The fee provided for in said act is not an unreasonable censor or inspection charge against such picture films or reels. Chi., B. Q.R.R. v. Cram, 228 U.S. 70; Commonwealth v. Herr, 78 A. 68. The picture films or reels are proper subjects of censor or inspection by a State before they can be exhibited to the public in such State. Bloch v. Chicago, 239 Ill. 251; Chicago v. Brownell, 146 Ill. 64; Chicago v. Bowman Dairy Co., 234 Ill. 340; Peoria v. Calhoun, 29 Ill. 317; Commonwealth v. McGunn, 100 N.E. 337; Gundling v. Chicago, 176 Ill. 340; Hawthorn v. People, 109 Ill. 303; Harrison v. People, 222 Ill. 150; Knopf v. People, 185 Ill. 20; Leisey v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100; Meffert v. Medical Board, 66 Kan. 710; Meffert v. Packer c., 195 U.S. 625; People v. Creiger, 138 Ill. 401; People v. Cooper, 83 Ill. 585; Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U.S. 461; Spiegler v. Chicago, 216 Ill. 114; State v. State Board, 34 Minn. 387; State ex rel. v. Webster, 150 Ind. 607; State v. Hathaway, 115 Mo. 36; State Board v. Roy, 22 R.I. 538; Wilkins v. The State, 113 Ind. 514. The act in question is not a revenue measure for the general fund of the State, nor is it a tax on interstate commerce in violation of § 8, Art. I of the Federal Constitution. American Steel Co. v. Speed, 192 U.S. 500; Austin v. Tennessee, 179 U.S. 351; May v. New Orleans, 178 U.S. 502; McLean v. D. R.G.R.R., 203 U.S. 38; Patapsco Guano Co. v. North Carolina, 171 U.S. 345; Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U.S. 461; Red "C" Oil Co. v. North Carolina, 222 U.S. 380; Savage v. Jones, 225 U.S. 501; Standard Co. v. Wright, 225 U.S. 540; United States v. Knight, 156 U.S. 1.