placed the same construction on that decision in Fargo v. Auditor General, 57 Mich. 598, 24 N. W. Rep. 538, the case which was reversed in 121 U. S. 230, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 857, when the new doctrine was for the first time announced. In answer to the claim that the tax was unconstitutional because it was upon the interstate gross earnings of a corporation, the Michigan supreme court referred to the case of State Tax on Railway Gross Receipts, 15 Wall. 284; and in reply to an attempt to distinguish the case the court in emphatic language declared that that case held that a tax on the receipts of interstate commerce was not repugnant to the federal constitution, saying: “But the point decided was that such a tax was not invalid because in conflict with the power of congress to regulate commerce among the states.” The syllabus in the case in 15 Wall. 284, certainly warrants this statement. It is as follows: “A tax levied upon the gross receipts of a railroad company is not in conflict with the constitution of the United States. Such a tax is not a tax upon interstate transportation.” In the opinion the court said: “It was claimed in the state court that the act is unconstitutional so far as it taxes that portion of the gross receipts of companies which are derived from transportation from the state to another state, or into the state from another; and, the supreme court of the state having decided adversely to the claim, the case has been brought here for review.” The decision of the state court holding the act to be constitutional in its entire scope was affirmed. In Telegraph Co. v. Mayer, 28 Ohio St. 521, the supreme court, in 1876—seven years before the passage of the gross earnings statute in question—held that the case in 15 Wall. 284 had settled the law in favor of the constitutionality of such a tax; the court deciding on the basis of that case that a tax on the gross receipts of telegraph companies was valid, although the gross receipts “arose chiefly from messages pertaining to such commerce, or from messages originating or terminating outside of the state, or were earned on the lines of such companies outside of the state.” The same decision was made, and the same construction was placed upon 15 Wall. 284, in the case of Express Co. v. St. Joseph, 66 Mo. 675. This case was decided in 1877—six years before the gross earnings law of
