Argued December 16, 1919. Restored to docket for reargument January 26, 1920. Reargued October 11 and 12, 1920. Decided November 22, 1920. IN N ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of New York in and for the County of Albany, entered pursuant to the mandate of the Court of Appeals of that state, which affirmed a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Third Department, affirming a judgment of the Trial Term for the recovery of penalties from a bridge company for failure to construct a roadway for vehicles and a pathway for pedestrians. Affirmed. See same case below in supreme court, 179 App. Div. 950, 165 N. Y. Supp. 1104; in court of appeals, 223 N. Y. 137, 119 N. E. 351. The facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. Adelbert Moot argued the cause on original argument, and, with Messrs. Henry W. Sprague, William L. Marey, and Mrs. Helen Z. M. Rodgers, filed a brief for plaintiff in error: - This court wi determine for itself the validity, nature, and extent of the contracts between the plaintiff in error and the state of New York and Dominion of Canada, respectively. Stearns v. Minnesota, 179 U. S. 223, 232, 233, 45 L. ed. 162, 169, 170, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 73; Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. South Bend, 227 U. S. 544, 57 L. ed. 633, 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 405, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 303; Douglas v. Kentucky, 168 U. S. 488, 502, 42 L. ed. 553, 557, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 199; Northern P. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 208 U. S. 583, 590, 52 L. ed. | 630, 633, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 341; Russell v. Sebastian, 233 U. S. 195, 202, 58 L. ed. 912, 920, L.R.A.1918E, 882, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 517, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 1282; Detroit United R. Co. v. Michigan, 242 U. S. 238, 249, 61 L. ed. 268, 273, P.U.R. 1917B, 1010, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 87. The highest court in the province of Ontario has held that the Canadian charter, as well as the New York charter, is only permissive, and has refused to require the Bridge Company to construct a bridge for foot passengers and vehicles. Atty. Gen. v. International Bridge Co. 6 Ont. App. Rep. 537. The construction placed upon a foreign act by the courts of its own jurisdiction is conclusive upon our courts, and is, in effect, a part of the foreign law. Elmendorf v. Taylor, 10 Wheat. 152, 159, 6 L. ed. 289, 292; McDonald v. Hovey, 110 U. S. 619, 628, 28 L. ed. 269, 271, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 142; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 145 U. S. 263, 284, 36 L. ed. 699, 706, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 92, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 844; 2 Wharton, Conf. L. 8 654-A, p. 1409; Ritchie v. McMullen, 159 U. S. 235, 40 L. ed. 133, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 171; Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U. S. 113, 40 L. ed. 95, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 139. A provision in the Canadian act, though unlimited in its terms, could and did only operate on that portion of the bridge within Canadian territory. Delaware R. Tax, 18 Wall. 206, 227, 228, 21 L. ed. 888, 895; Central R. & Bkg. Co. v. Georgia, 92 U. S. 675, 676, 23 L. ed. 761, 762; Chicago & N. W. R Co. v. Auditor General, 53 Mich. 91, 18 N. W. 586. The New York Act of 1915 impairs the franchises of the Bridge Company by drastically reducing the tolls author ized by the New York and Canadian acts of incorporation. Covington & C. Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U. S. 204, 38 L. ed. 962, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 649, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1087; Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312, 37 L. ed. 463, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 622; Southampton v. Jessup, 162 N. Y. 126, 56 N. E. 538; Ives v. South Buffalo R. Co. 201 N. Y. 318, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 162, 94 N. E. 431, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 156, 1 N. C. C. A. 517. The reserved power to alter, suspend, or repeal corporate charters does not extend to revoking or impairing special franchises acquired by a corporation. This is true, though such franchises be embodied in a special act of incorporation. People v. O'Brien, 111 N. Y. 1, 2 L.R.A. 255, 7 Am. St. Rep. 684, 18 N. E. 692; Suburban Rapid Transit Co. v. New York, 128 N. Y. 520, 28 N. E. 525; Coney Island, Ft. H. & B. R. Co. v. Kennedy. 15 App. Div. 588, 44 N. Y. Supp. 825; People ex rel. Reynolds v. Buffalo, 140 N. Y. 307, 37 Am. St. Rep. 563, 35 N. E. 485; New York v. Bryan, 196 N. Y. 165, 89 N. E. 467: People ex rel. Third Ave. R. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 203 N. Y. 308, 96 N. E. 1011; Re Long Sault Development Co. 212 N. Y. 1, 105 N. E. 849, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 56, 242 U. S. 272, 276, 61 L. ed. 294, 299, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 79; Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co. 212 U. S. 19, 44, 53 L. ed. 382, 396, 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1134, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 192, 15 Ann. Cas. 1034; Owensboro v. Cumber land Teleph. & Teleg. Co. 230 U. S., 58, 66, 72, 57 L. ed. 1389, 1393, 1396, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 988; Memphis & L R. Co. v. Railroad Comrs. (Memphis & L. R. Co. v. Berry) 112 U. S. 609, 616, 28 L. ed. 837, 840, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 299; Re Long Acre Electric Light & P. Co. 188 N. Y. 368, 80 N. E. 1101; Southampton v. Jessup, 162 N. Y. 122, 56 N. E. 538; New York v. Second Ave. R. Co. 32 N. Y. 272; Washington Bridge Co. v. State, 18 Conn. 54; Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. South Bend, 227 U. S. 544, 57 L. ed. 633, 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 405, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 303; Boisé Artesian Hot & Cold Water Co. v. Boisé City, 230 U. S. 84, 57 L. ed. 1400, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 997; Russell v. Sebastian, 233 U. S. 195, 58 L. ed. 912, L.R.A. 1918E, 882, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 517, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 1282; Detroit United R. Co. v. Michigan, 242 U. S. 238, 61 L. ed. 268, P.U.R.1917B, 1010, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 87. The tolls fixed by the New York Act of 1915 for the use of the roadway and pathway between Buffalo and Squaw island are confiscatory, and deprive the Bridge Company of its property without due process of law. Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co. 212 U. S. 19, 53 L. ed. 382, 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1134, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 192, 15 Ann. Cas. 1034; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Nebraska, 217 U. S. 196, 54 L. ed. 727, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 461, 18 Ann. Cas. 989; San Diego Land & Town Co. v. National City, 174 U. S. 739, 757, 43 L. ed. 1154, 1161, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 804; San Diego Land & Town Co. v. Jasper, 189 U. S 439, 442, 47 L. ed. 892, 894, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 571. The rates fixed by the statute must stand by themselves, and cannot be justified upon the ground that the defendant is making money upon its interstate and foreign commerce. Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 541, 42 L. ed. 819, 847, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 418; Minnesota Rate Cases (Simpson v. Shepard) 230 U. S. 352, 435, 57 L. ed. 1511, 1556, 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1151, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 729, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 18; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Tompkins. 176 U. S. 167, 44 L. ed. 417, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 336; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Florida, 203 U. S. 261, 51 L. ed. 175, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 109. It has always been within the power of Congress to exercise exclusive control | over bridges across the Niagara river, both as obstructions to navigation and as instruments of foreign commerce. Any power which the state of New York | might have over the subject could only exist by reason of silence and inaction on the part of Congress. The power of the state, if it existed at all, was not inherent, but permissive; and ceased to exist the moment that Congress entered the field and exerted its dominant and all-embracing authority in the matter. Wisconsin v. Duluth, 96 U. S. 379, 387, 24 L. ed. 668, 671; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Hardwick Farmers Elevator Co. 226 U. S. 426, 435, 57 L. ed. 284, 287, 46 L.R.A. (N.S.) 203, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 174. The exertion by Congress of a power which is granted in express terms must supersede all legislation over the same subject by the states. United States v. Utah Power & Light Co. 126 C. C. A. 376, 209 Fed. 554; Michigan C. R. Co. v. Vreeland, 227 U. S. 59, 66, 57 L. ed. 417, 419, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 192, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 176; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Hesterly, 228 U. S. 702, 57 L. ed. 1031, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 703; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Hefley, 158 U. S. 98, 104, 39 L. ed. 910, 912, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 802; Wisconsin v. Duluth, 96 U. S. 379, 24 L. ed. 668; Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U. S. 605, 56 L. ed. 570, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 340; Greenleaf Johnson Lumber Co. v. Garrison, 237 U. S. 251, 59 L. ed. 939, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 551; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Rigsby, 241 U. S. 33, 60 L. ed. 874, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 482; New York C. R. Co. v. Winfield, 244 U. S. 147, 61 L. ed. 1045, L.R.A.1918C, 439, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 546, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 1139, 14 N. C. C. A 680; Erie R. Co. v. Winfield, 244 U. S. 170, 61 L. ed. 1057, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 556, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 662, 14 N. C. C. A. 957; New Orleans & N. E. R. Co. v. Harris, 247 U. S. 367, 62 L. ed. 1167, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 535; Southern P. Co. v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 205, 61 L. ed. 1086, L.R.A.1918C, 451, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 524, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 900, 14 N. C. C. A. 597; Taylor v. Taylor, 232 U. S. 363, 58 L. ed. 638, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 350, 6 N. C. C. A. 436; Kiefer v. Grand Trunk R. Co. 12 App. Div. 28, 42 N. Y. Supp. 171, affirmed in 153 N. Y. 688, 48 N. E. 1105; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 207, 6 L. ed. 23, 72; Wilson v. McNamee, 102 U. S. 572, 574, 575, 26 L. ed. 234, 235; New York C. & H. R. R. Co. v. Tonsellito, 244 U. S. 360, 61 L. ed. 1194, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 620, 14 N. C. C. A. 1072; New York C. & H. R. R. Co. v. Hudson County, 227 U. S. 248, 57 L. ed. 499, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 269; Hubbard v. Fort, 188 Fed. 997; Hagerla v. Mississippi River Power Co. 202 Fed. 776. The state cannot make mandatory | 476; Southern R. Co. v. Reid, 222 U. S. that which Congress and the Secretary 424, 56 L. ed. 257, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 140; of War have left as optional. Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 539, 617, 10 L. ed. 1060, 1089; Hall v. De Cuir, 95 U. S. 485, 24 L. ed. 547; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 473, 31 L. ed. 508, 510, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 804, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 564; Charleston & W. C. R. Co v. Varnville Furniture Co. 237 U. S. 597, 59 L. ed. 1137, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 715, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 333; Erie R. Co. v. New York, 233 U. S. 671, 58 L. ed. 1149, 52 L.R.A.(N.S.) 266, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 756, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 138; Southern R. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 236 U. S. 439, 446, 448, 59 L. ed. 661, 665, 666, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 304; Northern P. R. Co. v. Washington, 222 U. S. 370, 56 L. ed. 237, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 160; St. Clair County v. Interstate Sand & Car Transfer Co. 192 U. S. 454, 468-470, 48 L. ed. 518, 524, 525, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 300. The paramount and exclusive power of Congress in regard to the construction of bridges over navigable waterways of the United States, which are boundaries between two states, is well established. Pennsylvania V. Wheeling & & B. Bridge Co. 18 How. 421, 15 L. ed. 435; The Clinton Bridge (Gray v. Chicago, I. & N. R. Co.) 10 Wall. 454, 462, 19 L. ed. 969, 971; Stockton v. Baltimore & N. Y. R. Co. 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 411, 32 Fed. 16, appeal dismissed in 140 U. S. 699, 35 L. ed. 603, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1028; Decker v. Baltimore & N. Y. R. Co. 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 434, 30 Fed. 723; Luxton v. North River Bridge Co. 153 U. S. 532, 38 L. ed. 811, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 891; Covington & C. Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U. S. 204, 38 L. ed. 962, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 649, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1087; Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Kaw Valley Drainage Dist. 233 U. S. 75, 58 L. ed. 857, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 564; Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 204 U. S. 364, 51 L. ed. 523, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 367; Monangahela Bridge Co. v. United States, 216 U. S. 177, 54 L. ed. 435, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 356; Newport & C. Bridge Co. v. United States, 105 U. S. 470, 26 L. ed. 1143. There are numerous cases in this court holding that state regulations of the operation of railroads within a state are void when they would result in a burden on interstate commerce. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Wharton, 207 U. S. 328, 52 L. ed. 230, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 121; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Arkansas, 217 U. S. 136, 54 L. ed. 698, 29 L.R.A. (N.S.) 802, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Blackwell, 244 U. S. 310, 61 L. ed. 1160, L.R.A. 1917F, 1184, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 640; Minnesota Rate Cases (Simpson v. Shepard) 230 U. S. 352, 57 L. ed. 1511, 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1151, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 729, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 18; Houston, E. & W. T. R. Co. v. United States, 234 U. S. 342, 58 L. ed. 1341, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 833; Southern R. Co. v. United States, 222 U. S. 20, 56 L. ed. 72, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 2, 3 N. C. C. A. 822; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Rigsby, 241 U..S. 33, 60 L. ed. 874, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 482; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 221 U. S. 612, 618, 55 L. ed. 878, 882, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 621. The power of Congress over this international bridge is exclusive, and all state legislation concerning it is ineffective except in so far as it has been expressly adopted and validated by Congress, because the subject-matter involves the external relations of the United States with foreign governments. United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U. S. 279, 290, 48 L. ed. 979, 983, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 719; Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U. S. 651, 659, 35 L. ed. 1146, 1149, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 336; Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U. S. 320, 340, 53 L. ed. 1013, 1022, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 671; Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470, 493, 494, 48 L. ed. 525, 534, 535, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 349; United States v. 43 Gallons of Whiskey (United States v. Lariviere) 93 U. S. 188, 194, 23 L. ed. 846, 847; Head Money Cases (Edye v. Robertson) 112 U. S. 580, 591, 28 L. ed. 798, 801, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 247; Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U. S. 581, 604-606, 32 L. ed. 1068, 1075, 1076, 9 Sup. Ct, Rep. 623; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, 711, 712, 37 L. ed. 905, 912, 913, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1016; United States v. Rauscher, 119 U. S. 407, 414, 30 L. ed. 425, 426, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 234, 6 Am. Crim. Rep. 222; Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet. 540, 570–574, 10 L. ed. 579, 594-596; Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U S. 503, 519, 37 L. ed. 537, 543, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 728; United States v. Compagnie Francaise Des Cables Telegraphiques, 77 Fed. 495; People ex rel. Barlow v. Curtis, 50 N. Y. 328, 10 Am. Rep. 483; Bowman v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 125 U. S. 465, 482, 31 L. ed. 700, 706, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 823, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 689, 1062; Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U. S. 47, 57, 35 L. ed. 649, 652, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 851; Passenger Cases, 7 How. | by the court of appeals, will not avail 283, 12 L. ed. 702. to save this legislation. The New York Act of 1915 contravenes the treaty entered into by and between the United States and Great Britain, proclaimed May 13, 1910, concerning boundary waters between the United States and Canada. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Smith, 173 U. S. 684, 689, 43 L. ed. 858, 861, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 565; Looney v. Crane Co. 245 U. S. 178, 62 L. ed. 230, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 85. Mr. Adelbert Moot and Mrs. Helen Z. M. Rodgers argued the cause on reargument, and, with Messrs. Henry W. Sprague and William L. Marcy, filed a brief for plaintiff in error. Henderson v. New York (Henderson v. Wickham) 92 U. S. 259, 273, 23 L. ed. 543, 549; Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & B. Bridge Co. 18 How. 421, 15 L. ed. 435; Gilman v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall. 713, 18 L. ed. 96; Latinette v. St. Louis, Mr. James S. Y. Ivins argued the 120 C. C. A. 638, 201 Fed. 676; United cause, and, with Messrs. Ralph A. KelStates v. Rauscher, 119 U. S. 407, 414, logg and E. C. Aiken, and Mr. Charles 30 L. ed. 425, 427, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 234, D. Newton, Attorney General of New 6 Am. Crim. Rep. 222; Bowman v. Chi-York, filed a brief for defendant in ercago & N. W. R. Co. 125 U. S. 465, 482, 31 L. ed. 700, 706, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 823, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 689, 1062; People ex rel. Barlow v. Curtis, 50 N. Y. 321, 10 Am. Rep. 483. The court of appeals erred in applying to this case the rule applicable to navigable rivers wholly within a single state. ror: The unavoidable complement of the rule that a charter and grant of franchises constitute a contract on the part of the state is that the acceptance thereof by the corporation constitutes a contract on the part of the corporation as well,-else there could be no contract at all. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. North Carolina Corp. Commission, 206 U. S. 1, 27, 51 L. ed. 933, 945, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 585, 11 Ann. Cas. 398; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 262, 277, 278, 54 L. ed. 472, 478, 479, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 330; Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 242 U. S. 603, 607, 61 L. ed. 520, 522, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 234 With the right reserved to alter, amend, or repeal, all that is left of the North River obligation-of-contract clause, if any People v. International Bridge Co. 223 N. Y. 145, 119 N. E. 351; Stockton v. Baltimore & N. Y. R. Co. 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 411, 32 Fed. 9, appeal dismissed in 140 U. S. 699, 35 L. ed. 603, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1028; Decker v. Baltimore & N. Y. R. Co. 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 434, 30 Fed. 723; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Baltimore & N. Y. R. Co. 37 Fed. 129; Newport & C. Bridge Co. v. United States, 105 U. S. 470, 475, 26 L. ed. 1143, 1145; Luxton V. Bridge Co. 153 U. S. 532, 38 L. ed. 811, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 891; Latinette v. St. Louis, 120 C. C. A. 638, 201 Fed. 676; Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312, 342, 37 L. ed. 463, 473, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 622; Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 204 U. S. 364, 51 L. ed. 523, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 367; Monongahela Bridge Co. v. United States, 216 U. S. 177, 54 L. ed. 435, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 356; United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrig. Co. 174 U. S. 690, 43 L. ed. 1136, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 770; Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 233 U. S. 605, 56 L. ed. 570, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 340; Hagerla v. Mississippi River Power Co. 202 Fed. 776; Escanaba & L. M. Transp. Co. v. Chicago, 107 U. S. 678, 683, 27 L. ed. 442, 445, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 185; Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Ohio, 165 U. S. 365, 41 L. ed. 747, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 357; United States v. Cress, 243 U. S. 316, 326, 61 L. ed. 746, 752, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 380; Hubbard v. Fort, 188 Fed. 997. The police power of the state, invoked thing, is covered by the 14th Amendment and the similar provision of the state Constitution. To impair under those conditions there must be a taking of what has become vested property. Pennsylvania College Cases, 13 Wall. 190, 20 L. ed. 550; Miller v. New York, 15 Wall. 478, 21 L. ed. 98; Hamilton Gaslight & Coke Co. v. Hamilton, 146 U. S. 258, 36 L. ed. 963, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 90; Sioux City Street R. Co. v. Sioux City, 138 U. S. 98, 34 L. ed. 898, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 226; Holyoke Water Power Co. v. Lyman, 15 Wall. 500, 21 L. ed. 133; Louisville Water Co. v. Clark, 143 U. S. 1, 36 L. ed. 55, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 346; Erie R. Co. v. Williams, 233 U. S. 700, 58 L. ed. 1161, 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1097, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 761; Ramapo Water Co. v. New York, 236 U. S. 579, 59 L. ed. 731, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 442; Calder v. Michigan, 218 U. S. 591, 54 L. ed. 1163, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 122; New York & N. E. R. Co. v. Bristol, 151 U. S. 556, 38 L. ed. 269, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 437; Fair Haven & W. R. Co. v. New, U. S. 1, 51 L. ed. 933, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. Haven, 203 U. S. 379, 51 L. ed. 237, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 74; Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U. S. 104, 55 L. ed. 112, 32 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1062, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 186, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 487. 585, 11 Ann. Cas. 398; Cummings v. Chicago, 188 U. S. 410, 47 L. ed. 525, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 472; Canada Atlantic Transit Co. v. Chicago, 126 C. C. A. 587, 210 Fed. 7; Minnesota Rate Cases (Simpson v. Shepard) 230 U. S. 352, 57 L. ed. 1511, 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1151, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 729, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 18; West Chicago Street R. Co. v. Illinois, 201 U. S. 506, 50 L. ed. 845, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 518; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Kansas, The idea is not uncommon that a state's police power, because of its unfortunate name, is limited to the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals. Nothing could be further from the fact. It extends to all matters affecting the public convenience 216 U. S. 262, 54 L. ed. 472, 30 Sup. Ct. and general welfare, including commercial prosperity; and the definition of what is a public use in aid of which it may be exercised is precisely as comprehensive as the definition of a public use for which the right to exercise the right of eminent domain may be granted. Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U. S. 104, 55 L. ed. 112, 32 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1062, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 186, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 487; Clark v. Nash, 198 U. S. 361, 49 L. ed. 1085, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 676, 4 Ann. Cas. 1171; Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Min. Co. 200 U. S. 527, 50 L. ed. 581, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 301, 4 Ann. Cas. 1174; Offield v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. 203 U. S. 372, 51 L. ed. 231, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 72; Bacon v. Walker, 204 U. S. 311, 51 L. ed. 499, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 289; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Illinois, 200 U. S. 561, 50 L. ed. 596, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 341, 4 Ann. Cas. 1175; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Omaha,_235 U. S. 121, 59 L. ed. 157, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 82; Erie R. Co. v. Williams, 233 U. S. 700, 58 L. ed. 1161, 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1097, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 761; New York & N. E. R. Co. v. Bristol, 151 U. S. 556, 38 L. ed. 269, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 437; Wisconsin, M. & P. R. Co. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287, 45 L. ed. 194, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 115; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. In terstate Commerce Commission, 221 U. S. 612, 55 L. ed. 878, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 621; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Min neapolis, 232 U. S. 430, 58 L. ed. 671, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 400; Close v. Glenwood Cemetery, 107 U. S. 466, 27 L. ed. 408, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 267; Shields v. Ohio, 95 U. S. 319, 24 L. ed. 357; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Georgia, 234 U. S. 280, 58 L. ed. 1312, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 829; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, 24 L. ed. 77; Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 242 U. S. 603, 61 L. ed. 520, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 234; Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Clough, 242 U. | S. 375, 61 L. ed. 374, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 144; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. North Carolina Corp. Commission, 206 Rep. 330; Mt. Vernon-Woodberry Cotton Duck Co. v. Alabama Interstate Power Co. 240 U. S. 30, 60 L. ed. 507, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 234. The present case falls within that class of cases in which a public service corporation is required to do something in aid of the public interest which will cost it money, with or without adequate compensation therefor; the question of compensation, in this class of cases, being of little more than nominal significance, the expense of carrying such a burden in aid of the public interest being regarded as merely a part of its general cost of doing business, like taxes, coal, or rails, or the liability for injuries to person or property, with or without negligence, and to be considered with these other items in determining whether the general schedules of rates which the corporation is allowed to charge produce the minimum fair return, whenever that question arises. In this class of cases it is universally held that whether there are any earnings at all from the particular investment so required is of little or no consequence. At most the amount of the investment is considered in comparison with the size of the corporation and its total earnings. And, as we have already shown, the investment required must be very great indeed in proportion to total assets before the courts will declare the requirement, if within the limits of a state's police power, to be unconstitutional on that account. Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U. S. 104, 55 L. ed. 112, 32 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1062, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 186, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 487; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Illinois, 200 U. S. 561, 50 L. ed. 596, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 341, 4 Ann. Cas. 1175; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Omaha, 235 U. S. 121, 59 L. ed. 157, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 82; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Minneapolis, 232 U. S. 430, 58 L. ed. 671, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 400; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. North Carolina Corp. Commission, 206 U. S. 1, 51 L. ed. 933, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 585, 11 |