A grain elevator engaged in the business of storing grain in the course of interstate transportation is not engaged in interstate commerce; W. W. Cargill Co. v. Minnesota, 180 U. S. 452, 21 Sup. Ct. 423, 45 L. Ed. 619; People v. Miller, 84 App. Div. 174, 82 N. Y. Supp. 582, where Budd v. New York, 143 U. S. 517, 12 Sup. Ct 468, 36 L. Ed. 247, and Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, 24 L. Ed. 77, were cited with the comment that in each of them the point was a minor one and did not receive full consideration, and upon that point they had been much criticized. So it was held that coal mined in one state and sent into another to await shipment to pur chasers was not exempt from state taxa tion as subject-matter of interstate commerce; Lehigh & Wilkes-Barre Coal Co. v. Borough of Junction, 75 N. J. L. 922, 68 Atl. 806, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 514.
The commodities clause of the Hepburn Act, q. v., is a regulation of commerce with in the power of congress to enact, and its power to regulate interstate commerce does not require that the regulation should apply to all commodities alike, nor does an excep tion of one invalidate it ; U. S. v. Delaware & H. Co., 213 U. S. 366, 29 Sup. Ct. 527, 53 L. Ed. 836.
The Employers' Liability Act of June 11, 1906, providing that every common carrier engaged in trade and commerce in the Dis trict of Columbia or in the territories or between the several states shall be liable for the death or injury of any of its em ployes which may result from the negligence of any of its officers, agents or employes was held to be a regulation of intrastate as well as of interstate commerce, and therefore one beyond the power of congress to enact; Employers' Liability Cases, 207 U. S. 463, 28 Sup. Ct. 141, 52 L. Ed. 297, four Justices dissenting. As to the case of the Second Employers' Liability Act of 1908, see supra.
Transportation in and out of the state is interstate commerce. A railroad entirely in a state, but a connecting link of interstate roads, is engaged in interstate commerce ; Houston Direct Nay. Co. v. Ins. Co., 89 Tex. 1, 32 S. W. 889, 30 L. R. A. 713, 59 Am. St. Rep. 17; but an interstate shipment (in this case, of car load lots) on reaching the point designated in the original contract of trans portation ceases to be an interstate shipment, and its further transportation to another point within the same state, on the order of the consignee, is controlled by the law of the state and not by the interstate com merce act; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Texas, 204 U. S. 403, 27 Sup. Ct. 360, 51 L. Ed. 540. Shipments of lumber on local bills of lading from one point in a state to another point in the same state destined from the begin ning for export, are foreign and not intra state commerce ; De Bary & Co. v. Louisiana, 227 U. S. 108, 33 Sup. Ct. 239, 57 L. Ed. -; following Southern Pac. Terminal Co. v. Commerce Commission, 219 U. S. 498, 31 Sup. Ct. 279, 55 L. Ed. 310; Railroad Com mission of Ohio v. R. Co., 225 U. S. 101, 32
Sup. Ct. 653, 56 L. Ed. 1004 ; distinguishing Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Texas, 204 U. S. 403, 27 Sup. Ct. 360, 51 L. Ed. When the Power of Congress is Ewelusive. The power of congress over interstate com merce "is necessarily exclusive whenever the subject-matter is national in its charac ter and properly admits of only one uniform system," and in such cases non-action by congress is equivalent to a declaration that it shall be free and untrammelled; Phila delphia & S. Mail S. S. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 326, 336, 7 Sup. Ct. 1118, 30 L. Ed. 1200; Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275, 23 L. Ed. 347; Robbins v. Taxing Dist., 120 U. S. 489, 498, 7 Sup. Ct. 592, 30 L. Ed. 694 ; where it was said that if selling goods by sample needs regulation, it must obviously be based on a uniform system applicable to the whole country, and congress alone cart do it; Brown v. Houston, 114 U. S. 622, 5. Sup. Ct. 1091, 29 L. Ed. 257 ; Bowman v. R, Co., 125 U. S. 465, 8 Sup. Ct. 689, 1062, 31 L. Ed. 700; Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 35, 18 L. Ed. 745, where it was held that the states have no right to tax interstate commerce although they may tax the in struments of such commerce in like manner as other property of the same description. Such a regulation, national in its nature, is the requirement of a bond of indemnity from passengers arriving from foreign ports; Henderson v. New York, 92 U. S. 259, 23 L. Ed. 543 ; or the payment of a tax on each such passenger; Smith v. Turner, 7 How. (U. S.) 283, 12 L. Ed. 702 (but the require ment of a list of passengers, with ages, oc cupations, etc., is a police regulation within the power of the state; New York v. Miln, 11, Pet. [U. S.] 103, 9 L. Ed. 648); so also the transportation of persons or merchandise "is in its nature national, admitting of but one regulating power"; Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100, 10 Sup. Ct. 681, 34 L. Ed. 128; Bowman v. R. Co., 125 U. S. 465, 8 Sup. Ct. 689, 1062, 31 L. Ed. 700; Sloman v. Moebs Co., 139 Mich. 334, 102 N. W. 854; Richter v. Poppenhausen, 42 N. Y. 374; Greek-Ameri can Sponge Co. v. Drug Co., 124 Wis. 469, 102 N. W. 888, 109 Am. St. Rep. 961; though the delivery is made by an agent, residing in the state, of the non-resident seller; Keb rer v. Stewart, 197 U. S. 60, 25 Sup. Ct. 403, 49 L. Ed. 663; whether the sale is made di rectly to the customer or to a retailer; id.; imported goods in unbroken original pack ages are not subject to state taxation; In re Doane, 197 Ill. 376, 64 N. E. 377; State v. Board of Assessors, 46 La. Ann. 145, 15. South. 10, 49 Am. St. Rep. 318; but mer chandise consigned by non-resident sellers to and stored by a warehouseman, awaiting future sale and delivery, is not protected from local assessment as interstate com merce; Merchants' Transfer Co. v. Board of Review, 128 Ia. 732, 105 N. W. 211, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 662, 5 Ann. Cas. 1016.