Слике страница

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

in a state police statute is inclusive of natural persons operating a railroad and that the statute is not unconstitutional as denying equal protection of the law to railroad corporations because it does not include natural persons, this court concurs in that view.

A state police statute requiring railroad companies to use a specified safety device is not unconstitutional as denying equal protection of the laws because it does not affect receivers operating railroads; in view of the temporary and special character of a receiver's management, the classification is reasonable and proper.

In the absence of legislation by Congress, the States may exercise their powers to secure safety in the physical operation of railroad trains within their territory, even though such trains are used in interstate

234 U. S.


In regulating interstate trains as to matters in regard to which Congress has not acted, a State may not make arbitrary requirements as to safety devices; but its requirements are not invalid as interfering with interstate commerce because another State, in the exercise of the same power, has imposed, or may impose, a different requirement. Congress may, whenever it pleases, make the rule and establish the

standard to be observed on interstate highways.

None of the safety appliance statutes enacted by Congress relate to or regulate locomotive headlights.

The intent of Congress to supersede the exercise of the police power of the States in respect to a subject on which it has not acted cannot be inferred merely from the fact that such subject has been investigated under its authority.

The statute of Georgia of 1908, Civil Code, §§ 2697, 2698, requiring railroad companies to use locomotive headlights of specified form and power, is not unconstitutional either as a denial of equal protection of the law, as deprivation of property without due process of law, or as an interference with interstate commerce.

135 Georgia, 545, affirmed.

THE facts, which involve the constitutionality of the Locomotive Headlight Law of Georgia, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Henry L. Stone, with whom Mr. Alfred P. Thom, Mr. Alexander Hamilton and Mr. Robert C. Alston were on the brief, for plaintiff in error:

The act known as the Georgia Headlight Law is viola

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

tive of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Addyston Pipe Co. v. United States, 175 U. S. 211; Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578, 589; Baxendale v. Railway Co., 5 C. R. (N. S.) 336; Bement v. National Harrow Co., 186 U. S. 70; Bonnett v. Vallier, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 492; Bracewell Coal Co. v. People, 147 Illinois, 66; C. H. & D. R. Co. v. Bowling Green, 41 L. R. A. (Ohio) 422; Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Connersville, 37 L. R. A. (Ind.) 175; Cleveland v. Clements Bros. Co., 59 L. R. A. (Ohio) 775; Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U. S. 223; Elliott on Railroads, 2d ed., § 668; Id., Vol. 2, Note, p. 24; Harbison v. Knoxville Iron Co., 103 Tennessee, 421; Health Department v. Trinity Church, 145 N. Y. 32, 41; Houston & Tex. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Mayes, 201 U. S. 321, 329; Hollister v. Benedict Mfg. Co., 113 U. S. 59; Int. Com. Comm. v. Balt. & Ohio R. R. Co., 43 Fed. Rep. 52; Int. Com. Comm. v. Chicago G. West. Ry., 209 U. S. 108; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133; McLean v. Arkansas, 211 U. S. 547; Mo. Pac. R. Co. v. Humes, 115 U. S. 512; Nat. Phonograph Co. v. Sehlegel, 128 Fed. Rep. 733; Ritchie v. People, 154 Illinois, 98, 29 L. R. A. 79; Shelbyville v. C., C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 146 Indiana, 66; United States v. Palmer, 128 U. S. 262, 271; Welch v. Swasey, 214 U. S. 105; Wisconsin v. Kreutzberg, 58 L. R. A. 748, 751.

The act violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards, 183 U. S. 79; Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U. S. 223; Gulf Col. & S. Fe R'y Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150; Harding v. People, 43 N. E. Rep. 624; Henderson v. New York, 92 U. S. 259; Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45; Los Angeles v. Hollywood Cemetery, 57 Pac. Rep. 153; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356.

The act is unenforcible and void under the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution and because Congress by its legislation has preëmpted and occupied the field of regulation of the same subject-matter.

234 U.S.

234 U. S.

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

The act interferes with and places a burden upon interstate commerce. Adams Exp. Co. v. Kentucky, 214 U. S. 218, 223; Atl. Coast Line v. Wharton, 207 U. S. 328, 334; Bowman v. C. & N. W. R. Co., 125 U. S. 465; Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 12 How. 299; Covington Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U. S. 204, 209; Hall v. DeCuir, 95 U. S. 485; Henderson v. New York, 92 U. S. 259; Un. Pac. Ry. v. Chic., R. I. & Pac. Ry., 163 U. S. 564; Rev. Stat., § 5258; Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275; West. Un. Tel. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 1.

Congress by its legislation has preempted and occupied the field of regulation of the same subject-matter, to the exclusion of state legislation. See acts of March 2, 1893, known as the Safety Appliance Act, 27 Stat. 531; March 2, 1903, amending Safety Appliance Act, 32 Stat. 943; May 27, 1908, authorizing investigations for safety of railway operation, 35 Stat. 324, c. 200; April 14, 1910, supplemental of the Safety Appliance Act, 36 Stat. 298, c. 160; May 6, 1910, reports of accidents, 36 Stat. 350, c. 208; May 30, 1908, as to ash pans, 35 Stat. 476; February 17, 1911, see also the statutes relating to boilers and appurtenances, and to the hours of service. See also the Employers' Liability Act, and the act of March 4, 1911, as to investigations, 36 Stat. c. 285, § 1, p. 1397, and the Act to Regulate Commerce, § 1; Adams Exp. Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491; Block Signal Board's Final Report to Int. Com. Comm., June 29, 1912, pp. 14–15; Chic., B. & Q. R'y v. Miller, 226 U. S. 513; Chic., St. P., M. & O. Ry. v. Latta, 226 U. S. 519; Chic., R. I. & Pac. R'y v. Hardwick Elevator Co., 226 U. S. 426; Chic., R. I. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Arkansas, 219 U. S. 453, 466; Employers' Liability Cases, 223 U. S. 1, 55; Interstate Commerce Commission's Rules, promulgated March 13, 1911; Twentyfourth Ann. Rep. to Congress, December 21, 1910, pp. 44-47, and pp. 173-189; Johnson v. So. Pac. Co., 196 U. S. 1; Mich. Cent. R. Co. v. Vreeland, 227 U. S.

Argument for Defendant in Error.

59; N. Y., N. H. & H. R. Co. v. New York, 165 U. S. 628, 632; N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co. v. Hudson County, 227 U. S. 248; Nor. Pac. R'y v. Washington, 222 U. S. 370; Southern Ry. Co. v. United States, 222 U. S. 20; Southern R'y Co. v. Reid, 222 U. S. 424; Southern Ry. Co. v. Reid & Beam, 222 U. S. 444; B. & O. R. Co. v. Indiana Railroad Commission, 196 Fed. Rep. 690, 699.

The brief contains a summary of the Headlight Laws in sixteen States.

234 U.S.

Mr. Thomas S. Felder, Attorney General of the State of Georgia, for defendant in error:

Statutes of States of the character of the one under consideration, being designed for the protection of the property and lives of the people, are not unconstitutional because they may in a manner affect interstate commerce, nor do they violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution because an expense may be incurred in obeying their regulations. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co. v. New York, 165 U. S. 628; Mo. Pac. Ry. v. Larabee Mills, 211 U. S. 622; Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U. S. 299; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465; N. Y. & N. E. R. R. Co. v. Briston, 151 U. S. 567; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R. v. Arkansas, 219 U. S. 453; Savage v. Jones, 225 U. S. 501; Southern Ry. Co. v. King, 217 U. S. 524; Chic., B. & Q. R. Co. v. Illinois, 200 U. S. 561; Reid v. Colorado, 187 U. S. 137; Asbell v. Kansas, 209 U. S. 251; Chic., M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Solan, 169 U. S. 133; Mo. Pacific Ry. v. Humes, 115 U. S. 512; N. C. & St. L. v. Alabama, 128 U. S. 96.

The act does not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution because it excepts from its operations tram, mill, and lumber roads. This would seem to be a wise and reasonable classification. Chic., R. I. & Pac. R. Co. v. Kansas, 219 U. S. 453; New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. New York, supra; People v. New York &c., 56 Hun,

234 U. S.

Argument for Defendant in Error.

409; Missouri &c. R. Co. v. State, 121 S. W. Rep. 930 (Ark.); Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Railroad Com'rs, 90 N. E. Rep. 1011.

The contention that the act exempts from its operations railroads operated by receivers is not tenable. The act does not by its terms exempt receivers of railroads. A court would order its officer to comply with the terms of the statute and equip the locomotives with the headlights required.

The statute does not interfere with the right of the railroad company to contract. New York & New England R. Co. v. Bristol, 151 U. S. 556, 567; McGehee on Due Process of Law, 345.

It is not a taking of property without due process of law, in contemplation of this provision of the Constitution, because the railroad, in order to comply with the statute, would have to discard the headlights used by it, which it considers are good headlights, and to replace the same with the headlights required under the act. All property is held subject to the police regulations of the State. Chi., B. & Q. R. Co. v. Illinois, 200 U. S. 561; New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. New York, 165 U. S. 628; Bacon v. B. & M. R. Co., 76 Atl. Rep. 128 (Vt.); Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Humes, 115 U. S. 512.

The legislature may prescribe in detail the kind of light which should be used, and may also designate the size of the reflector as well as the number of watts that should be used. The intensity of an electric light is measured by the watt, and the reflector increases the breadth and intensity of the light, as was well known to the legislature. Chesapeake &c. v. Manning, 186 U. S. 238; Freund on Police Power, 34; Atchison &c. R. R. Co. v. Matthews, 174 U. S. 96, 102.

This statute is in the interest of the public and its wisdom cannot be questioned by the courts. The public

« ПретходнаНастави »