¹ SirMaine, Henry, Popular Government (New York, 1886), p. 247Google Scholar.

² Bruchey, Stuart, The Roots of American Economic Growth, 1607–1861 (New York, 1965), pp. 96–97Google Scholar.

³ Chandler, Alfred D. Jr, “The Beginnings of Big Business in American Industry,” Business History Review, 33 (1959), 1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴ Rossiter, Clinton, ed., The Federalist Papers (New York, 1961), p. 144Google Scholar.

⁵ Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283 (U.S. 1849) at 545Google Scholar.

⁶ Roche, John P., “Entrepreneurial Liberty and the Commerce Power: Expansion, Contraction, and Casuistry in the Age of Enterprise,” University*of Chicago Law Review, 30 (1963), 682Google Scholar.

⁷ Rossiter, , ed., Federalist Papers, p. 89Google Scholar.

⁸ Abel, Albert S., “The Commerce Clause in the Constitutional Convention and in Contemporary Comment,” Minnesota Law Review, 25 (1941), 432–94;Google ScholarWarren, Charles, The Making of the Constitution (Boston, 1928), pp. 567–89Google Scholar.

⁹ Rossiter, , ed., Federalist Papers, p. 198Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Ibid., pp. 292–93.

¹¹ Scheiber, Harry N., The Condition of American Federalism: An Historian's View (Washington, D.C., 1965), p. 5Google Scholar.

¹² Goodrich, Carter, Government Promotion of American Canals and Railroads, 1800–1890 (New York, 1960), pp. 3–165Google Scholar.

¹³ Abel, Albert S., “Commerce Regulation Before Gibbons v. Ogden: Interstate Transportation Facilities,” North Carolina Law Review, 25 (1946), 121–71Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Abel, Albert S., “Commerce Regulation Before Gibbons v. Ogden: Trade and Traffic,” Brooklyn Law Review, 14 (1947-1948), 38–77, 215–43;Google ScholarHollander, Stanley C., “Nineteenth Century Anti-Drummer Legislation in the United States,” Business History Review, 38 (1964), 479–500Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 (U.S. 1824) at 189Google Scholar; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419 (1827) at 466Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 (U.S. 1824) at 200Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Ibid.

¹⁸ Frankfurter, Felix, The Commerce Clause Under Marshall, Taney and Waite (Chapel Hill, 1937), p. 20Google Scholar. See also Swisher, Carl BrentOliver Wendell Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court of the United States, vol. V; The Taney Period, 1836–1864 (New York, 1974), pp. 357–422Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 12 How. 299 (U.S. 1851)Google Scholar.

²⁰ County of Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U.S. 691 (1880) at 701Google Scholar.

²¹ Newmyer, Kent, “History Over Law: The Taney Court,” Stanford Law Review, 27 (1975), 1378CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²² , Hollander. “Nineteenth Century Anti-Drummer Legislation,” p. 481Google Scholar.

²³ Porter, Glenn and Livesay, Harold C., Merchants and Manufacturers: Studies in the Changing Structure of Nineteenth-Century Marketing (Baltimore, 1971)Google Scholar.

²⁴ Jack, Andrew B., “The Channels of Distribution for an Innovation: The Sewing Machine Industry in America, 1860–1865,” Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, 9 (1957), 113–41Google Scholar.

²⁵ The data on Singer's post-Civil War marketing strategy were generously supplied by Fred V. Carstensen.

²⁶ Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418 (U.S. 1870). See also the long line of state court decisions collected in Cooley, Thomas M., A Treatise on the Constitutional LimitationsWhich Rest Upon the Legislative Power of the States of the American Union (Boston, 1868), p. 487Google Scholar.

²⁷ , Frankfurter, Commerce Clause, p. 36Google Scholar.

²⁸ Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419 (U.S. 1827) at 447.

²⁹ Beall.v. State, 4 Blackf. 107 (Indiana 1835) at 109Google Scholar.

³⁰ Ibid.

³¹ Seymour v. State, 51 Ala. 52 (1874) at 54Google Scholar.

³² Raquet v. Wade, 4 Ohio 107 (1829)Google Scholar; People v. Coleman, 4 Cal. 46 (1854)Google Scholar; State v. Pihckney, 10 Rich. L. 474 (South Carolina 1857)Google Scholar; Davis v. Doshiel, 61 N.C. 114 (1867)Google Scholar;State o. Hogdon, 41 Vt. 139 (1869)Google Scholar.

³³ License Cases, 5 How. 504 (U.S. 1847) at 622Google Scholar.

³⁴ , Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, p. 486Google Scholar.

³⁵ Casselberry, Evans, ed., The Revised Statutes of the State of Missouri (St. Louis, 1845), pp. 404–05Google Scholar

³⁶ State v. Welton, 55 Mo. 288 (1874)Google Scholar

³⁷ James S. Botsfbrd, M. M. Welton, Plaintiff in Error vs. The State of Missouri: Brief for Plaintiff in Error (Jefferson City, Mo., 1875), p. 9Google Scholar

³⁸ Smith, S. M., M. M. Welton, Plaintiff in Error vs. The State of Missouri: Brief for Plaintiff in Error (St. Louis, 1875) p. 5Google Scholar

³⁹ , Botsford, Brief, p. 12Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ibid., p. 13

⁴¹ Welton v. Missouri, 91 U S. 275 (1876) at 281Google Scholar

⁴² Ibid., p. 278

⁴³ Ibid., pp. 280–81

⁴⁴ Ibid., p. 281

⁴⁵ Scheiber, Harry N., “Federalism and the America n Economic Order, 1789–1910,” Law and Society Review, 10 (1975), 84CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁶ , Virginia, Acts of Assembly, 1875 –1876, p. 184Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Webber v. Commonwealth, 33 Gratt. 898 (Va. 1880)

⁴⁸ Webber v. Virginia, 103 U.S. 344 (1880) at 350Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Ibid., pp. 350–51.

