son river, to which the prohibition now under consideration applies.' So the same power may pass the line of the state of Illinois and act upon its restriction upon the right of transportation extending over several states, including that one.

In the case of Western U. Telegraph Co. Texas, 105 U. S. 460 [26: 1067], the court eld that a telegraph company occupies the same relation to commerce as a carrier of messages that a railroad company does as a carrier of goods, and that both companies are instruments of commerce, and their business is commerce itself. . In the case of Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275 [23: [317]347], it was said: *It will not be denied that that portion of commerce with foreign nations and between the states which consists in the transportation and exchange of commodities is of national importance, and admits and requires uniformity of regulation. The very object of investing this power in the general government was to insure this uniformity against discriminating state legislation." And in County of Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 702 [26: 241], the same idea is very clearly stated in the following language: Commerce with foreign countries and among the states, strictly considered, consists in intercourse and traffic, including in these terms navigation and the transportation and transit of persons and property, as well as the purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities. For the regulation of commerce, as thus defined, there can be only one system of rules, applicable alike to the whole country; and the authority which can act for the whole country can alone adopt such a system. Action upon it by separate states is not, therefore, permissible. Language affirming the exclusiveness of the grant of power over commerce as thus defined may not be inaccurate, when it would be so if applied to legislation upon subjects which are merely auxiliary to commerce.' We must therefore hold that it is not, and never has been, the deliberate opinion of a majority of this court, that the statute of a state which attempts to regulate the fares and charges by railroad companies within its limits, for a transportation which constitutes a part of commerce among the states, is a valid law.

"Let us see precisely what is the degree of interference with the transportation of property or persons from one state to another which this statute proposes. A citizen of New York has goods which he desires to have transported by the railroad companies from that city to the interior of the state of Illinois. A continuous line of rail over which a car loaded with these goods can be carried, and is carried habitually, connects the place of shipment with the place of delivery. He undertakes to make a contract with a person engaged in the carrying business at the end of this route from whence the goods are to start, and he is told by the car(318)rier, ‘I am free to make a fair *and reasonable contract for this carriage to the line of the state of Illinois, but when the car which carries these goods is to cross the line of that state, pursuing at the same time this contin

uous track, I am met by a law of Illinois which forbids me to make a free contract concerning this transportation within that state, and subjects me to certain rules by which I am to be governed as to the charges which the same railroad company in Illinois may make, or has made, with reference to other persons and other places of delivery.' So that while that carrier might be willing to carry these goods from the city of New York to the city of Peoria at the rate of fifteen cents per hundred pounds, he is not | permitted to do so because the Illinois railroad company has already charged at the rate of twenty-five cents per hundred pounds for carriage to Gilman, in Illinois, which is eighty-six miles shorter than the distance to Peoria.

"So also, in the present case, the owner of corn, the principal product of the country, desiring to transport it from Peoria, in IIIinois, to New York, finds a railroad company willing to do this at the rate of fifteen cents per hundred pounds for a carload, but he is compelled to pay at the rate of twentyfive cents per hundred pounds because the railroad company has received from a person residing at Gilman twenty-five cents per hundred pounds for the transportation of a carload of the same class of freight over the same line of road from Gilman to New York. This is the result of the statute of Illinois, in its endeavor to prevent unjust discrimination, as construed by the supreme court of that state. The effect of it is, that whatever may be the rate of transportation per mile charged by the railroad company from Gilman to Sheldon, a distance of twenty-three miles, in which the loading and unloading of the freight is the largest expense incurred by the railroad company, the same rate per mile must be charged from Peoria to the city of New York.

"The obvious injustice of such a rule as this, which railroad companies are compelled by heavy penalties to conform to, in regard to commerce among the states, when applied to transportation which includes Illinois in a long line of carriage through several[319) states shows the value of the constitutional provision which confides the power of regulating interstate commerce to the Congress of the United States, whose enlarged view of the interests of all the states, and of the railroads concerned, better fits it to establish just and equitable rates.

"Of the justice or propriety of the principle which lies at the foundation of the Illinois statute, it is not the province of this court to speak. As restricted to a transpor tation which begins and ends within the limits of the state, it may be very just and equitable, and it certainly is the province of the state legislature, to determine that question. But when it is attempted to apply to transportation through an entire series of states a principle of this kind, and each one of the states shall attempt to establish its own rates of transportation, its own methods to prevent discrimination in rates, or to permit it, the deleterious influence upon the freedom of commerce among the states and upon the transit of goods through those

to do this for the purpose of discharging and receiving passengers at that station, for the interstate travel to and from which, as is admitted in this case, the railroad company furnishes other and ample accommodation. This court is unanimously of opinion that this requirement is an unconstitutional hindrance and obstruction of interstate commerce and of the passage of the mails of the United States. Upon the state of facts presented by this record the duties of the Îllinois Central Railroad Company were not confined to those which it owed to the state of Illinois under the charter of the company and other laws of the state, but included distinct duties imposed upon the corporation by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

"The state may doubtless compel the railroad company to perform the duty imposed by its charter, of carrying passengers and goods between its termini within the state. But so long, at least, as that duty is adequately performed by the company the state cannot, under the guise of compelling its performance, interfere with the performance of paramount duties to which the company has been subjected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

"The state may make reasonable regulations to secure the safety of passengers, even on interstate trains, while within its borders. But the state can do nothing which will directly burden or impede the interstate traffic of the company, or impair the usefulness of its facilities for such traffic."

Beyond the bare allegation that the case of Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Illinois is not inconsistent with the views expressed in the present case, no attempt is made to compare or reconcile the principles involved in the two cases. It is, indeed, said that the Ohio statute "does not require the defendant company to turn any of its trains from their direct interstate route;" and the remark of the [323]court in the Illinois case is *cited, in which it was said "the question whether a statute which merely required interstate railroad trains, without going out of their course, to stop at county seats, would be within the constitutional power of the state, is not presented and cannot be decided upon this record." Reference is also made to the case of Gladson v. Minnesota, 166 U. S. 427 [41: 1064], as removing any doubt as to the scope of the decision in the Illinois case.

But an examination of that case will show that no question was presented or decided as to the power of a state to compel interstate railroad trains to stop at all county seats through which they might pass. On the contrary, the court was careful to say, distinguishing it from the Illinois case: "But in the case at bar the train in question ran wholly within the state of Minnesota, and could have stopped at the county seat of Pine county without deviating from its course;" and to point out that the statute of Minnesota expressly provided that this act shall not apply to through railroad trains entering this state from any other state, or to transcontinental trains of any railroad."

On what, then, does the court's opinion re

ly to distinguish the Illinois case from the present case? Merely that the through train in the one case was obliged to go out of its direct route some three or four miles, while in the other the obligation is to stop at towns through which the trains pass. But what was the reason why this court held that the Illinois statute was void as an interference with interstate commerce? Was not the delay thus caused the sole reason? And is there any difference between a delay caused by having to go a few miles out of a direct course in a single instance, and one caused by having to stop at a number of unimportant towns? Probably the excursion to the Cairo station did not detain the Illinois train more than half an hour; and it is admitted in the present case that the number of villages in Ohio through which the trains passed were thirteen, and that the average time required to stop a train of cars and receive and leave off passengers would be three minutes at each station, to say nothing of the time expended in losing and in regaining headway. Besides the delays thus caused, there would be many inconveniences to the[324] railroad companies and to the traveling public occasioned by interfering with regulations made for the comfort and safety of through passengers.

Western Union Telegraph Co. v. James, 162 U. S. 650 [40: 1105], is cited by the court as sustaining its present position. But that was a case in which the legislation of the state was of a nature that was in aid of the performance of the duty of the company that would exist in the absence of any such statute, and was in nowise obstructive of its duty as a telegraph company, and the decision of this court was expressly put upon that ground. It was pointed out, in the opinion, that the legislation in question could in no way affect the conduct of the company with regard to the performance of its duties in other states, and that such important particular distinguished the case from Hall v. De Cuir, 95 U. S. 485 [24: 511], and from Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 347 [30: 1187, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 306].

Richmond & A. R. R. Co. v. R. A. Patterson Tobacco Co. 169 U. S. 311 [42: 759], is cited as adjudging that a statute of Virginia defining the obligations of carriers who accept for transportation anything directed to points of destination beyond the termini of their own lines or routes was not, in its application to interstate business, a regulation of interstate commerce within the meaning of the Constitution. But the holding in that case simply was that the statute in question did not attempt to substantially regulate or control interstate shipments, but merely established a rule of evidence, ordaining the character of proof by which a carrier may show that, although it received goods for transportation beyond its own line. nevertheless by agreement its liability was limited to its own line, that the lawful exercise by a state of its power to determine the form in which contracts may be proved does not amount to a regulation of interstate commerce. The reasoning of the court went

Reference is also made, in the principal opinion, to Missouri, Kansas, and Texas Railway v. Haber, 169 U. S. 613 [42: 878]. [325] There an attack was made on the validity of legislation of the state *of Kansas, subjecting any person or persons who should bring into that state any cattle liable or capable of communicating "Texas or splenetic fever" to any domestic cattle of Kansas, to a civil action for damages. In such an action it was contended on behalf of the defendant that the Kansas statutes were an interference with the freedom of interstate commerce, and also covered a field of action actually occupied by congressional legislation known as the Animal Industry Act. But it appeared that the Kansas act under which the action was brought was passed in 1885 and amended in 1891, and that Congress had previously invited the authorities of the states and territories concerned to co-operate for the extinction of contagious or communicable cattle diseases. Act of May 29, 1884, 23 Stat. at L. 31. And accordingly a majority of this court held that the statutory provisions of Kansas were not inconsistent with the execution of the act of Congress, but constituted an exercise of the co-operation desired. Otherwise the case would have fallen within the ruling in Hannibal & St. J. Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465 [24: 527], where a similar statute of the state of Missouri, passed before the legislation by Congress, and prohibiting the bringing of Texas cattle into the state of Missouri between certain times fixed by the statute, was held to be in conflict with the commerce clause of the Constitution, and not a legitimate exercise of the police power of the state.

The case of Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U. S. 299 [41: 166], demands notice. In it was involved the validity of what is known as the Sunday law of Georgia. That statute forbade the running in Georgia of railroad freight trains on the Sabbath Day. The supreme court of Georgia held the statute to be a regulation of internal police, and not of commerce, and that it was not in conflict with the Constitution of the United States even as to freight trains pasing through the state from and to adjacent states, and laden exclusively with freight received on board before the trains entered Georgia, and consigned to points beyond its limits.

It was shown in that case that it had been the policy of Georgia, from the earliest period of its history, to forbid all persons, under penalties, from using the Sabbath as [326]a day of labor and for pursuing their ordinary callings, and that the legislation in question was enacted in the exercise of that policy. It was said in the opinion of the supreme court of Georgia, which was brought to this court for review, that "with respect to the selection of the particular day in each week which has been set apart by our statute as the rest day of the people, religious views and feelings may have had a controlling influence. We doubt not that they did

have; and it is notable that the same views and feelings had a very powerful influence in dictating the policy of setting apart any day whatever as a day of enforced rest." And it was said in the opinion of this court that "in our opinion there is nothing in the legislation in question which suggests that it was enacted with the purpose to regulate interstate commerce, or with any other purpose than to prescribe a rule of civil duty for all who, on the Sabbath Day, are within the territorial jurisdiction of the state."

If, as has often been said, Christianity is part of the common law of the several states, and if the United States, in their legislative and executive departments throughout the country, since the foundation of the government, have recognized Sunday as a day of rest and freedom from compulsory labor, then such a law as that of Georgia, being based upon a public policy common to all the states, might be sustained.

But if put upon the ground now declared in the opinion of the court in the present case, namely, as an exercise of the police power of the state, and, as such, paramount to the control of Congress in administering the commerce clause of the Constitution, then it is apparent, as I think, that the decision in Hennington v. Georgia was wrong, and the judges dissenting in that case were right.

For if, as a mere matter of local polic one state may forbid interstate trains from running on the Christian Sabbath, an adjoining state may select the Jewish, or Seventh Day Sabbath as the day exempt from business. Another state may choose to consecrate another day of the week in commemoration of the Latter Day Saint and Prophet who founded such state, as the proper day for cessation from daily labor. Or, what is[327] more probable, one or more of the states may think fit to declare that one day in seven is not a sufficient portion of the time that should be exempted from labor, and establish two or more days of rest. The destructive effect of such inconsistent and diverse legislation upon interstate commerce, carried on in trains running throughout the entire country, is too obvious to require statement or illustration.

But whatever may be said of the decision in Hennington v. Georgia, it is, as I think, quite apparent that the Ohio legislation now under consideration cannot be reconciled with the principles and conclusions of the other cases cited.

