The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation Part 54

[799] Gladson _v._ Minnesota, 166 U.S. 427 (1897); followed in Lake Sh.o.r.e & M.S.R. Co. _v._ Ohio ex rel. Lawrence, 173 U.S. 285 (1899), in which an Ohio statute requiring that "each company shall cause three, each way, of its regular trains carrying pa.s.sengers, * * * Sundays excepted, to stop at a station, city or village, containing three thousand inhabitants, for a time sufficient to receive and let off pa.s.sengers; * * *" was sustained.

[800] Illinois Central R.R. Co. _v._ Illinois, 163 U.S. 142, 153 (1896).

[801] Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R. Co. _v._ Wisconsin R.R. Com., 237 U.S. 220, 226 (1915); St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co. _v._ Public Service Com., 254 U.S. 535, 536-537 (1921).

[802] St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co. _v._ Public Service Com., 261 U.S. 369, 371 (1923).

[803] Wisconsin, Minnesota & Pacific R.R. _v._ Jacobson, 179 U.S. 287 (1900).

[804] Missouri P.R. Co. _v._ Larabee Flour Mills Co., 211 U.S. 612 (1909).

[805] McNeill _v._ Southern R. Co., 202 U.S. 543 (1906).

[806] St. Louis S.W.R. Co. _v._ Arkansas, 217 U.S. 136 (1910).

[807] _See e.g._ The Court's language in Hannibal & St. L.R. Co. _v._ Husen, 95 U.S. 465, 470 (1878); New York, N.H. & H.R. Co. _v._ New York, 165 U.S. 628, 631 (1897); Lake Sh.o.r.e & M.S.R. Co. _v._ Ohio ex rel.

Lawrence, 173 U.S. 285, 292 (1899); Hennington _v._ Georgia, 163 U.S.

299 (1896); Simpson _v._ Shepard (Minnesota Rate Cases), 230 U.S. 352, 402-410 (1913).

[808] Smith _v._ Alabama, 124 U.S. 465 (1888); _see also_ Nashville, C.

& St. L.R. Co. _v._ Alabama, 128 U.S. 96 (1888); McCall _v._ California, 136 U.S. 104 (1890); Missouri, K. & T.R. Co. _v._ Haber, 109 U.S. 613, 633 (1898).

[809] New York, N.H. & H.R. Co. _v._ New York, 165 U.S. 628 (1807). _See also_ Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co. _v._ Solan, 169 U.S. 133, 137 (1898).

[810] Erb _v._ Morasch, 177 U.S. 584 (1900).

[811] Erie R.R. Co. _v._ Public Utility Commrs., 254 U.S. 394 (1921).

[812] Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co. _v._ R.R. Comm., 283 U.S. 380 (1931).

[813] Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. _v._ Arkansas, 219 U.S. 453 (1911).

[814] Ibid, 453, 466. _See also_ St. Louis, I.M. & S. Co. _v._ Arkansas, 240 U.S. 518 (1916); Missouri P.R. Co. _v._ Norwood, 283 U.S. 249 (1931).

[815] Terminal Railroad a.s.sn. _v._ Brotherhood, 318 U.S. 1 (1943).

[816] 163 U.S. 299 (1896). In South Covington R. Co. _v._ Covington, 235 U.S. 537 (1915), the Court sustained a munic.i.p.al ordinance which prohibits the company from allowing pa.s.sengers to ride on the rear or front platforms without suitable barriers, and requires that the cars be kept clean and ventilated and fumigated. However, provisions of the ordinance that cars shall never be permitted to fall below a certain temperature and regulating the number of pa.s.sengers to be carried in the cars were held to be unreasonable and violative of the commerce clause.

There was no unconst.i.tutional interference with interstate commerce by a munic.i.p.al ordinance which directed a railway company to remove its tracks from a busy street intersection. Denver & R.G.R. Co. _v._ Denver, 250 U.S. 241 (1919).

[817] Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co. _v._ Solan, 169 U.S. 133 (1898); Richmond & A.R. Co. _v._ Patterson Tobacco Co., 169 U.S. 311 (1898).

[818] 325 U.S. 761, 779-780 (1945).

[819] Kansas City Southern R. Co. _v._ Kaw Valley Drainage Dist., 233 U.S. 75, 79 (1914).

[820] 244 U.S. 310 (1917).

[821] _Cf._ Southern R. Co. _v._ King, 217 U.S. 524 (1910), where the crossings were fewer and the burden to interstate commerce was shown not to be unduly heavy.

[822] 302 U.S. 1, 15 (1937).

[823] 325 U.S. 761, 771-776.

[824] 328 U.S. 373, 380, 386 (1946).

[825] Hendrick _v._ Maryland, 235 U.S. 610 (1915); Kane _v._ New Jersey, 242 U.S. 160 (1916).

[826] Sproles _v._ Binford, 286 U.S. 374 (1932). _See also_ Morris _v._ Duby, 274 U.S. 135 (1927).

[827] South Carolina State Highway Dept. _v._ Barnwell Bros. Inc., 303 U.S. 177 (1938).

[828] 289 U.S. 92 (1933).

[829] 309 U.S. 598 (1940).

[830] 306 U.S. 79 (1939).

[831] Eichholz _v._ Public Service Com. of Missouri, 306 U.S. 268 (1939), citing Cooley _v._ Board of Wardens, 12 How. 299 (1851).

[832] Railway Express Agency _v._ New York, 336 U.S. 106 (1949).

[833] Ibid. 111. For a more extreme application of this idea by a narrowly divided Court, in a quite special situation, _see_ Buck et al.

_v._ California, 342 U.S. 99 (1952).

[834] Continental Baking Co. _v._ Woodring, 286 U.S. 352 (1932); Stephenson _v._ Binford, 287 U.S. 251 (1932); Hicklin _v._ Coney, 290 U.S. 169 (1933).

[835] Michigan Pub. Utilities Com. _v._ Duke, 266 U.S. 570 (1925). _See also_ Smith _v._ Cahoon, 283 U.S. 553 (1931); and Continental Baking Co.

_v._ Woodring, 286 U.S. 352 (1932).

[836] Buck _v._ Kuykendall, 267 U.S. 307 (1925). _See also_, Bush & Sons Co. _v._ Maloy, 267 U.S. 317 (1925); Interstate Busses Corp. _v._ Holyoke Street R. Co., 273 U.S. 45 (1927).

[837] 273 U.S. 34 (1927). _See also_ McCall _v._ California, 136 U.S.

104 (1890). In the former case, agents soliciting patronage for steamship lines were involved; in the latter, an agent soliciting patronage for a particular railway line.

[838] California _v._ Thompson, 313 U.S. 109, 115-116 (1941).

[839] 9 Wheat. 1 (1824).

[840] 2 Pet. 245, 252 (1829).

[841] 12 How. 299 (1851).

[842] Foster _v._ Davenport, 22 How. 244 (1859); Sinnot _v._ Davenport, 22 How. 227 (1859). _See also_ Lord _v._ Steamship Co., 102 U.S. 541 (1881).

[843] Foster _v._ Master & Wardens of Port of New Orleans, 94 U.S. 246 (1877).

[844] Ibid. 247.