209 U.S. Opinion of th? Court. Ohio Oil Co. v. lnd/ana, 177 U.S. 190; Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U.S. 125; Georgia v. ?I'ennss?ee Copper Co., 206 U.S. 226, 237. The law under consideration was-passed as an exercise of the police power of the State, and a? such is consequently free from any of the constitutional objections that a?e here raised against it. Jons? v. Br/rn, 165 U.S. 180; P. R. R. v. H?hes, 191 U.S. 477; F/e/d v. Barber Asphalt Co., 194 U.S. 623; Clevdand &c. Co. v. lllinoiz, 177 U.S. 514; Cook v. Marshall County, 196 U.S. 261,272. Ma. $vs?c? HO?E? delivered the opinion of the court. This is an infornmtion, alleging that the defendant (the plaintiff in error), under a contract with the City of Bayonne in New Jersey, ha? laid mains in that city for the purpose of carrying water to Staten Island in the State .of New York. By other contracts it is to get the water from tho Passaic River, at Little Fails, where the East Jersey Water (?mpany has a large plant by which the water is withdrawn. On May 11, 1905, the State of New Jersey, reciting the need of preserving the fresh water of the State for the health and prosperity of the citizens, enacted that "It shall be unlawful for any person or corporation to transport or carry, through pipes, conduits, ditches or canals, the waters of any fresh water lake, pond, brook, creek, river or stream of this State into any other State, for use therein." By a second section a proceeding llke the prceent was authorized, in order to enforce the act. Laws of 1905, c. 238, p. 461. After the passage of this statute the de- fendant made a contract with the City of New York to furnish a supply of water adequate for the Borough of Richmond, and of not le?s than three million gallons a day. Thereupon this information was brought, praying that, pursuant to the above act and otherwise, the defendant might be enjoined from carrying the waters of the Passaic River out of the State. There are allegations .as to the amount of water and the prob-
�
