OCR Text |
Show -40- public works,143 taxation,144 although indisputably regulating the currents of interstate commerce, have been permitted to the States. State action is not barred, but by no means is all State action free. The exact form and incidence of State legislation is tested. Frequently it appears that, while a State may deal with a subject that is part of interstate commerce, it has in fact dealt with it unfairly -145 or imposed an unreasonable burden upon commerce beyond the State line.-146 Again, conditions change and the inade- quacy of State regulation provokes exercise of the Federal power. Local pilotage laws are displaced by a national pilotage act;147 aspects of trans- portation, theretofore left to local regulation because of the presumed predominance of local significance, are absorbed into a Federal system of control; 148 diverse local laws governing injuries incident to work in inter- state commerce are supplanted by a nation-wide legislation. -149 State statute requiring interstate engineers to undergo color blindness tests; Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Solan (1898) 169 U. S. 133* 18 Sup. C*,._ 289, upholding state statute invalidating a contract of a carrier that exempts him from his ordinary common law liability; St. Louis Iron Mountain & So, Ry. v. Arkansas (1916) 240 U* S. 518, 36 Sup. Ct. 443, upholding State Statute forbidding switching over crossing except by a train crew of specified num- bers; Kane v. New Jersey (1916) 242 U. S. 160, 37 Sup. Ct. 30, upholding State statute requiring the registration of automobiles of non-resident owners and providing for service of process upon them. Vandalia R. R. Co. v. Ind. Pub. Service Comm. (1916) 242 U- S. 255, 37 Sup. Ct. 93* Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Georgia (1914) 234 U. S. 280, 34 Sup. Ct. 829, up- holding State statutes regulating the headlight equipment of railroad loco- motives Erie R. R. Co v. Board of Pub. Util. Commissioners (1921) 254 U. S. 394, 41 Sup. Ct. 169, upholding a State statute requiring the abolition of grade crossings* ¦^+ see cases collected supra in note 136; also Willamette Iron Bridge Co. v. Hatch (1888) 125 U. S. 1, 8 Sup. Ct. 811, upholding State statute author- izing construction of bridge across navigable waters; Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States (1893) 148 U. S. 312, 13 Sup. Ct. 622, upholding state au- thorization allowing a corporation to exact tolls for the use of improve- ments constructed by it in a navigable stream; Lake Shore & Mich. So. Ry. Co. v. Ohio (1897) I65 U. S. 365# 17 Sup. Ct. 357, upholding State order requir- ing removal of a bridge as obstruction to navigation. . l^The numerous cases on this subject are collected by Powell, Indirect Encroachment on Federal Authority by the. Taxing Powers of the States (1917"" 1918) 31 Harv. L. Rev.. 321, 572, 721, 721, 932; (1918) 32 Ibid. 23I4, J>lh» 63U, 902* ll+5See e. g. Cook v. Pennsylvania (I878) 97 U. S. 566. li+6see e. g. the train stoppage cases collected supra in note 139» lltfu, S. Rev. Sts. 1878, sees. 1+237, H\01$ I4I126, \j\h?-UW\hl Act of Mar. h» 1907 C3l+ Stat. at L. lill); Act of Mar. 2I4, 1908 (35 Stat. at L. 1+6). li|8see e. g. R. R. Comm. of California v. Southern Pro. Co. (1921;) 26k u. s. 331, lik Sup. ct. 376. 1n9See e. g. New York Central R. R. v. Winfleld, supra; Erie R. R. Co. v. Winfield (1916) $jk U« S, 170, 37 Sup. Ct. 556; New York Central R» R. Co. v. TonseLlito (1917) 2I4U U, S. 36O, 37 Sup. Ct. 620. |