The sun., 1910-06-28
An Important Constitutional Case
From Georgia.

An Important Constitutional Case
From Georgia.
How frequently and how much can a
railroad company he compelled by a
State sta.ute to check the speed of It's
trains without interfering with inter-
state commerce. This ls not an alb
stract question, but mas actually arisen
in the State Of Georgia and has caused
a good deal Of difference of judicial
opinion. having found It's way finally to
the supreme Court Of the United States
That tribunal unfortunately has left il
unanswered for the present, although
two Judges Indicate pretty plainly what
they think aboutt
In that portion Of the Civil Code of
Georgia which deals With the operation
OF railroads there is a stringent pro-
vision regulating the approach Of trains
60 highway crossings. The statute re-
quircs a post TO he fixed on the line of
the railroad AZ a distance Of four hun
dfed yards from each crossing and the
locomotive engineer is required when
ever the train reaches the post To blow
the whistle Of the locomotive until il
arrives at the public road and stimuli
taneousy check and keep checking the
speed thereof 80 as TO stop in time
shMld any person or thing he crossing
saiR-track ON said road The husband
Of JOSEPHINE KING was killed by a train
hrthe Southern Railway while he was
attempting to drive over the track in a
blggy Al a highway crossing to which
this statute applies The widow brought
suit against the railroad corporation 10
recover damages for having thus wrong
fully caused her husbands death, and
she alleged in her complaint that the
negligence Of the defendant was its
violation Of the State law which re-
0,ired il to check and keep checking
the speed Of the train while approaching
the crossing al which her husband was
killed
The defence Of the railroad company
was that the State law imposed an un-
constitutional burden on interstate COM
merce The answer alleged that il was
impossible TO observe the Georgia stat
ute and At the same time carry the mails
as the southern Railway Company was
required N carry them under the con-
tract II had with the Government: fur
thermore. that Il was impossible to do
interstate business and At the same time
comply with the terms of the State law.
This defence was overruled in the United
States Circuit Court in the Northern Dis
tpict Of Georgia. where the case was
tried. and the widow recovered a iudg-
msnt against the railroad company.
That Judgment was affirmed by the
United States Circuit Court Of Appeals
The case was then taken To the Supreme
Court Of the United States
There also the Judgment in favor oI
the widow and against the railroad com.
pany has been affirmed, but upon a
ground which leaves the constitution.
atty ofths Georgia statute still in doubt
A majority of the Judges Of the Suprem,
Court thought that the defence was moi
pleaded in such a way As To be availabl,
10 the railway company. The prevail.
ina opinion was written by Mr.. Justic,
DAY, who declared tha, an inspection n
the answer showed that IL did not con
tain a proper averment II the facts n
the effect that the operation of the stat.
ute in controversy was such a. unlaw.
fully b. regulate Interstate commerce
According N the view n the maiorit,
this averment was a mere conclusion
setting forth no facts which would
make the operation Of the statute un.
constitutional II must be admitted
thar this IS an exceedingly technica
construction Mr. Justice OLIVER WEN.
DILL HOLMES and Mr.. Justice WHITE
dissented, holding that the avermen,s
that il vas impossible tO obey the stat.
uJe and az the same time transport TIN
NtfFHF-A AAAAN'AAN llAaAAN AtIA NllhN IT, was Inn
possible 20 do an interstate business anf
also observe the requirements Of IN,
STATE law were pure allegations n far
vL.oh referred 20 physical condition.
auI oonSti'u'ed an adequate statement
oi 'he railway company's defence. Tn,
dissenting Judges deplored the actiol
20 their Associates in treating a merel,
t"hncal ohiection To the pleadinRs a.
'a'I' - the defence. 1t seems 10 me ,
marriage II justice. said Ju.tic,
HOLMES. 10 Sustain liability under
silrui" which possibly, and / think prob
ahlv, is unconstitutional until the fact
have bern heard which the petitione
alleged and offered N prove.
After this distinct intination from
fro member, Df the supreme Court n
the United States that the Georgii
stauit" ~ unconstitutional IL is tolerabl,
certain that 10" question will be raisa,
again IN snch form AZ n obtain a posi
tive adjudication ss To its validity an,
way or the other /: is obvious hat IN