? U. 8. Statement of the C?. the residents and citizens of Tennessee or the reputation of her manufactured products. (2) The fees are unreasonable and exorbitant for the service performed and very much greater than necessary to provide for inspection, and that after pay- ment of the salaries and other expenses incident to inspection there is a surplus of many thousands of dollars put into the treasury annually. (3) The act is void under the constitution of the State of Tennessee, because the inspection is not neeessay or conducive to the benefit of the State of Tennessee or the citi- zens thereof, and the act is therefore unnecessary, unreasonable and not a valid exercise of the police power of the State, but a mere tax or charge imposed under the guise of a police regula- tion, and as such is in conflict with article II, �, of the con- stitution of Tennessee, which requires all property to be taxed according to its value and that taxes be equal and uniform throughout the State. It is alleged that the act provides in �a heavy penalty, con- sisting of a fine of from twenty to fifty dollars for each offense? against any dealer or manufacturer who shall ol?truct the in- spcctor in the discharge of his duties, or refuse to permit him upon his premises for the performance thereof; and provides in �that it shall be a misdemeanor for any person to sell any oil before having it inspected as provided in the act, and on con- viction shall be fined $300, and the oil, if found to be rejected, shall be forfeited and sold.. Plaintiff therefore, it is alleged, on account of the severe penalties, could not afford to takc the risk of selling any oil without inspection or take the risk of refusing permission to inspect. That it is doubtful if plaintif[, if it paid the fees under protest, could recover the same, and if they could be recovered it would be necessary for plaintiff to bring suit every thirty days for the charges paid for the pre- ceding thirty days, so that an indefinite number'of suits would be necessary. Irreparable injury will therefore result, it is alleged, if the inspection against plaintiff's oils under the act of 1899 be not enjoined. Defendant filed a dcmurrer which attacked the bill for want
�
