so far as such transportation or transmission takes place within the United States.

(2) The provisions of this. Act shall also apply to such transportation of passengers and property and transmission of intelligence, but only in so far as such transportation or transmission takes place within the United States.

Part of Sec. 400; Transportation Act, 1920, Sec. 1, Interstate Commerce Act, paragraphs (1) (a) (b) (c) and part of paragraph (2). The former section read:

That the provisions of this Act shall apply to any corporation or any person or persons engaged in the transportation of oil or other commodity, except water and except natural or artificial gas, by means of pipe lines, or partly by pipe lines and partly by railroad, or partly by pipe lines and partly by water, and to telegraph, telephone, and cable companies (whether wire or wireless) engaged in sending messages from one State, Territory, or District of the United States, to any other State, Territory, or District of the United States, or to any foreign country, who shall be considered and held to be common carriers within the meaning and purpose of this Act, and to any common carrier or carriers engaged in the transportation of passengers or property wholly by railroad (or partly by railroad and partly by water when both are used under a common control, management, or arrangement for a continuous carriage or shipment), from one State or Territory of the United States or the District of Columbia, to any other State or Territory of the United States or the District of Columbia, or from one place in a Territory to another place in the same Territory, or from any place in the United States to an adjacent foreign country, or from any place in the United States through a foreign country to any other place in the United States, and also to the transportation in like manner of property shipped from any place in the United States to a foreign country and carried from such place to a port of trans-shipment, or shipped from a foreign country to any place in the United States and carried to such place from a port of entry either in the United States or an adjacent foreign country.

Paragraph (1) of Section 1 of Act to Regulate Commerce, as amended by Act of June 18, 1910. The original Act read:

"That the provisions of this Act shall apply to any common carrier or carriers engaged in the transportation of passengers or property wholly by railroad, or partly by railroad and partly by water when both are used, under a common control, management or arrangement, for a continuous carriage or shipment, from one State or Territory of the United States or the District of Columbia, to any other State or Territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia, or from any place in the United States to an adjacent foreign country, or from any place in the United States through a foreign country to any other place in the United States, and also to the transportation in like manner of property shipped from any place in the United States to a foreign country and carried from such place to a port of trans-shipment, or shipped from a foreign country to any place in the United States and carried to such place from a port of entry either in the United States or an adjacent foreign country."

The Act of June 18, 1910, amended the Act of June 29, 1906, by including "telegraph, telephone and cable companies whether wire or wireless."

Original Act constitutional.-Int. Com. Com. v. Brimson, 154 U. S. 447, 448, 38 L. Ed. 1047, 14 Sup. Ct. 1125.

A purely intrastate carrier not participating in a through movement is not within the Act because the ultimate destination of the traffic may be beyond the state.-Mo. & Ill. Rd. Tie & Lumber Co. v. Cape, etc., R. Co., 1 I. C. C. 30, I. C. R. 607; New Jersey Fruit Exp. v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey, 2 I. C. C. 142, 2 I. C. R. 84. Express companies not within original Act, though railroads conducting an express business were.-Re Express Companies, 1 I. C. C. 349, 1 I. C. R. 677; United States v. Morsman, 42 Fed. 448.

A state road owning no rolling stock but used as a means of interstate traffic within Act.-Heck v. E. T. V. & G. R. Co., 1 I. C. C. 495, 1 I. C. R. 775. An interstate bridge subject to Act.-Ky. & Ind. Bridge Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 2 I. C. C. 162, 2 I. C. R. 102. Order not enforced. Same-styled case, 37 Fed. 567. Commerce between points in the state but passing through another state is interstate commerce.New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 2 I. C. C. 375, 2 I. C. R. 289; Milk Producers Asso. v.

Foreign carriers
United States to

Delaware etc. R. Co., 7 I. C. C. 92, 162. participating in traffic from points in the adjacent countries subject to Act.-Re Investigation Acts Grand Trunk Railway of Canada, 3 I. C. C. 89, 2 I. C. R. 496. Independent water lines not subject.-New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 3 I. C. C. 534, 562, 2 I. C. R. 777.

