200 U.B. Opin/on of the CouP. is reinforced by the broad provisions of �of the act as to Publishing schedules, showing. rates, fares and charges, and filing the same with the Interstate Commerce Commission. That such rates, notwitimtanding through bills of lading, were subject to the provisions of the act, was held, upon full con- sideration,. and rightfully, as we think, by the Interstate Com- merce Commission. Re Tariris v. Export and Impart Tra[fic? 10 I. C. C. Rep. 55. It is contended that the act, as construed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, makes it conflict with Art. I, � par. 5, of the Constitution, which provides: "No tax or duty be laid on articles exported from any State. No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another; nor shall vesseis bound to or from one State be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another." The petitioner contends that to permit a statute to have such application to articles intended for foreign export is to place a burden on the exercise of this right, because before the shipper can lawfully send his goods abroad and before the carrier can lawfully accept them there must be a compliance with the established rate on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission. This rate is subject only to be chang?l as pro- vided by law; and this can be done without notice to the exporter and regardless of his power to comply with the legal rate and meet the competition at the seaport and the condi- tions of foreign markets. These things, it is said place a dis- tinct burden upon export trade, and therefore come within the constitutional prohibition. But it is to be observed that the Constitution provides for a burden only by the way of' taxation or duty, and unless the alleged interference amounts to such taxation or duty it does not come within the constitu- 't?onal prohibition. Cornall v. Coyne, 192 U.S. 418. The regulations of interstate commerce provided by the statute now under consideration arc within the acknowledged power of Congress under the interd?ate comme?e clause of
�
