The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1914-04-24
< The Home of. Rogers Clothes ''
 o51 MAIN STREET

in it's literal sense the word scontig-
 uous' means adjacent, touching. near,
 adjoining, etc, still, in a broader sense
 the one in which the word wasSprob- contiguous to the railway right of
 way, since 1t was only separated there from by the public road. This law must be construed with reference to the purpose the Legislature evidently had in view in it's enactment, that of protecting land lying along or adja- cent to railroad tracks from being in- jured by reason of the spread of John son grass which might be permitted to maturepon the right on the right of ways Throughout the agricultural districts of this state prior to the en- actment of the statute in question, railway companies had been the cause of Johnson grass spreading to adja- cent tracts of land, through which they ran, to the detriment of the land owners. This statute was intended to
 remedy this growing evil by requiring them, under penalty, to prevent such rass from going to seed upon. their right Of ways and this purpose must be considered in construtng. it. Sure 1y it must have been intended to pro- tect those who came within the spirit,
 as we'll as within the letter, of the stat ute.''essz
 1.-THE FULL CREW ACT' OF Y, ing for the management. of trains in requiring that the crews be composed of a certain number, etc, was recently attacked in the case of Pennsylvania Railroad Company vs. Ewing, 88 At, Iantic Reporter, ITS, and it's unconstt- tutionaIity alleged on several grounds two of which, as discussed by the Su- preIne Court of Pennsylvania, were taking of property without due
 process of law because of the fncreas- Ted expenditures that would necessar- fiy be incurred in order to comply with the act, and the 4interference with interstate commerce. 1The Supreme Court; of Pennsy1vania, in answer to the first contention, said that: 'sUn- compensated obedience to a regulation
 enacted for the public welfare or safe ty under the police power of the state E is not a taking. of property without due Compensation, and any injuries sustained in obeying such regulation is but damnum absque injurta- The
 court disposed of the question wheth-
 CT the act was invalid as imposing
 burden on interstate commerce by
 quoting from the opinion of MT. Jus
 tice Harlan, rendered in the case of
 Chicago Rock Island & Pacific Rail
 road Company ys. Arkansas, 5l Su-
 preme Court Reporter, 275. where a
 similar Arkansas statute was involv-
 ed: ..It is not too much to say that
 the state was under an obligation tt1
 establish such regulations as were
 necessary or reasonable for the safety of all engaged in busfaess or dornicil-
 ed within its lirnits;, beyond doubt pas-
 sengers on interstate carriers while
 within Arkansas are as fully entitled
 to- the benefits. of valid local laws en-
 accted for the public safety as are cit-
 izens sofathe state; local statutes di-
 rected to such an end have their
 source in the power of the state, never
 surrendered of caring for the public
 safety of all within it's Jurisdiction. The statute here involv-
 ed is not, in proper sense regulation
 of interstate commerce, nor does it de-
 ny the equal protection of the laws.
 Upon it's face it must be taken as not
 directed against interstate commerce,
 but as having been enacted in aid, not
 in obstruction, of such commerce and
 for the protection of thosee ngaged
 in such commerce.