If the interstate movement has begun, it may be regarded as continuing, so as to maintain the immunity of the property from state taxation, despite temporary interruptions due to the necessities of the journey or for the purpose of safety and convenience in the course of the movement.

If the interruptions are only to promote the safe or convenient transit, then the continuity of the interstate trip is not broken.*** In other words, in such cases interstate continuity of transit is to be determined by a consideration of the various factors of the situation.

“The interstate commerce clause... does not give immunity to movable property from local taxation which is not discriminative unless it is in actual continuous transit in interstate commerce. When it is shipped by a common carrier from one state to another, in the course of such an uninterrupted journey, it is clearly immune. The doubt arises when there are interruptions in …

Chief among these are the intention of the owner, the control he retains to change destination, the agency by which the transit is effected, the actual continuity of the transportation, and the occasion or purpose of the interruption.

—it was held that logs being floated down the West river in Vermont on a continuous movement on the waters of the West and Connecticut rivers to Hinsdale, NH, were not taxable at Brattleboro, Vt., an intermediate point, though detained for a considerable time by a boom at Brattleboro to await subsidence of high water in the Connecticut river, since the interruption was …

—logs being floated to another state remain in interstate commerce though their movement is temporarily halted by the river freezing over

In fact, because the Supreme Court between 1919 and 1939 continued to define interstate commerce more broadly than merely as commerce crossing state lines,

We must look at the facts of each case and will consider the owner's intention, the owner's ability to change destination, the agency or method of transportation, the actual continuity of the journey, and the purpose of the interruption.

The mere power of the owner to divert the shipment already started does not take it out of interstate commerce if the other facts show that the journey has already begun in good faith and temporary interruption of the passage is reasonable and in furtherance of the intended transportation, as in the Champlain case

—finding continuity of transit when logs shipped interstate stopped due to an impasse created by the frozen river