202 U. S. Argument for Southern Railway Company. Lake Shore &c. R. R. Co. v. Ohio, 173 U. S. 285; Gilman v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall. 713; Wisconsin &c. R. R. Co. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 294; Olsen v. Smith, 195 U. S. 332; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Hughes, 191 U. S. 477; Railroad Commission Cases, 116 U. S. 307, 335; Chicago, M. & N. R. R. v. Solon, 169 U. S. 133. The act of the general assembly of North Carolina constituting the corporation commission was not void as being in violation of the constitution of the State. The act under which the North Carolina Corporation Commission was organized, and is exercising its functions for the benefit of the people of the State, is, in its essential particulars, so far as it relates to railway companies, but a rescript of the laws establishing the North Carolina Railroad Commission and making it a court of record (Laws of 1891, chapter 320 and chapter 498); and the acts establishing both the railroad commission and the corporation commission have been expressly declared to be constitutional by the Supreme Court. And like statutes, under which railroad commissions in other States have been organized, have been upheld by this court. Railroad Commission Cases, 116 U. S. 307; Caldwell v. Wilson, 121 N. Car. 425; Express Co. v. Railroad, 11 N. Car. 463; Railroad Company v. Telegraph Co., 113 N. Car. 213; Leavell v. Telegraph Co., 116 N. Car. 211; Pate v. Railroad Co., 122 N. Car. 877; Abbott v. Beddingfield, 125 N. Car. 256; Corporation Commission v. Railroad, 127 N. Car. 283; Corporation Commission v. Railroad, 139 N. Car. 126. This court is concluded by the decisions of the Supreme Court of North Carolina upon this point. Duncan v. McCall, 139 U. S. 449; Leeper v. Texas, 139 U. S. 462; O'Neill v. Vermont, 144 U. S. 323; McNulty v. California, 149 U. S. 645; Bergemann v. Backer, 157 U. S. 655; Kohl v. Lehlbach, 160 U. S. 293; Howard v. Fleming, 191 U. S. 126. Mr. Claudian B. Northrop and Mr. Fabius H. Busbee for Southern Railway Company: It has been conclusively settled by this court that where the Argument for Southern Railway Company. 202 U. S. master and the court both concur this court will not disturb the findings, and in the language of Mr. Justice Brown "so far as there is any testimony consistent with the finding, it must be treated as unassailable." Davis v. Schwartz, 155 U. S. 636; Wiscart v. D'Auchy, 3 Dall. 321; Bond v. Brown, 12 How. 254; Graham v. Bayne, 18 How. 60; Norris v. Jackson, 9 Wall. 125; Ins. Co. v. Folsom, 18 Wall. 237; The Abbotsford, 98 U. S. 440; Crawford v. Neal, 144 U. S. 585; Turner v. Ferris, 145 U. S. 132; Evans v. State Bank, 141 U. S. 107; Kimberly v. Arms, 129 U. S. 512; Morewood v. Enequist, 23 How. 491; The Ship Marcellus, 1 Black, 414; Dravo v. Fabel, 132 U. S. 487; Companie de Navigacion v. Brauer, 168 U. S. 104; The Richmond, 103 U. S. 540; The Conqueror, 166 U. S. 110; Stuart v. Hayden, 169 U. S. 14; Baker v. Cummings, 169 U. S. 198. The necessary diversity of citizenship exists, all of defendants being citizens and residents of a different State from that of which the complainant is a citizen and resident. There are also questions arising under the Constitution of the United States. The amount or matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value of $2,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is properly alleged. See Blackburn v. Portland Gold Mining Co., 175 U. S. 570, 574; Butchers' & Drovers' Stock Yards Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 67 Fed. Rep. 35. The question of jurisdiction, not having been raised in the case at bar by any special plea to the jurisdiction, it must be held under the rulings of this court that the facts sufficient to establish the jurisdiction are admitted when properly averred in the bill, as in the case here. Both the master and the Circuit Judge have held that this suit involves the right of Southern Railway Company to conduct and manage its interstate business at Greensboro, North Carolina, and to dispose of its rolling stock, and to distribute it, and to refuse or permit its cars to be placed on private sidings, according to its reasonable rules and regulations, and that said right is of incalculable value to Southern Railway Com 202 U. S. Argument for Southern Railway Company. pany, and amounts to many thousands of dollars far in excess of the sum or value of $2,000 exclusive of interest and costs. Butchers' & Drovers' Stock Yards Co. v. Louisville & N. R. R. Co., supra; Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. McConnell, 82 Fed. Rep. 65; Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 107; Louisville v. N. R. R. v. Smith, 128 Fed. Rep. 1. This is not a suit against the State of North Carolina. A bill to restrain the executive officers of a State, under alleged authority of an unconstitutional statute, is not a suit against the State. Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 107 and cases cited; Belknap v. Schild, 161 U. S. 10, 18. The equities of this bill are to prevent irreparable injury and a multiplicity of suits to which Southern Railway Company has a common defense, involving questions of law common to all said suits. Where a failure to obey an order made by a state railroad commission, which was unauthorized and void, would under the state statutes, subject the company, in its daily business, to large numbers of individual actions, and to heavy penalties, a court of equity has jurisdiction of a suit to enjoin enforcement of such order, on the ground that its decree will avoid a multiplicity of suits and afford a more efficacious remedy than can be had at law. Dinsmore v. So. Express Co., 92 Fed. Rep. 714, 715; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 517; Va.-Carolina Chem. Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 113 Fed. Rep. 1; Louisville & N. R. R. v. Smith, 128 Fed. Rep. 1. This is not a suit to restrain cases already pending in state courts contrary to section 720, United States Revised Statutes. Texas & P. R. Co. v. Kuteman, 54 Fed. Rep. 547. The corporation commission is not a "court" in the sense of the statute. Gumee v. Brunswick, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 5,872; People v. Trustees, 39 N. Y. Supp. 607; People v. Van Allen, 55 N. Y. 31; White County Com'rs v. Givin, 136 Indiana, 562; Johnston v. Hunter, 50 W. Va. 52; Upshur v. Rich, 135 U. S. 467; Fuller v. County of Colfax, 14 Fed. Rep. 177. See Western Union Tel. Co. v. Wyatt, 98 Fed. Rep. 335. Argument for Southern Railway Company. 202 U.S. The Supreme Court of North Carolina has directly held that the corporation commission of North Carolina is not a "judicial court." State ex rel. Caldwell v. Wilson, 121 N. Car. 425; State v. Wilmington and Weldon R. R. Co., 122 N. Car. 877. The four cars of coal in question were and are articles of interstate commerce and beyond control of North Carolina Corporation Commission. Where the articles are still in the cars and undelivered, they are subjects of interstate commerce, and the transfer of said articles from the car to the depot or station is a part of the interstate transportation. In the case at bar it will be noted that even such transfer had not taken place, and unquestionably the interstate transportation was uncompleted. Rhodes v. Iowa, 170 U. S. 412; Wall v. N. & W. R. R. Co., 52 W. Va. 485; Connery v. Railroad Co., 92 Minnesota, 20. Furthermore, the act to regulate commerce, itself, provides that it shall and does apply to the "transportation of passengers or property" "from one State or Territory of the United States or the District of Columbia, to any other State or Territory of the United States or the District of Columbia, or from any place in the United States to an adjacent foreign country," etc. Congress having legislated no state regulations can apply. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Hefley, 158 U. S. 98; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Miami S. S. Co., 86 Fed. Rep. 407. Switching and terminal charges are exclusively covered by act of Congress. Fielder v. M., K. & T. R. Co., 42 S. W. Rep. 362; Walker v. Keenan, C. C. A. 7th Cir. 73 Fed. Rep. 755; I. C. C. v. D. G. H. M. R. Co., 167 U. S. 633; I. C. C. v. C., B. & Q. Ry. Co., 186 U. S. 320. An article of interstate commerce remains wholly free from such state control, as long as it is in the original package. Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100. Unquestionably coal stored in a car in which it originally started on its transit is still in the original package. Austin v. Tennessee, 179 U. S. 343. This is not only the law of the United States but the statutes of North Carolina themselves expressly disclaim any applica 202 U.S. Argument for Southern Railway Company. tion to interstate commerce. Act of March 6, 1899, c. 164, § 14. See also McGuigan v. Railroad Co., 95 N. Car. 428. The rules of the North Carolina Corporation Commission as to placing cars loaded with interstate freight, and its orders to place the four cars of interstate freight now in question are void because they interfere with interstate commerce; because they deal with a subject National in its character, requiring uniform treatment throughout the United States, and a subject over which the action of Congress is exclusive, the States being powerless to interfere at all; and because Congress has in fact legislated on this particular subject, and the field is exclusively occupied by existing acts of the Federal Government. This court has never separated the cases into those which aid interstate commerce and those which interfere with interstate commerce, and it has never held that the States may pass acts in aid of commerce, while they are forbidden to pass acts interfering with commerce. The only classification of cases ever made by this court were the three classes set forth in Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U. S. 204, 209, where it divides. them as follows: First, those in which the power of the State is exclusive; second, those in which the States may act in the absence of legislation by Congress; third, those in which the action of Congress is exclusive and the States cannot interfere at all. The case of Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U. S. 204, has been cited and reaffirmed in the following cases. W. U. Tel. Co. v. James, 162 U. S. 650, 655; M. P. R. Co. v. Nebraska, 164 U. S. 403, 416; C. & L. Turnpike Co. v. Sandford, 164 U. S. 578, 586; Henderson Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 166 U. S. 150, 153; Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson, 173 U. S. 592, 623; K. & H. Bridge Co. v. Illinois, 175 U. S. 626, 632; Hanley v. Kansas City S. R. Co., 187 U. S. 617, 620; Champion v. Ames, 188 U. S. 321, 352; St. Clair County v. Interstate S. & C. T. Co., 192 U. S. 454, 457. See also Wabash &c. R. Co. v. Illinois, 118 U. S. 557, which |