Baltimore, etc., R. Co., Anderson v. 208 Conklin v. New York, Ontario, etc., R. Co..... 365 642 Conner v. Citizens' Street R. Co... 210 ited) v. Manchester, etc., R. Co.. 293 393 203 588 Co. v.... 591 Eastern R. Co., Krulevitz v. 118 Buffalo, etc., R. Co. v. Craig.. o. Harvey et al.. 642 Bunch and Wife v. Great Western R. Co.... Camden & A. R. Co. v. Coxe... ... Flanigan, Pennsylvania R. Co. v.. 88 268 403 482 474 600 Gheismer v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. 287 179 Grand Rapids, Street R. of, Laugh 241 Griswold v. New York, etc., R. Co. 280 Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co., Great Central R. Co. v.... 114 Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. McGowan.. ... 274 v. Wallen... 219 Haggerty v. Flint, etc., R. Co..... 196 Hallahan v. N. Y., etc., R. Co..... 169 Ham, Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co.. 66 Hamilton, Texas, etc., R. Co. v.... Hannibal, etc., R. Co., Donavan et al. v.. Harris, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v... v. Grand Trunk R. Co.... Harvey et al., Buffalo, etc., R. Co. v. Hestonville, etc., R. Co., Biddle et UX. V.... 182 PAGE McDade v. Washington, etc., R. Co. 325 404 ... 588 608 223 323 642 Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co., United States v..... 110 208 Holmes v. Carolina Central R. Co.. 190 Illinois Central R. Co., Willenbourg et al. v.. Illinois, People of State of, Wabash, 358 Neitzey v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co.. 553 N. Y. C. & H. R. Co., Paulitsch v. 162 New York, etc., R. Co., Griswold v. 280 N. Y., etc., R. Co., Hallahan v.... 169 New York, Ontario, etc., R. Co., Conklin v.. 365 1 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Wysor... Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Commonwealth.... 48 Northeastern R. Co., Abrath v..... 128 Ontario & Quebec R. Co., May v.. 337 Patrick v. Richmond & D. R. Co.. 78 Paulitsch v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co. 162 Pease v. Delaware, etc., R. Co... 185 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Flanigan... 88 Pennsylvania Co. v. Weddle. 120 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Angel et ux. 559 -, Berry v. 234 396 Krulevitz v. Eastern R, Co... 118 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., Gheis v. Mayor, etc., of Jersey City. 400 People's Pass. R. Co. v. Lauder Leslie v. Wabash, etc., R. Co.... 229 454 Pittsburgh & S. L. R. Co. v. Rothschild... 50 Rothschild, Pittsburgh & S. L. R. Co. v..... Rosenzweig, Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v..... 386 61 영협 50 Union Pacific R. Co. v. Beatty.. 540 84 61 344 110 546 489 Rutland R. Co. et al., Smith et al. v. 646 Ryan e. Canada Southern R. Co... Second Ave. R. Co., Mayor, etc. v. Silver City, etc., R. Co., Murray v. 154 Smith et al. v. Rutland R. Co. et al. 646 South Boston Horse R. Co., Collins v. 371 Southern Pacific R. Co. v. Terry.. 532 Spoun . Missouri Pacific R. Co... 252 State of Illinois, People of, Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co. v..... 1 229 604 611 Wilsey v. Louisville, etc., R. Co... 258 Winona, etc., R. Co. v. Barney et al.... 513 Wysor, Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v.... 234 Walbrink, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. 219 325 120 591 106 358 WABASH, ST. LOUIS AND PACIFIC R. Co. v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF ILLINOIS. (Advance Case, U. S. Supreme Court. October 25, 1886.) A statute of Illinois enacts that if any railroad company shall, within that State, charge or receive, for transporting passengers or freight of the same class, the same or a greater sum for any distance than it does for a longer distance, it shall be liable to a penalty for unjust discrimination. The defendant in this case made such discrimination in regard to goods transported over the came road or roads from Peoria in Illinois and from Gilman in Illinois to New York; charging more for the same class of goods carried from Gilman than from Peoria, the former being eighty-six miles nearer to New York than the latter, this difference being in the length of the line within the State of Illinois. 1. This court follows the Supreme Court of Illinois in holding that the statute of Illinois must be construed to include a transportation of goods under one contract and by one voyage from the interior of the State of Illinois to New York. 2. This court holds, further, that such a transportation is " commerce among the States," even as to that part of the voyage which lies within the State of Illinois, while it is not denied that there may be a transportation of goods which is begun and ended within its limits and disconnected with any carriage outside of the State, which is not commerce among the States. 3. The latter is subject to regulation by the State, and the statute of Illinois is valid as applied to it. But the former is national in its character, and its regulation is confided to Congress exclusively, by that clause of the Constitution which empowers it to regulate commerce among the States. 4. The cases of Munn v. Illinois, C. B. & Q. R. Co. v. Iowa, and Peik v. The Chicago & Northwestern R. Co., all in 94 U. S., examined in regard to this question, and held, in view of other cases decided near the same time, not to establish a contrary doctrine. 5. Notwithstanding what is there said, this court holds now, and has never consciously held otherwise, that a statute of a State intended to regulate or to tax, or to impose any other restriction upon, the transmission of persons or property or telegraphic messages from one State to another is not within that class of legislation which the States may enact in the absence of legislation by Congress; and that such statutes are void even as to that part of such transmission which may be within the State. 6. It follows that the statute of Illinois, as construed by the Supreme Court of the State, and as applied to the transaction under consideration, is forbidden by the Constitution of the United States, and the judgment of that court is reversed. IN error to the Supreme Court of Illinois. MILLER, J.-This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Illinois. It was argued here at the last term of this court. 26 A. & E. R. Cas.-1 |