OCR Text |
Show -39"* The same central issue has appeared in hundreds of cases, and the re- currence of analogous situations has woven a few clear pattersns for judg- ment. Certain interests* although embraced under interstate commerce and open to Congressional control, are of such special concern to the individ- ual States that State action in regard to them has been sanctioned. Thus laws affecting pilotage, l40 health, l4l safety l42 Other illustrative cases are Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Texas (1918) 245 U. S. 484, 38 Sup. Ct. 178, invalidating State regulation of train stops for interstate transit; Seaboard Airline Ry. v. Blackwell (1917 244 U* S* 310, 37 Sup* Ct. 640, invalidating State regulation of speed at grade cross- ings for all trains; Hennington v. Georgia (1896) 163 U, S. 299, 16 Sup. Ct. 1086, upholding a State statute forbidding all freight trains to run on Sunday; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Kentucky (1896) 161 U. S. 677* 16 Sup. Ct. 7l4, upholding a State statute forbidding railroads to consolidate their lines or pool their earnings; Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. N. C. Corp. Comm. (1907) 206 U. S. 1, 27 Sup* Ct. 585, upholding the order of a State com- mission requiring railraods to rearrange their schedule so as to make con- nections with other through trains; Wisconsin, M. & P. R« R» v. Jacobson (1900) 179 U. S» 287, 21 Sup* Ct. 115, Michigan Central R. R. V. Michigan R. R, Comm. (1915) 236 U. S. 615, 35 Sup. Ct. 422, Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Ga. R. R. Comm. (1916) 240 U. S. 324, 36 Sup. Ct. 260, upholding, and Oregon R. R. & Nav. Co. v. Fairchild (1912) 22l+ U. S. 510, 32 Sup. Ct. 555, denying the validity of orders'of State commissions requiring railroads feo establish connections; 111. Central R. R. Co. v. Mulberry Hill Co. (1915) 238 U. S. 275, 35 Sup. Ct. 76O, upholding a State statute requiring rail- roads to furnish cars within a reasonable time after demand; Chioagc, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Iowa (1911+) 233 U. S. 33I+, 3h Sup. Ct. 592, upholding the validity of a State commission^ order requiring a connecting carrier to use the equipment of a prior carrier in shipping oars from without th© State to their final destination; Grand Trunk Ry.- v. Michigan R. R. Conm. (1913) 231 U. So k51» 5h Sup. Ct. 152, upholding the order of a State Cora- mission requiring the interchange of traffic on the terminal tracks of an. interstate carrier, compared with 111. Cent. R. R« v. Louisiana- R* R. Corn. (1915) 236 U, s» 157, 35 Sup. Ct. 275. Other illustrative cases are classified in notes ll+0-ll+5» infra. Wcooley v. Board of Wardens (I85I, U. S.) 12 How. 299; Ex parte Mo- Niel (1871 U.S.) 13 Uall. 236; Wilson v. MoNamee (1880) 102 U# s. 572; Olsen v. Smith (1901+) 195 U. S. 332, 25 Sup. Ct. 52. ^Plumley v. Massachusetts (I89IO 155 u« S. 1+61, 15 Supo Ct. I5U* upholding a State statute prohibiting the sale of deleterious oleomargarine imported in original packages; H. Y., N* H. & H. R. R» v; New York (1897) I65 U. S* 628, 17 Sup* Ct. 1+18, upholding a State statute regulating heat- ing on interstate trains; Rasmussen v. Idaho (1901) 181 U. S. 198, 21 Sup. Ct» 59I+, upholding a State statute authorizing the governor to prohibit the importation of sheep from localities in other States where he has reason to believe an epidemic exists. See also quarantine cases collected supra in note 136. 1^2smith v. Alabama (1888) 12l+ U. S. 1*65, 8 Sup. Ct. 56I*, upholding a State statute requiring the licensing of interstate engineers; Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Alabama (1888) 128 U. S. 96, 9 Sup. Ct. 28, upholding" |