Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1909-09-23

DIOyeS 10 q penalty WHICH Hight VIC ~A'OoV
and make each days failure to obey the
provision separate offense under IKE
penalty? How can these car companies
or any one else determine the NUMBER OF
persons DESTROYS Of using the cars. OF
how many cars to supply and operate
for all such persons on times ana occa-
sions which must necessarily be In the
future and controlled by circumstances
impossible of anticipation?
Take the other provision OF the section
The sufficient number of cars must be tr
good repair they must have proper ane
safe power; proper and safe equipment
and appliances the service must be com
Portable and convenient. Is not each o.
these provisions so general ana indefinite
as to be incapable Of enforcement until
some rule or order Is made determining
the standard of good repair. the STANDARD
Of safe power and equipment and appli
ances,' and some standard OF service com
Portable and convenient formulated into
DEFINITE rules Of conduct or Of law. Con
slider the only provision in the section tha'
might be said to be definite and enacted
are not to exceed fifteen miles per hou1
within the city limits or twenty miles II
the suburbs. Surely 1t was not the inten'
ton to allow these cars to go through the
streets of the city at the rate of fifteer
miles without any regard for the genera
trafIlc; but rather that this provision II
Intended to be simply declaration on the
part Of Congress to be regulated and en-
forced by rules and orders OF the inter
state commerce commission.
Was Commissions View, Too.
This seems to be the view taken by
the commission. for otherwise they have
done a useless thing In reiterating In
their regulation Number 4 that no street
cars shall move at a greater rate OF
speed than fifteen miles in the city; nor
at q greater rate of speed than twenty
miles In the suburbs OF the city. Street
cars shall not exceed q rate OF speed
ings. and In their report to Congress in
public document H. r. 1886, Sixtieth Con-
Eress. second session, they use this Ian
suage:
evidence that 1t was not the purpose OF
the Congress to vest such authority in
the commission. our power being limited
to the making Of rules and regulations
which shall insure a SUFFICIENT number
Of comfortable and convenient cars and
their operation at such speed as to give
expeditions passage"
land on page Il of this report:
1.-The commission realizes that one OF
the principal requirements Of the act
under which the Interstate commerce
commission has proceeded was the rem
edying of the overcrowded condition Of
the cars. the exact language OF the law
being. with proper and safe power,
e asa %asoat
crowding said cars Within brief time
after the commission had undertaken the
work imposed upon it by the interstate
Grating cars without crowding was taken
up, and for three or four months the
matter has been a subject to which the
commission has given it's closest and
ceived through the courtesy Of the State
Department from United States consuls
In various European cities bearing upon
the question of overcrowding cars have
been received and considered. while cor
respondence has been entered into be-
tween the commission and the municipal
authorities of more than twenty of the
leading cities in this country. with view
OF learning; II possible. from the expe-
suit Of this investigation discloses the
fact that in almost every city in this
country and abroad, except in France,
the question OF overcrowding cars Is one
which the authorities have been endeav-
oring to solve and remedy, but that, as
Q matter OF fact. despite all laws and
regulations, the conditions which cause
Widespread complaint have not yielded to
any solution which has been possible to
bring to bear upon the situation
Would Be Inconsistent.
IF Congress intended that these pro-
visions were to be treated as separate
offenses why, then, was it necessary for
the act to confer power on the commits
s1on not only to make rules and orders,
but power to require and compel obedi-
ence' to those very provisions? Does it
not seem Inconsistent for Congress to
and then say In terms: No. this law
need not be obeyed. but we will confer
power on a commission to require and
compel obedience to 1t through rules and
regulations and annex a penalty not to
exceed $1,000 for violation OF any Of
these rules?
IT hold. therefore. that in the provis-
ions Of this section Congress simply in
tended to lay down certain general prin-
ciples which were to be enforced by
interstate commerce commission.
1.-The other ground Of the motion brings
In question the validity of the statute on
account Of the penalties. Article 1. Sec
States provides: That all fines shall be
moderate, and no cruel or unusual pun
ishment shall be inflicted Referring to
the section. the penalty Is q fine Of not
more than $1,000. Now, while 1t may be
might be imposed 3or a technical viola
ton. 1t would not be the statute that i'm
posed It. but the court exercising q dis
erection. with power to impose q fine as
low as cent. and II the amount imposed
judgment that is void and not the stat
ute
Mullowny Cites Cases.
Judge Mullowny quoted several author
tiles upon the question Of excessive dnes.
In concluding his decision the court
said:
Now considering the statute in ques-
ton In the light Of this rule we have
these provisions enforced by certain rules
ana orders of the interstate commerce
commission. The rules and regulations
TO be valid must be reasonable upon their
face and would not depend upon any fact
that could only be determined after q
judicial investigation OF q technical char
acter. but would be the ordinary case Of
q statute upon a subject which would
constitute q rule of conduct plain and
clear that these defendants in the per-
formance Of their duty to the general
public as common carriers in obeying.
need not do acts which must necessarily
result in their violation.
s~ThA motion therefore tn 0llaRh the