their locations, so continued in their own di- lies inside of such surface lines extended rection that such planes will intersect such downward vertically,' becomes his by virtue exterior parts of such veins or ledges. And of his location, and he may pursue it to any nothing in this section shall authorize the lo-depth beyond his vertical side lines, cator or possessor of a vein or lode which ex- although in so doing he enters beneath the tends in its downward course beyond the surface of some other proprietor; fourth, vertical lines of his claim to enter upon the the only exception to the rule that the end surface of a claim owned or possessed by lines of the location as the locator places another." Act of May 10, 1872, § 3; § 2322, them establish the limits beyond which he U. S. Rev. Stat. may not go in the appropriation of a vein on its course or strike is where it is developed that, in fact, the location has been placed not along but across the course of the vein. In such case, the law declares that those which the locator called his side lines are his end lines and those which he called end lines are in fact side lines, and this, upon the proposition that it was the intent of Congress to give to the locator only so many feet of the 308 length of the vein, that length to be bounded by the lines which the locator has established of his location. Our laws have attempted to establish a rule by which each claim shall be so many feet of the vein, lengthwise of its course, to any depth below the surface, although laterally its inclination The language of the statute is that the shall carry it ever so far from a perpendicu"outside parts" of the veins or ledges "shall lar." Flagstaff Silver Mining Company v. be confined to such portions thereof as lie Tarbet, 98 U. S. 463-468 [25: 253-255]. between vertical planes drawn downwards These propositions we affirm, with the adthrough the end lines of their loca-dition that the end lines of the original veins tions And Mr. Justice Field, shall be the end lines of all the veins found speaking for the court, said, in Iron Silver within the surface boundaries. Min. Co. v. Elgin Mining & S. Co. 118 U. S. 196-198 [30: 98, 99]: Appellant's right upon the Contact vein is given by this statute. What limits this right extralaterally? The statute says vertical planes drawn downward through the end lines of location. What end lines? Those of and as determined by the original location and lode, the circuit court of appeals decided. Those determined by the direction of the newly discovered lodes, regardless whether they were originally intended as end lines or side lines, the appellant, as we have seen, contends. The court of appeals was right. Against the contention of appellant. the letter and spirit of the statute oppose, and against it the decisions of this court also oppose. The appellant contends that by agreement, by acquiescence, and by estoppel the line f-g has become the end line between the two claims. "The provision of the statute, that the lo1807]cator is entitled throughout their entire depth to all the veins, lodes, or ledges, the This contention is attempted to be suptop or apex of which lies inside of the surface ported by (a) A relocation of the New lines of his location, tends strongly to show Years Extension claim by which it is asthat the end lines marked on the ground serted it recognized anu designated the line must control. It often happens that the f-gas the northerly end line of the Providence top or apex of more than one vein lies with-claim. (b) The testimony of the superinin such surface lines, and the veins may have different courses and dips, yet his right to follow them outside of the side lines of the location must be bounded by planes drawn vertically through the same end lines. The planes of the end lines cannot be drawn at a right angle to the courses of all the veins if they are not identical." The court, however, did not mean that the end lines, called such by the locator, were the true end lines, but those which "are crosswise of the general course of the vein on the surface." This court in Del Monte Mining Co. v. Last Chance Mining Co., decided at the present term, 171 U. S. 55 [ante, 72], reviewed the cases we have cited, and, speaking for the court, Mr. Justice Brewer said: "Our conclusion may be summed up in these propositions: First, the location as made on the surface by the locator determines the extent of rights below the surface; second, the end lines, as he marks them on the surface, with the single exception hereinafter noticed, place the limits beyond which he may not go in the appropriation of any vein or veins along their course or strike; third, every vein, the top or apex of which tendent as to what took place between him and the directors before sinking the Champion shaft, and afterwards between him and a cotenant of complainant (appellant). (a) The relocation does not in terms recognize the line f-g as the northern end line of the Providence. Its recitals are: "And whereas, part of this claim as originally described and as hereby relocated conflicts with the rights granted by the letters patent of said Providence mine, said Lot No. 40, now, therefore, so much of this claim, both for lode and surface ground, as originally designated, conflicting, or now conflicts, with any portion of the surface or lode, claims or rights granted by said