1900.] HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. 5383 
say whether those proposed are reasonable or otherwise, and he 
finds that the facts admitted by the demurrer show that the rates 
established did not pay the stockholders anything, nor even the 
interest charges on borrowed capital, which was about three-fifths 
of the cost of the road; that the reduction was about one-fourth 
from former rates and was unreasonable. He, therefore, set aside 
the rate but also the perpetual injunction. He finds the establish- 
ment of a too low rate is a denial of equal protection of the laws 
to the company and those whose capital was invested in it, but 
thinks the commissioners must be permitted to try again. 
In Connecticut’ a pharmacist licensed under state laws to follow 
that occupation found himself, in 1890, interfered with by a liquor 
law, forbidding all sales of intoxicants except under certain con- 
ditions and requiring every druggist to obtain a permit, and mak- 
ing the granting of such permit discretionary with the county 
board. The plaintiff Gray claimed that the law deprived him of 
privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States. Alco- 
holic preparations being essential to his business, the law made that 
business subject to the arbitrary discretion of the licensing board. 
The court by Justice Field disallowed his claim without much dis- 
cussion and without attempting to distinguish his case from that of 
Soon Hing vs. Crowley.’ 
In Hooper vs. California,* a law making it a misdemeanor to 
procure insurance of a foreign company which had not complied 
with the law of the state was upheld and found to be no inter- 
ference with interstate commerce. 
In Emert vs. Missouri,‘a prohibition of peddling without a 
license was held to apply to one selling sewing machines made in 
another state, but which he had with him and was delivering them as 
he sold them. The logic which distinguishes this case from Bren- 
nan vs. Titusville,® the one holding that such a license law is not 
constitutional as applied to a canvasser for portrait orders, the 
goods to be made outside of the state, is notable. 
In Plumley vs. Commonwealth of Massachusetts,® the oleomar- 
garine question, over which the state courts divided, came up once 
more. The state of Massachusetts in 1891 enacted a law that no 
one should sell, offer or keep for sale any oleomargarine colored in 
1Gray us. Conn., 159 U. S. 47156 U. S., 296 (1894). 
“eilTiGs (CES gk OBE Qilaee (Cf Shy Aes) 
3155 U. S., 648 (1894). G55) eS A Ole 
