Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/91/275
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:25:32+00:00

Document:
WELTON v. THE STATE OF MISSOURI.
So, in like manner, the license tax exacted by the State of Missouri from dealers in goods which are not the product or manufacture of the State, before they can be sold from place to place within the State, must be regarded as a tax upon such goods themselves; and the question presented is, whether legislation thus discriminating against the products of other States in the conditions of their sale by a certain class of dealers is valid under the Constitution of the United States. It was contended in the State courts, and it is urged here, that this legislation violates that clause of the Constitution which declares that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States. The power to regulate conferred by that clause upon Congress is one without limitation; and to regulate commerce is to prescribe rules by which it shall be governed,that is, the conditions upon which it shall be conducted; to determine how far it shall be free and untrammelled, how far it shall be burdened by duties and imposts, and how far it shall be prohibited.
[TIQ!]] BACCHUS IMPORTS, LTD. et al. v. Herbert H. DIAS, Director of Taxation of the State of Hawaii, et al.
PHILADELPHIA & SOUTHERN MAIL S. S. CO. v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA.
BEST & CO., Inc., v. MAXWELL, Com'r of Revenue for North Carolina.
PACIFIC CO., Limited, v. JOHNSON, State Treasurer of California.
JOHN FRANCIS, Anthony Hoff, and John Edgar, alias Peter Edgar, v. UNITED STATES.
I. M. DARNELL & SON COMPANY and H. D. Minor, Plffs. in Err., v. CITY OF MEMPHIS and Thomas J. Taylor, Trustee.
BETHLEHEM MOTORS CORPORATION et al. v. FLYNT, Sheriff et al.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.