◆ SpookStack

10 Texas et al. va. The United States et al. Congress had in view and had constitutional power to accomplish. As that purpose involved the promotion of economy and efficiency in interstate transportation by the removal of the burdens ef ex- cessive expenditure, the removal of such burdens when imposed by state requirements was an essential part of the plan. The State urges that in the course of the passage of Transportation Act, 1920, a provision for federal incorporation of railroads was struck out. But while railroad corporations were left under state charters, they were still instrumentalities of interstate commerce, + foA 1 shies Fat “nd, as such, were subjected to the paramount federal obligation render the efficient and economical service required in the main- tenance of an adequate system of interstate transportation. Colorado v. United States, supra. The decision in International & Great Northern Railway Co. v. Anderson County, 246 U.S, 424, is not opposed. Apart from the fact that in that case the state court had found, upon the verdict ofa jury, t that the maintenance of the offices and shops at the place at which the predecessor of the plaintiff in error had contracted to maintain them, did not impose a burden upon interstate com- merce—a finding which this Court found no reason to disturb (id., pp. 433, 434)—the case arose prior to the enactment of Transportation Act, 1920, and the question here presented was not involved. mi. t.. — The decree dismissin: the we _ H of complaint is affirmed £ Ine Du OL COmpialny 18 anirmed, Decree affirmed. A true copy. Clerk, Supreme Court, U. 8.