« 이전계속 »
In behalf of Maryland it was insisted that the appropriate means to prevent the introduction
If he prefers placing it in a public the people may be involved in its proper exer: magazine, it is because he stores it there, in bis cise, can be overborne by national regulations own opinion, more advantageously tban else of commerce, the former decisions of this court where. We are not sure that this may not be would seem to show that such laws of the classed among inspection laws. The removal States are valid, even where they affect com. or destruction of infectious or unsound arti. mercial intercourse among the States, until cles is undoubtedly an exercise of that power, displaced by federal legislation, or until they and forms an express exception to the prohibi. come in direct conflict with some Act of Contion we are considering. Indeed, the laws of gress. Such was the doctrine announced in the United States expressly recognize the health Wilson v. Blackbird Creek Marsh Co. 27 U. S. laws of a State." This, we understand to have 2 Pet. 250 [7: 414). That case involved the been a distinct readjudication that the police validity of an Act of the Legislature of Delapower, so far as it involves the public health, ware, authorizing a dam to be built across a the public morals, or the public safety, remains navigable stream, in which the tide ebbed and with the States, and is not overridden by the flowed, and in which there was a common and National Constitution,
public way in the nature of a highway. The In Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 9 Wheat. 211 court, speaking by Chief Justice Marshall, said: [0: 73), it was said by counsel that the Consti-) “The Act of Assembly, by which the plaintiffs tution does not confer the right of intercourse were authorized to construct their dam, shows between State and State, and that such right plainly that this is one of those many creeks, has its source in those laws whose authority is passing through a deep level marsh adjoining acknowledged by civilized man throughout the ihe Delaware, up which the tide flows for world. Chief Justice Marshall said: "This is some distance. The value of the property on true. The Constitution found it an existing its banks must be enhanced by excluding the right, and gave to Congress the power to reg water from the marsh, and the health of the ulate it." In the same case he said that inhabitants probably improved. Measures this power is the power to reguloze; that is, calculated to produce these objects, provided to prescribe the rule by which coumerce is to they do not come into collision with the pow. be governed.” p. 196°. It may be said, ers of the General Government, are undoubtgenerally, that free commercial intercourse ex- edly within those which are reserved to the ists among the several States by force of the States. But the measure authorized by this Constitution. But as, by th- express terms of Act stops a navigable creek, and must be supthat instrument, the powe:$ not delegated to posed to abridge the rights of those who have the United States, nor prohibited to the States, been accustomed to use it." The counsel havare reserved to the sites respectively, or to ing insisted that the statute came in conflict the people; and as, 's the repeated adjudica with the power of Congress to regulate comtions of this court.-be States have not surren-merce with foreign Nations and among the dered, but have rserved, the power to protect several States, the court said: “If Congress by police regulaíons, the health, morals and had passed any Act which bore on this case, safety of their eople, Congress may not pre- any Act in execution of the power to regulate scribe any rul to govern commerce among commerce, the object of which was to control the States whin prevents the proper and rea state legislation over small navigable creeks sonable exerse of this reserved power. Even into which the tide tlows, and which abound if Congress, inder the power to regulate com- throughout the Middle and Southern States, merce, had uthority to declare what sball or we should not feel much difficulty in saying wbat shall pt be subjects of commerce among that a state law coming in conflict with such the States bat power would not fairly imply Act would be void. But Cougress has passed authority, compel a State to admit within no such Act. The repugnancy of the law of her limit that which, in fact is, or which, Delaware to the Constitution is placed entirely upon resonable grounds, she may declare to on its repugnancy to the power to regulate be destịctive of the health, morals and peace commerce with foreign Nations and among the of her eople. The purpose of committing to several States; a power which has not been 80 Congrds the regulation of commerce was to exercised as to affect the question.". The same ipsur equality of commercial facilities, by principle is announced in many other cases. prevnting one State from building up her own Gilman v. Phila. 70 U. S. 3 Wall. 713 (18: irad at the expense of sister States." But that | 96]; Escanaba Co. y. Chicago, 107 U. S. 678 pupose is not defeated whep a State employs [27: 442]: Cardiell v. Am. Bridge Co. 113
reign a ense les
WÁS of te idas
U. 8. 205 [28: 959); Hamilton v. Vicksburg R. , that State, used for the transportation of perCo. 119 U. 8. 281 (30: 394); Huse v. Glover, sons, passengers or freight, without first un. 119 U. 8. 546 [30: 489). These were all cases dergoing an examination by, and obtaining a of the erection of bridges and other structures license from, a board of engineers appointed within the limits of States, and under their by the Governor of Alabama. If a train of authority, across public navigable waters of cars passed through that State to New Or the United States. They were held not to be leans, the engineer, however well qualified for forbidden by the Constitution, although such his station, if not licensed by that local board, structures actually interfered with interstate was subject to be fined not less than $50 por
In Gilman v. Philadelphia and more than $500, and sentenced to hard labor Cardwell v. American Bridge Co. the bridges for the county, for not more than six months. were without draws, entirely preventing the The court held that this statute “is not, passage of boats to points, in one case, where considered in its own nature, a regulation of the tide ebbed and flowed, and, in both cases, interstate commerce;" that "It is properly an to points where commerce had been previously Act of legislation within the scope of the adcarried on. In Hamilton v. Vicksburg R. Co. mitted power reserved to the States to regulate the court said: “What the form and charac- the relative rights and duties of persons, being ter of the bridges should be, that is to say, of and acting within its territorial jurisdiction, what height they should be erected, and of intended to operate so as to secure for the pubwhat materials constructed, and whether with lic safety of person and property;" and that or without draws, were matters for the regu. "So far as it affects transactions of commerce lations of the State, subject only to the para among the States, it does so only indirectly, mount authority of Congress to prevent any incidentally, and remotely, and not so as to unnecessary obstruction to the free navigation burden or impede them; and in the particulars of the streams. Until Congress intervenes in on which it touches those transactions at all it such cases, and exercises its authority, the is not in conflict with any express enactment power of the State is plenary. When the State of Congress on the subject, por contrary to provides for the form and character of the any intention of Congress to be presumed from structure its directions will control, except as its silence." Until Congress, by legislation, against the action of Congress, whether the prescribed the qualification of locomotive enbridge be with or without draws, and irrespect- gineers employed by railroad companies en: ive of its effect of navigation."
gaged in the transportation of passengers and But, perhaps, the language of this court--all goods among the States, Alabama, it was adthe judges concurring—which most directly judged, could fix the qualifications of such enbears upon the question before us is found in gineers, even when running in that State trains County of Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U. 8. 691, 701 employed in interstate commerce. [26: 238, 241), reaffirming Wilson v. Blackbird It would seem that if the Constitution of the Creek Marsh Company. It was there said: “In United States does not, by its own force, disthe License Cases, 46 U. S. 5 How. 504 [12: place or apnul a state law, authorizing the 256), which were before the court in 1847, construction of bridges or dams across public there was great diversity of views in the opin navigable waters of the United States, thereby ions of the different judges upon the operation wholly preventing the passage of vessels en: of the grant of the commercial power of Con gaged in interstate commerce upon such wagress in the absence of congressional legisla- ters, the same Constitution ought not to be tion. Extreme doctrines upon both sides of held to annul or displace a law of one of the the question were asserted by some of the States, which, by its operation, forbids the judges; but the decision reached, so far as it bringing within her limits, from other States, can be viewed as determining any question of articles which that State, in the most solemo construction, was confirmatory of the doctrine manner, has declared to be injurious to the that legislation of Congress is essential to pro health, morals and safety of her people. The hibit the action of the States upon the subject silence of Congress upon the subject of interthus considered.” This language is peculiarly state commerce, as affected by the police laws significant in view of the fact that in one of of the States, enacted in good faith to promote the License Cases-Pierce v. Ner Hampshire, the public health, the public morals and the 46 U. S. 5 How. 504, 557, 578 [12: 256, 280, public safety, and to that end prohibiting the 289)-the question was as to the validity of an manufacture and sale, within their limits, of Act of that State, under which Pierce was in- intoxicating liquors to be used as a beverage, dicted, convicted, and fined, for having sold, ought to have, at least, as much effect as the without a local town license, a barrel of gin, silence of Congress in referencēto physical which he purchased in Boston, transported to obstructions placed, under the auhority of a Dover, New Hampshire, and there sold in the State, in a navigable water of he United identical cask in which it was carried to that States. The reserved power of th States to State from Massachusetts.
guard the health, morals and safel of their In barmony with these principles the court people is more vital to the existence e society affirmed at the present term, in Smith v. Ala-than their power in respect to trade nd com bama, 124 U. S. 465 [31: 508), the validity of merce having no possible connectic with a Statute of that State, making it unlawful for those subjects. a locomotive engineer, even when his train is
For these reasons we feel constrained employed in interstate commerce, to drive or sent from the opinion and judgment
the operate any train of cars upon a railroad in court.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE REPORTS.
VOL. I. APPENDIX I.
RULES OF PRACTICE ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION.
1. When at Washington the Commission will hold its general sessions at 11 Daily sessions at
der section 4; peless for longer than for shorter distances for the transportation of passengers or tition; verificaproperty must be made by petition addressed to the Commission by the carrier tion; notice. or carriers desiring relief. The petition must state with particularity the extent of the relief desired and the points at and between which authority is asked to charge less for longer distances; the reasons for the relief sought must also be set forth, and the facts upon which the application is founded. The petition must be verified by some officer or agent of the carrier in whose behalf it is presented, to the effect that the allegations of the petition are true to the knowledge or belief of the affiant. Notice must be published by a petitioner in not less than two newspapers along the line of the road baving general circulation, for at least ten days prior to the presentation of a petition, stating briefly the nature of the relief intended to be applied for and the time when the application will be presented, and proof of each publication must be filed with the petition.
3. Upon the presentation of a petition for relief an investigation will be made Investigation by by the Commission at a time and place to be designated, when testimony will be Commission. received for and against the prayer of the petition. After investigation the Commission will make such order as may appear to be just and appropriate upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. Complaints, under section 13 of the Act, of anything done or omitted to be complaints undone by any common carrier subject to the provisions of the Act, in contraven
der section 13. tion of the provisions thereof, must be made by petition, which must briefly state the facts which are claimed to constitute a violation of the Act, and must be verified by the petitioner, or by some officer or agent of the corporation, soci. ety, or other body or organization making the complaint, to the effect that the allegations of the petition are true to the knowledge or belief of the affiant.
The complainant must furnish as many written or printed copies of the com- Coples of complaint or petition as there may be parties complained against to be served.
plaint. When a complaint is made, the name of the carrier complained against must Names and ad. be set forth in full, and the address of the petitioner and the name and address of dresses to be set his attorney or counsel, if any, must be indorsed upon the complaint. The Commission will cause a copy of the complaint to be served upon each Service of cop
ies. common carrier complained against, by mail or personally, in its discretion, with notice to the carrier or carriers to satisfy the complaint or to answer the same in writing within the time specified.
5. A carrier complained against must answer the complaint made within Answers within twenty days from date of notice, unless the Commission shall in particular cases twenty days; fil
. prescribe a shorter time for the answer to be served, and in such cases the answer
with the Commission at its office in Washington, and a copy thereof must at the same time be served upon the complainant by the party answering, personally or by mail. The answer must admit or deny the material allegations of fact contained in the complaint, and may set forth any additional facts claimed to be material to the issue. The answer must be verified in the same manner as the complaint. If a carrier complained against shall make satisfaction before answering, a written acknowledgment of satisfaction must be filed with the Commission, and in that case the fact of satisfaction without other matter may be set forth in the answer fled and served on the complainant. If satisfaction be made after the filing and service of an answer, a supplemental answer, setting forth the fact of
satisfaction, may be filed and served. Hearing on com- 6. If a carrier complained against shall deem the complaint insufficient to plaint without an
show a breach of legal duty, it may, instead of filing an answer, serve on the complainant notice for a hearing of the case on the complaint; and in case of the service of such notice the facts stated in the complaint will be taken as admitted. The filing of an answer will not be deemed an admission of the sufficiency of the complaint, but a motion to dismiss for insufficiency may be made at the
7. Adjournments and extensions of time may be granted upon the application and extension of time.
of parties in the discretion of the Commission. Hearing on is- 8. Upon issue being joined by the service of answer, the Commission, upon sue joined.
request of either party, will assign a time and place for hearing the same, which will be at its office in Washington, unless otherwise ordered. Witnesses will be examined orally before the Commission, except in cases when special orders are made for the taking of testimony otherwise. The petitioner or complainant must in all cases prove the existence of the facts alleged to constitute a violation of the Act, unless the carrier complained of shall admit the same or shall fail to answer the complaint. Facts alleged in the answer must also be proved by the
carrier, unless admitted by the petitioner on the hearing. Failure to an- In cases of failure to answer, the Commission will take such proof of the charge
as may be deemed reasonable and proper, and make such order thereon as the
circumstances of the case appear to require. Subpenas. 9. Subpenas requiring the attendance of witnesses will be issued by any mem
ber of the Commission in all cases and proceedings before it, and witnesses will be required to obey the subpenas served upon them requiring their attendance, or the production of any books, papers, tariffs, contracts, agreements, or documents relating to any matter under investigation or pending before the Com
mission. Depositions. Upon application to the Commission authority may be given, in the discre
tion of the Commission, to any party to take the deposition of any witnesses
who may be shown for some sufficient reason to be unable to attend in person. Amendments. 10. Upon application by any petitioner or party, amendments may be al
lowed by the Commission, in its discretion, to any petition, answer or other
pleading, in any proceeding before the Commission. Copies.
11. Copies of any petition, complaint or answer in any matter or proceeding before the Commission, or of any order, decision or opinion, by the Commis
sion, will be furnished upon application by any person or carrier desiring the Affidavits, be- same, upon payment of the expense thereof. fore whom taken.
12. Affidavits to a petition, complaint or answer may be taken before any of ficer of the United States, or of any State or Territory, authorized to administer oaths.
Promulgated May 25, 1887
INTERSTATE COMMERCE REPORTS.
Vol. I. APPENDIX II.
AMENDMENT TO RULES OF PRACTICE.
At the general session of the Interstate Commerce Commission which was held June 15, 1887, the following amendment of the Rules of Practice was adopted, that is to say:
It was ordered, that Rule IX of the Rules of Practice be modified to the extent that where a cause is at issue on petition and answer, each party may proceed at once to take depositions of witnesses in the manner provided by sections 863 and 864 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, and transmit them to the Secretary of the Commission, without making any application to, or obtaining any authority from, the Commission for that purpose.
See 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 410 ]