350 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. Argument for Plaintiff in Error. 209 U.S. water of the State into any other State is not unconstitutional either as ' depriving riparian owners of their property ?rlthout due pcece? of law, a? impairing the obligation of contract? made by them for furoi*hing such water to persons without the State, as an interference with intergtato commerce, or as denying equal privileges and immunities to citizens of other States. 70 N.J. Eq. 695, affirmed. THE facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. Gilbert Collins and Mr. Richard V. Lindabury for plain- tiff in error: The act of 1905 is an attempt to control interstate commerce, and cannot bc sustained under the police power. As is established by principle and authority, the court must examine the reasonablcness of a claim to support a state stat- ute regulating commerce, under the guise of an exercise of the police power. The act of 1905, as applied to the Passaic, is without any justification in the needs of the inhabitants of the State. Water when reduced to possession is a commodity, which may be sold, like any other. Syracuse v. Stacey, 169 N. Y. 231,245; Suburban Water Co. v. Harrison, 72 N.J. L. 194. When a statute, interfering with interstate eo?nmeree, is founded on the police power of the State, the question always arises whether the act goes beyond the nee(?sity for its ex- ercise. This question is judicial. The rcasonablenc.? of the statute is an clement of the inquiry whether it enoroaehes upon the national authority. Railroad Co. v. Hnsen, 05 U.S. 473; Lake Shore Railrood Co. v. Ohio, 173 U.S. 28?, 300; Loch- net v. New York, 198 U.S. 45; Mug/er v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 661; Brimmet v. Rebman, 138 U.S. 78; Scott v. Donald, 105 U. 8.58; Indiana v. Indiana &c. Oil, Gas & Mining Co., 120 Indiana, 575; S.C., 6 L. R. A. 579; Benedict v. Columbus Construction Co., 50 N.J. Ee I. 23, 38. The act is void because it denies equal privileges to citizens of another ,State. Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U.S. 313; In r?
�
