Regulation of employers' liability on interstate railroads is not a regulation of interstate commerce.- - Kelley v. Gt. Northern R. Co., 152 Fed. 211.

An act regulating the liability of interstate carriers to their employees is not within the regulative power of Congress, not being a regulation of interstate commerce.-U. S. v. Scott, 148 Fed. 431; distinguished, 152 Fed. 763; Brooks v. So. Pac. R. Co., 148 Fed. 986; Howard v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 148 Fed. 997; Order of R. R. Telegraphers v. L. & N. R. Co., 148 Fed. 437.

A state is without power to compel a carrier to transfer cars of live stock to a connecting road at a point of intersection within the state, where the shipment was received in another state, and is therefore a subject of interstate commerce.- Central Stock Yards Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 118 Fed. 113, 63 L. R. A. 2113; affd. 192 U. S. 568, 24 Sup. Ct. R.

339.

A state statute compelling railroads to heat passenger cars by apparatus other than stoves is a valid exercise of police power and applies to railroads engaged in interstate commerce, not being a regulation of interstate commerce.- People v. N. Y. N. H. & H. R. Co., 55 Hun (N. Y.), 409, 8 N. Y. Supp. 672; affd. without opinion, 123 N. Y. 635, 25 N. E. 953.

A state can not by a "Sunday law" restrict the transportation of merchandise on Sunday, when it is consigned from beyond the state on one side to be delivered beyond the state on the other side.- Dinsmore V. N. Y. Board of Police, 12 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 436.

A state statute may properly restrict the transportation on Sunday of goods which are consigned from one point to another within the state.-Dinsmore v. N. Y. Board of Police, 12 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 436.

A statute forbidding the transportation of cotton by night is a constitutional exercise of the police power, not a regulation of interstate commerce.- Davis v. State, 68 Ala. 58.

A state statute forbidding the running of freight and excursion trains on Sunday, except in certain cases, is not invalid as a regulation of interstate commerce.- Seale v. State, 126 Ga. 644, 55 S. E. 472.

Compelling the stopping of freight trains, including those engaged in interstate traffic, on Sunday, is within the regulative police power of the state. Hennington v. State, 90 Ga. 396, 17 S. E. 1009; affd. 163 T. S. 299; 16 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 1086; State v. R. Co., 24 W. Va. 783. Requiring interstate carriers to file certain reports with a state commission is not a regulation of interstate commerce, and is within the power of the state, even though Congress has made similar requirements of such carriers.- People v. Ch. I. & L. R. Co., 223 Ill. 581, 79 N. E. 144.

A city ordinance requiring railroads to maintain electric lights at street crossings, although it may in some way affect interstate commerce, is a valid exercise of the police power of the state.- Pittsburg, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Hartford City, Ind. 82 N. E. 787.

An act of a state legislature, regarding the bills of lading and special contracts for shipments, is void in so far as it relates to interstate transportation.- Carton v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 59 Iowa, 148, 13 N. W. 67.

For the courts to compel a carrier to deliver live stock to the consignee at the point of destination, according to the custom obtaining among railroads and in obedience to the demand of the consignor, whether the freight comes from a point within or without the state, is not a regulation of interstate commerce.- Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Central Stockyards Co., 30 Ky. L. R. 18, 97 S. W. 778.

A state statute imposing a penalty on carriers for failing to ship freight within five days is operative and valid as to interstate commerce.- Bagg v. Wilmington C. & A. R. Co., 109 N. C. 279, 14 S. E. 79, 14 L. R. A. 596.

A state act providing a penalty in case of failure by a carrier to pay claims for loss or damage to freight within a given time is not unlawful as an interference with interstate commerce.- Charles v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., S. C. - 58 S. E. 927.

A state statute compelling a connecting carrier, upon application, to trace freight shipped over its line under a contract for shipment over the lines of two or more carriers, is not invalid as a regulation of interstate commerce.- Skipper v. Seaboard Air L. R. Co., 75 S. C. 276, 55 S. E. 454.

A state statute prohibiting common carriers from limiting their common-law liability, applies to interstate shipments beginning within the state, not being a regulation of interstate commerce.- Pitman v. Pac. Exp. Co., 24 Tex. Civ. App. 595, 59 S. W. 949.

A railroad which was wholly within a state but which carried on interstate business in conjunction with other roads was taxed upon the gross earnings of its system.- Held, that this was a regulation of interstate commerce.- Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Texas, 210 U. S. 217, 28 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 638.

The taxation, under the N. Y. Franchise Tax Law, of cars belonging to a New York corporation is not unconstitutional because the cars are at times temporarily absent from the state. People ex rel. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co. v. Miller, 202 U. S. 584, 26 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 714.

A Pennsylvania statute imposing a tax upon the tolls received by the N. Y. L. E. & W. R. Co., from other railroad companies, for the use

by them respectively of so much of its lines as lie in Pennsylvania, is not in conflict with the interstate commerce clause of the U. S. Constitution, when applied to goods so transported from without the state.New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 158 U. S. 431, 15 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 896, affg. s. c. 145 Pa. 38, 22 Atl. 212.

An act of the Tennessee legislature imposing a privilege tax on sleeping cars not owned by the road using them, is void as to interstate transportation.- Pickard v. Pullman S. C. Co., 117 U. S. 34, 6 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 635, affg. s. c. 22 Fed. 276.

A stamp tax on bills of lading of goods going out of the state is void. Almy v. California, 24 How. (U. S.) 169.

[18] Rules of construction.

Strict construction of penal statutes,- see ante, § 1, note [36]. Penal statutes to be construed in favor of party of whom penalty is claimed,- see ante, § 1, note [37].

