OCR Text |
Show -38- this formula in sustaining State action, familiar as the doctrine of Cooley v. Board of Wardens .137 neither enumerates the considerations which permit or exclude non-uniformity, nor does it avoid the crucial exercise of judg- ment by the Court upon these considerations. The decisions constitute evaluations of these factors. Reviewing the streams of adjudication for a hundred years, Judge Cardozo is forced to conclude that "no general formula can tell us in advance where the line is drawn."138 The only fixed datum of constitutional doctrine is that the States may act. But how, when, to what extent and under what safeguards, will be found in each instance to depend on the Court's judgment whether a given State action discriminates in favor of State business as against interstate business or casts unreason- able burdens upon interstate commerce. Extremely practical considerations, it cannot too often be insisted upon, decide the fate of State legislation when challenged merely by the dormant power of. Congress. State necessities, the adaptability of State relief as against nation-wide action, the limited manifestation of a given evil or the limited benefit of its correction* the actual interest of the whole country in a phenomenon especially virulent in a particular State or region, the advantage of a local regulation balanced against the cost of inconvenience to interests outside the States - these and like questions are involved in the process of delimiting in the concrete the interacting areas of State and national actions when Congress has not legislated. 139 quarantine regulations: Morgan's R. R. & S* S. Co. v. Louisiana (1886) 118 U. S. 455, 6 Sup. Ct. lll4; Missouri, K, & T. Ry. Co. v. Haber (1898) 169 U. S* 613, 18 Sup» Ct. 488; Smith v. St. Louis & S» W« R. R. Co. (1901) 181 U« S» 248, 21 Sup Ct, 603 Compagnie Francaise v. La. Board of Health (1902) 186 U. S. 380, 22 Sup. Ct. 811; Reid v. Colorado (1902) 187 U.S. 137* 23 Sup. Ct* 92. 137(1851, U. S,) 12 How. 299. !38 See Penna. Gas Co. v. Public Service Commission (1919) 225 N. Y* 397* 405, 122 N. Ec 260, 262. 139That the judicial process in this field is not the unfolding of logical inevitabilities, but a conscious balancing of practical consider- ations in permitting or excluding State action, is strikingly illustrated by the characteristically candid language of Judge Cardozo in Pqnna. Gas. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm. supra note 138: "We think the line must be dram here so as to bring the attempted regulation within the power of the State.1 Thus .the validity of a State regulation ordering the stoppage of an inter- state train turns on the specific facts attending each situation in their relation to the general flow of interstate commerce. Contrast Lake Shore & Michigan So. Ry. Co., v. Ohio (1899) 173 u» S. 285, 19 Sup. Ct. .5655 Gladson v. Minnesota (1897) 166 U. S. 1+27* 17 Sup. Ct. 627; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co, v. Texas (1918) 2l+6 U. S. 58, 38 Sup. Ct. 236, upholding the validity of such regulation, with Cleveland, C. C* & St. L. Ry. Co. v» Illinois (1900) 177 U. S* 514* 20 Sup. Ct, 722; Miss R. R. Comm. v. 111. Cent. R* R, Co. (1906) 203 U. S. 335* 27 Sup. Ct. 90; Herndon v. Chicago, Ro I. & P. Ry. Co. (1910) 218 U. S. 135* 30 Sup. Ct. 633; Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Wis. R. R. Comm. (1915) 237 U« S. 220, 35 SuP» Ct* 5&0; St. Louis-Sem Francisco Ry. Co. v. Mo« Pub. Service Comm. (1923) 261 U» S. 3&9» 1+3 Sup. Ct. 380, which found such regulations unreasonably burdensome* |