When a state carrier engages in interstate commerce it becomes subject to the Act.-Mattingly v. Penn. Co., 3 I. C. C. 592, 2 I. C. R. 806. State steamboat not within Act.-Capehart & Smith v. L. & N. R. Co., 4 I. C. C. 265, 3 I. C. R. 278. "Common control, management or arrangement" defined.— Boston Fruit & Produce Exchange v. New York and New England Co., 4 I. C. C. 664, 3 I. C. R. 493. See same case, 5 I. C. C. 1, 3 I. C. R. 604. See also Trammel, Railroad Commission of Ga. v. Clyde Steamship Company, 5 I. C. C. 324, 4 I. C. R. 120. All roads, including purely state roads, participating in an interstate haul subject to Act.-James and Mayer Buggy Company v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 4 I. C. C. 744, 3 I. C. R. 682. Order not enforced in Circuit Court but was enforced in Supreme Court.-Int. Com. Com. v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 56 Fed. 925, 162 U. S. 184, 40 L. Ed. 935, 16 Sup. Ct. 700. Same rule when all-water carrier joins.— R. R. Com. of Florida v. Savannah, Fla. & W. R. Co., 5 I. C. C. 13, 136, 3 I. C. R. 688, 750. Order not enforced.-Savannah, F. & W. R. Co. v. Florida Fruit Exchange, 167 U. S. 512, 42 L. Ed. 257, 17 Sup. Ct. 998. The charter of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company does not exempt it from control of Act.-Raworth v. N. Pac. R. Co., 5 I. C. C. 234, 3 I. C. R. 857. Merchants Union of Spokane Falls v. N. Pac. R. Co., 5 I. C. C. 478, 4 I. C. R. 183. Order not enforced.-Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. N. Pac. R. Co., 83 Fed. 249. Receivers of railroad companies subject to Act.-Independent Refiners Asso. v. W. N. Y. & Penn. R. Co., 6 I. C. C. 378, 386. Order not enforced.-W. N. Y. & P. R. Co. v. Penn. Refining Co., 137 Fed. 343, 70 C. C. A. 23; affirmed, 208 U. S. 208, 52 L. Ed. 456, 28 Sup. Ct. 268. Electric railway partly in Maryland and partly in District of Columbia subject to Act.— Wilson v. Rock Creek Ry. Co., 7 I. C. C. 83. Does not apply to transportation by wagon.-Cary v. Eureka Springs Ry. Co., 7 I. C. C. 286. Stock Yards Terminal Road at Chicago not a common carrier.-Cattle Raisers Asso. of Texas v. Ft.

Worth & D. C. Ry. Co., 7 I. C. C. 513, 555. Order not enforced. Int. Com. Com. v. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 98 Fed. 173, 103 Fed. 249, 43 C. C. A. 209, 186 U. S. 320, 46 L. Ed. 1182, 22 Sup. Ct. 824. Import and export traffic over rail carriers within jurisdiction; ocean carriers not.-Kemble v. Boston & A. R. Co., 8 I. C. C. 110, 119. The determining feature of a through shipment is the contract.-Matter of Alleged Unlawful rates and Practices in Transportation of Cotton, 8 I. C. C. 121. Within Act when engaged with other carriers in through transportation.-Alleged Violation of Act by St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co., 8 I. C. C. 290; Penn. Millers Asso. v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co., 8 I. C. C. 531, 549. Applies on a movement from Canada to United States.-Cist. v. Mich. Cent. R. Co., 10 I. C. C. 217. Shipment from one to another local point even though there may be an intention thereafter to ship to another and an interstate point is entitled to the local rate.-Hope Cotton Oil Co. v. Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co., 10 I. C. C. 696, 703. After a car has arrived at its destination a subsequently contracted for switching movement to another place in the same city and state is not within the Act.-St. Louis Hay and Grain Company v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 11 I. C. C. 82. Refrigeration charges within Act.-Re Charges for Transportation and Refrigeration of Fruit, 11 I. C. C. 129. Stage line over which part of a through movement is had not within Act.-Wylie v. N. Pac. Ry. Co., 11 I. C. C. 145. Baggage transfer not within Act.-Re Exchange of Free Transportation, 12 I. C. C. 39. A ferry transport joining in a through route and joint rate is within Act.—Enterprise Transportation Co. v. Penn. R. Co., 12 I. C. C. 326, 335, 336. While a shipment to a local point with intention thereafter to make a new contract for shipment to an interstate point is not within the Act, the carrier must not act as agent of the shipper in making the reconsignment.Morgan v. M. K. & T. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C. 525. No distinction between electric and steam roads.—Chicago & M. Electric R. Co. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 13 I. C. C. 20. No jurisdiction over shipments from ports of United States to a foreign country not adjacent to this country.-Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. v. Hamburg Am. Packet Co., 13 I. C. C. 266, 272, 273, 274; Lykes S. S. Line v. Commercial Union, 13 I. C. C. 310. Interstate movement regarded as an entirety and all carriers participating therein are subject to the Act; subject fully dis

cussed and cases cited.-Leonard v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C. 573. A terminal company owned by the same interests as a railroad within Act; "Railroad" includes depots, yards and grounds.-Eichenberg v. So. Pac. Co., 14 I. C. C. 250. Order not enjoined.-So. Pac. T. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 166 Fed. 134. Interstate carriers by water are subject to Act only in respect to traffic transported under a common control, management or arrangement with a rail carrier; with respect to other traffic such water carriers are exempt from the provisions of the Act.-Re Jurisdiction Over Water Carriers, 15 I. C. C. 205. Switching not within Act.—Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Becker, 32 Fed. 849. Water carrier from one state to another not joining in a through bill of lading with rail carriers not subject to Act; terms of section defined. -Ex Parte Koehler, 30 Fed. 867. A bridge crossing a stream from one state to another which is leased to a railroad is not a common carrier.-Ky. & Ind. Bridge Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 37 Fed. 567. A shipment from one to another point in a state and which was immediately reshipped by the agent of consignor to a point within the state within section.-Cutting v. Fla. Ry. & Nav. Co., 46 Fed. 641. A state road by joining in a contract for through traffic becomes subject to the Act to Regulate Commerce.-Augusta S. R. Co. v. Wrightsville & T. R. Co., 74 Fed. 522; United States v. Seaboard Ry. Co., 82 Fed. 563; Interstate Stock Yards Co. v. Indianapolis U. Ry. Co., 99 Fed. 472; Cassatt v. Mitchell Coal & Coke Co., 150 Fed. 32, 81 C. C. A. 80, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 99; Mitchell Coal & Coke Co. v. Cassatt, 207 U. S. 181, 187, 52 L. Ed. 160, 163, 28 Sup. Ct. 108, 110; U. S. v. New York, C. & H. R. R. Co., 153 Fed. 630. Affirmed, New York C. & H. R. R. Co., 212 U. S. 481, 500, 53 L. Ed. 613, 29 Sup. Ct. 304; United States v. Standard Oil Co., 155 Fed. 305. Reversed on another ground. Standard Oil Co. v. U. S., 164 Fed. 376, 90 C. C. A. 364; United States v. Union Stock Yards Co. of Omaha, 161 Fed. 919; United States v. Sioux City Stock Yards, 162 Fed. 556. If the state carrier received no freight nor issues through bills of lading it is not subject.-Int. Com. Com. v. Bellaire, Z. & C. Ry. Co., 77 Fed. 942; United States v. Chicago, K. & S. R. Co., 81 Fed. 783; United States v. Geddes, 131 Fed. 452, 65 C. C. A. 320; State of Iowa v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 33 Fed. 391, 145 U. S. 632, 36 L. Ed. 857,