Divisibility of state statute void as to interstate transportation,- see ante, § 1, note [40].

Where a state statute provides for the state regulation of carriers as to both intrastate and interstate shipments, and the shipment in question is intrastate and therefore clearly within the scope of the state's regulative power, it is unnecessary for a federal court to consider the validity of the statute when applied to a shipment from without the state.- Seaboard Air L. Co. v. Seegers, 207 U. S. 73, 28 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 28, affg. s. c. 73 S. C. 71, 52 S. E. 797.

An act conferring administrative powers will not be construed as delegating powers over commerce over which the enacting legislature had no control.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. McKendree, 203 U. S. 514, 27 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 153.

General statutes of a state will not be construed as having been intended to apply to interstate transportation, if they bear no evidences on their face of having been so intended and their subject matter is not under exclusive federal jurisdiction.- Gulf, C. & S. A. R. Co. v. Miami Ss. Co., 86 Fed. 407.

An act in general terms will not be construed to apply to carriage on lines outside the state, when so to do would be to make it unconstitutional.- Beardsley v. N. Y. L. E. & W. R. Co., 15 App. Div. (N. Y.) 251, 44 N. Y. Supp. 175; revd. on other grounds, 162 N. Y. 230, 56 N. E. 488.

Penal statutes are strictly local, and when enacted by a state will not be construed to apply to happenings outside the state.-Beach v. Bay State Ss. Co., 30 Barb. (N. Y.) 433, 18 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 335, 10 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 71, revg. s. c. 27 Barb. (N. Y.) 248, 16 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 1, 6 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 415.

A statute of Illinois relating to charges of reasonable rates will not be construed as relating to interstate commerce.- Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Jones, 149 Ill. 361, 37 N. E. 247, 24 L. R. A. 141.

A state statute in general terms forbidding discriminations in rates will not be construed to apply to interstate shipments, for that would be to construe it to be void.- McGwigan y. Wilmington & W. R. Co., 95 N. C. 428.

[19] State and federal statutes operating on same subject.

Where a state and federal statute operate on the same subject, and prescribe different rules as to it, and the federal statute is one within the competency of Congress, the state statute must give way.- Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Hefley, 158 U. S. 98, 15 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 802.

[20] Matters left by Interstate Commerce Commission to state regulation.

The Interstate Commerce Commission may, in its discretion, decline to interfere with rates, mainly local in their bearings, where it is clear that the railroad commission of the state has ample authority in law and perfect control over the situation.- Hastings M. Co. v. Ch. M. & St. P. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 675.

Where one of two rates under consideration before the Interstate Commission is wholly within a state whose railroad commission has power to deal with it, and it appears that a readjustment of the rate would compel the carriers to make also an equitable readjustment of the interstate rate complained of, the federal commission will leave the matter to the action of the state authorities.- Dallas Bureau v. Tex. & P. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 33.

[21] Status of foreign corporations doing business within a state.

A foreign railroad corporation is not doing business in a state, within the meaning of a statute as to service of process, simply because it owns practically the entire capital stock of another railroad which does business therein.-Peterson v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 205 U. S. 364, 27 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 513.

A corporation of one state, owning property and doing business in another state by permission of the latter, does not thereby become a citizen of that state also.- Pennsylvania R. Co. v. St. L. A. & T. H. R. Co., 118 U. S. 290, 9 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 1094.

A state statute forbidding discrimination by railroads applies to all railroads operating within that state, whether organized under its laws or the laws of other states.- People v. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co., 104 Ill. 476; affd. on other points, 105 Ill. 236.

§ 26. Safe and adequate service; just and reasonable charges; *[excessive charges prohibited].- Every corporation, person or common carrier performing a service desig nated in the preceding section, shall furnish, with respect thereto, such service and facilities as shall be safe and adequate and in all respects just and reasonable. All charges made or demanded by any such corporation, person or common carrier for the transportation of passengers, freight or property or for any service rendered or to be rendered in connection therewith, as defined in section two of this act, shall be just and reasonable and not more than allowed by law or by order of the commission having jurisdiction and made as authorized by this act. Every unjust or unreasonable charge made or demanded for any such service or transportation of passengers, freight or property or in connection therewith or in excess of that allowed by law or by order of the commission is prohibited.

Borough presidents to have control over the laying of surface railroad tracks in streets,- see Greater N. Y. Ch., § 383.

For parallel sections of Interstate Commerce Act,—see Inters. Com. Act, § 1.

Weight of rail to be used in railroad construction,- see N. Y. R. R. L., 31.

Duty of railroads as to fences, farm crossings and cattle guards,- see N. Y. R. R. L., § 32.

Provisions requiring railroads to place signboards, station flagmen and erect gates at highway crossings,-see N. Y. R. R. L., § 33. Provisions as to notice of time of starting of trains,- see N. Y. R. R. L., § 34.

Provisions as to stopping locomotives at points of intersection of railroads,- see N. Y. R. R. L., § 36.

Power of legislature to alter or reduce fare,- see N. Y. R. R. L., § 38. Penalties for exaction of excessive fare,- see N. Y. R. R. L., § 39. For requirements under the New York Rapid Transit Act,—see N. Y. Rap. Tr. Act, § 24, subd. 4, §§ 28, 34d, post, Appendix A. Transportation of passengers, property or freight defined,- see ante, § 2, subd. 1.

Manner of filing and publishing schedules of rates,- see post, §§ 28, 29.

The rates fixed in the published schedules shall be charged,- see also post, § 33.

*Words in brackets are not a part of section heading as enacted.-Ed.