20? U S. ?nn, J., to t?e Burlington Company, under its contract, sixty?seven tiere? of oleo oil for transportation to New York. The railway company aecep?d the shipment, issued a through bill of lading and received p?y' upon the bas? of the rates Red by the con- tract of June 17. Now, because the paeldng company insisted upon compliance by the railway coml?ny with it2 contract of trausportatlon--and?'the railway company (recognizing the binding force of the contract) accepted the transportation and received p?yment at the rates n?rned therein--the packing company is adjudged a crimi-?! and fined the s?u?n of $15,000. I want to emphasize this matter. The railway company and the packing company entered into a fair and reasonable con- tract for transportation. Independently of the et&tute, it was valid in all respects, and could have been enforced by the pack- ing company a?aiust the railway company, but according to the ruling of the court the railway company was authorized arbitrarily to break the contract, r?se the amount to he paid .for transportation--thus unsettling the bu?nees of the shipper, even it may be to the extent of wholly destroying it. Sustain- ing under these circumstances the power of the carrier and punishing the shipper shocks my sense of justice, and I cannot impute to Congress an intent by its le?l?tion to make p?sible such a re?dt. It has been one of the boasts of our jurisprudence that it upholds the sacredness of contracts. By constitutional pra- vision a State is estopped from p?sing a law imp?ring the obligation of a contract, and again and again has this court stricken down legislation having such effect. W?ile there is no such restriction upon the power of Congress, yet Congress 'has in this case broken no contract. It has simply, as held by the court, given permission to a carrier, arbitrarily and without inquiry or decision by any trib-n? L to repudiate its contract. Again, we have held that in "enacting the statutes estab- lishing the Interstate Commerce Commission the purpose of Congress was to facilitate and promote commerce." Texas & Paci? Ra?l,?a?/ v. Intersto? Co?nmerce Com?nission, 162 U.S.
�
