Opinion of the Court. merce or in that wholly within the State, are performing a public service. They are endowed by the State with some of its sovereign powers, such as the right of eminent domain, and so endowed by reason of the public service they render. As a consequence of this, all individuals have equal rights both in respect to service and charges. Of course, such equality of right does not prevent differences in the modes and kinds of service and different charges based thereon. There is no cast iron line of uniformity which prevents a charge from being above or below a particular sum, or requires that the service shall be exactly along the same lines. But that principle of equality does forbid any difference in charge which is not based upon difference in service, and even when based upon difference of service, must have some reasonable relation to the amount of difference, and cannot be so great as to produce an unjust discrimination. To affirm that a condition of things exists under which common carriers anywhere in the country, engaged in any form of transportation, are relieved from the burdens of these obligations, is a proposition which, to say the least, is startling. And yet, as we have seen, that is precisely the contention of the telegraph company. It contends that there is no Federal common law, and that such has been the ruling of this court; there was no Federal statute law at the time applicable to this case, and as the matter is interstate commerce, wholly removed from state jurisdiction, the conclusion is reached that there is no controlling law, and the question of rates is left entirely to the judgment or whim of the telegraph company. This court has often held that the full control over interstate commerce is vested in Congress, and that it cannot be regulated by the States. It has also held that the inaction of Congress is indicative of its intention that such interstate commerce shall be free, and many cases are cited by counsel for the telegraph company in which these propositions have been announced. Reference is also made to opinions in which it has been stated that there is no Federal common law different and distinct from the common law existing in the several States. Thus, in Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 478, it was said by Mr. Justice Matthews, speaking for the court: Opinion of the Court. "There is no common law of the United States in the sense of a national customary law distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States, each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591. A determination in a given case of what that law is may be different in a court of the United States from that which prevails in the judicial tribunals of a particular State. This arises from the circumstance that courts of the United States, in cases within their jurisdiction where they are called upon to administer the law of the State in which they sit, or by which the transaction is governed, exercise an independent, though concurrent, jurisdiction, and are required to ascertain and declare the law according to their own judgment. This is illustrated by the case of Railroad Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357, where the common law prevailing in the State of New York in reference to the liability of common carriers for negligence received a different interpretation from that placed upon it by the judicial tribunals of the State; but the law as applied is none the less the law of that State." p. 478. Properly understood, no exceptions can be taken to declarations of this kind. There is no body of Federal common law separate and distinct from the common law existing in the several States in the sense that there is a body of statute law enacted by Congress separate and distinct from the body of statute law enacted by the several States. But it is an entirely different thing to hold that there is no common law in force generally throughout the United States, and that the countless multitude of interstate commercial transactions are subject to no rules and burdened by no restrictions other than those expressed in the statutes of Congress. What is the common law? According to Kent: "The common law includes those principles, usages and rules of action applicable to the government and security of person and property, which do not rest for their authority upon any express and positive declaration of the will of the legislature." 1 Kent, 471. As Blackstone says: "Whence it is that in our law the goodness of a custom depends upon its having been used time Opinion of the Court. out of mind; or, in the solemnity of our legal phrase, time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary. This it is that gives it its weight and authority; and of this nature are the maxims and customs which compose the common law, or lex non scripta, of this kingdom. This unwritten, or common, law, is properly distinguishable into three kinds: 1. General customs; which are the universal rule of the whole kingdom, and form the common law, in its stricter and more usual signification." 