— Articles 4497 to 4500, inclusive, merely prescribe safeguards and precautions foreseen and proper to prevent by anticipation the wrongs and injuries incident to the failure or refusal of the initial carrier to furnish cars upon seasonable application made, which after they have been inflicted, the State has power to redress and punish, and are strictly within the scope of the local law; and so long as Congress had not legislated upon the particular subject, to be regarded as in aid of interstate commerce and a rightful exercise of the police power of the State to regulate the relative rights and duties of all persons and corporations within its limits. Houston T. C. R. R. Co. v. Mayes, 11 Texas Ct. Rep., 69, 372; Armstrong v. Railway Co., 92 Tex. 121; Texas P. Ry. Co. v. Walker, 25 Texas Civ. App. 216[ 25 Tex. Civ. App. 216], 60 S.W. 797; Gulf, C. S. F. Ry. Co. v. Dwyer, 75 Tex. 581; Chicago, M. St. P. Ry. Co. v. Solan, 169 U.S. 133; Richmond A. Ry. Co. v. R. A. Patterson Tobacco Co., 169 U.S. 311; Missouri, K. T. Ry. Co. v. McCann, 174 U.S. 580; Western U. T. Co. v. Conn. Publishing Co., 181 U.S. 92. The character of interstate commerce can not attach to railroad cars until they are loaded within the State with property to be shipped by a continuous trip to a point beyond the limit of the State, and articles 4497 to 4500, Revised Statutes, providing a penalty for failure to furnish cars, whether the proposed shipment be intrastate or interstate, are in no sense an attempt to regulate interstate commerce.