The Washington times., 1909-09-23
MULLOWNY QUASHES
CAR-CROWDING CASE
Holds That Interstate Com
merce Commission Is With
out Authority.

That the Interstate Commerce Com.
mission must enact regulations govern
ing the street car traffic IN the District
OF Columbia before Il attempts TO prose
cute the companies for alleged failure
10 comply with the provisions OF section
is OF the act Of Congress approved May
T. lyos, giving the commission urisdic-
tion over street car lines Of the District.
IS the decision Of Judge MulloNaly OF the
United States division of the Police
court. as hanCed down this morning
he sustained the motion Of the at
Iorneys or the roads to quash the in
formations based on evidence as TO the
overcrowding Of street cars. but over
ruied the motion 70 quash an i-fforrna-
IIon charging violation of z regu-
latlon OF the commission on the ground
that this act Is unconstitutional
four or the informations were aIs5 bv
the Government, alleging that tns cow
pahles overcrowded their cars; the fftb
charged the violation OF regulation NJ
OF the Interstate Commerce Conr,is-
SION Whlcn prohibits the use Of ea+
wheels on the street cars. The Is++a.
is sustained by Judge Mullownv ubua
the lniormations charging overcrovvd;rs,
are quashed Oiiis
Judge MullowEy takes the ground
that 1t would be Impossible for the co-,
panies % obey the law U,ftbort 90.
regulations Of the commission Co.
gress simply intended to Law dow, -
tain general principles which are to ba
enforced by reasonable rules and res,-,-
'duons Of the commission, according N
Judge MullOwny.
Baker Takes Exception
After Judge Mullowny had delivered
ms decision this morning, District At
torney ID. W. Baker took exception IN
that part OF the rUllnb in which fo,ir
lniormations were QuaI ed. He de-
clared he would confer with The In
terstate Commerce Commission and Gnd
out whether it was the desire of its
members TO make the regulations re-
Quired under the ruling or whether
they wanted the matter carried 10 a
higher court.
judge Mullowny said in part in his
decision:
The provision under which four Of
the informatiOns are brought REQUIRES
the car companies ID to supply a suf-
1cient number Of cars. and u 20 so oper-
ate this supply Of cars as 70 give ex-
ooditious passage to ali persons desir- /
Jus Of the use OF said cars without
.row ding. SO. even if the defendant did
operate its cars without crowding, it'll
would stiH fail 10 obey the provision {
I il did not supply and operate a sur I
lclent number OF its cars for all per
sons desirous of the use of the same. I
can IL be claimed that II was the
Of Congress In using such in /
lehnlte terms 10 announce a rule Of law
hat would subject the defendant or /!
nv oi its employees to a penalty which /
allure to obey the provision a separate I
itense under a like penalty? How can
heSe car companies, or any one else
etermlne the number Of persons de-
irouS of using the cars or how many
ars TO supply and operate for all such
'ersons on times and occasions which
nus necessarily be in the t&Aure and 4
4 anticipation.
Take the other provision Of the sec
ION. The sutusisEt number of cars
must be in gOOC repair, they must
ave 'profer and safe power proper |
nd safe equipmey.t and appliances; the
eTNiCe must be comfortable and con
Cnicnt Is not v5-n Of these pro-
q capable of enforcement until some
ule or order Is made determining the
tandard OF good repair the standard
T safe power and equipment and ap-
lianCes' and some standard Of service
omfortable and convenient formulated 7
lto definite rules Of conduct or OF
iw?
Consider the only provision in the
action that might be said 10 be definite 4
Continued on Third Page)
I