1 Blackstone, 67. In Black's Law Dictionary, page 232, it is thus defined: "As distinguished from law created by the enactment of legislatures, the common law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming and enforcing such usages and customs; and, in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England." Can it be that the great multitude of interstate commercial transactions are freed from the burdens created by the common law, as so defined, and are subject to no rule except that to be found in the statutes of Congress? We are clearly of opinion that this cannot be so, and that the principles of the common law are operative upon all interstate commercial transactions except so far as they are modified by Congressional enactment. But this question is not a new one in this court. In Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 145 U. S. 263, 275, a case which involved interstate commerce, it was said by Mr. Justice Brown, speaking for the court: "Prior to the enactment of the act of February 4, 1887, to regulate commerce, commonly known as the interstate commerce act, 24 Stat. 379, c. 104, railway traffic in this country was regulated by the principles of common law applicable to common carriers." In Bank of Kentucky v. Adams Express Co., and Planters' Bank v. Express Co., 93 U. S. 174, 177, the express companies received at New Orleans certain packages for delivery at Louisville. These were interstate shipments. In the course of tran Opinion of the Court. sit the packages were destroyed by fire, and actions were brought to recover the value thereof. The companies defended on the ground of an exemption from liability created by the contracts under which they transported the packages. Mr. Justice Strong, delivering the opinion of the court, after describing the business in which the companies were engaged, said: "Such being the business and occupation of the defendants, they are to be regarded as common carriers, and, in the absence of stipulations to the contrary, subject to all the legal responsibilities of such carriers." And then proceeded to show that they could not avail themselves of the exemption claimed by virtue of the clauses in the contract. The whole argument of the opinion proceeds upon the assumption that the common-law rule in respect to common carriers controlled. Reference may also be made to the elaborate opinion of District Judge Shiras, holding the Circuit Court in the Northern District of Iowa, in Murray v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway, 62 Fed. Rep. 24, in which is collated a number of extracts from opinions of this court, all tending to show the recognition of a general common law existing throughout the United States, not, it is true, as a body of law distinct from the common law enforced in the States, but as containing the general rules and principles by which all transactions are controlled, except so far as those rules and principles are set aside by express statute. It would serve no good purpose to here repeat those quotations; it is enough to refer to the opinion in which they are collated. It is further insisted that even if there be a law which controls there is no evidence of discrimination such as would entitle the plaintiff to the verdict which it obtained. But there was testimony tending to show the conditions under which the services were rendered to the two publishing companies, and it was a question of fact whether, upon the differences thus shown, there was an unjust discrimination. And questions of fact, as has been repeatedly held, when once settled in the courts of a State, are not subject to review in this court. Dower v. Richards, 151 U. S. 658; Egan v. Hart, 165 U. S. 188; Chicago, Burlington &c. Railroad v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226–242; Hed Statement of the Case. rick v. Atchison, Topeka & Sante Fe Railroad, 167 U. S. 673, 677; Gardner v. Bonestell, 180 U. S. 362. These are the only questions of a Federal nature which are presented by the record, and finding no error in them the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nebraska is Affirmed. WHITNEY v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS. No. 133. Argued March 1, 1901.-Deoided April 15, 1901. In reviewing questions arising out of Mexican laws relating to land titles, it is difficult to determine with anything like certainty what laws were in force in Mexico at any particular time prior to the occupation of the country in 1846-1848. Looking through the provisions to which its attention has been called the court finds nothing in them providing in terms, or by inference, for a general delegation of power by the supreme executive to the various governors to make a grant like the one set up in this case; and it holds that the appellants have not borne the burden of showing the validity of the grant which they set up, either directly, or by facts from which its validity could be properly inferred within the cases already decided by this court. THE appellants in this case come here on appeal from a judgment of the Court of Private Land Claims rejecting their claim, which arose under a grant of land in New Mexico called La Estancia grant, consisting of some 415,000 acres, made in 1845 by Governor Armijo to one Antonio Sandoval, under whom they claim. Upon the trial it appeared that Sandoval in 1845 was a Mexican citizen of high distinction residing in the Territory of New Mexico. By petition, dated December 5, 1845, and presented on the 7th of that month, Sandoval petitioned the governor of New Mexico for a grant of land in the name of the supreme authority of the Mexican nation, the land being described in the petition, and the petitioner stating that it was |