214 OCTOBER TEB?j 1907. Stw?m?t o? the C?a 2? U.S. paid such charges up to the present time on all of its o'ds shipped into Tenne?ee, whether intended for sale in that State or other States. Until recently plaintiff has uulo?led the greater por- tion of its oil from its tank cars to its stationary ts?nk? without attempting to separate the oil sold or intended to be sold in the States above mentioned from that to be sold in the State of Tennessee, and paid the inspection charges upon all. Plaintiff, however, is now separating its oil in the ms?ner above de- scribed, because it has been advised that the oil intended to be sold outside of Tennessee is not subject to inspection in that State if kept separate from the oil sold or intended to be sold in that State. Defendant claims the right to inspect such oils, although he knows and admits no sales thereof are made in Tennemee, and claims that he is not only entitled but that it is his duty to inspect the same and collect the regular fees for such inspection. Plaintiff is advised and shows that defendant has no right does not apply to them, for re?sons which are elaborately set out, but it is alleged that if the act should be construed to apply to them the act is unconstitutional, "in so far as it provide? for or requires an in..l?ction of any of the oil in said tanks, because such inspection would be a regulation of and interfer- ence with eommeree between the States of Pennsylvania and Ohio, from which said oil was shipped, and the States of Arkan- sas, Louisiana and Mississippi, to which the same was shipped, in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United State?, and especially of the third clause of �of Article I of the Con- stitution of the United States, which provides that Congress shall have power 'To regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.'" Plaintiff alleges that the act of 1899 and the inspection there- under is not a valid exercise of the.police power of the State, an?t to that extent the act is unconstitutional and void, because (1) none of the oil is manufactured in Tennessee and the in- spection, therefore, is not necessary for the protection either of
�
