FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243  
244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   >>   >|  
ocal shipments to be furnished on demand, were held to be invalid.[806] In the first brace of decisions, the application of the local regulation to interstate commerce was found not to be "unduly" burdensome; in the second brace the contrary conclusion was reached. SAFETY AND OTHER REGULATIONS A class of regulations as to which the Court has exhibited marked tolerance although they "incidentally" embrace interstate transportation within their operation are those which purport to be in furtherance of "public safety."[807] The leading case is Smith _v._ Alabama,[808] in which the Court held it to be within the police power of the State to require locomotive engineers to be examined and licensed, and to enforce this requirement until Congress should decree otherwise in the case of an engineer employed exclusively in interstate transportation. Also upheld as applicable to interstate trains were a statute which forbade the heating of passenger cars by stoves;[809] a municipal ordinance restricting the speed of trains within city limits;[810] the order of a public utility commission requiring the elimination of grade crossings;[811] a statute requiring electric headlights of a specified minimum capacity;[812] a statute requiring three brakemen on freight trains of over twenty-five cars.[813] In the last case the Court admitted that "under the evidence," there was "some room for controversy" as to whether the statute was necessary, but thought it "not so unreasonable as to justify the Court in adjudging it" to be "merely an arbitrary exercise of power" and "not germane" to objects which the State was entitled to accomplish.[814] And in 1943 the Court sustained, though again in somewhat doubtful terms, the order of a State railroad commission requiring a terminal railroad which served both interstate and local commerce to provide caboose cars for its employees.[815] At times, indeed, the Court has made surprising concession to local views that had nothing to do with safety. Hennington _v._ Georgia,[816] decided in 1896, where was sustained a Georgia statute forbidding freight trains to run on Sunday, is perhaps the supreme example. Whether such an act would pass muster today is doubtful. And earlier statutes reinforcing the legal liability of railroads as common carriers and the carriers of passengers were sustained in the absence of legislation by Congress.[817] INVALID STATE REGULATIONS "The principle that, witho
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243  
244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

interstate

 

statute

 

trains

 

requiring

 
sustained
 
commission
 

transportation

 

public

 

safety

 

Georgia


carriers

 
commerce
 

doubtful

 

railroad

 
freight
 

REGULATIONS

 
Congress
 
accomplish
 
terminal
 

INVALID


exercise

 

controversy

 
admitted
 

evidence

 

thought

 
arbitrary
 

served

 

germane

 
objects
 
adjudging

unreasonable
 

principle

 
justify
 
entitled
 

legislation

 

supreme

 

common

 

Whether

 
Sunday
 

passengers


forbidding

 
statutes
 

reinforcing

 

liability

 

earlier

 

muster

 

decided

 

railroads

 

provide

 

caboose