It is suggested that Congress has acted in the present instance. Reference is made to the act of March 2, 1893, c. 196, 27 Stat. 531, relating to power driving-wheel brakes for locomotives, grabirons, automatic couplers and height of drawbars; to the act of March 2, 1903, c. 976, 32 Stat. 943, amending the act of 1893; to the act of May 27, 1908, c. 200, 35 Stat. 317, 324, 325, authorizing the Interstate Commerce Commission to keep informed regarding compliance with the Safety Appliance Act and to investigate and report on the need of any appliances or systems intended to promote the safety of railway operations; to the act of May 30, 1908, c. 225, 35 Stat. 476, relating to locomotive ash pans; to the act of April 14, 1910, c. 160, 36 Stat. 298, relating to sill steps, hand brakes, ladders, running boards and hand holds and providing that the Interstate Commerce Commission should after hearing designate the number, dimensions, location and manner of application of these appliances and of those required by the act of 1893; to the detailed regulations prescribed by the Commission, on March 13, 1911, pursuant to this authority; to the act of May 6, 1910, c. 208, 36 Stat. 350, requiring the Commission to investigate accidents and make report as to their causes with such recommendations as they may deem proper; and to the act of February 17, 1911, c. 103, 36 Stat. 913, relating to locomotive boilers. But it is manifest that none of these acts provides regulations for locomotive headlights. Attention is also called to the investigations conducted by what is known as the 'block-signal and train control board' (organized by the Commission) and the reports of that board with respect to sundry devices and appliances, including headlights. It does not appear, however, either that Congress has acted or that the Commission under the authority of Congress has established any regulation so far as headlights are concerned. As to these, the situation has not been altered by any exertion of Federal power and the case stands as it has always stood without regulation unless it be supplied by local authority. The most that can be said is that inquiries have been made, but that Congress has not yet decided to establish regulations, either directly or through its subordinate body, as to the appliance in question. The intent to supersede the exercise of the State's police power with respect to this subject cannot be inferred from the restricted action which thus far has been taken. Missouri Pacific v. Larabee Mills, supra; Savage v. Jones, 225 U. S. 501, 533. The judgment is affirmed. Affirmed. THE LOS ANGELES SWITCHING CASE.1 APPEAL FROM THE COMMERCE COURT. No. 98. Argued January 14, 15, 1914.-Decided June 8, 1914. An order of the Interstate Commerce Commission requiring railway companies to desist from exacting charges for delivering and receiving carload freight to and from industries located upon spurs and sidetracks within the switching limits of a terminal city when such carload freight is moving in interstate commerce incidentally to a system line haul is not open to the objection that it rests upon a construction of the Act to Regulate Commerce which would forbid a carrier from separating its terminal and haulage charges on the same shipment. Quare, and not involved in this decision, whether the rate which the Act to Regulate Commerce requires to be published is a complete rate including not only the charge for hauling but also the charge for the use of terminals at both ends of the line. 1 Docket title of this case is Interstate Commerce Commission, The United States of America, Associated Jobbers of Los Angeles, and Pacific Coast Jobbers and Manufacturers Association, appellants, v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, Southern Pacific Company, and San Pedro, Los Angeles and Salt Lake Railroad Company. 234 U. S. Statement of the Case. The delivery and receipt of goods on an industrial spur-track within the switching limits in a city is not necessarily an added service for which the carrier is entitled to make, or should make, a charge additional to the line-haul rate to and from that city when that rate embraces a receiving and delivery service for which the spur-track service is a substitute. Industrial spur-tracks established within the carrier's switching limits, within which the team tracks are also located, may constitute an essential part of the carrier's terminal system; and whether or not delivery on the spur-track is an additional service on which to base a charge or merely a substituted service, which is substantially a like service to that included in the line-haul rate and not received, is a question of fact for the Interstate Commerce Commission to determine. Findings of the Interstate Commerce Commission as to the character and use of industrial spur-tracks within the switching limits of a city are conclusions of fact and not subject to review. Although the Interstate Commerce Commission may not have found that a switching charge if legal was unreasonable in amount or that the shippers had objected thereto, as the service must be performed according to the law of the land, the shippers are not estopped from bringing the matter before the Commission to the end that the carrier's charges should not be unjustly discriminatory. It is permissible for a railway company to establish a terminal district; and it is for the Commission to determine according to the actual conditions of operation, whether an extra charge for spur-track delivery within that district, regardless of the variations in distance, is either unreasonable or discriminatory. This court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Interstate Commerce Commission upon matters of fact within the province of the Commission. The order of the Interstate Commerce Commission that the carriers desist from making a switching charge for carload freight moving in interstate commerce to industrial spur-tracks within the switching limits of Los Angeles, California, sustained. Pursuant to the act of October 22, 1913, c. 32, judgments of the Com merce Court reversed by this court are remanded to the District Court of the United States for the district where the case would have been brought had the Commerce Court not been established. 188 Fed. Rep. 229, reversed. THE facts, which involve the validity of an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission in regard to switching Argument for the United States. 234 U. S. charges within the yard limits of Los Angeles, California, are stated in the opinion. Mr. Blackburn Esterline, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, with whom The Solicitor General was on the brief, for the United States, Intervenor: The action of the Commerce Court in refusing to sustain the motions of the United States to dismiss the bills, and in holding, on the face of the bills alone, that the court had the power to decide, notwithstanding the findings of the Commission based on the evidence, that the service of making deliveries on the spur tracks was different from the service of making deliveries on the team tracks, with a consequent difference in the cost, was so flagrantly erroneous as to require a reversal of the judgments and the dismissal of the bills. The question as to what are and what are not terminal facilities is manifestly a question of fact to be determined according to the circumstances of each particular case. The findings made by the Commission, after a careful review of all of the attending facts and circumstances, that the spur tracks in question are a part of the carriers terminal facilities, to the same extent as the stations, team tracks, and freight sheds, are conclusive upon the courts. The findings of the Commission are not only in accord with the facts before it, but they are also in accord with the express provisions of the Act to Regulate Commerce, as well as with certain well considered judicial decisions,— all of which the Commerce Court ignored. See § 7 of the act approved June 18, 1910, 36 Stat. 539, 544, 545, which reënacted, in its original form, § 1 of the act of June 29, 1906, 34 Stat. 584; Vincent v. Chicago & Alton R. R. Co., 49 Illinois, 33, 41; Chicago & North West. Ry. Co. v. The People, 56 Illinois, 365, 382; Coe & Milsom v. Louis. & Nash. R. R. Co., 3 Fed. Rep. 775, 778; Covington StockYards Co. v. Keith, 139 U. S. 128, 135. 234 U. S. Argument for the United States. The case at bar is not that of a carrier making delivery "to a point off its line" by means of a terminal company, for which it is entitled to make an extra charge, as in Int. Com. Comm. v. Stickney, 215 U. S. 98. The present controversy is limited to the single question of the right of the appellees to make an extra charge for deliveries made on spurs which constitute a part of their terminals, tracks, facilities, and equipment. The carriers established, and for many years maintained, the practice of making deliveries on the spurs as a part of their terminals and facilities. The shippers have, at all times, acquiesced in that practice. On complaint duly filed, and after a full hearing, the Commission dealt with the practice in all of its aspects. Its order, in pursuance of its investigation, is a mere regulation. The terminal facilities of carriers, with these spurs as a part, have time and again been the subject of consideration by Congress. Against the judgment of the carriers, the shippers, the Commission, the Congress, and the courts, the Commerce Court, with its holding, stands alone. It is manifest, from its report, that the Commission considered all of the facts and circumstances. No claim to the contrary is made. The Commission also considered the difference between the American and English systems of dealing with terminal services and charges. The findings of the Commission are also supported by facts of such common observation as to be within the scope of judicial knowledge. Without the use of the spurs as terminal facilities, all of the enormous carload tonnage into or out of Greater New York must be handled on a common team track, or in a common depot. The same situation would obtain at Chicago, Pittsburgh, and all other large terminals. The livestock, ore, coal, oil, lumber, grain, and all other carload freight, would be unloaded on a common team track, or in a common depot, and crudely handled by the consignees through the streets of the cities. That |