1.
[964] 258 U.S. 50, 61 (1922).
[965] 258 U.S. 50 (1922); 66 L. Ed. 458, Hd. 2.
[966] _See_ pp. 193-195.
[967] 291 U.S. 502 (1934); followed in Hegeman Farms Corp. _v._ Baldwin,
293 U.S. 163 (1934).
[968] 294 U.S. 511 (1935).
[969] Milk Control Bd. _v._ Eisenberg Farm Products, 306 U.S. 346
(1939).
[970] Ibid. 352.
[971] Hood _v._ Du Mond, 336 U.S. 525, 535 (1949).
[972] Foster-Fountain Packing Co. _v._ Haydel, 278 U.S. 1 (1928).
[973] Ibid. 13.
[974] Toomer _v._ Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (1948). Other features of the
South Carolina act were found to violate article IV, section 2. _See_ p.
690.
[975] Bayside Fish Flour Co. _v._ Gentry, 297 U.S. 422 (1936).
[976] Ibid. 426, citing Silz _v._ Hesterberg, 211 U.S. 31, 39 (1908).
[977] 34 Stat. 584 (1906).
[978] Chicago, I. & L.R. Co. _v._ United States, 219 U.S. 486 (1911).
[979] Southern R. Co. _v._ Reid, 222 U.S. 424 (1912); Southern R. Co.
_v._ Burlington Lumber Co., 225 U.S. 99 (1912).
[980] Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. _v._ Hardwick Farmers Elevator Co., 226
U.S. 426 (1913).
[981] St. Louis, I.M. & S.R. Co. _v._ Edwards, 227 U.S. 265 (1913).
[982] Yazoo & M.V.R. Co. _v._ Greenwood Grocery Co., 227 U.S. 1 (1913).
In this case the severity of the regulation furnished additional reason
for its disallowance.
[983] 226 U.S. 491 (1913). For the Court's reiteration of the formula
governing such cases, _see_ ibid. 505-506. _See also_ Barrett _v._ New
York, 232 U.S. 14 (1914); Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. _v._ Cramer, 232 U.S.
490 (1914); Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co. _v._ Harold, 241 U.S. 371 (1916);
Missouri P.R. Co. _v._ Porter, 273 U.S. 341 (1927). A year before the
enactment of the Carmack Amendment the Court had held that the
imposition by a State upon the initial or any connecting carrier of the
duty of tracing the freight and informing the shipper in writing when,
where, how, and by which carrier the freight was lost, damaged, or
destroyed, and of giving the names of the parties and their official
position, by whom the truth of the facts set out in the information
could be established, was, when applied to interstate commerce, a
violation of the commerce clause. Central of Georgia R. Co. _v._
Murphey, 196 U.S. 194, 202 (1905). The Court's opinion definitely
invited Congress to deal with the subject, as it does in the Carmack
Amendment.
[984] 35 Stat. 65 (1908); 36 Stat. 291 (1910).
[985] 34 Stat. 1415 (1907).
[986] 27 Stat. 531 (1
|