Opinion of the Court. 219 U. S. made single by it. In all transactions it is treated as single. In the ordinance of the city of Galveston, in the act of 1899, of the legislature of the State, and in public circulars and in the lease of Young, it is the system which is dealt with and not its separate links. And, we have seen, the terminal facilities which the Terminal Company was authorized to maintain were for the system, not for the corporate elements considered separately. It is next contended that the lease to Young under the facts proven does not constitute an unlawful or undue preference under the Interstate Commerce Act. To a certain extent we have considered this contention. An absolute advantage to Young cannot be denied. A facility that has enabled him to acquire practically all the export of cotton seed products must have something in it of advantage which other shippers do not receive, and it would seem to proclaim a power working for his benefit which is not working for others. And yet it is urged that there is a contrariety of opinion about it among cotton seed cake producers and as to whether Young is able to dominate the Texas market and to command the foreign trade. The facts, we think, put the matter beyond conjecture or opinion and demonstrate the potency of his situation. That it is a preference, however, is denied; and it is urged that by the agreed statement of facts all cotton seed cake producers "agree that if there was a general establishment of plants in Galveston, so that a monopoly could not be acquired" by Young, "it would be of great benefit to the cotton seed industry." But it is also agreed that neither the Galveston Wharf Company nor the Terminal Company has space enough to afford facilities to "all exporters doing business at Galveston" such as Young. And the Commission found that as a practical matter other shippers could not be given the same facilities on the same conditions as those granted to him, nor could such fa cilities be secured on the bay front. It was further found that the Terminal Company had indicated that it is not willing to accord shippers generally such facilities, and that the situation of its docks with respect to space is such that it cannot do so even if it were willing. It may be contended that the patrons of a railroad are not obliged to seek or compete for extraordinary facilities in its terminals. But, be that as it may, all shippers must be treated alike. Appellants bring forward the same argument to support the contention under consideration which they advance to support their first contention, to wit, the right, as owner of the property, to make a lease of its "unused property," subject only to the limitation that there shall be no interference "with the use of the adjacent navigable waters." It would seem that, if the argument have any force at all, it would extend the rights of ownership to used as well as unused property and be exercised in any form of preference, even to the exclusion of some shippers from the wharves. However, as appellants do not press the argument so far we need not dwell upon it and will only add that the terminal facilities contemplated by the ordinance of the city of Galveston and the act of the legislature of Texas confirming it were public terminal facilities, not those which might be granted or withheld in preferences or discriminations. The last contention advanced is that "the order of the Commission transcends its jurisdiction, in that it regulates commerce purely State and intrastate, and also purely foreign commerce, neither of which is subject to its authority." In support of this contention it is insisted that the evidence shows the following facts: The cake and meal purchased by Young are bought by him in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas, but chiefly in Texas, and shipped to him on bills of lading and way bills, showing Opinion of the Court. 219 U. S. the point of origin in those States and the destination at Galveston. The purchases are made for export, there being no consumption of the products at Galveston. His sales to foreign countries are sometimes for immediate and sometimes for future delivery, irrespective of whether he has the product on hand at Galveston. At times he has it on hand. At times, therefore, orders must be filled from cake to be purchased in the interior or then in transit to him. When the cake reaches Galveston it is ground into meal and sacked by Young, and for the meal thus ground and such meal as has been brought to his customers he takes out ships' bills of lading made to his order. This evidence establishes, appellants contend, that the transit of the cake and meal is absolutely ended at the leased premises at Galveston, and that it is “a final point of concentration and manufacture, the cotton seed cake being there manufactured into meal and sacked for export." But this does not distinguish between the meal and the cake, nor between the meal that is purchased at points outside of Texas and directly exported, from that so purchased and manufactured on the wharves of the Terminal Company. Nor does it take account of the fact that the wharves were intended for shipping facilities, a means of transition from land carriage to water carriage. It is manifest, as we have said, that to make the wharves manufacturing or concentrating points for one shipper and not for all is to give that shipper a preference. And, being a preference, the traffic necessarily comes under the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission. In other words, the manufacture or concentration on the wharves of the Terminal Company are but incidents, under the circumstances presented by the record, in the trans-shipment of the products in export trade and their regulation is within the power of the Interstate Commerce Commission. To hold otherwise would be to disregard, as the Commission said, the substance of things and make evasions of the act of Congress quite easy. It makes no difference, therefore, that the shipments of the products were not made on through bills of lading or whether their initial point was Galveston or some other place in Texas. They were all destined for export and by their delivery to the Galveston, Harrisburg and San Antonio Railway they must be considered as having been delivered to a carrier for transportation to their foreign destination, the Terminal Company being a part of the railway for such purpose. The case, therefore, comes under Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517, where it is said that goods are in interstate, and necessarily as well in foreign, commerce when they have "actually started in the course of transportation to another State, or delivered to a carrier for transportation." In G., C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. State of Texas, 204 U. S. 403, the facts are different and the case is not apposite. Decree affirmed. MERRIMACK RIVER SAVINGS BANK v. CITY OF CLAY CENTER. IN RE PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT. No. 604. Argued January 26, 1911.-Decided February 20, 1911. The force and effect of a decree dismissing a bill and discharging an injunction is neither suspended nor annulled as a mere consequence of an appeal to this court, even if supersedeas is allowed; but the Circuit Court has power to continue an injunction during such an appeal by virtue of its inherent equity power. Equity Rule 93. While the Circuit Court has not only the power to continue an injunction in order to preserve the status quo pending an appeal but to take cognizance of violations of such injunction, it does not follow Argument for Petitioner. 219 U. S. that violating the injunction is not a contempt also of the appellate jurisdiction of this court and that question is not now decided. Irrespective of an actual injunction order, the willful destruction or removal beyond the reach of this court of the subject-matter of litigation pending an appeal to this court is a contempt of the appellate jurisdiction of this court; and this is so even though it may also be a violation of the injunction below. An appeal to this court must be regarded as pending and undisposed of until the mandate issues, even though a decision may have been announced. Defendants under order to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt for having, after decision in their favor but before mandate, destroyed the subject-matter of the litigation, are adjudged in technical contempt; but having under oath denied any intent of contempt and satisfied the court of their good faith, the vindication of the court is satisfied by discharging the rule on payment of costs. THE facts, which involve questions of contempt for violation of injunction after decision of this court and before issuing of the mandate, are stated in the opinion. Mr. F. L. Williams, with whom Mr. D. R. Hite and Mr. C. C. Coleman, were on the brief, for petitioner: This court is possessed of the power to so deal with the property as to make its final decision and judgment effectual. This court and not the Circuit Court is the tribunal clothed with authority to maintain the status of the parties existing at the time an appeal is taken and thereby rendering it possible for its judgment and mandate to become effectual. Penn. R. R. Co. v. National Docks Co., 54 N. J. Eq. 647, 654; Evers v. Watson, 156 U. S. 527; citing McCormick v. Sullivant, 10 Wheat. 192; Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 193; Kennedy v. Bank, 8 How. 586; Des Moines Co. v. Homestead Co., 123 U. S. 552, and Dowell v. Applegate, 152 U. S. 327. The Circuit Court having passed upon the question before it and a right of appeal being given from its decision, neither the Circuit Court nor the parties had any right |