patent, is and are hereby abandoned." "Which portion of this claim so abandoned is described as follows: All that portion of the above-described New Years Extension claim for surface and lode which lies south of the northern boundary line of said Providence mine, which runs north 43 degrees, 10 minutes east, across the southeastern corner of this claim." It will be observed by reference to figure 1 that the northern boundary of the Provi-[309] dence is not one line, but two lines, and it is provided shall be liable to seizure and con- | licenses, from fines and forfeitures, fees for demnation as hereinafter prescribed, and registration and sale of lands not herein when condemned shail be sold by the board otherwise provided for, shall be paid into the of agriculture for the exclusive use and bene- state treasury and shall be kept on a separate fit of the department of agriculture." account by the treasurer as a fund for the exSection 2192 refers to the proceedings to clusive use and benefit of the department of condemn. agriculture." neither, because it was not limited to articles produced in the state, and because it did not relate to the health, morals, or safety of the community. "Sec. 2193. Any merchant, trader, manu- The various errors assigned question the defacturer, or agent who shall sell or offer for cree on the grounds, in general, that the court sale any commercial fertilizer or fertilizing should have held the act of January 21, 1891, material without having such labels, stamps, to be in violation of the third clause of § 8, and tags as herein before provided attached and of the second clause of § 10, of article 1 thereto, or shall use the required tag the of the Constitution of the United States; that second time to avoid the payment of the ton- the charge required to be paid was so exces[349] age *charge, or if any person shall remove sive that the act could not be sustained as a any such fertilizer, (he) shall be liable to a legitimate inspection law; or as a valid exerfine of ten dollars for each separate bag, bar-cise of the police power; and that it was rel, or package sold, offered for sale, or removed, to be sued for before any justice of the peace and to be collected by the sheriff by distress or otherwise, one half less the costs to go to the party suing and the remaining half to the department; and if any such fertilizer shall be condemned as herein provided it shall be the duty of the department to have an analysis made of the same and cause printed tags or labels expressing the true chemical ingredients of the same put upon each bag, barrel or package, and shall fix the commercial value thereof at which it may be sold; and any person who shall sell, offer for sale or remove any such fertilizers, or any agent of any railroad or other transportation company who shall deliver any such fertilizer in violation of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." Section 2196, which corresponded to § 12 of the act of March 12, 1877, was amended by the substitution of the word "control" for the word "central," and read as follows: The second clause of § 10 of article 1 of the Constitution reads: "No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.". The words "imports" and "exports," as therein used, have been held to apply only to articles imported from, or exported to, foreign countries. Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. 123 [19: 382]; Pittsburg & S. Coal Company v. Louisiana, 156 U. S. 590, 600 [39: 544, 549.] The clause recognized that the inspection "The department of agriculture shall es- of such articles may be required by the states, tablish an agricultural experiment and ferti- and that they may lay duties on them to pay lizer control station, and shall employ an an- the expense of such inspections, but as it alyst, skilled in agricultural chemistry. It would be difficult, if not impossible to de-[351] shall be the duty of said chemist to analyze termine the necessary amount with exactness such fertilizers and products as may be re- and to remove any inducement to excess, it quired by the department of agriculture, and was provided that any surplus should be paid to aid as far as practicable in suppressing to the United States. As such laws are subfraud in the sale of commercial fertilizers. ject to the revision and control of Congress, He shall, also, under the direction of said de- it has been suggested that whether inspection partment, carry on experiments on the nutri- charges are excessive or not might be for Contion and growth of plants, with a view to as-gress to determine and not the courts, which certain what fertilizers are best suited to the would also be so where inspection laws opevarious crops of this state; and whether other rate on interstate as well as foreign commerce. crops may not be advantageously grown on Neilson v. Garza, 2 Woods, 287; Turner v. its soil, and shall carry on such other investi- Maryland, 107 U. S. 38 [27: 370]. gations as the said department may direct. He shall make regular reports to the said department, of all analyses and experiments made, which shall be furnished, when deemed needful, to such newspapers as will publish the same. His salary shall be paid out of the funds of the department of agriculture." The following was substituted for § 2205: [350] Whenever any manufacturer of fertilizers or fertilizing materials