipped in refusing to enforce payment of the purchase price on the theory that the corporation was doing local business in the State without having first secured the permit made by a State statute a condition precedent to the right to sue in the local courts. York Mfg. Co. v. Colley, 247 U. S. 21. Consolidation under State laws.-A State in permitting a foreign corporation to become one of the constituent elements of a consolidated corporation organized under its laws may impose such conditions as it deems proper, and the charge of a fee, based on the percentage of the entire capital stock, does not constitute a tax upon interstate commerce or the right to carry on the same or the instruments thereof. Ashley v. Ryan, 153 U. S. 443. See also People's Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co. (246 U. S. 79) as to dissolution decree against corporation. State taxation 1-In general.-It is thoroughly well settled that State laws may not burden interstate commerce, and as one form of burden may exist in taxing the conduct of interstate commerce, such taxation is condemned. The right of a State to impose a tax is not necessarily inconsistent with the right of Congress to regulate. U. S. Exp. Co. v. Minnesota, 223 U. S. 335. Statute which requires transportation companies doing business within the State to pay a tax upon all merchandise carried by them, estimated by the weight of the merchandise, can not be enforced upon merchandise in course of interstate transportation. Case of State Freight Tax, 15 Wall. 232. See also Osborne v. Mobile, 16 Wall. 479. Railroad Company v. Peniston, 18 Wall. 5. 1 See same subject, pp. 74, 315, 362, 366, 600, 636, 728, and 745. Sec. 8.--Powers of Congress Kelley v. Rhoads, 188 U. S. 1. Darnell v. Memphis, 208 U. S. 113. Cl. 3.-Commerce-Intrastate The exemption of interstate and foreign commerce from State regulation does not prevent a State from taxing the property of those engaged in such commerce located within the State as the property of other citizens is taxed. Leloup v. Mobile, 127 U. S. 640. Southern Ry. v. Watts, 260 U. S. 519. The products of a State are liable to be taxed like other property within the State, though intended for exportation to another State and partially prepared for that purpose by being deposited at a place or port of shipment within the State, such products being owned by a person residing in another State. Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517. See also Hinson v. Lott, 8 Wall. 148. General Oil Co. v. Crain, 209 U. S. 211. Thompson v. Kentucky, 209 U. S. 340. Cudahy Packing Co. v. Minnesota, 246 U. S. 450. Champlain Realty Co. v. Brattleboro, 260 U. S. 366. Where railroad companies, complaining of systematic and intentional discrimination by a State board in the assessment of taxes, were allowed no remedy by the State law other than a writ of error from the State supreme court to correct only errors of law apparent on the face of the record prepared by the board itself, with no supersedeas pending review to prevent infliction of penalties on their agents for failure to pay the tax, held, that the remedy was not adequate and that the case was cognizable by the district court in suits for injunction. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. v. Osborne, 265 U. S. 14. Separation of interstate from intrastate commerce.-While interstate commerce can not be regulated by a State by the laying of taxes thereon, in any form, yet whenever the subjects of taxation can be separated so that that which arises from interstate commerce can be distinguished from that which arises from commerce wholly within the State, the distinction will be acted upon by the courts, and the State permitted to collect that arising from commerce solely within its own territory. Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 145 U. S. 200. See also Hanley v. Kansas City Southern R. Co., 187 U. S. 621. Discrimination against foreign products.-No State can, consistently with the Federal Constitution, impose upon the products of other States, brought therein for sale or use, or upon citizens because engaged in the sale therein, or the transportation thereto, of the products of other States more onerous public |