ways," whether the Acts of 1907 and 1909 preserve or disregard these distinctions, and whether § 7 was intended to apply to both kinds of roads or to "railroads" only,-are questions with which this court has no proper concern, they being conclusively disposed of by the decision of the state court of last resort in the present case. So, also, it is, for all purposes of our jurisdiction, established not only that the commission, in making the order, acted in the authorized exercise of the state's power of regulation, but that the two companies are legally competent to perform the duties thereby imposed upon them respectively.

That a state, in virtue of its authority to regulate railroads as public highways, may, in a proper case, require two companies to make a connection between their tracks so as to facilitate the interchange of traffic, without thereby violating rights secured by the Constitution of the United States, is settled by the decisions of this court in Wisconsin, M. & P. R. Co. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287, 296, 301, 45 L. ed. 194, 199, 201, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 115; and Washington ex rel. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. v. Fairchild, 224 U. S. 510, 528, 56 L. ed. 863, 869, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 535.

That a state, acting within its jurisdiction, and not in hostility to any Federal regulation of interstate commerce, may compel the carrier to accept loaded cars from another line and transport them over its own, such requirement being reasonable in itself, is settled by Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Iowa, 233 U. S. 334, 344, 58 L. ed. 988, 993, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 592. In that case it was held there was no essential difference, so far as concerned the power of the state, between such an order and one requiring the carrier to make track connections and receive cars from connecting roads in order that reasonably adequate facilities for traffic might be provided.

It seems to us that the principle of these decisions sustains also the state's power to make a reasonable order requiring a carrier to permit empty or loaded cars owned by it to be hauled from its line upon the connecting line for purposes of loading or delivery of intrastate freight, and to permit the cars of other carriers loaded with such freight consigned to points on the connecting line to be hauled from its line upon the connecting line for purposes of delivery. This question was left undetermined in McNeill v. Southern R. Co. 202 U. S. 543, 563, 50 L. ed. 1142, 1149, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 722, which had to do with a state regulation operating directly upon interstate upon interstate com

merce.

It is said that § 7b of the 1907 act, as re-enacted in 1909, under which the commission's order was made, permits the use of suburban and interurban railroads for the handling of freight in carload lots in steam railroad freight cars only "in the same manner and under the same general conditions, except as to motive power, as belt line railroads and terminal railroads are now or may hereafter be used for like purposes.' And it is insisted that the terms "belt line railroads" and "terminal railroads" have not been judicially construed by the Michigan courts, and, there being no finding by the commission or the court upon the question, the order and judgment are in this respect indefinite. But the commission in its petition for mandamus averred: "That belt line and terminal railroads within this state vary in length from a fraction of a mile to 15 miles or more; that cars and carloads of freight are transported to and from industries located along the line of such belt or terminal railroads to the tracks of railroad companies with which said belt lines and terminal railroads are connected, under a local switching charge or tariff, and that through billing of freight as between other railroads and belt and terminal railroads is not customary or usual." And in the answer of the railroad company this was admitted as matter of fact, it being at the same time insisted "that said Detroit United Railway Company is not in fact or in law a belt line or terminal railroad corporation, nor authorized by law to act as such; nor are the line or lines of railway operated by it, extending from the village of Oxford to the city of Flint, and within the boundaries of said municipalities, belt or terminal railroads; nor can they in fact or in law be used as belt or terminal railroads may be or are now used; nor has said relator any power or authority to require this respondent to give the use of its tracks or terminal facilities for the purposes mentioned in said orders or otherwise." There is no question, therefore, as to the mode in which belt line and terminal railroads are in fact used, and so the statute and order are relieved from the charge of indefiniteness in this respect. As already shown, the decision of the state court of last resort is a conclusive response to the legal objections taken in the clause quoted from the answer.

