540 Opinion of the Court. If, in truth, there be no evidence from which these facts can be found or if the evidence be conflicting, we can, of course, inquire no further. But if, on the contrary, the uncontradicted evidence affirmatively establishes that the shipment originated in Louisville, Kentucky, and thence was carried to Commiskey, Indiana, it was an interstate shipment, and neither the special findings nor the general verdict will preclude us from so holding. Lurton, the consignee, testified that he obtained the cutter "through an Indianapolis concern but it was shipped from a warehouse in Louisville," and that the bill of lading was made out to him from Louisville to Commiskey. Hartwell, a telegraph operator, testified that the freight train came from Louisville and "this cutter was in one of the cars of that train that came from Louisville." This constitutes the entire evidence upon the point and plainly establishes the interstate character of the shipment. But this is not enough. It is necessary to show further that "the employee at the time of the injury [was] engaged in interstate transportation or in work so closely related to it as to be practically a part of it." Shanks v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 239 U. S. 556, 558. There is a preliminary dispute as to whether Burtch stood in the relation of employee at the time of the injury, and this we first consider. The testimony shows that Burtch was not regularly employed but that he engaged in this particular work at the request of the train conductor, because it was necessary to unload the cutter and the train crew was unable to do so without help. The evidence tends to show that the conductor, in making the request, followed a long-standing practice to call upon bystanders to assist in unloading heavy freight. These facts, either undisputed or established by the verdict of the jury under appropriate instructions, are ample to sustain the conclusion reached below that there was an exigency which authorized the conductor to employ out Opinion of the Court. 263 U.S. side assistance and that Burtch, for the time being, occupied the relation of employee to the company. See, for example, Marks v. Railway Co., 146 N. Y. 181, 189-190; Fox v. Chicago, St. P. & K. C. Ry. Co., 86 Iowa, 368, 373; Haluptzok v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 55 Minn. 446, 450; Maxson v. Case Threshing Machine Co., 81 Neb. 546, 550; Aga v. Harbach, 127 Iowa, 144. The train upon arrival at Commiskey drew in upon a sidetrack where the cutter was unloaded and the train then proceeded on its way. It was while assisting in this work that Burtch sustained the injury sued for. It is too plain to require discussion that the loading or unloading of an interstate shipment by the employees of a carrier is so closely related to interstate transportation as to be practically a part of it, and it follows that the facts fully satisfy the test laid down in the Shanks Case, supra. It appears that Burtch was interested in the cutter as part owner and it is contended that in complying with the request of the conductor he assumed all responsibility because, in doing so, he simply discharged a duty imposed by a rule filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission, requiring owners of heavy freight, under stated circumstances, to unload it. The evidence, however, not only tends to show that conditions requiring compliance with the rule were absent, but the point is immaterial in view of the finding of the jury to the effect that Burtch assisted in the work not as owner but in the capacity of an employee. Observance of the rule in question is required only to prevent discrimination among shippers. It has nothing to do with the interrelations of the carrier and its employees. Moreover, the failure to enforce the rule, if such there was, constituted no part of the causal sequence of events. Such failure would be merely an attendant circumstance, neither causing nor contributing to cause the injury, which, on the contrary, came about as the result of physi cal facts and conditions wholly apart therefrom. If, therefore, a violation of the rule be assumed it would not avail to relieve the company from a liability which would otherwise exist. See Moran v. Dickinson, 204 Mass. 559, 562; Newcomb v. Boston Protective Department, 146 Mass. 596; Currelli v. Jackson, 77 Conn. 115, 122. Upon the facts now disclosed by the record the case is one arising under and governed by the Federal Employers' Liability Act and in that view it should have been submitted to the jury. The judgment of the State Supreme Court is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Reversed. LACOSTE ET AL. v. DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA. No. 65. Argued October 11, 1923-Decided January 7, 1924. 1. By right of ownership, and in the exercise of police power, a State may regulate the taking of wild animals within its borders, their subsequent use, and the property rights that may be acquired in them. P. 549. 2. The question whether a state law interferes with or burdens interstate commerce, is determined here with regard to the substance of the law; its form, or its characterization by the state legislature or courts, do not necessarily control. P. 550. 3. In the exertion of its police power to protect wild animals for the common benefit, a State may require payment of a tax upon their skins or hides as a condition precedent to transfer of its title to the dealer paying the tax. Id. 4. The fact that such skins or hides are intended to be shipped out of the State without preliminary manufacture does not prevent their taxation by the State while in the hands of dealers and before they move in interstate commerce. P. 551. Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517. 5. Nor does the fact that the law, for certainty of execution, taxes the hides or skins in the hands of the dealer who ships them out 74308-24-35 of the State, or buys them for that purpose or to sell them for manufacture within the State, rather than taxing them in the hands of the trapper or buyer from whom the dealer procures them, constitute it an interference with interstate commerce. P. 551. 6. A law imposing such a tax does not violate due process of law by delegating to an administrative body the authority to ascertain the prices of skins and hides paid by the dealer, determine the time and manner in which the tax shall be paid, and adopt and enforce reasonable rules and regulations not contrary to the act, in relation to the collection of the tax. Id. 7. Wild animals taken and possessed with the permission of a State, upon prescribed conditions, may reasonably be distinguished from other classes of property, so that their skins and bodies may be taxed to dealers therein, consistently with equal protection of the laws, without imposing similar taxes on other kinds of property belonging to merchants. P. 552. 8. A State has great latitude in choosing the means for protecting wild life within its borders. Id. 151 La. 909, affirmed. ERROR to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Louisiana which affirmed a judgment dismissing a suit brought by Lacoste et al., to enjoin the State Department of Conservation from enforcing payment of a severance tax. Mr. Morris B. Redmann and Mr. Edwin T. Merrick, with whom Mr. Ralph J. Schwarz was on the brief, for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Paul A. Sompayrac, Assistant Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, with whom Mr. A. V. Coco, Attorney General, was on the brief, for defendant in error. Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court. Plaintiffs in error are severally engaged in Louisiana in the business of buying, selling, importing, exporting and dealing in hides, skins and furs, some of which come from wild furbearing animals and alligators in that 545 Opinion of the Court. State. They brought this suit in the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans to enjoin the defendant in error from enforcing the payment of a severance tax levied by Act 135 of the General Assembly of Louisiana, 1920.1 By that act, all wild furbearing animals and alligators in the State, and their skins, are declared to be the property of the State until the severance tax thereon shall have been paid. A dealer is defined to be one who buys such 1 The scope and substance of the act are indicated by its title, which is as follows: AN ACT -Declaring the wild furbearing animals and alligators of this State to be the property of the State, and the skins taken from such animals to be the property of the State until there shall have been paid to the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Conservation, the severance tax levied thereon by the provision of this Act; levying an annual license tax on persons, firms, corporations or associations of persons engaged in the buying of hides and skins taken from wild furbearing animals and alligators, and prohibiting the conduct of such business without such license; levying a severance tax of two (2c) cents on the dollar of and on the value of the hides and skins taken from the wild furbearing animals and alligators of this State; fixing the time when, by whom, and under what conditions such severance tax shall be paid; defining the time and making an open season for the trapping of all furbearing animals and the taking and killing of alligators in this State; to allow licensed trappers to hunt wild game without additional license; to prohibit persons, firms, corporations, or associations from shipping or selling hides or skins taken from wild furbearing animals or alligators of this State unless said severance tax is paid thereon; requiring all persons dealing in hides and skins taken from wild furbearing animals and alligators of this State to keep record of all receipts and sales of said hides and skins and to make reports of same to the Department of Conservation; to define trappers, fur dealers, fur buyers, resident and non-resident; to authorize the Department of Conservation to adopt rules and regulations providing for the collecting of the severance tax and licenses herein imposed and regulating the handling and disposition of all hides and skins of furbearing animals and alligators; to provide penalties for the violation of this Act and to repeal all conflicting laws. |