The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-03-23

fContinued from Page One.)
 raii and water line there is an arr engagement for continuous carriage. then such water line becomes subject to all tfie provisions mandatory and prohibt- tory of the act to regulate commerce.
 Contributors Carriage.
 The complainant now asks an ex- tension of this principle so as to gov ern foreign commerce when such traf- fic is carried by rail to the seaboard and thence by steamship to European ports, 1t being the theory of the com pIainant'e case that because a through bill of lading is given at the inland point, where the freight is received, upon which the traffic moves to the point of foreign destination, that all the carriers participating in such through bill of 1ading are parties to an Arrangement for continuous car riage." and. therefore, that such trans portation and the carriers therein en- gagged are subject to all the regula- tive provisions of the law and are necessarily as completely under Fed erai control as if they were rail or water carriers within the United States engaged in interstate business.
 "The Jurisdiction of this Commission is not to be determined by anything other than the language of Section 1 of the act, and In this section we find a clear distinction drawn as between interstate commerce and foreign com nerce to a country not adjacent to the United States; and this distinction. in our opinion, saves such foreign com merce from the effect of that provision of the section as to continuous car riage beyond the American seaboard. The Commission may regulate inter- state traffic, whether by rail or by a combined rail-and-waters route. from point of receipt to point of delivery; but the Commission in its control over foreign commerce is limited to the regulation of such trafic. whether by railroad or by a combination of rail and water carriers, from and to the point of shipment.
 No Statute Provided.
 If 1t were the intention of Con gress to give to this Commission ju- risdiction over carriers by water en- gagged in the transportation of foreign commerce., it would be expected that such purpose would be manifested in other portions of the act and that ad- equate machinery for the enforcement of it's provisions would be provided. We look fin vain, however, throughout the many provisions of this statute for the slightest recognition of such carriers or of the traffic which they handle. No machinery has been set up in the act
  ed as to transatlantic steamship lines; and the absence of such provisions can only be explained If we accept the con- struction of the act herein given To adopt another Interpretation and as- sume jurisdiction over trans Atlantic carriers would be idle. Indeed. it would be contrary to public policy, for the Commission would be totally with out authority to enforce compliance with it's orders or with the mandates of the law as against such carriers.
 "It Is true that foreign ships enter ing our ports and here taking on traffic are for certain purposes within reach of court process; and Congress might. if so minded, subject such carriers to regulation within the limits which mar itime law and international policy would permit. But can 1t be held in fairness under the commonest canons of legal construction that a statute containing the provisions we have quoted was drafted to cover. and was intended to govern. steamship lines owned, controlled and operated from a foreign country, even where such steamship lines make through arrange ments for continuous carriage with do- nestle rail lines? If such was the in- tention it must be confessed that Con- gress succeeded in presenting a piece of Legislation to the world which is of singular and distinguished incomplete ness.
 Language of Act.
 Therefore, from the language of the act itself and the evident purpose of Congress in passing the act, and from