348 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. Opinion of the Court. 209 U. 8. limits of a State, is not subject completely to the jurisdiction of the State, and counsel has cited a number of such instances. Where their ?xample applies th.ey will be followed. It does not apply in the present case. There is no conflict between the state and Federal purpose. There is no question of the premacy of the latter and its complete fulfillment. "The State does not propose," the Court of Appeals said, "to collect th? t?xes sb long as the spirits are in the custody or under the lien of the Federal Government." There is actual accommodation, therefore, of the power of the State to the rights of the Federal Government, and a harmonious exercise of the respective sovereignties of each, preserving to each necessary power. This is what Carstairs v. Cochran decides. See also Baltimor? Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Baltimore, 195 U.S. 375. A .word more may be necessary as to the contention that the statutes in controversy, as interpreted by the Court of Appeals of the State, deny to plaintiff in error the equal pro- tection of the laws. The ground of this contention is not ex- plicitly distinguished in the assignments of errors from the grounds' of the other contentions, and in the brief of counsel the contention is made to depend upon the view, rejected by the Court of Appeals of the State, that the act of 1902 made a change in the law, and that only the owners of distilled spirits in bond are required to pay interest "upon taxes settled at the time they were due." The effect of the act of 1902 has been considered and it is only necessary to add that the dis- tinction made by the taxing statutes of the State between distilled spirits in bond and other property does not constitute a discrimination condemned by the Fourteenth Amendment. The power of the State to classify persons and property in its legislation is well established, and the power is not transcended by the statutes under review. Billings v. Illinois, 188 LY. S. 97. j?..? a?r.?.
�
