New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-01-06
Wagon and Driver License
Ordinances Illegal, Says
u Supreme Court.
KNJCKERBOCKER CHEF
COSTS REGAIN $1,000
Guilty of Violating Contract
Labor LaW-Other Decisions
Handed Down.
From The Tribune Bureau J

Washington Jan. 5-The Adams EX-
press Company and the United states
EXPRESS Company won substantial VIC
tories over the CITY of New York in tho
Sunreme Court Of the United states to-
dav. when it was held that the city or
dinances imposing license restrictions
upon express wagon drivers and Vehioies
constituted an interference with inter
state commerce and, as such. could not
be enforced.
The ordinances are included In chap-
ter of the code Of ordinances adop'eu
in 906 as amended They require 'hat
express wagon drivers must be cltlzens
OF the United States or have decIareu
their intention to become such ana thd'
their statements of qualifications must
be Endorsed by two reputable citizens
They are required TO pay license zee
Of 80 cents. The express companies are
required to pay a license fee of 80 anu
file bond OF 800 for each wagon.
Approximately % per cent of the DUST
ness of the express companies Is inter
state and consists OF the transfer OF
packages through New York BY an ar
rangement made in 1908 the eNpies'
companies took out licenses for a certain
proportion of their vehicles to cover the
intrastate business. When the strike
uas on in 1910, however. the city under
took TO enforce the ordinance as to all
vehicles, and the suit resulted.
Opinion by Hughes.
Justice Hughes. delivering the opin-
In ha
press Company case:
THE Circuit Court held that Sections
sos and SOC were imperative so far as
they purported to require the complain
ant to obtain a local license for trans
acting its interstate business ana fur-
Their that the requirements of license as
to express automobiles and chauheurS
were superseded by state laws.
"In restraining the enforcement or
Sections eos and 3O6 we think the court
was right In the absence Of control
ling state decision constituting the group
of ordinances in question and the stat
ute authorizing the city TO license pusi-
nesses. We are not satisfied that they are
designed. despite the broad dehnl'loh
contained in Section $50. to apply 10 IN
terstate business. If the above men
toned sections are to be deemed to re-
o,Iire that a license must be obtained
as condition precedent to conducting
an interstate business by an express
comnanv we are of the opinion that they
would be clearly unconstitutional III Is
insisted that under the authority OF the
state the ordinances were adopted in the
exercise of police powers. But that does
not iustify the imposition of direct
burden upon interstate commerce.
"The right of public control. In requir-
ing such a. license. is asserted by virtue or
the character of the employment but WINE
such a requirement may be proper III the
case of local or interstate business IL
cannot be justified as prerequisite TOT
the conduct of the business that is inter-
state. Not only Is the latter protected
from the action of the state. either direct
" or through its municipalities. IN laying
direct burdens upon it, but in the present
instance Congress has exercised its au-
,horitv and has provided its own scheme
of regulating in order to secure the as
charge of pubic obligations that the BUS
mess Involves
The court held that the license fees can
not be regarded as inspection fees ana
that the sections relating to the qualiii-
cations of drivers cannot be separated
from the other portions OF the ordinance
The whole is. therefore declared 10 be
uninforceable.