NEW 0RLnANs & MEMPHIS PACKET 00. v. JAMES. 21
to the control of the navigable waters of the country, and the lands un-
der them, for the purposes of navigation, but for the purpose of erecting
piers, bridges, and all other instrumentalities of commerce which, in the
judgment of congress, maybe necessary or expedient.
Entertaining these views with regard to the power of congress over the
whole subject of the regulation of commerce among the several states,
including that of the navigable waters of the country, and the lands un-
der the same, as subsidiary to that end, we have no hesitation in de-
claring our opinion to be that the authority given by the act of June 16,
1886, to build the bridge in question, and, for that purpose, to erect the
necessary. piers of such bridge upon the lands under water of Arthur kill,
is valid and constitutional, and does not injuriously affect any property
or other rights ofthe state of New Jersey. This conclusion resolves also
the other questions remaining unanswered, with regard to the true con-
struction of the act, and the capacity of the defendant the Staten Island
Rapid Transit Railroad Company to perform the acts necessary to exe-
cute the authority given by congress.
The information is dismissed, with costs, and the injunction hereto-
fore granted is dissolved. _
Nmw °ORI)EANS & Mnmrnrs PACKETS Co. v. J.•.m:s.’ Pr.1m•rmas’  
C0. v. SAME. Gnnnnvmnn & N. 0. Pacxm Co. v. SAME}
(017rcurJt Court, E. D. Louisiana. June 1, 1887.) _ , n
CONBTITUTIONAL L.rw—I¤·rnnsn·r1¤ (Jomn:ncn—ConronLmoNs.
Article 236 of the constitution of Louisiana. which provides that no foreign
corporation shall do any business in this state without having one or more ,
known places of business, and an authorized agent or agents in the state
upon whom process can be served, is null and void, being an attempt on the
part of the state to interpose a restriction on navigation, and therefore in con-
iiict with the provisions of the act of congress approved eighteenth Febru-
ary, 1793,(passed in pursuance of a clear authority under the constitution of
the Unite States} ` V
T. L. Bayne and Geo. Denegre, for complainants.
W. F. &: D. O'. Mellen, for defendant.
Brnnmcs, J. To the plaintiffs' claim defendant interposes the excep-
tion that the plaintiffs,. chartered or existing under the laws of the state
*Reported by Joseph P. Horner, Esq., of the New Orleans bar
*A state statute cannot be so construed as to limit the right of any foreign corpora-
tion to make contracts in the state for carrying on interstate commerce. Cooper Man-
nfg Co. v. Ferguson, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 739.
Any control or regulation by a state of the navigation of its waters is an encroach-
ment upon the powers of congress. Ferry Co. v. Co m.. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 826. Respect-
_ ing interstate commerce in general, see Pearson v. International Distillery, (Iowa,) 34
N. W. Rep. 1, and note. -