209 U.S. Opinion d th? Oour? in State &c. v. Engle, supra, but for the business purposes and profit of the company. It was only there for distribution, it is said, to falfill ordem already received. But to do this required that the property be given a locality in the State beyond a mere halting in its transportation. It required storage there--the maintenance of the means of storage, of putting it in and taking it from storage. The bill takes pains to allege this. "Com- plainant shows that it is impossible, in the coal oil business, such as complainant carries on,. to fill separately each of these small orders directly from the railroad tank cars, because of the great delay and .expense in the way of freight charges in- cident to such a plan, and for the further reason that an ex- tensive plant and 'apparatus is necessary, in order to properly an? conveniently unload and receive the oil from said tank cars, and it would be impracticable, if not impossible, to have such apparatus and machinery at every point to which ?om- plainant ships said oil." This certainly describes a business--describes a purpose for which the oil is taken from transportation, brought to rest in the State and for which the protection of the State is neces- sary, a purpose outside of the mere transportation of the oil. The case, therefore, comes under the principle announced in American Steel & Wire Co. v. Speed, 192 U.S. 500. We have considered this case so far in view of the cases which involve the power of taxation. It may be that such power is more limited than the power to enact inspection laws. Patapsco Guano Co. v. Board o! Agriculture, 171 U.S. 345, 356. The difference, if any exists, it is not necessary to observe. The cases based on the taxing power show the contentions of plain- tiff in error are without merit; in other words, show that its oil was not property in interstate commerce. As our conclusion is that no constitutional right of the oil company was violated by the enforcement of the law of 1899, it follows that no error prejudicial to the company was com- mitted by the Supreme Court of Tennessee, and, for the rca- son? stated, its judgment is A?firmed.
�
