344 HARVARD LAW REVIEW, conferring the powers corporate was, that the president and direc- tors may " adopt and establish such a tariff of charges for the transportation of persons and property as they may think proper," and the same ** alter and change at pleasure." This case was held to be entirely similar to the preceding, and was decided in the same way. In Chicago, Milwaukee, & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Minnesota,^ the charter of the railroad company authorized the directors thereof to make needful rules and regulations touching the rates of toll, and the manner of collecting the same, but it was held that such a grant did not deprive the State of its right of legislative super- vision. In St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. Gill,^ it was de- cided that a special statutory exemption or privilege, such as im- munity from taxation, or a right to fix and determine rates of fare, does not accompany the property of a railroad company in its transfer to a purchaser, in the absence of an express direction in the statute to that effect. V. Conclusion. The following deductions may be made from the present state of the law in relation to charges for passengers and freight : Interstate Transportation. 1. That the State, even in the absence of Federal legislation, cannot pass laws regulating interstate transportation. 2. That interstate transportation consists of the following: — (^a) Traffic taken up within a State and carried without, or taken up without and carried within ; {b) Traffic taken through or across a State; {c) Traffic on a road wholly within a State, but in transit from one State to another. 3. That it does not consist of: — (rt;) Traffic taken up within a State and carried to another point therein ; {h) Traffic taken up within a State and carried to another point therein, but upon the journey transported through another State; that is, at least, so far as relates to State taxation of the intrastate portion of the gross receipts from such a carriage. 1 134 U. S. 418. 2 156 U. S. 649.
