« ForrigeFortsett »
linson, 160 U. S. 231 (40: 406), and Baker v. appropriate legislation to protect the publle
Rev. Stat. 1890, § 3220) requiring each
railroad company whose road is operated
within the state to cause three, each way, of forcing the sentence of a fine, and thus the
its regular trains carrying passengers, if so operations of the Federal government might
many are run daily, Sundays excepted. to (285]in the meantime be *obstructed. This is
stop at a station, city, or village containing such a case. In Ex parte Royall it was over 3,000 inhabitants, long enough to receive stated by Mr. Justice Harlan, in naming and let off passengers, is for the public consome of the exceptions to the general rule venience, and is not a regulation of interthere laid down, that “when the petitioner
state commerce and unconstitutional when ap is in custody by state authority for an act
plied to the trains of a corporation of the done or omitted to be done in pursuance of a
state engaged in such commerce. law of the United States, or of an order, proc
5. Such railroad accepted its charter subject
to the condition that it would conform to sueb ess, or decree of a court or judge thereof;
reasonable state regulations as were for the or where, being a subject or citizen of a for
public interest and not in violation of the sueign state, and domiciled therein, he is in
preme law of the land. custody, under like authority, for an act
6. State legislation relating to commerce is done or omitted under any alleged right, title, not to be deemed a regulation of interstate authority, privilege, protection, or exemp- commerce simply because it may, to some er. tion claimed under the commission or order tent or under some circumstances, affect such or sanction of any foreign state, or under color thereof, the validity and effect whereof 7. U. S. Rev. Stat. § 5258, authorizing railroad depend upon the law of nations,-in such companies to carry government supplies. and like cases of urgency, involving the au
mails, etc.. from one state to another, does thority and operations of the general govern
not prevent the state from enacting such reg.
ulations, with respect, at least, to a railroad ment, or the obligations of this country to or
corporation of its own creation, as are not du
rected against interstate commerce, and ae
ary 20, 1899. must be affirmed.
'N ERROR to the Supreme Court of the
that court affirming the judgment of the Cir.
pleas of said county against LAKE SHORE & MICHIGAN SOUTHERN the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern RAILWAY COMPANY, Piff. in Err., Railway Company for the amount of the
penalty prescribed by Ohio Rev. Stat. $ STATE OF OHIO, eo rel. GEORGE L. 3320, requiring railroad companies to stop LAWRENCE.
three, each way, of its regular passenger
trains, if so many are run daily, Sundays (See 8. C. Reporter's ed. 285-338.) excepted, at a station, city, or village, of over
3,000 inhabitants, to receive and let off passPower of state to provide for the public con- engers,-in an action brought by the State
venience and public good-power of Con- of Ohio ex rel. George L. Lawrence for the
Mr. W. H. Polbamus for defendant in 1. The power exists in each state by appro- error.
priate enactments not forbidden by its own
Ohio, to recover the penalty prescribed by 2. When Congress acts with reference to a section 3320 of the Revised Statutes of that matter confided to it by the Federal Consti
state. tution, then its statutes displace all state regulations touching that matter.
That section is a part of a chapter relating 8. The power of the state by appropriate leg
to railroad companies, as amended by islation to provide for the public convenience the act of April 13th, 1889, provides : stands upon the same grounds as its power by “Each company shall cause three, each
way, of its regular trains carrying passen- | engers who had paid through fare, and
through said states to the city
which a forfeiture occurs under the provi. ly through West Cleveland on the 9th day of sions of this section the company whose October, 1890, were a limited express train
agent or employee caused or permitted such having two baggage and express cars, one
The case was removed for trial into the express cars, four passenger coaches, and one
sleepers, from Chicago to New York; a train
The plaintiff Lawrence is a resident of Chicago to Buffalo; and a train having three
The average time required to stop a train
law, that within the meaning of the Consti.
vested in Congress, the statute of Ohio in its
ular train each way, carrying passengers state, may, if it so wills, deprive the people ówhich were not engaged in interstate com- along its line in Ohio of the benefits of inter
merce, or that did not have upon them pagg. 'state communication by its railroad: in
short, that the company, if it saw fit to do the subject, state legislation interrupting in80, could, beyond the power of Ohio to pre terstate commerce even for a limited time vent it, refuse to stop within that state only, whatever might be its object and howtrains that started from points beyond its ever essential such legislation might be for linnits, or even trains starting in Ohio des- the comfort, peace, or safety of the people tined to places in other states.
of the state, was a regulation of interstate In the argument at the bar, as well as in commerce forbidden by the Constitution of the printed brief of counsel, reference was the United States. made to the numerous cases in this court ad. After observing that the argument in be judging that what are called the police pow- half of the defendant rested upon the erroers of the states were not surrendered to the neous assumption that the statute of Geor. general government when the Constitution gia was such a regulation of interstate comwas ordained, but remained with the several merce as was * forbidden by the Constitution[291) states of the t'nion. And it was asserted without reference to affirmative action by with much confidence that while regulations Congress, and not merely a statute enacted adopted by competent local authority in or- by the state under its police power, and der to protect or promote the public health, which, although in some degree affecting the public morals, or the public safety have interstate commerce, did not go beyond the been sustained where such regulations only necessities of the case, and therefore was incidentally affected commerce among the valid, at least until Congress intervened, states, the principles announced in former this court, upon review of the adjudged cases, adjudications condemn as repugnant to the said: “These authorities make it clear Constitution of the United States all local that the legislative enactments of the states, regulations that affect interstate commerce passed under their admitted police powers, in any degree, if established merely to sub- and having a real relation to the domes. serve the public convenience.
tic, peace, order, health, and safety of One of the cases cited in support of this their people, but which by their necessary position is Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U. S. operation, affect to some extent or for 299, 303, 308, 317, [41: 166, 169, 171, 174], a limited time the conduct of commerce which involved the validity of a statute of among the states, are yet noti invalid by
Georgia providing that "if any freight train force alone of the grant of power to Con. shall be run on any railroad in this state on gress to regulate such commerce; and, if not
the Sabbath Day (known as Sunday) the obnoxious to some other constitutional prosuperintendent of such railroad company, or vision or destructive of some right secured the officer having charge of the business of by the fundamental law, are to be respected that department of the railroad, shall be in the courts of the Union until they are liable for indictment for a misdemeanor in superseded and displaced by some act of Con. each county through which such trains shall gress passed in execution of the power grantpass, and on conviction shall be punished. ed to it by the Constitution. Local laws of
Provided, always, That whenever the character mentioned have their source any train on any railroad in this state, hav- in the powers which the states reserved and ing in such train one or more cars loaded never surrendered to Congress, of providing with live stock, which train shall be delayed for the public health, the public morals, and beyond schedule time, shall not be required the public safety, and are not, within the to lay over on the line of road or route meaning of the Constitution, and considered during Sunday, but may run on to the point in their own nature, regulations of interwhere, by due course of shipment or consign- state commerce simply because, for a limited ment, the next stock pen on the route may time or to a limited extent, they cover the be, where said animals may be fed and field occupied by those engaged in such comwatered, according to the facilities usually merce. The statute of Georgia is not diafforded for such transportation. And it rected against interstate commerce. It esshall be lawful for the freight trains on the tablishes a rule of civil conduct applicable different railroads in this state, running alike to all freight trains, domestic as well over said roads on Saturday night, to run as interstate. It applies to the transportathrough to destination: Provided, The time tion of interstate freight the same rule pre of arrival, according to the schedule by which cisely that it applies to the transportation the train or trains started on the trip, shall of domestic freight.” Again: "We are of not be later than eight o'clock on Sunday opinion that such a law, although in a limmorning.". This court said: “The well-set- ited degree affecting interstate commerce, is tled rule is that if a statute purporting to not for that reason a needless intrusion uphave been enacted to protect the public on the domain of Federal jurisdiction, nor health, the public morals, or the public safe strictly a regulation of interstate commerce, ty, has no real or substantial relation to but, considered in its own nature, is an or. those objects, or is a palpable invasion of dinary police regulation designed to secure rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the well-being and to promote the general the duty of courts to so adjudge, and thereby welfare of the people within the state by(292) give effect to the Constitution."
which it was established, and therefore not The contention in that case was that the invalid by force alone of the Constitution of running of railroad cars laden with inter- the United States." state freight was committed exclusively to It is insisted by counsel that these and the control and supervision of the national observations to the same effect in different government; and that, although Congress cases show that the police powers of the had not taken any affirmative action upon states, when exerted with reference to mat
ters more or less connected with interstate stures as dams, booms, piers, etc., should be commerce, are restricted in their exercise, used which are substantial obstructions to Bo far as the national Constitution is con. general navigation, and more or less so to cerned, to regulations pertaining to the rafts and barges. But to the legislature of health, morals, or safety of the public, and the state may be most appropriately confid. do not embrace regulations designed merely ed the authority to authorize these structo promote the public convenience.
tures where their use will do more good than This is an erroneous view of the adjudi. harm, and to impose such regulations and cations of this court. While cases to which limitations in their construction and use as counsel refer involved the validity of state will best reconcile and accommodate the in. laws having reference directly to the pub- terest of all concerned in the matter. And lic health, the public morals, or the pub- since the doctrine we have deduced from the lic safety, in no one of them was there any cases recognizes the right of Congress to inoccasion to determine whether the police terfere and control the matter whenever it powers of the states extended to regulations may deem it necessary to do so, the exercise incidentally affecting interstate commerce, of this limited power may all the more safely but which were designed only to promote the be confided to the local legislatures." public convenience or the general welfare. The same principles were announced in There are, however, numerous decisions by Escanaba Co. v. Chicago, 107 U. S. 678, 683 this court to the effect that the states may [27: 442, 445). That case involved the va. legislate with reference simply to the public lidity of a certain local ordinance regulating convenience, subject, of course, to the condi- the opening and closing of bridges over the tion that such legislation be not inconsistent Chicago river within the limits of the city with the national Constitution, nor with any of Chicago. That ordinance required the act of Congress passed in pursuance of that bridges to be closed at certain huurs of the instrument, nor in derogation of any right day, so as not to obstruct the passage over granted or secured by it. As the question them of vast numbers of operatives and now presented is one of great importance, it other people going to and from their respec. will be well to refer to some cases of the tive places of business. It was conceded latter class.
that by the closing of the bridges at those In Gilman v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall. 713,729 hours vessels were obstructed, in their use (18: 96, 101], which involved the validity of of the river. This court in that case said: à state enactment authorizing the construc- "The Chicago river and its branches must tion of a permanent bridge over the Schuyl- therefore be deemed navigable waters of the kill river within the limits of Philadelphia, United States, over which Congress under • and which bridge in fact interfered with the its commercial power may exercise control use of the river by vessels of a certain size to the extent necessary to protect, preserve, which had been long accustomed to navigate and improve their free navigation. But the it, the court said: "It must not be forgot- states have full power to regulate within ten that bridges, which are connecting parts their limits matters of internal police, inof turnpikes, streets, and railroads, are cluding in that general designation whatever means of commercial transportation as well will promote the peace, comfort, convenience, as navigable waters, and that the commerce and prosperity of their people. This power which passes over a bridge may be much embraces the construction of roads, canals,
greater than would ever be transported on and bridges, and the establishment of ferries, the water it obstructs. "It is for the munici- and it can generally be exercised more wise
pal power to weigh the considerations which ly by the states than by a distant authority: belong to the subject, and to decide which They are the first to see the importance of shall be preferred, and how far either shall such means of internal communication, and be made subservient to the other. The are more deeply concerned thon others in states have always exercised this power, and their wise management. Illinois is more from the nature and objects of the two sys- immediately affected by the bridges over the tems of government they must always con: Chicago river and its branches than any tinue to exercise it, subject, however, in all other state, and is more directly concerned cases, to the paramount authority of Con for the prosperity of the city of Chicago, for gress whenever the power of the states shall the convenience and comfort of its inhabi. be exerted within the sphere of the commer-tants, and the growth of its commerce. And cial power which belongs to the nation." nowhere could the power to control the
So, in Pound v. Turck, 95 U. S. 459, 464 bridges in that city, their construction, form [24: 525, 527], which was a case where ob- and strength, and the size of their draws, structions-piers and booms--had been and the manner and times of using them, be placed under the authority of the state of better vested than with the state or the ar. Wisconsin in the Chippewa river, one of the thorities of the city upon whom it has de navigable waters of the United States, it was volved that duty. When its power is exer. said: “There are within the state of Wis- cised so as to obstruct unnecessarily the nav. consin, and perhaps other states, many igation of the river or its branches. Con. small streams navigable for a short distance gress may interfere and remove the obstrucfrom their mouths in one of the great rivers tion. If the power of the state and that of of the country, by steamboats, but whose the Federal government come in conflict. the greatest value in water carriage is as outlets | latter must control and the former yield. to sawlogs, sawed lumber, coal, salt, etc. In This necessarily follows from the position order to develop their greatest utility in that given by the Constitution to legislation in regard, it is often essential that such struc. pursuance of it, as the supreme law of the 173 U. S. U. S., BOOR 43.
We think the statute in question is one of that class, and in the absence of any legislation by Congress the statute is a valid exercise of the power of the state over the subject."
land. But until Congress acts on the sub-
So, in Richmond & A. Railroad Co. v. R. A. Patterson Tobacco Co. 169 U. S. 311, 315 [42: 759, 761], it was adjudged that a stat (295) *In Cardwell v. American Bridge Company, ute of Virginia defining the obligations of 113 U. S. 205, 208 [28: 959, 960], it was held carriers who accepted for transportation that a statute of California authorizing a anything directed to points of destination bridge without a draw or opening for the beyond the termini of their own lines or passage of vessels to be constructed over a routes was not, in its application to internavigable water of the United States within state business, a regulation of interstate that state was not, in the absence of legisla-commerce within the meaning of the Constition by Congress, to be deemed repugnant to tution. This court said: "Of course, in a the commerce clause of the Constitution. latitudinarian sense any restriction as to The court referring to prior cases, said: "In the evidence of a contract relating to interthese cases the control of Congress over nav-state commerce may be said to be a limitaigable waters within the states so as to pre- tion on the contract itself. But this remote serve their free navigation under the com- effect, resulting from the lawful exercise by mercial clause of the Constitution, the power a state of its power to determine the form of the states within which they lie to au- in which contracts may be proved, does not thorize the construction of bridges over amount to a regulation of interstate comthem until Congress intervenes and super-merce." And the court cited in support of sedes their authority, and the right of pri- its conclusion the case of Chicago, M. & St. vate parties to interfere with their construc- P. Railway Co. v. Solan, 169 U. S. 133, 137 tion or continuance, have been fully consid- [42: 688, 692], which involved the validity ered, and we are entirely satisfied with the of state regulations as to the liability of soundness of the conclusions reached. They carriers of passengers, and in which it was recognize the full power of the states to regu- said: "They are not in themselves regulalate within their limits matters of inter- tions of interstate commerce, although they nal police, which embraces, among other control in some degree the conduct and liathings, the construction, repair, and main- bility of those engaged in such commerce. tenance of roads and bridges and the estab- So long as Congress has not legislated upon lishment of ferries; that the states are more the particular subject they are rather to be likely to appreciate the importance of these regarded as legislation in aid of such commeans of internal communication and to merce, and as a rightful exercise of the poprovide for their proper management than a lice power of the state to regulate the relagovernment at a distance; and that, as to tive rights and duties of all persons and corbridges over navigable streams, their power porations within its limits." is subordinate to that of Congress, as an act of the latter body is, by the Constitution, made the supreme law of the land; but that until Congress acts on the subject their power is plenary. When Congress acts directly with reference to the bridges authorized by the state, its will must control so far as may be necessary to secure the free navigation of the streams." The doctrines of this case were reaffirmed in Huse v. Glover, 119 U. S. 543 [30: 487].
Now, it is evident that these cases had no reference to the health, morals, or safety of the people of the state, but only to the pub- lic convenience. They recognized the fundamental principle that, outside of the field di rectly occupied by the general government under the powers granted to it by the Constitution, all questions arising within a state that relate to its internal order, or that involve the public convenience or the general good, are primarily for the determination of the state, and that its legislative enactments, relating to those subjects, and which are not inconsistent with the state Constitution, are to be respected and enforced in the courts of the Union if they do not by their operation directly entrench upon the authority of the United States or violate some right protected by the national Constitution. The power here referred to is, to use the words of Chief Justice Shaw, the power "to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the Constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the Commonwealth and of the subjects of the same." Com. v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53, 85. Mr. Cooley well said: "It cannot be doubted that there is ample power in the legislative department of the state to adopt all necessary legislation for the pur
In Western Union Telegraph Co. v. James, 162 U. S. 650, 662 [40: 1105, 1109], the question was presented whether a state enactment requiring telegraph companies with lines of wires wholly or partly within the state to receive telegrams, and on payment of the charges thereon to deliver them with due diligence, was not a regulation of interstate commerce when applied to interstate telegrams. We held that such enactments did not in any *just sense regulate interstate commerce. It was said in that case: "While it is vitally important that commerce between the states should be unembarrassed by vexatious state regulations regarding it, yet on the other hand there are many occasions where the police power of the state can be properly exercised to insure a faithful and prompt performance of duty within the limits of the state upon the part of those who are engaged in interstate commerce.