turn upon the character of the use of the wharf, whether it is public or private.

The argument upon the part of plaintiff is in substance this: True, defendant has erected a wharf, which is not in fact intended or used as the terminus of its road at Pensacola, adequate yards and depots having been furnished by the defendant for all goods and passengers destined to Pensacola only; but the wharf has been erected to enable defendant to more conveniently carry out contracts for transportation beyond its own line, which it was not compelled to make, and which it could carry out by such agencies as it chose; but the plaintiff, having goods destined for points outside of Florida, insists upon its right to use the road of defendant, not to carry these goods to Pensacola, but to defendant's wharf, so that plaintiff may there transfer them into vessels which it has arranged to take them; in order to do this it is necessary that defendant be compelled to share its possession of its own wharf, with the managers of these other vessels; for this possession plaintiff is prepared to make reasonable compensation. This right on the part of the plaintiff is urged as the result of the action of defendant in permitting the use of the wharf as stated in the plea. By such use it is contended that the defendant in effect dedicated the wharf to the public, or at least has granted to the public an interest in the use of the wharf.

We are of opinion that the wharf was not a public one, but that it was a mere facility, erected by and belonging to defendant, and used by it, in connection with that part of its road forming an extension from its regular depot and yards. in Pensacola, to the wharf, for the purpose of more conveniently procuring the transportation of goods beyond its own line, and that defendant need not share such facility with the public or with any carriers other than those it chose for the purpose of effecting such further transportation.

Neither the public nor the plaintiff had such an interest in the wharf as would give to either the right to demand its use on payment of reasonable hire. Nor was the wharf a depot

or place of storage of the defendant for goods, to be delivered at or taken from the city of Pensacola for transportation by rail. The defendant had adequate depots and yards in that. city for the proper storage of all merchandise committed to it for delivery at Pensacola, or there received, to be transported therefrom by defendant. All consignees of goods at Pensacola had equal facilities for obtaining them there. Although not bound originally to carry goods beyond its own terminus at Pensacola, yet the defendant might agree to do so, and it had the right, when duly authorized by the proper authorities, to construct facilities to enable it to continue such transportation beyond the line of its railroad, by such other carriers as it might agree with. The city or state authorities in granting the right to erect such facilities might, of course, have attached such conditions as they thought wise, but in their absence neither the public nor this plaintiff, as the owner of goods, would have the right, on this state of facts, to go to the wharf with vessels for the purpose of continuing transportation of goods in competition with the defendant. The defendant never became a common carrier, as to this wharf, in the sense that it was bound to accord to the public or to plaintiff a right to use it upon payment of compensation. We do not see that the plaintiff had any right even to demand that the defendant should carry plaintiff's goods on the rails defendant had laid down to reach the wharf from its depot or yards at Pensacola, the terminus of its road at that city. Those rails were only laid for the purpose of reaching the wharf, in order that defendant might carry goods to it which it had undertaken to forward, by itself or by vessels it had arranged with, beyond its line. Very likely it would be bound to carry plaintiff's goods on this part of its rails, for the same purpose and on the same terms it did for others, viz., in order that it might itself, or through others it had contracted with, forward the goods beyond its own line. But plaintiff demands more than this; it demands that defendant shall carry plaintiff's goods over its rails thus laid, in order that plaintiff may itself forward its

goods by vessels of its own selection, and that defendant shall surrender possession of enough of its wharf to enable plaintiff to do so.

