Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1915-01-08
Motorists Beaten In The Supreme
Court.

Washington Automobiles lost their fight
against the Maryland automobile law. when
the Supreme Court of the United States
on Tuesday last upheld the law requiring
the licensing of motor vehicles entering
Maryland from the District of Columbia.
The decision was rendered by Justice Nc
Reynolds, and was concurred in by the
entire court.
The case was brought by John Thilman
Hendrick, of Washington city. who was
tried before justice of the peace of Prince
Georges county, Nd, on a charge of vio-
lating the motor vehicle law in this State
He was found guilty and fined, whereupon
an appeal was taken to the circuit court
the highest in the State having jurisdic-
ton, and subsequently appealed to the
Supreme Court Of the United States.
The constitutional objections to the Mary
land law were that it was alleged to be an
unlawful attempt upon the part of the
State to regulate interstate commerce; that
it interfered with the constitutional right
of entry into, passage through and egress
from the various States. and. finally, that
it was an unlawful discrimination against
the District, because, while the District mo-
florists were forced to take out Maryland
tags to pass through Maryland. the mo-
florists of other States were not compelled
to do so, although enjoying the privilege
of passing through that State.
Mr.. Justice McReynolds, in the decision
of the court affirming the decree of the
lower court, said:
IF the statute is otherwise valid. the
alleged discrimination against residents of
the District of Columbia is not adequate
ground for us now to declare it altogether
bad. At most they are entitled to equality
of treatment, and in the absence of some
definite and authoritative ruling by the
courts Of the State we will not assume that
upon proper showing this will be denied
THE record fails to disclose that Hen
drick had complied with the laws in force
within the District of Columbia in respect
Of registering motor vehicles and licensing
operators, or that he applied to the Mary
land commissioner for an identifying tag
or marker-prerequisite to limited use
of the highways without cost by residents
of other States. He cannot therefore set
up claim of discrimination in this par
ticular.
"Only those whose rights are directly
affected can properly question the consti-
I'm If n ofn 10
our jurisdiction in respect thereto.
THE movement of motor vehicles over
the highways is attended by constant and
serious dangers to the public. and is also
abnormally destructive to the ways them
selves. Their success depends on good
roads, the construction and maintenance
of which are exceedingly expensive and
in recent years insistent demands have
been made upon the States for better
facilities, especially by the ver-increasing
number of those who own such vehicles.
As is well known, in order to meet this
demand and accommodate the traffic, the
State of Maryland has built and is main
tanning system of improved rOadways.
Primarily for the enforcement Of good
order and the protection of those within its
own jurisdiction the state put into effect
the above-described general regulations.
including requirements for registration and
licenses. A further evident purpose was
to secure some compensation for the use
Of facilities provided at great cost from the |
oil fnr ,.ths oIo ehs.,, R.,Il
and whose operations over them are pecu-
liarly injurious.
I'm the absence of national legislation |
covering the subject State may rightfully
prescribe uniform regulations necessary for
public safety and order in respect to the
operation upon its highways of all motor
vehicles those moving in interstate COM
merce as well as others. And to this end |
it may require the registration of such We
hicles and the licensing of their drivers,
charging therefor reasonable fees graduated |
according to the horsepower of the engine |
"a practical measure of size. speed and
difficulty Of control
This is but an exercise Of the police |
power uniformly recognized as belonging
to the States and essential to the preser-
walton Of the health, safety and comfort
of their citizens; and it does not constitute
a direct and material burden on interstate
commerce. The reasOnabeness of the
States action is always subject to inquiry
in so far as it affects interstate commerce,
and in that regard it is likewise subordi-
nate to the will of Congress.
THE prescribed regulations upon their
face do not appear to be either unneces-
sary or unreasonable.
in view of the many decisions of this |
court there can be no serious doubt that
where State at its own expense furnishes
special facilities for the use Of those en-
Gagged in commerce, interstate as well as
domestic. it may exact compensation there
for. The amount Of the charges and the
method Of collection are primarily for de-
termination by the State itself; and so
long as they are reasonable and are fixed
according to some uniform, fair and prac-
teal standard they constitute no burden
on interstate commerce.
THE action Of the State must be treated
as correct unless the contrary is made to
appear. In the instant case there is no
evidence concerning the value Of the facili-
ties supplied by the State, the cost Of main
tanning them or the fairness of the meth
DDS adopted for collecting the charges i'm
posed; and we cannot say from a mere
inspection of the statute that its provisions
are arbitrary or unreasonable.
There is no solid foundation for the
claim that the statute directly interferes
with the rights Of citizens Of the United
States to pass through the State. and is
consequently bad, according to the doctrine
announced in Crandall against Nevada, 6
Wall, 49, In that case a direct tax was