[180] In re Neagle, 135 U. S., 1 (1889).
[181] In re Debs, 158 U. S., 564 (1895).
[182] The Addystone Pipe & Steel Company v. United States, 175 U. S., 211 (1899).
[183] The Shreveport Case, (Houston, East and West Texas Railway Co. v. United States; Texas and Pacific Railway Co. v. United States) 234 U. S., 342 (1914).
Note.—Cases further illustrating prohibition of a business or activity by operation of laws passed under the commerce clause: United States v. Holliday, 3 Wallace, 407 (1866); Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U. S., 470 (1904); U. S. v. Del. & Hudson Ry., 213 U. S., 366 (1909); Hope v. U. S., 227 U. S., 308 (1913).
Cases illustrating exercise of the power over commerce given by the clause and exercising jurisdiction over commerce claimed to be intrastate but forming as it were a link in the chain of interstate commerce: Lord v. S. S. Co., 102 U. S., 541 (1880); Wilmington Transportation Co. v. California Railroad Commission, 236 U. S., 151 (1915); Hanley v. Kansas City Southern Ry., 187 U. S., 617 (1903).
It will be well to read the dissenting opinions in any of these cases as these usually emphasize the power of the State over commerce.
[184] Art. i., 10: 1.
[185] McCrackin v. Hayward, 2 Howard, 608 (1844).
[186] Woodruff v. Trapnall, 10 Howard, 190 (1850).