Opinion of the Court.

234 U. S.

follows that the inquiry narrows itself to the mere consideration of the testimony taken in this proceeding, and the report of the Commission in such proceeding, and the testimony taken before the court below in so far as it is proper to consider it in connection with the particular question under consideration. But coming to make a review of the testimony before the Commission on the issue raised by the second supplemental petition, we fail to find the slightest proof tending to sustain the reduction in rates as to the East Coast Line, which was made.

There are only three subjects referred to in the testimony which can in any view be considered as having any possible tendency to show such a change as would cause the rate which was found by the Commission in the past reasonable and not to justify a change to be unreasonable and therefore require reduction. The three subjects are these: (a) testimony by the chairman of the Florida Railroad Commission that there had been a considerable increase in the volume of traffic in citrus fruits and vegetables since the previous finding; (b) a further statement or admission made by an officer of the East Coast Line in a colloquy which took place at the hearing in this case to the effect that as shippers under carload rates loaded their own cars there was some difference in cost to the advantage of the road over the cost of loading when the any-quantity rates prevailed; (c) testimony with reference to the Atlantic Coast Line and the Seaboard Air Line (but none as to the East Coast Line) to the effect that on those roads it had come to pass that there was a saving in expense and an increase in earning capacity because even under the any-quantity rates carload shipments had greatly increased and cars so shipped were much more heavily loaded and moved from the point of production through the base point to their ultimate destination, when such was not the case at the time the previous order was made. Testimony which as we have seen was expressly

declared by the Commission to be in effect the cause which gave rise to the reduction. But at once it is to be observed that so far as any inference alone from the difference between carload and less-than-carload rates and anyquantity rates is concerned it had no application to the East Coast Line since that road had put in the carload and less-than-carload rates while the other two roads had not. And so far as the consideration of the increased loading is concerned as stated by the Commission, whatever may have been the proof as to the Seaboard Air Line and the Atlantic Coast Line, it is beyond controversy that no such proof can be found in the record as to the East Coast Line except the vague intimation to which we have referred.

Thus by analysis the case comes to this: Did the facts as to the increased loading which the Commission found to exist in the case of the Seaboard Air Line and the Atlantic Coast Line support or tend to support the order as to the East Coast Line in the absence of all testimony in the record concerning the existence of such fact as to the traffic on that road? In other words, the question is, Because there was testimony as to the traffic of those roads, can such testimony be said to tend to establish the same condition on the East Coast Line? Conceding that from an abstract point of view an affirmative answer would have to be given to such question we think such is not the case here for the following reasons: (a) because of the difference in business carried on by the two roads named and the East Coast Line, they being not only gatherers of the local product but trunk line carriers; (b) because of the difference in the situation and traffic of the two trunk lines named and the East Coast Line, as deduced solely from the peculiar environment and movement of business on that road so aptly stated in the passages from the reports of the Commission which we have quoted. Differences which presumably gave rise to

separate statements in the previous reports in considering that road. While we do not say that the conclusion is affirmatively sustained, nevertheless we think the state of the record at least tends to give some support to the suggestion in the argument that the greater magnitude and importance of the consideration of the business and rates of the two trunk line carriers concentrated attention in that direction and therefore caused the inquiry on that subject and the facts concerning the same to eclipse the distinctions between those lines and the East Coast Line distinctions which if otherwise taken under consideration should have produced a different result.

As it follows from these views that the order in question as to the East Coast Line and its enforcement should have been enjoined by the court below, our duty is to reverse the action of that court and to remand the case to the proper District Court with directions to grant the prayer of the East Coast Line and restrain the enforcement of the order in question and it is so ordered.

Reversed.

VAN DYKE v. CORDOVA COPPER COMPANY.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA.

No. 735. Motion to dismiss submitted May 11, 1914.-Decided June 8, 1914.

Although words may be superfluous, if the statute be construed in accordance with the obvious intent of Congress, the courts should not, simply in order to make them effective, give them a meaning that is repugnant to the statute looked at as a whole, and destructive of its purpose.

Under §§ 32 and 33 of the Arizona Enabling Act of June 20, 1910, the judgment of the state court in a case transferred to it from the

territorial court is not reviewable by this court simply because it was pending in the territorial court at the time of the Enabling Act; such a judgment can only be reviewed by this court where a Federal question exists to give jurisdiction as in the case of judgments from the courts of other States.

Writ of error to review, 14 Arizona, 499, dismissed.

THE facts, which involve the jurisdiction of this court to review judgments of the courts of a State rendered after statehood in cases transferred from the territorial court, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. William J. Hughes, Mr. John H. Campbell and Mr. Karl W. Kirchwey, for defendant in error, in support of the motion.

Mr. Richard E. Sloan and Mr. James Westervelt, for plaintiff in error, in opposition to the motion.

Memorandum opinion by MR. CHIEF JUSTICE White, by direction of the court.

This action was brought on December 2, 1911, by the Cordova Copper Company in the "District Court of the Fifth Judicial District of the Territory of Arizona in and for the County of Gila" to recover sums of money alleged to have been loaned to Van Dyke, the plaintiff in error, and remaining unpaid. The case was tried in April and May, 1912, after the admission of Arizona as a State, in the "superior court of Gila county, State of Arizona" and resulted in a verdict on May 4 for $15,364.75, upon which judgment was entered on the same day. On May 16, Van Dyke moved for a new trial, which motion was at the instance of the Company stricken from the files. An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of the State. The court, deciding that the appeal was taken alone from the judgment and that there was no reversible error in the

judgment roll, held that it could not review errors which were alone susceptible of being reviewed upon an appeal from an order refusing a new trial, although treating the motion to strike out as equivalent to such refusal, and the judgment was consequently affirmed. This writ of error was then prosecuted and the case is before us on a motion to dismiss.

Neither in the assignments of error nor in the argument at bar is it asserted that Federal rights were raised or involved in the court below, but the assertion that the case is within our jurisdiction rests solely upon the provisions of §§ 32 and 33 of the Arizona Enabling Act of June 20, 1910, c. 310, 36 Stats., pp. 557, 576, 577. The sections in question, generally speaking, provide for the trial of cases pending at the time of admission to Statehood and for their transfer to the appropriate courts established under the new system, and the particular language upon which the controversy turns is this:

and that from all judgments and decrees or other determinations of any court of the said Territory, in any case begun prior to admission, the parties to such cause shall have the same right to prosecute appeals, writs of error, and petitions for review to the Supreme Court of the United States or to the circuit court of appeals as they would have had by law prior to the admission of said State into the Union."

The contention is that as this case was "begun prior to admission" and is one which in consequence of the amount involved might have been brought to this court from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Territory, therefore it comes within the express terms of the statute and there is jurisdiction. But conceding the premise we think the conclusion is clearly in conflict with the plain language of the provision relied upon. We say this because the right to prosecute writs of error conferred is limited to "judgments and decrees or other determinations of any court of