shall have paid the charges hereinbefore provided his goods shall not be liable to any further tax whether by city, town, or county." Section 2208 remained unamended, and provided: "All moneys arising from the tax on Considered as an inspection law and as not open to attack as in contravention of that clause, the questions still remain whether an inspection law can operate on importations as well as exportations; and whether in this instance the charge was so excessive as to deprive the act of its character as an inspection law or as a legitimate exercise of protective governmental power, and make it a mere revenue law obnoxious to the objection of being an unlawful interference with interstate commerce. Counsel for plaintiff in error insists that this result is deducible from the legislation of North Carolina making appropriations from the funds of the department of 193 agriculture received from the charge on fer-laws making any substantial diversion of the of the latter contention. By § 2206 of the Code of 1883, the board of agriculture was directed to "appropriate annually, of the money received from the tax on fertilizers, the sum of five hundred dollars for the benefit of the North Carolina Industrial Association, to be expended under the direction of the board of agriculture." By chapter 308 of the laws of 1885 (Laws N. Č. 1885, 553), the establishment of an industrial school was provided for, to the establishment and maintenance of which the board was directed by the 4th section to apply their surplus funds, not exceeding $5,000 annually. money to be derived from the charge on fertilizers of 25 cents per ton, to any other purposes than those connected with the necessary expenses of inspection. It is ingeniously ar gued that as § 6 of chapter 410 of the laws of 1887 repealed by substitution § 4 of chapter 308 of the laws of 1885, the repeal thereof by chapter 348 of the laws of 1891 revived the latter section, and hence that $5,000 of the amount arising from the present charge on fertilizers became appropriated to the industrial school, it being asserted that the funds of the department were in fact derived therefrom; and also that the appropriation out of the state treasury of $500 to the industrial association by chapter 426 of the laws of 1891 was an additional appropriation, and did not repeal § 2206 of the Code, which directed the board of agriculture to appropriate that sum to that association. By chapter 410 of the laws of 1887 (Laws (352]N. Č. 1887, 718), *the name of the industrial school was changed to "The North Carolina These positions do not commend themCollege of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts," selves to our judgment. As to the approand the board was required by § 6 to turn priation of $500, we think, under the circumover to that institution annually "the whole stances, that it was intended to be in lieu of residue of their funds from licenses on ferti- the former appropriation of that amount; lizers remaining over and not required to con- and as to the revival of the act of 1885 by the duct the regular work of that department." repeal of the repealing act of 1887, we regard But by chapter 348 of the laws of 1891 the doctrine that the repeal of a repealing (Laws N. C. 1891, 404), the provision last act revives the first act as wholly inapplica above given was stricken out, and by § 5 of ble. In our opinion such a conclusion would the act $10,000 for the year 1891 and $10,000 be opposed to the obvious legislative intenfor the year 1892 were appropriated to the tion in the enactment of the law of 1891. college; and by chapter 426 of the laws of This act imposed a charge of 25 cents per ton 1891 (Laws N. C. 1891, 491) an annual ap-on commercial fertilizers, and the purpose of propriation of five hundred dollars was made the charge was declared to be to defray the to the North Carolina Industrial Association. These appropriations were made from the state treasury, and both acts contained the usual repealing clauses. By § 2198 and subsequent sections of the act of 1883, the geological survey of the state, the geological museum, the appointment of the state geologist, and matters pertaining thereto, were dealt with, and various expenditures connected therewith were authorized to be paid out of the general fund of the agricultural department, the sources of which were apparently not confined to what might be derived from the license tax in respect of fertilizers. By chapter 409 of the laws of 1887 (Laws 1887, 714), so much of the sections of the act pertaining to the state geologist as required the department to fix the compensation, to regulate the expenditures, or pay out of their funds the salary and expenses of the state geologist, was repealed. Section 14 of this act empowered the department to expend from the amount arising from the tax on fertilizers for 1887-88, the expenses for the completion of the oyster survey; but by chapter 338 of the laws of 1891 (Laws 1891, 369), provision was made for defraying the expenses of the regulation of the oyster industries of the state from other sources. We agree entirely with the circuit court that the legislation of 1891 not only amended the Code in the matter of the requirement of 353]the privilege tax of $500, *but repealed all expenses of inspection only. The previous laws had imposed a tax of $500 per brand upon every brand and description of fertil izer, and declared the same to be a privilege tax. It is impossible to impute to the gen eral assembly the intention, in repealing parts of the Code which had been declared unconstitutional, to revive earlier laws which might render the amended law liable to the same objections. Entertaining these views of the legislative intention, it does not appear to us that evidence tending to show that money collected(35 from this source was applied to other than the purposes for which it was received should be entered into on this inquiry into the va lidity of this act. If the receipts are found to average largely more than enough to pay the expenses, the presumption would be that the legislature would moderate the charge. But treating the question whether the charge of 25 cents per ton was shown to be so excessive as to demonstrate a purpose other than that which the law declared, as a judicial question, we are satisfied that comparing the receipts from this charge with the neces sary expenses, such as the cost of analyses, the salaries of inspectors, the cost of tags, express charges, miscellaneous expenses of the department in this connection, and so on, we cannot conclude that the charge is so seriously in excess of what is necessary for the ob jects designed to be effected, as to justify the imputation of bad faith and change the character of the act. Inspection laws are not in themselves | tutional and void, being an unauthorized in- *"No doubt the primary and most usual[356] object of inspection is to prepare goods for exportation in order to preserve the credit of our exports in foreign markets. Chief Justice Marshall, in Gibbons v. Ogden, says: "The object of inspection laws is to improve the The observations of Mr. Justice Bradley, quality of articles produced by the labor of a on circuit, in Neilson v. Garza, are quite ap-country; to fit them for exportation, or it posite on this and other points under discussion, and may profitably be quoted. That case involved the validity of a law of the state of Texas, providing for the inspection of hides, and Mr. Justice Bradley said: may be, for domestic use.' 9 Wheat. 203 "If the state law of Texas, which is complained of, is really an inspection law, it is [355) valid and binding unless it interferes with the power of Congress to regulate commerce, and if it does thus interfere, it may still be valid and binding until revised and altered by Congress. The right to make inspection laws is not granted to Congress, but is reserved to the states; but it is subject to the paramount right of Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states; and if any state, as a means of carrying out and executing its in- "All housekeepers who are consumers of spection laws, impose any duty or impost on flour know what a protection it is to be able imports or exports, such impost or duty is to rely on the inspection mark for a fine or void if it exceeds what is absolutely superior article. Bouvier defines inspection necessary for executing such inspection as the examination of certain articles made laws. How the question whether a duty by law subject to such examination, so that is excessive or not is to be decided they may be declared fit for commerce. Law may be doubtful. As that question is Dict. verb, 'Inspection.' The removal or depassed upon by the state legislature, 'struction of unsound articles is undoubtedly, when the duty is imposed, it would hardly says Chief Justice Marshall, an exercise of be seemly to submit it to the consideration that power. Brown v. Maryland, supra; of a jury in every case that arises. This Story, Const. § 1024. "The object of the inmight give rise to great diversity of judg-spection laws,' says Justice Sutherland, 'is to ment, the result of which would be to make the law constitutional one day, and in one case, and unconstitutional another day, in another case. As the article of the Constitution which prescribes the limit goes on to provide that all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of Congress,' it seems to me that Congress is the proper tribunal to decide the question, whether a charge or duty is or is not excessive. If, therefore, the fee allowed in this case by the state law is to be regarded as in effect an impost or duty on imports or exports, still if the law But in Turner v. Maryland, 107 U. S. 38 is really an inspection law, the duty must [27:370], which related only to the laws of stand until Congress shall see fit to alter it. Maryland so far as providing for the prepara"Then we are brought back to the question *for exportation of tobacco grown in the 857] tion whether the law is really an inspection state, any opinion as to the provisions of law. If it is, we cannot interfere with it on those laws referring to the inspection of toaccount of supposed excessiveness of fees. bacco grown out of Maryland was expressly If it is not, the exaction is clearly unconsti- reserved. protect the community, so far as they apply to domestic sales, from frauds and imposi tions; and in relation to articles designed for exportation, to preserve the character and reputation of the state in foreign markets.' Clintsman v. Northrop, 8 Cow. 46. It thus appears that the scope of inspection laws is very large, and is not confined to articles of domestic produce or manufacture, or to articles intended for exportation, but applies to articles imported, and to those intended for domestic use as well." "Sec. 2. Be it further ordained, That the| trator of commerce; and it is still further said New Orleans Pacific Railway Company, made a condition of this grant that said railor its assigns, be and they are hereby au- way company shall complete its road from the thorized and empowered to locate, construct, crossing of the Mississippi river, at or near and maintain an extension of its railroad, Baton Rouge, to its terminus in this city with all necessary tracks, switches, turnouts, within two years from the promulgation of sidings, and structures of every kind conven- this ordinance. ient and useful and appurtenant to said railroad, upon lines and levels to be furnished by the city surveyor into and through Claiborne street to Canal street, with the right to construct a passenger depot at or near the intersection of Claiborne street with Canal street; and to operate the same by steam or otherwise for the transportation of passengers; Provided, That should it become necessary [317 for the building of depot *or laying of tracks to remove the Claiborne market, then the said New Orleans Pacific Railway Company obli On December 3, 1880, the following ordigate themselves to rebuild the same at their nance, numbered 6732, was adopted: own expense on such lots to be purchased by "Whereas, on the ninth day of November, the company as the city shall designate. The 1880, the ordinance No. 6695 (administration said market to be rebuilt under the super-series) was duly adopted, granting to the vision and instructions of the administrator of waterworks and public buildings. "Sec. 5. Be it further ordained, That the rights herein granted on Claiborne street shall apply only to a railroad for passenger purposes; that the rights to be granted from north of the Claiborne canal to the river front, and hereby granted along the river front and in parallel streets, shall apply to a railroad for freight purposes only, and shall not be used as a thoroughfare for the transportation of passengers without the consent of this council." New Orleans Pacific Railway Company, or its assigns, the right to establish its terminus "Sec. 3. Be it further ordained, That the within the city limits, and to construct, mainsaid New Orleans Pacific Railway Company, tain, and operate a railroad to and from such or its assigns, be and they are hereby author- terminus; with one extension for passenger ized and empowered to locate, construct, and purposes and another for freight purposes, maintain an extension of its railroad, with all into and through certain streets and places in necessary tracks, switches, turnouts, sidings, the city of New Orleans; and it was contemand structures of every kind, convenient and plated by said ordinance that a street should useful and appurtenant to said railroad upon be duly selected whereby the said company lines and levels to be furnished by the city should have its rights recognized to lay a surveyor, across Claiborne canal into and track from Claiborne street to the river front through such street as may hereafter be law-through a street to be selected; now, therefully selected to the river front, with the fore, right to extend its tracks through Front "Sec. 1. Be it ordained by the city council street, Water and Jackson streets, connecting of the city of New Orleans, That the New with the depots of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, Morgan's Louisiana & Texas Railroad, and the Chicago, St. Louis, & New Orleans Railroad. and to operate the same by steam or otherwise for the transportation of cotton, tobacco, grain, merchandise, and other freight; or the said company may purchase, lease, control, maintain, and operate by steam or otherwise any railway or railway tracks now existing in the streets of the city of New Orleans. "Sec. 4. Be it further ordained, That the right of way, franchises, and privileges herein granted to the New Orleans Pacific Railway Company are granted only on condition and in consideration that the said grantee shall permanently establish the terminus of said road within the city limits and maintain said terminus during the existence of the charter of said company, for which period said right of way privileges shall last, and should the said company at any time hereafter abandon its said road on the east side of the Missis sippi river and its terminus within the city limits, then this grant shall cease and terminate, and be without force and effect from the date of such abandonment, and the further condition that all construction work within the city limits shall be executed under the di[318]ection and supervision of the city surveyor and completed to the satisfaction of the administrator of improvements and the adminis Orleans Pacific Railway Company, or its as- "Sec. 2. Be it further ordained, That the right of way, franchises, and privileges herein granted to the New Orleans Pacific Railway Company are granted only on condition and in consideration that the said grantees shall permanently establish the terminus of said road within the city limits, and to maintain said terminus during the existence of the charter of said company, for which period said right of way and privileges shall last; and should the said company at any time hereafter abandon its said road on the east side of the Mississippi river and its terminus |