that Congress by nonaction leaves power in the States over merely incidental matters. "In other words," and we quote from the opinion (p. 623), "the mere grant by Congress to the commission of certain national powers in respect to interstate commerce does not of itself and in the absence of action by the commission interfere with the authority of the State to make those regulations conducive to the welfare and convenience of its citizens.

Until specific action by Congress or the commission the control of the State over those incidental matters remains undisturbed." The duty which was enforced in the state court was the duty of a railroad company engaged in interstate commerce to afford equal local switching service to its shippers, notwithstanding the cars concerning which the service was claimed were eventually to be engaged in interstate commerce. This duty was declared (p. 624) to be a common law duty which the State might, "at least in the absence of Congressional action, compel a carrier to discharge."

The principle of that case, therefore, requires us to find specific action either by Congress in the Interstate Commerce Act or by the Commission covering the matters which the statute of North Carolina attempts to regulate. There is no contention that the Commission has acted, so we must look to the act. Does it, as contended by plaintiff in error, take control of the subject-matter and impose affirmative duties upon the carriers which the State cannot even supplement? In other words, has Congress taken possession of the field?

It is not possible to epitomize the act by giving a more particular designation than that it was designed to regulate interstate commerce. Something more was certainly intended by it than the mere ordaining or the supervision of the movement of goods. In a certain general way traffic would be regulated by railroad and shipper, but their powers were not equal. The railroads had the

greater power, and might and did exercise it in unreasonable charges and in discriminations. The potent instrument for this was the difference in the rate charged for transportation or by secret rebates if the charge was not. discriminating in the first instance. Hence we said, in Texas & Pacific Ry. v. Abilene Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426, 437: "The act made it the duty of carriers subject to its provisions to charge only just and reasonable rates." To that end, it was further said, schedules of rates were required to be established and published, and departure from the rates established, except in the manner authorized by the act, was forbidden under criminal penalties, and any injury to persons was provided to be redressed through application to the Commission or to the courts. And it is provided that "if no joint rate over a through route has been established, the several carriers in such through route shall file, print and keep open to public inspection, as aforesaid, the separately established rates, fares and charges applied to the through transportation."

The Commission is given the power to determine and prescribe the manner in which the schedules required by the act are to be kept. And it is enacted that, unless otherwise provided, no carrier "shall engage or participate in the transportation of passengers or property, as defined in this act, unless the rates, fares and charges upon which the same are transported by said carrier have been filed and published in accordance with the provisions of this act."

It is evident, therefore, that Congress has taken control of the subject of rate making and charging. All of the particular details we cannot set forth without extensive quotation from the act, which it is quite inconvenient to make. The provisions of the act are directed at the abuses most to be feared, unreasonableness in the rates and discriminations, including in the latter discriminations in service, in the acceptance and delivery of freight and in facilities fur

nished. The power which has been given to the Commission to secure those results we have set forth in Texas &c. Ry. Co. v. Abilene Oil Co. supra, and in Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Pitcairn Coal Co., 215 U. S. 481. In the first case it was said (p. 439): "It is apparent that the means by which these great purposes were to be accomplished was the placing upon all carriers the positive duty to establish schedules of reasonable rates which should. have a uniform application to all and which should not be departed from so long as the established schedule remained unaltered in the manner provided by law." After citing cases, it was further said (p. 439): "When the general scope of the act is enlightened by the considerations just stated it becomes manifest that there is not only a relation, but an indissoluble unity between the provision for the establishment and maintenance of rates until corrected in accordance with the statute and the prohibitions against preferences and discrimination." In that case it was decided that a shipper could not maintain an action at common law in a state court on the ground that a rate established in accordance with the Interstate Commerce Act was unreasonable. In the second case was considered the power of the Commission under the amendments of 1906, and it was decided that on the principles announced in the Abilene case, and from a consideration of the amendments and their purpose to supply the defects of the act and enlarge the powers of the Commission, the distribution of coal cars by the railroad company among shippers was a matter involving preference and discrimination, and within the competency of the Interstate Commerce Commission to consider, and that the courts could not interfere with such distribution until after action by the Commission. This was resolved notwithstanding $23 of the act gave jurisdiction to the Circuit and District Courts of the United States to command, at the suit of one aggrieved, a common carrier "to move and trans

port the traffic or to furnish cars or other facilities for transportation." And transportation means not only the physical instrumentalities, but all services in connection with receipt, delivery and handling of property transported, and such transportation the carrier must "provide and furnish upon reasonable réquest therefor." (Section 1, paragraph 2, of the act, as amended June 29, 1906, by the Hepburn Act, 34 Stat. 584, c. 3591.) Section 20 of the latter act requires the carrier to issue a bill of lading for an interstate shipment, and makes the carrier liable for the loss of or damage to property while on its own line, and also while on the lines over which the property may pass.

There is scarcely a detail of regulation which is omitted to secure the purpose to which the Interstate Commerce Act is aimed. It is true that words directly inhibitive of the exercise of state authority are not employed, but the subject is taken possession of. We are, therefore brought to consider what the statute of North Carolina provides. Leaving out qualifications with which we are not concerned, the act requires railroad companies to receive freight for transportation whenever tendered at a regular station and forward the same over the route selected by the person offering the shipment. Fifty dollars a day is the penalty prescribed for refusal, and all the damages incurred.

The particular act which was held to violate the statute was refusing the tender of goods for shipment from Charlotte, North Carolina, to Davis, West Virginia, that is, a tender for interstate shipment, and a demand coincidentally for a bill of lading covering the shipment explicitly stating the origin of the shipment at Charlotte and its destination at Davis. The Supreme Court of the State decided, as we have seen, that the statute deals with a common law duty simply, one which attaches before freight enters into interstate commerce, and hence concluded as

follows: "The statutory enforcement under penalty of the common law duty to accept freight 'whenever tendered' is not within the scope or terms of any act of Congress. It is neither an interference with nor a burden upon interstate commerce." We are unable to agree with the conclusion. It would destroy absolutely Federal control until the freight was in the possession of the carrier, and is directly contradictory of the provision of the Interstate Commerce Act which we have quoted. See, in this connection, Houston & Texas Cent. R. R. Co. v. Mayes, 201 U. S. 321. In the term "transportation," we have seen, Congress has included "all services in connection with the receipt ... of property transported." And this certainly imposes the obligation to receive the property as well as to carry it, one of the obligations the carrier must perform "upon reasonable request therefor." Other provisions of the same import and direction might be quoted. Conditions put on the receipt of articles at the railroad station may be conditions upon the traffic, and necessarily are within the regulating power of Congress. Their inducement and aim may be to secure a prompter performance of duty by the carrier, and so far beneficent. But that is not the question. The question is, Where is the control, in the State or Congress, and has Congress acted? That the control is in Congress we have seen; that it has acted is demonstrated by the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act to which we have referred. As we have seen, schedules of rates, whether the road be single or forms with another a "through route," must be established, filed and published, designating the places. They cannot be changed without permission of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and no carrier is permitted to engage or participate in the transportation of passengers or property unless the rates for the same have been so filed and published. Criminal punishments are imposed for violations of these requirements, and civil redress of in