[324] 6 Wheat. 264, 413 (1821).
[325] 9 Wheat. 1, 195 (1824).
[326] New York _v._ Miln, 11 Pet. 102 (1837), overturned in Henderson _v._ New York, 92 U.S. 259 (1876); License Cases, 5 How. 504, 573-574, 588, 613 (1847); Pa.s.senger Cases, 7 How. 283, 399-400, 465-470 (1849); The Pa.s.saic Bridges, 3 Wall. 782 (Appendix), 793 (1866); United States _v._ Dewitt, 9 Wall. 41, 44 (1870); Patterson _v._ Kentucky, 97 U.S.
501, 503 (1879); Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 (1879); Kidd _v._ Pearson, 128 U.S. 1 (1888); Illinois Central R. Co. _v._ McKendree, 203 U.S. 514 (1906); Keller _v._ United States, 213 U.S. 138, 144-149 (1909); Hammer _v._ Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918). _See also infra._
[327] United States _v._ Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U.S. 110, 119 (1942).
[328] Gibbons _v._ Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 196. Commerce "among the several States" does not comprise commerce of the District of Columbia nor the territories of the United States. Congress"s power over their commerce is an incident of its general power over them. Stoutenburgh _v._ Hennick, 129 U.S. 141 (1889); Atlantic Cleaners and Dyers, Inc. _v._ United States, 286 U.S. 427 (1932); In re Bryant, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2067 (1865). Transportation between two points in the same State, when a large part of the route is a loop outside the State, is "commerce among the several States." Hanley _v._ Kansas City Southern R. Co., 187 U.S.
617 (1903); followed in Western Union Telegraph Co. _v._ Speight, 254 U.S. 17 (1920), as to a message sent from one point to another in North Carolina via a point in Virginia.
[329] 9 Wheat. 1, 196-197.
[330] Champion _v._ Ames (Lottery Case), 188 U.S. 321, 373-374.
[331] Brolan _v._ United States, 236 U.S. 216, 222 (1915).
[332] Thurlow _v._ Ma.s.sachusetts (License Cases), 5 How. 504, 578 (1847).
[333] Pittsburgh & S. Coal Co. _v._ Bates, 156 U.S. 577, 587 (1895).
[334] United States _v._ Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 147-148 (1938). _See also infra._
[335] The "Daniel Ball," 10 Wall. 557, 564 (1871).
[336] Mobile County _v._ Kimball, 102 U.S. 691, 696, 697 (1881).
[337] Second Employers" Liability Cases, 223 U.S. 1, 47, 53-54 (1912).
[338] The above case. And _see infra_.
[339] 9 Wheat. 1, 217, 221 (1824).
[340] Pensacola Teleg. Co. _v._ Western Union Teleg. Co., 96 U.S. 1 (1878). _See also_ Western Union Teleg. Co. _v._ Texas, 105 U.S. 460 (1882).
[341] Ibid. 9. "Commerce embraces appliances necessarily employed in carrying on transportation by land and water."--Chicago & N.W.R. Co.
_v._ Fuller, 17 Wall. 560, 568 (1873).
[342] "No question is presented as to the power of the Congress, in its regulation of interstate commerce, to regulate radio communications."
Chief Justice Hughes speaking for the Court in Federal Radio Com _v._ Nelson Bros. B. & M. Co., 289 U.S. 266, 279 (1933). _Said_ Justice Stone, speaking for the Court in 1936: "Appellant is thus engaged in the business of transmitting advertising programs from its stations in Washington to those persons in other States who "listen in" through the use of receiving sets. In all essentials its procedure does not differ from that employed in sending telegraph or telephone messages across State lines, which is interstate commerce. Western Union Teleg. Co. _v._ Speight, 254 U.S. 17 (1920); New Jersey Bell Teleph. Co. _v._ State Bd.
of Taxes & a.s.sessments, 280 U.S. 338 (1930); c.o.o.ney _v._ Mountain States Teleph. & Teleg. Co., 294 U.S. 384 (1935); Pacific Teleph. & Teleg. Co.
_v._ Tax Commission, 297 U.S. 403 (1936). In each, transmission is effected by means of energy manifestations produced at the point of reception in one State which are generated and controlled at the sending point in another. Whether the transmission is effected by the aid of wires, or through a perhaps less well understood medium, "the ether," is immaterial, in the light of those practical considerations which have dictated the conclusion that the transmission of information interstate is a form of "intercourse," which is commerce. _See_ Gibbons _v._ Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 189." Fisher"s Blend Station _v._ Tax Commission, 297 U.S.
650, 654-655 (1936).
[343] 13 How. 518.
[344] 10 Stat. 112 (1852).
[345] Pennsylvania _v._ Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 18 How. 421, 430 (1856). "It is Congress, and not the Judicial Department, to which the Const.i.tution has given the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States. The courts can never take the initiative on this subject." Parkersburg & O. River Transportation Co.