That the defendant had the right to choose its own agencies, and grant to them the exclusive privilege of access to its own wharf, which it built only for the purpose of continuing the transportation of goods which it had transported to the end of its line, has in effect been decided by this court. Atchison &c. R. R. Co. v. Denver & New Orleans R. R. Co., 110 U. S. 667. In that case it was held that, although at common law the common carrier was not bound to carry beyond its own lines, yet it might contract to do so, and in the absence of statutory regulations prohibiting it the carrier might determine for itself what agencies it would employ to continue the transportation, and it was not bound to enter into agreements for each transportation with another because it had done so with one common carrier. Having the right, as the authorities prove, to decide what agencies it would employ for the purpose of transporting goods beyond its own line, and not being bound to enter into any contracts or arrangements with one person or carrier because it had so contracted or arranged with another, we think it follows that defendant was not obliged to permit the public to have access to its wharf, built for the purpose stated, simply because it granted such permission to those with whom it made arrangements of the kind set forth in the plea. While refusing to make any agreement with defendant for the further transportation of plaintiff's goods beyond Pensacola, plaintiff nevertheless claims a right to use the wharf erected by defendant for its own purpose, as already stated. This cannot be sustained. The principle stated in the above case is in substance recognized in Gulf &c. Ry. Co. v. Miami S. S. Co., 86 Fed. Rep. 407; Little Rock &c. Ry. Co. v. St. Louis &c. Ry. Co., 63 Fed. Rep. 775, affirming same case in 59 Fed. Rep. 400. The two last cases involved the construction of the Interstate Commerce Act, but they affirm the principle that a common carrier may agree with

VOL. CXCVIII-32

such other carrier as it may choose, to forward beyond its own line the goods which it had transported to its own terminus. See also Central Stock Yards Co. v. L. & N. Railway Co., 192 U. S. 568, 571; Kentucky &c. Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 37 Fed. Rep. 567; Oregon &c. Co. v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co., 51 Fed. Rep. 465; Ilwaco &c. Co. v. Oregon &c. Co., 57 Fed. Rep. 673.

The cases cited did not involve rights of parties to a wharf situated in a harbor, but we think that the right of one carrier to enter into arrangements with another carrier to forward its goods, and to refuse to do so with others, or to permit such others to avail themselves of the facilities constructed by the original carrier for that purpose, is not altered because the facility so constructed by it happens to be a wharf in the harbor of a city instead of some structure on land. The wharf may be a private one, and its owner may permit those only to have access to it that it may choose. A private wharf may exist on the shores of a navigable river or lake, or in a harbor of a city from which access is obtained directly to the sea. Dutton v. Strong, 1 Black, 23, 32.

It is to be remembered that the wharf was not in strictness the terminus of defendant for unloading its goods for Pensacola. The defendant had other depots and yards for that purpose. The main use of the wharf was only for the purpose of sending the goods brought by defendant, to other ports as a continuation of their carriage beyond the lines of the defendant's road. How much space, if any, it might devote to other vessels, with the managers of which it might make special arrangements, would naturally be for the defendant to decide, as also the particular terms of such arrangements. The conveniences of the wharf are, of course, necessarily limited.

It is well said by counsel for defendant in their brief that "The very nature of a wharf and its inadequacy to meet the demands of every incoming vessel necessitates that its use should be exclusively for those with whom the carrier enters into arrangements. The carrier has a right to select a strong

connection instead of a weak one, one that will give assurance of permanent business, instead of one that can offer only occasional shipment. If the free use is incompatible with the certain regular use by the steamer, or lines of steamers, with which the carrier is aligned, it is too clear for further reasoning that such carrier has the right to accept the latter and thereby exclude the former."

The reasons for permitting such use of the wharf are manifold. Without it the commerce of the country in the large cities would be cramped, if not very greatly damaged, by the uncertainty of finding quarters for the regular and swift unloading and loading of the vessels. But the capacity of a wharf is necessarily limited, and if the wharf were open to all comers in their turn there could be no certainty as to any particular vessels being able to reach the wharf at any definite time, and consequently there would be a like uncertainty as to when such vessel would be able to depart with its load. One, unexpected, so-called, tramp vessel might, by arriving a few hours in advance, take possession of all that was left of the wharf for the purpose of loading, and thus prevent the regular steamer, arriving a little later, from coming to the dock, unloading its cargo, and then loading with goods from the railroad. In this way there would be confusion in time and in the possession of the wharf by the different vessels, and its value for the purpose for which it was erected would be greatly reduced, if not wholly destroyed.

The principle herein recognized has also been affirmed by this court in what are known as the Express Co. Cases, 117 U. S. 1, where it was held (because the facilities were necessarily limited) that railroad companies had the right to contract with particular express companies for the transportation of the traffic of the latter over the lines of their railroads, and that the railroad company was not bound to transport the traffic of independent express companies over its lines in the same manner in which it transported the traffic of the particular companies contracted with; in other words, that the railroad