memo cossr s•rmM·sH11> co. v. BOARD or RAILROAD o0n’Bs. 13
transportation was entirely within the limits of thestate, and she did
not .run in connection with or in continuation of any line iof vessels
or railway leading to other states, it was contended that she was en-
gaged entirely in domestic commerce. But the court answered that
the conclusion did not follow, and said that,-
•* So far as she was employed in transporting goods destined for other states,
or goods brought from without the limits of Michigan and destined to places
within that state, she was engaged in commerce between the states; and, how-
ever limited that commerce may have been, she was, so far as it went, subject
to thelegislation of congress. She was employed as an instrument of that
commerce; for whenever a commodity has begun to move as an article of
trade from one state to another, commerce in that commodity between the
states has commenced. The fact that several different and independent agen-
cies are employed in transporting the commodity, some acting entirely in one A
state and some acting through two or more states, does in no respect affect
the character of the transaction. To the extent in which each agency acts in
tgt pé·gnsportaticn,‘it is subject to the regulation of congress." ,10-Wall.
5 , o . _ p ` `
. ’Nor are the vessels engaged in purely domestic commercewhen
their voyages between ports of the same state require them to navi-
gate the ocean. When they go beyond_the marine league they pass
out of the jurisdiction of the state, and come under the exclusive con-
1 trol of congress. To bring the transportation within thecontrol of
the state, as part of its domestic commerce, the subject transported
must be within the entire voyage under the exclusivejurisdiction of
the state. Lord v. Steam-ship C0. 102 U. S. 541. x
If the steam-ships of the plaintiif carried any persons or merchan-
dise between portsof the state, not going out, on their voyage between
those ports, of the jurisdiction of the state,. and the personsor merchan-
dise carried not coming from any other state or aforeign country, or go-
ing to another state or country, the transportation commencing;-and
ending in the state, then to that extent they would be engaged in com-
merce purely domestic, and to that extent the railroad commissioners
might have jurisdiction to regulate the fares and freights fortranspor-
tation on the vessels. But it is conceded. by the pleadings thatrin. every
voyage made by the vessels between ports of the state,——that is, be-
tween San Francisco and such ports along the coast,-they pass
out upon the ocean beyond a marine league from the shore. They
are, therefore, engaged in no transportation which the commissioners
can regulate. ,
We have had some doubt as to our jurisdiction in this case, but as
the commissioners have raised no objection on that ground,·and seem
anxious to have an adjudication as to the extent of their authority,
we have not deemed it expedient to refuse a consideration of the ques-
tions submitted. Without some adjudication upon them, the plain-
tiif would be placed in great embarrassment. If the commissioners
have the authority claimed, the company would be liable to a fine
of $20,000 for every instance of disregard of their regulations, and
 Wé