Interstate commerce may be made to ''pay its way.'' Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274, 281, 51 L. Ed. 2d 326, 97 S. Ct. 1076 (1977). 'It was not the purpose of the commerce clause to relieve those engaged in interstate commerce from their just share of state tax burden[s].' Western Live Stock v. Bureau of Revenue, 303 U.S. 250, 254, 58 S. Ct. 546, 82 L. Ed. 823 (1938). See also Henneford v. Silas Mason Co., 300 U.S. 577, 81 L. Ed. 814, 57 S. Ct. 524 (1937). Nevertheless, one of the central purposes of the Clause was to prevent States from 'exacting more than a just share' from interstate commerce. Department of Revenue of Wash. v. Association of Wash. Stevedoring Cos., 435 U.S. 734, 748, 55 L. Ed. 2d 682, 98 S. Ct. 1388 (1978) (emphasis added). See also Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, 358 U.S. 450, 462, 3 L. Ed. 2d 421, 79 S. Ct. 357 (1959).
At least since the decision in Hinson v. Lott, 75 U.S. 148, 8 Wall. 148, 19 L. Ed. 387 (1869), these principles have found expression in the 'compensatory' ...