Respondents argued that the law should be construed to mean that Illinois may not regulate subjects in any related area, even though the scope of federal regulation is not as broad as the regulatory scheme of the state and even though there is or may be no necessary conflict between what the state agency and the federal agency do.

Townsend v. Yeomans, 301 U.S. 441; Kelly v. Washington, 302 U.S. 1; South Carolina State Highway Dept.

The amendments to § 6 and § 29, read in light of the Committee Reports, say to us in plain terms that a licensee under the Federal Act can do business "without regard to State acts"; that the matters regulated by the Federal Act cannot be regulated by the States; that, on those matters, a federal licensee (so far as his interstate or foreign commerce activities are concerned) is subject to regulation by one agency and by one agency alone.

[Footnote 12] That is to say, Congress did more than make the Federal Act paramount over state law in the event of conflict.

It remedied the difficulties which had been encountered in the Act's administration by terminating the dual system of regulation.

By that test each of the nine matters we have listed is beyond the reach of the Illinois Commission since on each one Congress has declared its policy in the Warehouse Act.