General rules of statutory construction,- see ante, § 1, notes [23]-[40].

What constitutes a railroad or street railroad,- see ante, § 2, note [8].

Consideration of interstate and foreign business in determining as to reasonableness of intrastate rates,- see post, § 49, note [41].

[1] Powers of Interstate Commerce Commission.

The Interstate Commerce Commission possesses no common law jurisdiction or powers.-Jones v. St. L. & S. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 167.

In general.

[2] What constitutes state or interstate commerce When interstate transportation begins,- see post, note [8]. When interstate transportation ends,- see post, note [9].

Commerce among the several states comprehends every species of commercial intercourse between the different states.- Adair v. U. S., 208 U. S. 161, 28 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 277.

66

Commerce," in the interstate commerce clause of the United States Constitution, includes intercourse, communication, traffic, the transit of persons, and the transmission of messages by telegraph.- The Lottery Cases, 188 U. S. 321, 23 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 321.

The railroad commissioners of Arkansas sought to regulate rates for the transportation of goods on a through bill of lading from Fort Smith, Ark., to Grannis, Kan., by way of Spiro in the Indian Territory, a total distance of 116 miles, of which 52 miles is in Arkansas and 64 in Indian Territory.-Held, that this is interstate commerce and no part of it is within regulative power of the state.- Hanley v. K. C. S. R. Co., 187 U. S. 617, 23 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 214.

The transportation of live stock from one state to another is interstate commerce.- Reid v. Colorado, 187 U. S. 137, 23 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 92.

The Kentucky legislature attempted to fix charges and tolls on a bridge between Kentucky and Ohio.- Held, that the traffic across the river was interstate commerce and that the bridge was an instrumentality of such commerce.- Covington & C. Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U. S. 204, 14 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 1087.

An empty car was consigned from Omaha, Neb., to Council Bluffs, Iowa, for the purpose of being repaired.— Held, that the car was engaged in interstate commerce.-U. S. v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 157 Fed. 616.

Importation into one state from another is the indispensable element of interstate commerce.- -U. S. v. Colorado & N. W. R. Co., 157 Fed. 321; Baird v. St. L. I. M. & S. R. Co., 41 Fed. 592.

--

The test whether an act of transportation is interstate commerce is whether the commodity is en route interstate, not whether the road carrying it is wholly within one state.-U. S. v. Standard Oil Co., 155 Fed. 305.

When merchandise is carried from one state into another, no system or scheme can be devised to make it intrastate traffic.-U. S. v. Ch. M. & St. P. R. Co., 149 Fed. 486.

Transportation wholly within one state is the purely internal commerce of that state. If the transportation be a part of a voyage from one state to another, or to a foreign country, it is interstate commerce. – Augusta S. R. Co. v. Wrightsville & T. R. Co., 74 Fed. 522; Mattingly v. Pa. Co., 3 I. C. C. R. 609.

Oranges were shipped by growers to their forwarding agent at another point in same state, for reshipment to another state. The agent immediately forwarded them to their destination in another state.— Held, that the shipment to the forwarder was interstate commerce and hence not under the regulation of the Florida railway commission.Cutting v. Florida, R. & N. Co., 46 Fed. 641.

The Interstate Commerce Act applies to shipments from the United States into a foreign country. In re Investigation of Grand Trunk R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 496, 3 I. C. C. R. 89.

A shipment originating in New Jersey, destined for New York, but delivered to the consignees in Jersey City, is not subject to the Interstate Commerce Act.-N. J. Fruit Exch. v. Central R. Co. of N. J., 2 Inters. Com. R. 18, 84, 2 I. C. C. R. 142.

An interstate railroad owned coal mines and engaged in the mining of coal. It sold coal so mined, at the mouth of the mine, and then transported it interstate.- Held, that this was a violation of the Hepburn Act of June 29, 1906. If the coal so mined was not transported across state boundaries, the Hepburn Act would not be thereby violated.— Central Trust Co. v. Pittsburg, S. & N. R. Co., 52 Misc. (N. Y.) 195, 101 N. Y. Supp. 837.

A carrier accepted goods consigned to a point in another state, but contracted with the consignor that its responsibility should cease when it had taken the goods to another point within the state where the shipment began and there turned them over to a connecting carrier.— Held, that this shipment and contract were not interstate commerce, and might be regulated by the state.- Heiserman v. Burl. C. & N. R. Co., 63 Iowa, 732, 18 N. W. 903.

Shipment held not to be interstate shipment.- Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. State, 97 Tex. 274, 78 S. W. 495, affg. s. c. 32 Tex. Civ. App. 1, 73 S. W. 429.

A shipment consigned out of the state is interstate commerce, even though the liability of the initial carrier ends within the state.Houston Nav. Co. v. Ins. Co., 89 Tex. 1, 32 S. W. 889, 30 L. R. A. 713.

To constitute interstate commerce, it is not necessary that all the carriers engaged in an interstate or foreign shipment shall be parties to the contract of shipment for the entire route.- Houston Nav. Co. v. Ins. Co., 89 Tex. 1, 32 S. W. 889, 30 L. R. A. 713.

Transportation is domestic, local, intra-state, only when confined to the boundaries of the state in which the contract of shipment is made. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Sherwood, 84 Tex. 125, 19 S. W. 455, 17 L. R. A. 643n.

A shipment beginning out of the state, and continued between two points within the state by a connecting carrier, is not subject to state regulation as to the latter or any part of such transportation.- State v. So. Kan. R. Co., · Tex. Civ. App. 49 S. W. 252.

[3]

Shipments between points within a state, passing through another state in transit.

A state tax against a domestic railroad corporation, because of transportation done by it from one point within the state to another point within it, but passing through part of another state en route, is not a tax upon interstate commerce.— -Lehigh V. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 145 U. S. 192, 12 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 806; distinguished and apparently narrowed in Hanley v. K. C. S. R. Co., 187 U. S. 617, 23 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 214.

A shipment from New York City to Buffalo, via New Jersey and Pennsylvania, is interstate commerce.-U. S. v. D. L. & W. R. Co., 152 Fed. 269.

Transportation by railroad from one point within a state to another point within it, but passing without the state during the transportation and through a part of another state, is not an interstate shipment and does not constitute interstate commerce.-U. S. ex rel. Kellogg v. Lehigh V. R. Co., 115 Fed. 373.

Transporting milk from upstate New York through New Jersey to New York City is interstate commerce.- Milk Prod. P. Assn. v. D. L. & W. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 92.

Transportation between two points in New York State, passing en route through Pennsylvania, is not interstate commerce.- Dillon v. Erie R. Co., 19 Misc. (N. Y.) 116, 43 N. Y. Supp. 320.

A railroad commission cannot fix rates for transportation between two points in the same state, if the route traverses a neighboring state.

State v. Ch. St. P. M. & O. R. Co., 40 Minn. 267, 41 N. W. 1047, 3 L. R. A. 238.

That in the course of continuous transportation from one point to another in the same state, goods pass through a portion of another state, does not make their shipment interstate commerce nor remove such shipment from the domain of state regulation.-Seawell v. K. C. Ft. S. & M. R. Co., 119 Mo. 222, 24 S. W. 1002.

The fact that freight being shipped between two points in the same state passes in transit through another state, does not make it interstate commerce or take it out of the regulative power of the state.- Commonwealth v. Lehigh V. R. Co., 129 Pa. 308, 18 Atl. 125.

A state cannot regulate transportation between two points in the same state, where it is by connecting roads, one of which lies wholly in another state.- Sternberger v. Cape Fear & Y. V. R. Co., 29 S. C. 510, 7 S. E. 836, 2 L. R. A. 105.

The switching of cars by a carrier is a local service which has no reference to the interstate shipment, even though the goods are intended for that. The charge for such switching is not a part of the through rate.- Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Becker, 32 Fed. 849. Hay was shipped to East St. Louis as its final destination, and then sold to complainant.- Held, that when he purchased and took possession of it, the contract of transportation under which it started was at an end. The mere fact that he intended to send it on to some interstate point could hardly make the service of switching that car-load to its warehouse an act of interstate transportation.- St. L. Hay & G. Co. v. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 82.

The switching of cars, empty or loaded with freight ultimately to be consigned interstate, is purely local and under state regulation, until after such cars have been billed to their destination.- Larrabee Flour Mills v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 74 Kan. 808, 88 Pac. 72.

[5]

Elevating, weighing and discharging grain.

The elevation and storing of grain is not interstate commerce.Brass v. Stoeser, 153 U. S. 391, 14 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 857, affg. s. c. 2 N. Dak. 482.

Elevating, receiving, weighing, and discharging grain is not interstate commerce, but the regulation thereof is within the police power of the state.- Budd v. New York, 143 U. S. 517, 12 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 468, affg. s. c. People v. Budd, 117 N. Y. 1, 22 N. E. 670, 682.

The elevation and storing of grain by an elevator company is not interstate commerce.- Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, affg. s. c. 69 Ill. 80.

The state legislature may, in exercise of its police power, fix the maximum charge for elevating, receiving, weighing and discharging grain by warehouses and elevators.-Matter of Annon, 50 Hun (N. Y.), 413, 2 N. Y. Supp. 275.

A state has no power to regulate the allowance by the railroads to terminal elevators of certain charges on shipments of grain from points in Nebraska to points outside, for the services of such elevators are incident to interstate commerce.- State v. Omaha Elev. Co., — Neb. 110 N. W. 874.

A cab service maintained by the Pennsylvania Railroad to and from its Jersey City terminals to points in New York, the charges for which are separate from its charges for train transportation, is not interstate commerce.- - Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Knight, 192 U. S. 21, 24 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 202.

Moving goods coming from another state, to the freight warehouse, from the platform on which they are put on arrival, is a part of the interstate transportation.- Rhodes v. Iowa, 170 U. S. 412, 18 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 664, revg. s. c. 90 Iowa, 496, 58 N. W. 887.

Wharfage is not interstate commerce, but local in its nature.- Transportation Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U. S. 691, 2 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 732. Where a stock yard is located partly in one state and partly in another, the passing of stock to and fro over the state line, in the yards, for convenience in feeding and handling, does not impress the traffic with the character of interstate commerce.- - Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co., 82 Fed. 839; revd. on other points, 183 U. S. 79, 22 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 30.

Icing and refrigeration of cars for interstate transportation is a part. of the transportation service, not merely incident to it or local in its character. Hence it is under the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission.- Matter of Charges for Transportation of Fruit, 11 Inters. Com. R. 129.

[7] What railroads are engaged in interstate commerce.

A railroad lying wholly within the limits of one state entered into an agreement to receive goods under through bills of lading and to participate in through rates for such goods.- Held, that by this arrangement it became a continuous line for interstate shipment and thus amenable to the control of the Interstate Commerce Commission as to such through transportation, originating or taking place over its lines.Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. v. Interst. Com. Commission, 162 U. S. 184, 16 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 700.