_v._ Parkersburg, 107 U.S. 691, 701 (1883). _See also_ Prudential Insurance Co. _v._ Benjamin, 328 U.S. 408 (1946); and Robertson _v._ California, 328 U.S. 440 (1946).
[346] 3 Wall. 713.
[347] Ibid. 724-725.
[348] Union Bridge Co. _v._ United States, 204 U.S. 364 (1907). _See also_ Monongahela Bridge Co. _v._ United States, 216 U.S. 177 (1910); and Wisconsin _v._ Illinois, 278 U.S. 367 (1929). Of collateral interest are the following: South Carolina _v._ Georgia, 93 U.S. 4, 13 (1876); Bedford _v._ United States, 192 U.S. 217 (1904); Jackson _v._ United States, 230 U.S. 1 (1913); United States _v._ Arizona, 295 U.S. 174 (1935).
[349] Gibson _v._ United States, 166 U.S. 269 (1897). _See also_ Newport & Cincinnati Bridge Co. _v._ United States, 105 U.S. 470 (1882); United States _v._ Rio Grande Dam & Irrig. Co., 174 U.S. 690 (1899); United States _v._ Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 229 U.S. 53 (1913); Seattle _v._ Oregon & W.R. Co., 255 U.S. 56, 63 (1921); Economy Light & Power Co. _v._ United States, 256 U.S. 113 (1921); United States _v._ River Rouge Improv. Co., 269 U.S. 411, 419 (1926); Henry Ford & Son _v._ Little Falls Fibre Co., 280 U.S. 369 (1930); United States _v._ Commodore Park, 324 U.S. 386 (1945).
[350] United States _v._ Cress, 243 U.S. 316 (1917).
[351] United States _v._ Chicago, M., St. P. & P.R. Co., 312 U.S. 592, 597 (1941); United States _v._ Willow River Power Co., 324 U.S. 499 (1945).
[352] United States _v._ Rio Grande Dam & Irrig. Co., 174 U.S. 690 (1899); and _cf._ below the discussion of United States _v._ Appalachian Electric P. Co., 311 U.S. 377 (1940).
[353] The "Daniel Ball" _v._ United States, 10 Wall. 557 (1871).
[354] Ibid. 560.
[355] Ibid. 565.
[356] Ibid. 566. "The regulation of commerce implies as much control, as far-reaching power, over an artificial as over a natural highway."
Justice Brewer for the Court in Monongahela Navigation Co. _v._ United States, 148 U.S. 312, 342 (1893).
[357] Congress had the right to confer upon the Interstate Commerce Commission the power to regulate interstate ferry rates. (New York C. & H.R.R. Co. _v._ Board of Chosen Freeholders, 227 U.S. 248 (1913)); and to authorize the Commission to govern the towing of vessels between points in the same State but partly through waters of an adjoining State (Cornell Steamboat Co. _v._ United States, 321 U.S. 634 (1944)). _Also_ Congress"s power over navigation extends to persons furnishing wharf.a.ge, dock, warehouse, and other terminal facilities to a common carrier by water. Hence an order of the United States Maritime Commission banning certain allegedly "unreasonable practices" by terminals in the Port of San Francisco, and prescribing schedules of maximum free time periods and of minimum charges was const.i.tutional. (California _v._ United States, 320 U.S. 577 (1944)). The same power also comprises regulation of the registry, enrollment, license, and nationality of ships and vessels; the method of recording bills of sale and mortgages thereon; the rights and duties of seamen; the limitations of the responsibility of shipowners for the negligence and misconduct of their captains and crews; and many other things of a character truly maritime. _See_ Rodd _v._ Heartt (The "Lottawanna"), 21 Wall. 558, 577 (1875); Providence & N.Y.S.S. Co. _v._ Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U.S. 578, 589 (1883); Old Dominion S.S. Co. _v._ Gilmore, 207 U.S. 398 (1907); O"Donnell _v._ Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 318 U.S. 36 (1943). _See also_ below article III, -- 2, (Admiralty and Maritime clause).
[358] Pollard _v._ Hagan, 3 How. 212 (1845); Shively _v._ Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1 (1894). "The sh.o.r.es of navigable waters, and the soils under them, were not granted by the Const.i.tution to the United States, but were reserved to the States respectively; and the new States have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over this subject as the original States." 3 How. 212, headnote 3.
[359] Green Bay & M. Ca.n.a.l Co. _v._ Patten Paper Co., 172 U.S. 58, 80 (1898).
[360] 229 U.S. 53 (1913).
[361] Ibid. 72-73, citing Kaukauna Water Power Co. _v._ Green Bay & M.
Ca.n.a.l Co., 142 U.S. 254 (1891).
[362] 283 U.S. 423.
[363] 311 U.S. 377.
[364] 283 U.S. at 455, 456.
[365] 311 U.S. at 407, 409-410.
[366] 311 U.S. at 426.
[367] Oklahoma ex rel. Phillips _v._ Atkinson Co., 313 U.S. 508, 523-534 _pa.s.sim_ (1941).
[368] Ashwander _v._ Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936).