CONTROL  4ND  SEOUIiATION


9


as  intoxicating  liquors,  with  respect  to  which  Congress  has  ex-
pressly authorized  the  State  to  act,  or  in  the  case  of  strictly
state  shipments.^


4.    Adams  Express  G>.  v.  Cron-
inger,  226  U.  S.  491;  33  Sup.  Ct  14a

So  a  state  statute  imposing  a  pen-
alty of  $50.00  on  a  conunon  carrier
for  failure  to  adjust  a  claim  for  dam-
ages within  90  days  on  a  shipment
made  within  the  state,  and  within
four  months  in  case  of  shipments
from  without  the  state,  is  rendered
inapplicable  by  a  rule  of  the  Inter-
state Commerce  Commission,  provid-
ing that  a  carrier  must  dispose  of  a
claim  within  six  months.  Morphis  v.
Southern  Express  Co.  (N.  C),  83
S.  E.  L

Also  see  C  &  W.  C.  R.  Co.  v.  Vam-
viUc  F.  Co.,  237  U.  S.  597,  59  L.  Ed.,
1137,  35  Sup.  Ct.  715;  Trakas  v.
Southern  Ry.  Co.,  (S.  C  1915),  86
E.492.
Thus  the  law  of  South  Carolina
prescribing  a  penalty  for  failure  to
deliver  freight  upon  payment  of
charges  is  annulled  by  the  Interstate
Commerce  Act  Fennell  Infirmary  v.
So.  Ry.  Co.  (S.  C.  1915),  85  S.  E.
237,239.
So,  although  Congress  has  the
power  to  regulate  commerce  among
the  several  states,  there  are  certain
duties  the  performance  of  which  by
common  carriers  the  state  may  im-
pose under  its  police  power,  notwith-
standing such  carriers  engage  in  in-
terstate commerce;  the  states  not
having  surrendered  that  power  to  the
federal  government.  M.  K.  &  T.  Ry.
V.  Stote  (Tex.  1916),  181  S.  W.  721.
A  state  is  not  prohibited  absolute-
ly from  regulating  interstate  com-
merce^ but  its  powers  are  restricted


only  where  Congress  has  exercised
its  power  of  regulation.  Adams  Ex-
press Co.  V.  Croninger,  226  U.  S.
