accuracy is demonstrated by a mere statement of the proposition to which all the contentions here urged are in their essence reducible, which is as follows. Although the shipment of merchandise from one State to another is interstate commerce which the States cannot directly burden, nevertheless the States may directly burden such shipments in every case where there is any merchandise kept in the State to be the subject of interstate commerce shipment or when any of those steps which are essentially prerequisite to the initiation of an interstate commerce shipment are taken by the owner of the merchandise.

Reversed.

SOUTHERN OPERATING COMPANY v. HAYS, COUNTY CLERK OF HAMILTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF

TENNESSEE.

No. 122. Argued January 14, 1915. Decided February 23, 1915.

Decided on the authority of Heyman v. Hays, ante, p. 178.

THE facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Carlisle S. Littleton and Mr. James J. Lynch, with whom Mr. Jesse M. Littleton and Mr. George D. Lancaster were on the brief, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Frank M. Thompson, Attorney General of the State of Tennessee, and Mr. J. B. Sizer, for defendant in error.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the

court.

This case was brought to enjoin the collection of a State and County Privilege Tax upon the same facts as those which were involved in the case just decided. The two cases in both the trial and the court below were heard together and they were here argued at the same time. The court below in disposing of this case with one exception placed its conclusion upon the same grounds upon which it decided the previous case. The one exception referred to was a declaration that the trial court erred in granting the injunction so far as the state tax was concerned because there was no authority to enjoin the collection of such a tax and the only right was to pay under protest and sue to recover. Whatever difference between the two cases would otherwise result from that point of view need not be considered since the Attorney General of the State in the argument at bar in express terms states that that question is not insisted upon. It being thus removed from consideration, a complete identity between the two cases results and for the reasons given in the previous case the judgment in this case must also be reversed.

Reversed.

Statement of the Case.

236 U. S.

WASHINGTON, ALEXANDRIA AND MT. VERNON RAILWAY COMPANY v. DOWNEY.

ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA.

No. 144. Argued January 21, 1915.-Decided February 23, 1915.

The expression "law of the United States," referred to in clause 6 of § 250, Judicial Code, regulating appeals from and writs of error to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, embraces only laws of the United States not local in their application to the District of Columbia.

A statute of the United States, general in its application, but which has been declared unconstitutional except as it relates to the District of Columbia and to Territories of the United States, is not a law of the United States within the meaning of clause 6 of § 250, Judicial Code.

Where jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia is sought under clause 6 of § 250, Judicial Code, the test of jurisdiction is the character of the statute and not the character of the act to which the statute applies. In an action brought under the original Employers' Liability Act of 1906, which was declared unconstitutional as to the States but not as to the Territories, although the transit of the train involved was interstate, if the accident occurred within the confines of the District of Columbia, the statute became applicable concerning it as a local statute, in the absence of any general legislation by Congress, and not as a general law of the United States; and this court cannot review the judgment of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia on writ of error under clause 6 of § 250, Judicial Code. The fact that a local statute is applicable to a given situation solely because there is no general law to control, does not make the local statute a general one.

Writ of error to review 40 App. D. C. 147, dismissed.

THE facts, which involve the jurisdiction of this court of writs of error to review judgments of the Court of

Appeals of the District of Columbia, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. John S. Barbour, with whom Mr. John C. Gittings, Mr. Basil D. Boteler and Mr. Douglass S. Mackall were on the brief, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Edmund Burke, with whom Mr. Leo P. Harlow was on the brief, for defendant in error.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff in error, a Virginia corporation whom we shall speak of as the Company, operates a trolley line from Washington to Mt. Vernon in Virginia. The defendant in error, Downey, was employed by the Company as a trolley man and on November 29, 1907, was working on a train of two cars, a motor car and a trailer car, moving from Mt. Vernon to Washington. Downey was on the rear platform of the motor car and his duty was to hold the rope connecting with the overhead trolley wheel to keep it from getting off the wire and thus breaking the electrical connection. While in the District of Columbia, on the bridge crossing the Potomac, Downey was thrown from the platform and injured and the company prosecutes this writ of error to a judgment of the court below (40 App. D. C. 147), affirming one of the Supreme Court of the District, rendered on a verdict against it and in favor of Downey, upon the finding that his injury was caused by the actionable negligence of the Company or of its servants.

Various errors are assigned relating to the operation and meaning of the act of Congress (Employers' Liability Act) of June 11, 1906, 34 Stat. 232, c. 3073, by which the case is governed and the rulings of the trial court admitting

or excluding testimony and instructions given or refused. But before we consider them, whether we have jurisdiction to do so arises, and therefore we primarily consider that question. It depends upon the sixth clause of § 250 of the Judicial Code, and it is not open to controversy that the "law of the United States" therein referred to "embraced only laws of the United States of general operation" and does not therefore include "laws of the United States local in their application to the District of Columbia." McGowan v. Parish, 228 U. S. 312, 317; American Security Co. v. Dist. of Columbia, 224 U. S. 491; District of Columbia v. Philadelphia, Balt. & Wash. R. R., 232 U. S. 716.

The law here involved, as we have said, is the Employers' Liability Act of 1906. Undoubtedly that law as enacted was in form one of general application, but it was held to be unconstitutional as such a law in The Employers' Liability Cases, 207 U. S. 463. Notwithstanding that ruling, however, the provisions of the statute, so far as they apply to the District of Columbia, have been decided to be within the power of Congress to enact because of its plenary authority as the local legislature of the District, and because the intention to make the provisions of the law applicable to the District locally was manifest and separable from the purpose to enact a statute which would be applicable generally throughout the United States. El Paso & N. E. Ry. v. Gutierrez, 215 U. S. 87, 97-98; Philadelphia, Balt. & Wash. R. R. v. Schubert, 224 U. S. 603, 610; Santa Fe Central Ry. v. Friday, 232 U. S. 694, 698; and see Butts v. Merchants Transportation Co., 230 U. S. 126, 137. Under this condition there is no ground to maintain the proposition that the statute as applicable to the District of Columbia was adopted as one of a general character, and that therefore we have power to review the questions involved.

But it is said, the trolley cars were in transit from the State of Virginia to the District and therefore were en