It is said the statute as construed and enforced by the commission and the supreme court is repugnant to the "due process" clause because it in effect requires a delivery by the Michigan Central at points off its own lines. By its terms, however,

of the Detroit United. We are unable to see that any question as to the adequacy of the compensation was raised in the state court. Plaintiff in error relies upon Central Stock Yards Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 192 U. S. 568, 48 L. ed. 565, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 339, and Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Central Stock Yards Co. 212 U. S. 132, 53 L. ed. 441, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 246. The former of these was an action in the Federal court, and came here by appeal from the circuit court of appeals. This court held as a matter of construction that the Constitution of Kentucky did not require that the railroad company should deliver its own cars to another road. The second case was a review of the judgment of the court of last resort of the state. That court having held that the state Constitution did require the carrier to deliver its own cars to the connecting road, it was contended that this requirement was void under the 14th Amendment as an unlawful taking of property. This court said (212 U. S. 143) "In view of the well known and necessary practice of connecting roads, we are far from saying that a valid law could not be passed to prevent the cost and loss of time entailed by needless transhipment or breaking bulk, in case of an unreasonable refusal by a carrier to interchange cars with another for through traffic. We do not pass upon the question. It is enough to observe that such a law perhaps ought to be so limited as to respect the paramount needs of the carrier concerned, and at least could be sustained only with full and adequate regulations for his protection from the loss or undue detention of cars, and for securing due compensation for their use. The Constitution of Kentucky is simply a universal, undiscriminating requirement, with no adequate provisions such as we have described.

We do not mean, however, that the silence of the Constitution might not be remedied by an act of legislature or a regulation by a duly authorized subordinate body if such legislation should be held consistent with the state Constitution by the state court." The case now before us is plainly distinguishable, as appears from what we have said. And, upon the whole, we see no sufficient ground for denouncing the regulation in question as either arbitrary or unreasonable.

There remains the contention that the statute and the order made in pursuance of it operate as a burden upon and interference with interstate commerce. That the order intrinsically applies only to intrastate traffic was held by the state court in this case, upon the ground that the jurisdiction of the commission is thus limited; and in this the court did but follow its '

previous ruling in Ann Arbor R. Co. v. Michigan R. Commission, 163 Mich. 49, 127 N. W. 746. Therefore, the contention under the commerce clause is narrowed to the single point that the order requires the cars of the Michigan Central to be turned over to the connecting carrier "at all times and under all circumstances and without reference to the needs and demands of interstate commerce." But it seems to us that this is an unreasonable construction of the order. By its terms, as thus far construed by the state court, it merely requires the two companies to interchange cars, carload shipments, less than carload shipments, and passenger traffic, in accordance with the provisions of § 7 of the act; that is to say, "in the same manner and under the same general conditions except as to motive power as belt line railroads and terminal railroads are now or may be used for like purposes." Manifestly, this involves no disregard of the needs of interstate commerce, and we must indulge the presumption, until the contrary is made to appear, that the state will not so construe or enforce the order as to interfere with or obstruct such commerce. Ohio Tax Cases, 232 U. S. 576, 591, 58 L. ed. 738, 745, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 372; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Arkansas, 235 U. S. 350, 369, 59 L. ed. —, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 99. The recent decisions of this court, cited in support of the contention that the order interferes with interstate commerce (Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Mayes, 201 U. S. 321, 329, 50 L. ed. 772, 775, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 491; McNeill v. Southern R. Co. 202 U. S. 543, 561, 50 L. ed. 1142, 1148, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 722; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Arkansas, 217 U. S. 136, 149, 54 L. ed. 698, 704, 29 L.R.A. (N.S.) 802, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 476; Chicago R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Hardwick Farmers Elevator Co. 226 U. S. 426, 433, 57 L. ed. 284, 286, 46 L.R.A. (N.S.) 203, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 174), are so plainly distinguishable that no time need be spent in discussing them. Judgment affirmed.

of error to a state court, will review the findings of fact by the latter court where a Federal right has been denied as the result of a finding shown by the record to be without evidence to support it, and where a conclusion of law as to a Federal right and

findings of fact are so intermingled as to make it necessary, in order to pass upon the Federal question, to analyze the facts.

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Courts, Cont. Dig. 1089, 1090; Dec. Dig. § 399.] CARRIERS ( 12°) RATE REGULATION REASONABLENESS-COST OF TRANSPORTA

TION.

2. The cost of the transportation of a particular commodity which must be considered when determining whether the maximum intrastate rates fixed by the state for the carriage of such commodity are adequate or confiscatory includes all the outlays which pertain to such transportation, there being no basis for distinguishing in this respect between so-called "out-of-pocket costs," or "actual" expenses, and other out lays which are none the less actually made because they are applicable to all traffic, instead of being exclusively incurred in the traie in question.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. 7-11, 15-20; Dec. Dig. § 12.] CARRIERS (12) RATE REGULATION REASONABLENESS-PUBLIC POLICY.

3. A state may not compel a carrier to establish a rate upon a particular com. modity which is less than reasonable, in order to build up a local enterprise.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Carriers, Cent Dig. 7-11, 15-20; Dec. Dig. 12.] CARRIERS (12) - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (298)-DUE PROCESS OF LAW-STATE REGULATION OF RAILWAY RATES-CONFISCAȚION.

4. The maximum intrastate rates fixed by N. D. Laws 1907, chap. 51, for the transportation of coal in carload lots, are confiscatory and deny the carrier the due process of law guaranteed by U. S. Const., 14th Amend., where, taking into account the entire traffic to which such rates are applied, they compel the carrier to transport the commodity for less than cost, or without substantial compensation in addition to cost, although the return to the carrier from its entire intrastate operations may be adequate.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. 1 7-11, 15-20; Dec. Dig. 12; Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. 847; Dec. Dig. 5.] [Nos. 420 and 421.]

Argued October 19 and 20, 1914. Decided

Messrs. Charles W. Bunn, John I. Dille, Charles Donnelly, John L. Erdall, and A. H. Bright for plaintiffs in error.

of North Dakota, and Messrs. C. L. Young, Mr. Andrew Miller, Attorney General John Carmody, and Alfred Zuger for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Hughes delivered the opinion of the court:

By chapter 51 of the Laws of 1907, the legislature of North Dakota fixed maximum intrastate rates, graduated according to distance, for the transportation of coal in carload lots. It was further provided that in case the transportation was over two or more lines of railroad it should be considered as one haul, the compensation for which should be divided among the carriers according to their agreement, or, if they could not agree, as the railroad commissioners should decide, subject to appeal to the courts. While the statutory rates governed all coal shipments, their practical application was almost solely to lignite coal.

The carriers refused to put the rates into effect, and in August, 1907, the attorney general of the state began proceedings in its supreme court to obtain a mandatory injunction against the Northern Pacific Railway Company, the Minneapolis, St. Paul, & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company, and the Great Northern Railway Company. The companies answered that the statute violated the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution, and also that it infringed the 14th Amendment by fixing rates that were "unremunerative," "unreasonable," and "confiscatory.' The supreme court of the state, overruling these contentions, granted the injunction. 19 N. D. 45, 25 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1001, 120 N. W. 869. It was held that the evidence was not sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of the rates. writ of error from this court, the decree was affirmed without prejudice to the right of the railroad companies to reopen the case after an adequate trial of the rates. 216 U. S. 579, 54 L. ed. 624, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep.

423.

On

This decision was rendered in the early part of the year 1910, and thereupon the for over a year, the case was reopened, rates were put into effect. After a trial voluminous testimony was taken, and the supreme court of the state, making its separate findings of fact as to the effect of the rates in the intrastate business of each carrier, and stating its conclusions of law, entered judgment commanding the carriers to keep the rates in force. 26 N. D. 438, 145 N. W. 135. The Northern Pacific Railway Company and the Minneapolis, St.