⁵⁰ Duckworth o. Arkansas, 314 U.S. 390 (1941) at 400Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Beall v. State, 4 Blackf. 107 (Indiana 1835) at 109Google Scholar.

⁵² Kujovich, Mary Yeager, “The Refrigerator Car and the Growth of the American Dressed Beef Industry,” Business History Review, 44 (1970), 460–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵³ See e.g., Clemen, Rudolf A., The American Livestock and Meat Industry (New York, 1923)Google Scholar; Amould, Richard J, “Chianging Patterns of Concentration m American Meat Packing, 1880–1963,” Business History Review, 45 (1971), 18–34;Google ScholarAduddell, Robert and Cain, Louis, “Location and Collusion in the Meat Packing Industry,” Business Enterprise and Economic Growth: Essays m Honor of Harold F. Williamson, Cain, Louis P. and Useldiiig, Paul L., eds (Kent, Ohio, 1973), pp. 85–117Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Senate, U S, Testimony Taken by the Select Committee on the Transportation and Sale of Meat Products to Accompany Senate Report No. 829, 51st Congress, 1st Session (Serial 2705)Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Ibid., p. 156

⁵⁶ , Minnesota, Laws, 1889, p. 51Google Scholar; , Indiana, Laws, 1889, p. 150Google Scholar; , Colorado, Laws, 1889, p. 244Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Cole, Gordon E., In the Matter of the Application of Henry E. Barber for a Writ of Habeas Corpus: Points and Authorities for Appellant (St. Paul, 1889), p. 43Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat 1 (U. S, 1824) at 203Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ Patterson v.. Kentucky, 97 U S. 501 (1878)Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Michener, Louis T., Brief in Behalf of Appellants in the Matter of Henry E. Barber for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Filed by Leave of the Court and Consent of the Parties Herein, by Counsel for the State of Indiana (Indianapolis, 1889), pp. 30–31.Google ScholarSee also DrBehrend, Henry E, “Diseases from Butcher's Meat,” Nineteenth Century, 26 (1889), 409Google Scholar; Senate, U S., Report of the Select Committee on the Transportation and Sale of Meat Products, Senate Report No. 829 51st Congress, 1st Session (Serial 2705), p. 26Google Scholar

⁶¹ , Cole, Points and Authorities for Appellant, p. 9Google Scholar.

⁶² Sanborn, Walter H., In the Matter of the Application of Henry E. Barber for a Writ of Habeas Corpus: Points and Authorities for Respondent (St. Paul, 1889), p. 49Google Scholar.

⁶³ Ibid., p. 48.

⁶⁴ Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U.S. 313 (1890) at 322–23Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ Ibid., pp. 327–28, 321.

⁶⁶ The “Big Four” packers, like I. M. Singer & Co., had to contend with “counterthrusts” by the state legislatures; counsel for Armour & Co. was back in court a year later to challenge a Virginia statute that provided for post-mortem inspection of all dressed beef slaughtered more than 100 miles from the place ofsale and also required the processor to pay the cost ofinspection (, Virginia, Acts ofAssembly, 1889 –1890, p. 63). The Court, again speaking through Harlan, held that “the heavy [inspection] charge of one cent per pound” was, “in reality, a tax” which divested out-of-state packers of the right to “compete upon equal terms in the markets of that Commonwealth”Google Scholar(Brimmerv. Rebman, 138 U.S. 78 [1891] at 81–82). The last B.P.A.-sponsored law to fall was the Colorado statute (cited at note 56), which was struck down inGoogle ScholarSchmidt v. People, 18 Colo. 78 (1892)Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ Senate, U.S., Report of the Select Committee, p. 40Google Scholar; Congressional Record, 51st Congress 1st Session (1890), pp. 3056–58, 5928–31. The international dimensions of the meat-inspection issue are thoroughly treated inGoogle ScholarCignilliat, John L., “Pigs, Politics, and Protection: The European Boycott of American Pork, 1879–1891,” Agricultural History, 35 (1961), 3–12;Google ScholarPerren, Richard, “The North American Beefand Cattle Trade with Great Britain, 1870–1914,” Economic History Review, 24 (1971), 430–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁸ Anderson, Oscar E., The Health ofa Nation: Harvey W. Wiley and the Fightfor Pure Food (Chicago, 1958), p. 78Google Scholar; Congressional Record, 51st Congress, 1st Session (1890), pp. 56747, 6514, 1019Google Scholar

⁶⁹ United States Statutes at Large, XXVI, p. 1089.Google ScholarSee also Melvin, A D., “The Federal Meat-Inspection Service,” Twenty-Third Annual Report of the Bureau of Animal Industry (Washington, D. C., 1908), pp. 65–99Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Holmes, Oliver Wendell, Collected Legal Papers (New York, 1920), pp. 295–96Google Scholar.