The principal facts of this case as found by the trial court were: "That the defendant company is a corporation organized under the laws of the states of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois, and that its railroad is operated from Chicago to Buffalo; that said defendant was, on and prior to October 9, 1890, and has been ever since, engaged in carrying passengers and freight over said railroad, through and into each of said several states, and is and was then engaged in the business of interstate commerce, both in the carriage of passengers and freight from, into, and through said states; that said defendant

did not on said 9th day of October, 1890. | nor shortly prior thereto, or since, up to the time of the commencement of this suit, run daily, both ways or either way, over said road through the village of West Cleveland, three regular trains nor more than one regular train each, carrying passengers, which were not engaged in interstate commerce, and that did not have upon them passengers who had paid through fare, and were entitled to ride on said trains going in the one direction from the city of Chicago to the city of Buffalo, and those going in the other direction from the city of Buffalo through said states to the city of Chicago; that on or about the said day the defendant operated but one regular train carrying passengers each way, that was not engaged in carrying such through passengers; and said train did stop at West Cleveland, on the day aforesaid, for a time sufficient to receive and let off passengers; that the through trains that 1828]passed through West Cleveland *on the said day were train No. 1, limited express with two express cars, one coach, and three sleepers, from New York to Chicago; train No. 11, fast mail, with five United States mail cars, one coach, and sleeper, from New York to Chicago; train No. 21 had one United States mail car, two baggage and express cars, four coaches, and one sleeper, from Cleveland to Chicago (these were western trains); that the eastern trains were limited express No. 4, with one baggage and express car and three sleepers, from Chicago to New York; train No. 6, with one baggage and express car, three coaches, and two sleepers, from Chicago to New York; train No. 24, with one United States mail, two baggage and express cars, and seven coaches, from Chicago to Buffalo; train No. 14, with three United States mail cars and one sleeper from Chicago to New York. That the average time of delay necessarily required to stop a train of cars and sufficient time to receive and let off passengers would be three minutes; and that the number of cities and villages in the state of Ohio, containing three thousand inhabitants each, through which the aforesaid trains of the defendant passed on said day, were thirteen."

tained in the "Act to Regulate Commerce," approved February 4, 1887, creating the Interstate Commerce Commission.

*The theory on which passenger trains to[329) traverse several states, or the entire continent, are prepared, is necessarily and widely different from that followed in making up ordinary trains to do a wayside business. There must be provision for sleeping at night and for furnishing meals. In order that each and every passenger may receive the accommodation for which he pays, the seats are sold in advance and with reference to the number of through passengers. To enable such trains to maintain the speed demanded, the number of the cars for each train must be limited, and they are advertised and known as "limited" trains. A traveler purchasing tickets on such trains has a right to expect that he will be carried to his journey's end in the shortest possible time consistent with safety. The railroad companies compete for business by holding out that they run the fastest trains and those most certain to arrive on time. A company which by its own regulations or under coercion of a state legislature, stopped its through trains at every village, would soon lose its through business, to the loss of the company and the detriment of the traveling_public.

Nor must the necessity of the speedy transit of the United States mails be overlooked. The government has not thought fit to build and operate railroads over which to transport its mails, but relies upon the use of roads owned by state corporations operating connecting roads. And it appears, from the findings in this case, that the defendant's through trains are engaged by the government in the transportation of its mails. The business, public and private, that depends on hourly and daily communication by mail, is enormous, and it would be intolerable if such necessary rapidity of intercourse could be controlled and trammeled by legislation like that in question.

It was pointed out in Hall v. De Cuir that, although the statute of Louisiana, which sought to regulate the manner in which white and colored passengers should be carried, was restricted by its own terms to the limits of the state, yet that such regulation necessarily affected steamboats running through and beyond the state, because such regulations might change at every state

*A similar but much greater inconvenience[330) would be occasioned by attempting by state legislation to interfere with the movements of through trains. If, for instance, and as is often the case, the through trains were full of through passengers, there would be no advantage to local travel for them to stop at the way stations, for there would be no room or accommodation for the occasional passengers. Nor would that difficulty be obviated by attaching to each train coaches for use at the way stations. Such additional coaches would impede the speed of the through trains and interfere with the business of the local trains.

In Wabash, St. L. & P. Railway Company