As has been before seen, when property which has been introduced into a State has become commingled with the other property of that State, it ceases to enjoy the protection of the Comby the agent of a company in another State, where the contract is to be completed and executed wholly within the borders of the State, even though such contracts may incidentally affect interstate trade, the court observe: "These cases are not in conflict with those in which it As held that the negotiation of sales of goods in a State by a person employed to solicit for them in another State, the goods to be shipped from the one State to the other is interstate commerce. ... In these cases goods in a foreign State are sold upon orders for the purpose of bringing them to the State which undertakes to tax them, and the transactions are held to be interstate commerce, because the subject matter of the dealing is goods to be shipped in interstate commerce; to be carried between States and delivered from vendor to purchaser by means of interstate carriage. But how stands the present case upon the facts stipulated? The plaintiffs in error are brokers who take orders and transmit them to ether States for the purchase and sale of grain or cotton upon speculation. They are, in no just sense, common carriers of messages, as are the telegraph companies. For that part of the transactions, merely speculative and followed by no actual delivery, it cannot be fairly contended that such coutraats are the subject of interstate commerce; and concerning such of the contracts for purchases for future delivery as result in actual delivery of the grain or cotton, the stipulated facts show that, when the orders transmitted are received in the foreign State, the property is bought in that State and there held for the purchaser. The transaction was thus closed by a contract completed and executed in the foreign State, although the orders were received from another State. When the delivery was upon a contract of sale made by the broker, the seller was at liberty to acquire the cotton in the market where the delivery was required or elsewhere. He did not contract to ship it from one State to the place of delivery in another State. And though It is stipulated that shipments were made from Alabama to the foreign State in some instances, that was not because of any contractual obligation to do so. In neither class of contracts, for sale or purchase, was there necessarily any movement of commodities in interstate traffic because of the contracts made by the brokers. These contracts are not, therefore, the subject of interstate commerce any more than in the insurance cases, where the policies are ordered and delivered in another State than that of the residence and office of the company. The delivery, when one was made, was not because of any contract, obliging an interstate shipment, and the fact that the purchaser might thereafter transmit the subject matter of the purchase by means of interstate carriage did not make the contracts as made and executed the subjects of interstate commerce." merce Clause. And thus it has been held that peddlers, as distinguished from drummers, that is, persons who carry with them the articles which they sell, or at least supply the articles sold from stocks of merchandise already in the State, may be required to pay a license fee, even though they deal exclusively with goods which have been imported from another State; provided, however, of course, that they are not discriminated against because of the fact that they sell goods brought in from outside the State.

In Machine Co. v. Gage84 and in Emert v. Missouri85 state laws imposing license fees upon peddlers were upheld as to persons selling exclusively sewing machines manufactured outside of the State and sent into the State to the peddlers to be disposed of by them as the agents of the manufacturers.

In Emert v. Missouri the court say: "The defendant's occupation was offering for sale and selling sewing machines, by going from place to place in the State of Missouri, in a wagon, without a license. There is nothing in the case to show that he ever offered for sale any machine which he did not have with him at the time. His dealings were neither accompanied nor followed by any transfer of goods, or of any order for their transfer, from one State to another; and were neither interstate commerce in themselves, nor were they in any way directly connected with such commerce. The only business and commerce in which he was engaged was internal and domestic; and, so far as appears, the only goods in which he was dealing had become part of the mass of property within the State. Both the occupation and the goods, therefore, were subject to the taxing power, and to the police power, of the State."

The court then goes on to point out that there was no discrimination against goods manufactured outside of the State, and that the statute in question was rather a police regulation to protect against fraud, than a revenue measure.

84 100 U. S. 676; 25 L. ed. 754.

85 156 U. S. 296; 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 367; 39 L. ed. 430.