Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-07-08
COURT DECISIONS.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are of Interest to
Our People. ~
DIGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
Exclusively for Virginian-Pilot.)
STATE OF OHIO ". LAKE SHORE &
M S. r. co.

STATE OF OHIO ". LAKE SHORE G.
NJ. S. r. co.
Supreme Court of the United States.
February 20. 1899.
THE OHIO STATUTE REQUIRING A
RAILROAD COMPANY TO STOP
ITS TRAINS AT ALL STATIONS
CONTAINING OVER 5000 INHABI-
TANTS IS NOT A REGULATION
OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE
AND IS VALID.
This was an action brought by the
State of Ohio against the railroad COM
pany to recover penalty fixed by a
Jaw OF that State for the failure of the
company to stop its trains to receive
and let off passengers at West Cleve-
land. station containing over 5000
Inhabitants. There was n Judgment
against the company for the penalty
and 1t appealed
The court says:
The trial court found. as conclusion
OF law. that within the meaning of the
Constitution OF the United States the
statute OF Ohio was not n regulation OF
commerce among the States, and was
valid until Congress acted upon the
subject. This general view was af-
firmed by the Circuit Court of Cuya-
'hoga county, and by the Supreme Court
OF Ohio.
The plaintiff in error contends that,
as the power TO regulate interstate COM
merce Is vested in Congress, the stat
ute of Ohio in it's application to trains
engaged in such commerce is directly
repugnant to the Constitution of the
United States.
In support of this contention 1t in
sists that an Interstate railroad car
rier has the right 10 start it's train at
any point IN one State, and pass into
and through another State without
taking up or setting down passengers
within the limits of the latter State.
AS applied to the present case. that
contention means that the defendant
company, although an Ohio corporation.
deriving all it's franchises and privi-
leges from that State may, If it SO
wills. deprive the people along its line
In Ohio OF the benefits of intcrsta te
communication by it's railroad; in short,
that the company, If 1t saw fit TO do so,
could. beyond the power of Ohio to pre-
vent 1t. refuse to stop within tina.
State trains that started from points
beyond it's limits. or even trains start
ing In Ohio destined to places in other
States.
1t is insisted by counsel that
the police powers of the States, where
exerted with reference to matters more
MERGE are restricted in their exercise.
80 Tar as the national constitution is
concerned, to regulations pertaining to
the health. morals, or safety OF the
public. and do not embrace regulations
desiGned merely to promote the PUB
Lie CONVENIENCE.
This is an erroneous view of the nd
publications of this court. There are
numerous decisions of this court to the
erect that the States may leglslatc
with reference simply TO the public CON
venience subject, of course. to the con
dition that such legislation be not in
consistent with the national constitu-
ton. nor with any act of Congress
passed in pursuance of that instrument.
nor in Gcrogation of any right granted
or secured by 1t.
we perceive in the legislation of Ohio
no OASIS Tor the contention that the
state has invaded the domain of M :
tional authority or impaired any right
secured by the national constitution.
IN the recent case of Jones " Brim. 1s5
U. S. $50. it was adiudged that EN-
nraced within the police powers of n
state was the establishment. main
tenance and control Of public highways.
and that under such powers reasonable
regulations incident TO the ri2ht +,
establish and maintain such highways
could be established by the State And
me state of Ohio by the statute in
H"ea'ioh mas done nothing more than
10 so regulate the use of Il public high
way established and maintained urJar
KS authority as will reasonably pro.
mote the public convenience. 1t has
not unreasonably INSTRUCTED the free
dom of commerce among the state.
Us regulations apply equally to domes-
nc ana interstate railroads. Its statute
merce. but only incidentally affects If
1t has only forbidden one of its own
corporations from discriminating un-
Justly against large part of the NH.
Tic. Tor whose convenience that cor
poration was created and invested with
authority to maintain public highway
within the limits Of the State. Affirmed
OLMSTEAD v. LATIMER.