?09 lY. S. Ar?unent for De?endant ?n Error. Hall v. Dccuir, 95 U.S. 485; Brennan v. Titugville, 153 U.S. 289; Missouri R. R. Co. v. Haber, 169 U.S. 613; Hannibal &c. Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 473. Mr. Charles T. Cat, s, Junior, Attorney General of the State of Tennessee, for defendant in error, submitted: The holding that the court belo? had no jurisdiction, in- volved no Federal question, but only the powers and jurisdic- tion of the courts of the State of Tennessee, in respect of which the Supreme Court of Tennessee is the final arbiter. The construction of a state statute by the court of last resort of the State will be followed by this court, and therefore the construction by the state court of the act of 1873 and its application is conclusive upon this court. Nob/e v. Georgia, 168 U.S. 398; Ab?rd?n Bank v. Ch?halee County, 166 U.S. 440; N.Y. &c. R. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 158 U.S. 431; S/otar City &�. Co. v. Trust Co., 173 U.S. 99; Clark v. Clark, 178 U.S. 186; Mo. &c. Ry. Co. v. McCann, 174 U.S. 580; Fr?port Water U.S. 11; Trip v. Santa Rosa &c., 144 U.S. 130; Oxley Staw U. S. 580, 585. The oil in question in this case was not protected from in- . spection by the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. There is no claim made in the bill that the oil is sold else- where than at the place of business of plaintiff in error in Mem- phis. It is true that plaintiff in error brings all of the oil sold by it at its place of business in Memphis from its refineries in other States, but when this oil has reached Memphis and is there stored and at rest as a part of the general mass of property in the State, it becomes subject to inspection by the Tennessee authorities. American Ste?l & Wire Co. v. Sp?d, 192 U.S. 500. The object of inspection laws is not only to protect the com- munity, so far as they apply to domestic sales, from frauds and imp?itions, but in relation to articles designed for exporta- tion, to preserve the character and reputation of the State in
�
