Page images
PDF
EPUB

I. POWER OF CONGRESS.

1. Power to regulate interstate commerce vested in Congress is the power to prescribe the rules by which it shall be governed. Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 382.

2. The power of Congress is supreme over interstate commerce, unembarrassed by state laws. Id.; Stockton v. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. (U. S. C. Ct., N. J.) 411. S. P. cited in Bowman v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (U. S. Sup. Ct.)

833.

3. The failure of Congress to make express regulations indicates that the subject shall be free. Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 382; Phila. etc. Steamship Co. v. Pennsylvania (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 308; Robbins v. Taxing District of Shelby Co. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 45; S. P. cited in Bowman v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 839.

5. Power to regulate commerce between States extends to the erection of piers, bridges and all other instrumentalities of commerce which, in judgment of Congress, may be necessary or expedient. Stockton v. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. (U. S. C. Ct. N. J.)

less affect interstate commerce. Ouachita etc. cester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania (U. S. Sup. Packet Co. v. Aiken (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 379; GlouCt.) 352.

14. A state law imposing such tax is not cured by including in its provisions subjects within jurisdiction of State. Phila. etc. Steamship Co. v. Pennsylvania (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 308; Re Hennick (Sup. Ct. D. C.) 70. S. P. cited in Bowman v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 834.

15. No State can impose a tax upon that por4. The control of navigable waters tion of interstate commerce which is involved constituting channels of communication be in the transportation of persons and tween States and foreign countries is within property, whatever be the instrumentality by commercial power of Congress. Cited in which it is carried on. Cited in Bowman v. Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania (U. S. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 829. S. Sup. Ct.) 388; S. P. cited in Bowman v. Chi-P. in Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania (U.S. cago & N. W. R. Co. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 840. Sup. Ct.) 382.

9. Transportation of property from one State to another is interstate commerce, whether carriers engaged in moving it or vehicles on which it is borne, cross line of State or not. Ex parte Koehler (U. S. C. Ct. Or.) 28.

commerce.

12. A State can not regulate interstate Wabash etc. R. Co. v. People (U. ton (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 306. S. Sup. Ct.) 31; Western U. Tel. Co. v. Pendle

13. A state tax upon interstate commerce is void. Re Hennick (Sup. Ct. D. C.) 66. S. P.. cited in Bowman v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 830.

11. In absence of interference by Congress a State may carry on works of a local character, although they necessarily more or INTER S.

411.

6. Act of Congress of June 16, 1886, authorizing construction of bridge across Staten 17. State law requiring master of vesIsland Sound, known as Arthur Kill, is sel engaged in foreign commerce to pay cervalid under power of Congress to regulate in-tain sum to state officer on account of each terstate commerce. Id.; Decker v. Baltimore passenger brought from a foreign country & O. R. Co. (U. S. C. Ct. N. Y.) 434. is void. Cited in Bowman v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 836.

7. Regulation of fares and freights for transportation between different States is within power of Congress. Phila, etc. Steamship Co. v. Pennsylvania (U. S. Sup. Ct 308.

18. Wharfage is subject to local state laws, Congress having passed no Act to regu late it. Ouachita etc. Packet Co. v. Aiken (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 379.

II. STATE POWERS AND RESTRICTIONS.

a. Interstate Commerce Generally.

19. Charges for wharfage graduated by tonnage of vessels using wharf are not open to objection that they are duties on ton

8. Interstate commerce consists of inter-age within meaning of Constitution. Id. course and traffic between citizens of different 20. Where wharfage charges are reasonable States, and includes the transportation of prop it in no way concerns those who pay them erty and the navigation of public waters for what application is made of the proceeds. that purpose, as well as the purchase, sale and Id. exchange of commodities. Gloucester Ferry Co. v Pennsylvania (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 382. S. P. cited in Bowman v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 830.

16. The only state interference with the landing and receiving of passengers and freight which is permissible is confined to such measures as will prevent confusion among vessels and collision between them, and insure their safety and convenience and facilitate the discharge and receipt of passengers and freight. Id. 382.

21. The appropriation of wharfage charges to maintain, extend, light and police the wharves is unobjectionable, although profits may be realized by lessees from the city which owns them. Id.

22. Goods brought into a State for sale, although they become thereby a part of the mass of its property, cannot be taxed by reason of their introduction into the State or because they are products of another State. Cited in Phila. etc. Steamship Co. v. Pennsyl

10. A transportation of goods under one contract and by one voyage from the interior of Illinois to New York is interstate com-vania (U.S. Sup. Ct.) 311. merce. Wabash etc. R. Co. v. People (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 31.

23. Illinois Act regulating transportation of goods under one contract to points beyond the State is unconstitutional. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co. v. People (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 31. 24. State tax upon gross receipts of

railroads for carriage of freight or passen-over commerce must give way to supremgers into, out of or through State, is void.acy of national authority. Id. Fargo v. Stevens (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 51.

25. State tax upon earnings of sleeping car company engaged in transporting passengers from one State to another is void. Indiana v. Woodruff Sleeping & Parlor Coach Co. (Sup. Ct. Ind.) 798. S. P. cited in Wabash, St. Louis & P. R. Co. v. People (U. S. Sup. Ct.)

37.

26. A state tax upon a steamship company upon gross receipts from transportation between different States, and to and from foreign countries, is unconstitutional. Phila. etc. Steamship Co. v. Pennsylvania (U. S. Sup. Ct.)| 308.

27. The capital stock of a foreign ferry company engaged in interstate traffic is not taxable by State. Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 382.

28. A State may regulate the charges of public warehouses. Cited in Dis. Op. Wabash etc. R. Co. v. People (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 44.

29. Indiana Statute regulating mode in which messages sent by telegraph companies, doing business in that State, shall be delivered in other States is void. Western U. Tel. Co. v. Pendleton (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 306. S. P. cited in Wabash etc. R. Co. v. People (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 37.

30. Issuing policy of insurance is not interstate commerce. List V. Pennsylvania (Pa. Sup. Ct.) 784.

c. Police Regulations.

32. Arkansas Act, 1885, February 27, prohibiting greater charge than specified in bill of lading, and imposing a penalty for refusal to deliver on payment or tender of charges as shown in such bill, is within police power of State. Little Rock & F. S. R. Co. v. Hanniford (Sup. Ct. Ark.) 580.

33. Police power of State defined and illustrated. Cited in Id. 581.

34. State cannot under cover of exerting its police powers substantially prohibit or burden interstate commerce. Cited in Bowoman v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 832.

35. State statute requiring locomotive engineers to be licensed is not regulation of interstate commerce. Cited in Id. 840. S. P. in Smith v. Alabama (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 804.

38. Rhode Island, Public Statute, chap. 634, § 1, prohibiting the keeping of intoxicating liquors for sale is not obnoxious to Federal Constitution conferring exclusive power to regulate commerce upon Congress. State v. Fitzpatrick (Sup. Ct. R. I.) 713. S. P. cited in Bowman v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 835.

d. Foreign Corporations.

b. License Tax upon Nonresidents.

43. State Legislature may prescribe conditions upon which foreign corporation may do business, unless engaged in interstate commerce. List v. Pennsylvania (Pa. Sup. Ct.) 784; Indiana v. Woodruff Sleeping & Parlor Coach Co. (Sup. Ct. Ind.) 798; Stockton v. Baltimore etc. R. Co. (U. S. C. Ct. N. J.) 411. Cited in Barron v. Burnside (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 295.

31. A license tax upon nonresident merchants, drummers or agents is invalid. Robbins v. Taxing District of Shelby Co. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 45; Corson v. Maryland (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 44. Congress can confer upon a state 50; Re Hennick (D. C. Sup. Ct.) 66; State v. corporation powers not contained in its origPratt (Vt. Sup. Ct.) 299. S. P. cited in Bow-inal charter. Stockton v. Baltimore etc. R. Ř. man v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 834.

Co. (U. S. C. Ct. N. J.) 411.

36. Fee to be paid by applicant for examination is not provision for raising revenue and is not tax upon transportation. Id. 804. 37. State statute which conflicts with common-law exercise of powers of Congress

39. Iowa Code, § 1553, forbidding carrier to bring into State intoxicating liquors without first having certificate therein required is regulation of commerce and void. Bowman v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 823.

40. It is not legitimate exercise of police power. Id.

41. Prohibiting driving or conveying of certain cattle into State between certain days in each year is void as regulation of commerce, and is not legitimate exercise of police power. Cited in Id. 832.

42. Under police power, State may prohibit spread of crime or pauperism or disturbance of the peace; it may exclude from its limits convicts, paupers, idiots and lunatics, as well as persons afflicted with contagious diseases. Cited in Id.

45. Louisiana Constitution, § 236, providing that a foreign corporation shall have a place of business and an agent upon whom as a restriction on navigation. service may be made within the State, is void New Orleans & M. Packet Co. v. James (U. S. C. C. La.) 599.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Foreign corporations; rights and privileges. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 295. INTER S.

[blocks in formation]

9. Where the complaint does not state a case within its jurisdiction, the Commis

Telegraphing from one State to another is. sion will not express an opinion. Re lowa (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 307. Barb Steel Wire Co. 605.

10. The Commission will not make any ruling where petitioner alleges legali

[blocks in formation]

DAMAGES.

A claim for pecuniary damages entitles the defendant to a jury trial, and the Interstate Commerce Commission will not consider it. Peck v. East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. 775; Councill v. Western & A. R. Co. 292, 355, 638; Riddle v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. 787. DEFINITIONS. See CHARGES AND DISCRIMINATION, 17; COMMERCE, 8, 33.

Interstate commerce. Ex parte Koehler (U. S. C. Ct. Or.) 28; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 382. S. P. cited in Bowman v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 830.

DEPOSITIONS.

Depositions may be taken as provided by U.
S. R. S., SS 863, 864, without application to
Commission. Rule 9 as amended. Appendix
II, 843, 410.
DEPOTS.

BRIEFS AND NOTES.

Interstate commerce; what is. Note, 853; EMPLOYEES. (U. S. C. Ct. N. J.) 420.

DEPARTMENT OF STATISTICS.

Creation of, by Commission; auditor appointed. 354.

Section 2 of the Act prohibits giving of Power to regulate. (U. S. C. Ct. N. J.) 420. passes to particular persons; and the exception allowed in section 22 in favor of officers and employees of road does not include the families of such persons. Ex parte Koehler (U. S. C. Ct.) 317. ERROR. See APPEAL AND ERROR. EVIDENCE. See DEPOSITIONS; TESTIMONY.

1. The burden of proof is on petitioner charging exaction of unreasonable rates. Harding v. Chicago etc. R. Co. 375.

Carriers cannot make the yards of a certain company their exclusive stock depot at a certain place, there being other stock yards near by charging lower rates. Keith v. Kentucky Cent. R. R. Co. 601.

DISCOUNT. See REBATE.

DISMISSAL AND

ANCE.

DISCRIMINATION. See CHARGES AND
DISCRIMINATION.

1. Motion for, may be made at hearing. Rule 6, Appendix I, 843.

EXCURSION TICKETS.

Rate at which excursion tickets are sold does not entitle milage ticket purchaser to DISCONTINU- complain of unjust discrimination if charged a higher rate. Asso. Wholesale Grocers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co. 393.

EXPRESS COMPANIES.

1. Express business conducted by a railroad company is within the Interstate Commerce Act; aliter as to independent express companies. Re Express Companies, 22, 677.

2. Pleadings, etc. 317, 363, 448, 451, 456. FARES. See RATES.

FEDERAL COURTS. See COURTS.

2. Leave should be granted to withdraw petition when petitioner alleges legality of practice sought to be authorized. Re Export Trade of Boston, 25.

3. Where no overt acts of misconduct on part of defendant railroad appears, the Commission has no discretion but to dismiss complaint. Holbrook v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co. 323.

4. Petition charging exorbitant rates will be dismissed where rates are reduced before hearing. Fulton v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 375; Harding v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 375.

5. The pleadings presenting issues of fact and no evidence being presented, the case will be dismissed. Leonard v. Union Pac. R. Co. 627.

DRUMMERS. See COMMERCE, II, b;
COMMERCIAL TRAVELERS.

6. Upon failure of complainant to appear at hearing, complaint will be dismissed. Jackson v. St. Louis, A. & T. R. Co. 599.

EMIGRANTS. See CHARGES AND DIS-
CRIMINATION, 113.

EMINENT DOMAIN.

United States may condemn land within State without consent of State. Stockton v. Baltimore etc. R. Co. (U. S. C. Ct. N. J.) 411.

BRIEFS AND NOTES.

Exercise of right of, by United States, without consent of State. (U. S. C. Ct. N. J.) 426. Right to compensation. (U. S. C. Ct. N. J.) 414.

7. Complaint for over charge withdrawn where complainants receipt in full settlement for over charges was shown by respondent. Stahl v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. 314. INTER S.

2. In case of complaint for violation of section 4 of Act, the burden of proof is on the carrier to justify any departure from the general rule prescribed by statute, by showing that circumstances and conditions are dissimilar. Re Southern R. & S. Asso. 278.

FERRIES. See COMMERCE, 27.

A ferry is a means of commercial intercourse between States, bordering upon dividing waters, and it must be conducted without imposition by States of taxes upon the commerce between them. Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania (U. S. Sup. Ct.) 382.

FISH AND FISHERIES.

The transportation of fish and eggs, distributed by the United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries, is within the exception of section 22 of the Act. Re United States Com mission of Fish and Fisheries, 609.

« PreviousContinue »