oc'rOBEI? TERM, 1907. Argument for Plaintiff in Error. 209 U.S. account of inadequate means of transportation, or for reship- ment, or assortment, or distribution, or on account of any accident, or any other cause which may intervene to prevent the goods going directly from the initial point of shipment to the point of destination. Coe v. Errol, 116 U.S. 517; Kelley v. R/wads, 185 U.S. 1; State v. Entj/e, 5 Vroom (N.J.), 425; Stat? v. Carriqa?, 10 Vroom (N. J.), 35; The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557; Vroom (N.J.), 425. In the case at bar it is conceded that none of the oil in said two tanks will finally remain in Tennessee; the question is whether said oil while in Tennessee is in transit or at rest. With this question the original package doctrine has nothing to do; the question involved is rather analogous to those in- volved in the following cases hereinbefore cited: Coe v. Errol, N.J. L. 425; American Steel & Wire Co. v. Speed, 192 U.S. 500. In order to be valid, a so-called inspection law must be such in fact, and must be enacted for the purpose and must be cal- culated to accomplish the ends for which valid inspection laws may be enacted. None of said oil is sold in Tennessee, and none of it is manu- factured in Tennessee. Hence the inspection thereof is un- necessary to protect either the citizens of Tennessee or the repu- tation of her manufactured products abroad. The fees provided by said act are unreasonable and exorbi- tant, and very much greater than necessary to provide for the expense of such inspection, so that the treasury of Tennessee annually receives a large surplus therefrom, which is diverted to other purposes. The mere fact that a state statute is enacted in good faith as an exercise of the police power will not render it valid if it in fact amounts to a regulation of interstate commerce. 17 A. & E. Enc. Law, 75; Bowman v. Chicaqo &c. Ry. Co., 125. U. S. 465; U.S. 100; Louisville &c. Ry. Co. v. MississiPP i, 133 U.S. 587;
�
