The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-04-18
A Civil sanctuary for Railroad Cars

A Civil Sanctuary for Railroad Cars.
An important practical question which
has been much Controverted in the sew
eral States has just been finally settled
by the supreme Court at Washington.
This In whether railroad cars belonging
10 an interstate railroad corporation and
being used for purposes Of Interstate
commerce are subject to seizure under
m attachment issued OUT Of a state
court.
The Importance ~ the question II
manifest. There are fOrty-six States
IN the Union, each having its own attach
ment laws Speaking generally, these
laws subject the property Of non-re~i-
dents and foreign corporations to levy
nnder process 81 attachment. and cor
porations organized under the laws %
either Btatss are deemed foreign corpo-
srafions for the purpose- of these stat
Nutea. In the case Ia which we refer the
defendant, a railroad corporation organ
fzed under the laws 81 Indiana and en-
mayed in the transportation of passed.
Rprs and freight from one state 10
another, claimed that ITS cans could not
lawfully h. attached in Iowa nc the in
stance Of a plaintiff who had sued the
corporation in the latter state 10 recover
damages for personal injury. This
claim was based on the proposition thar
all inStr,Imentalities of Interstate cum
merce ara immun" from Judicial process
20 that neither locomotives nor cars 81
any kind used for traffic b"tween the
several States can be Seizs,i under
attachment or levied upon in the exe,,i-
ton Of a Judgment recovered against
the interstate common carrier.
II will readily be- p,'rcriN ~ that this
b a pretty sweeping assertion of priv
iieGe. A. MIR Justice MCkFNNA SAYS
In the opinion "f the supreme Court uf
the 'nlted State ~ amounts Ia a prop
oSition thar all the property az an in
terstate railway company - put apart
Fin a kind Of civil sanctuary. Ia some
OF the Stats the courts of last resort
have pushed The doctrine Ia this extent
while IN other attachments have been
upheld against CORPORATE property EN-
ployed IN interstate transformation
The decisions IN the state courts have
been - conflicting that IA" answer -
the question was NOT obvious when ~
came before the supreme Court az the
United States The advocates 81 State
rights will be graiiiied "A; the conclusion
reached in that tribunal. for u su=tainS
the right 81 attachment a. against
property which is admittedly an insir7I-
mentality % interstate commerce.
Tho Federal Constitution confsrz upon
Congress tho exclusive power To r.g-
ulata commerce. bs'ween tho several
States Whsn Congress, EXERCISES that
power no state can hs J-,rinitroi To in
tsrvsne and regulate such cpmmercs
by its own statutes Where. however.
thsrs n no conscious piIrpos., in tbs en-
nctment Of Stats Law 10 regulate in
teratats commer"s dirssCtly or indirectly.
A., the State law. although = Affects some
of the Recommendations Of interstate
commerce. may be psrmittsd - roma N
effective, provided IL is not IN any way
incompatible with Crngressipnai legi--
lation. The supreme C1urt can find ~
evidence Of any intent 30 Interfere with
Interstate cDmmero" IN tho attachment
laws Of the different States. and u /,
declarNd ~ he certain that when Con
gress sna'tsd ~" Interstate commerce.
law IL dbl not intend To- abrugat. the
State attachment Laws such laws.
Ike laws generally which provide for
the collecti"r - dehtr. arc useful 4 no,
NECESSARY a. AIDS 90 BUSINESS cr,-it and
may therefor. H. ro,;a r,i,.d a. DESIRABLE.
agencies in rhe pruIuufI ION It ,-pmm.r,..
Wheeler state "T Interstate The n
tsrsta'. oom'u"rr- 'iw has for On. Of
ifs main obl..,'- the maintenance. of
continuity - Transformation II rrprt.
ate~ inter-ti'" railroads and mak.~- n
unlawful for iu"u bv any means ur ,ia-
vices ~ prevent 'h" '1rrI1g,. ri freight
from heinz continuous from fh. Ilac,.
81 shipHen' IN IN" plH'" 81 d'-sl mat inp "
This mandtlpr'. prrtulfipn. how.yer
was not Designed '0 r...l've ia .rDId a.,rr.
panieS from heir JrYr- ur - ur.van
tho-s- VIM haE" lawrl. .s.u- ,r,ins,
them FROM eulrrrn- 'h,.s. rLllru- hy
this ordina .'.-aI r-uied,-s WrI.h ar,
provided hv fr" Laws Of ia. -py.rg,l
States H"r'r ~" >Irrrsr" court lee
clInes - r-'7"gnil" 'hr ~ ,-r"r,.. 81 any
legal sanctuary fer rl. protection OF
inter-'at" r'''~.Ii ,ar- from attach.
mcn' IN sat-" -...'- '.fd.rg ~ -uisranc,
thai insrrITru'ali..r. Il lr'.rs'at.. ,nn.
mere" ~" subject 90 iudiriIl Proves
Ju-t 10" -iil'" - any u' her property.
The >'gpr".ue Court Io"- ur- ruur..
bend any danger p" 'h" hn.i. rrl.r.,
from this secession "" g,,n'c ,rum ,hc
opinion 81 Mr.. Justlu. MCkts.,.
rhe in'ert-r-nos sta intsr.la,e ron -rsrc,
~ ne enforcement ~ ire atrs.s -rrr, f,as o. ,
Ssa's must r"' b" r,srTrrAtri 10 ar 1nIv n,
'. az '.'Hu o.. T.- oblgauoGs o.
'-N'''A '0"'a0y . 'isTasg ssr@lr, .Aad