Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1916-12-07
JERSEY MAY AMEND
AUTO RECIPROCITY ACT
Demand Grows for Further
Legislation on Nonresident
Motorists
WILL CHECK ABUSES
State Motor Vehicle Commissioner
Elated Over Result Of Kane Case
in Supreme Court


TRENTON. Dec. THE recent decision
oy the United States Supreme Court sus-
tanning as constitutional New jerseys au-
tomoblle license law requiring nonresident
as wen as resident autoists TO take out H.
eenses IN New Jersey for driving cars With
IN this State does not acrect the touring
mototint who takes advantage Of the au-
;omobllc reciprocity act but owing 20
aouSes which have grown out of this law
there Is nm Increasing demand throughout
inc state which II Is said will be presented
10 the coming Legislature to considerably
curtall the reciprocity privilege. This privi-
lege which Is In no way involved In tho lltl-
cation Just determined allows nonresident
automobilists to operate their cars TO flueen
uays each year IN this State without having
TO take out a state license
Nhle In fcw Instances Il ls recorded
mat the time limit Of the reciprocity priyl-
iese mas been enforced the reverse Ia gem
eTally the case II Ia difficult TO keen rec
oIus OF cars using this privilege and tho
time limit is pretty generally dsregarded.
In speaking today OF the decision state
Motor Vehicle Commissioner William I. DIN
said: - '0'''
II feel highly clated over the result OF
thia litigation and am particularly pleased
with the unanimous concurrence in Justice
brHnuelS opinion. It assuren tho state the
rlght TO exact reasonable provision 10 in.
sure safety II extends tho license foe tn
the nonresident az well as to the resident.
The court holds that the power of a State
10 regulate the use OF motor vehicles on its
highways is properly exercised In imposing
license fee graded according 70 tho horse
power Of the engine.
The provision compelling nonresident
autoists TO designate tho Secretary Of state
as their attorney In fact was to enable rest
dents who had suffered injury at the hands
OF nonresident autoists to prosecute their
claims for redress In this State instead OF
being compelled to follow the nonresldent
to hts home State. Tho upholdlng of this
provision is a very good thing for the mo-
torinE as well as the nonmotorInE public
of the State"
LAW rs TEN YEARS OLD
The statute tested In tho United statos
Supreme Court is tho law Of 1905 as
amended IN 1905 and known as the FrelInE
huysen law. Registration and the pay
ment of tax by nonresidents was defended
by the advocates Of the law on the ground
that residents of the State were obliged to
register and pay license and it was but
fair that nonresldents enjoying the sAme
privileges In the use OF the improved roads
should be subject to the same obligations
Registration was held to be necessary
in order 10 afford check on reckless or
criminal drivers and means of identiica-
tion OF law breakers. while tho license fec
was compensation for wear and tear OF tho
roads
The reciprocity provision was adopted In
1913 In effect IL permits the resident OF
any state who has complied with the motor |
laws OF his State the right to drive In this
state for fifteen days In any year without |
complying with the requirements OF tho law |
OF 1905 as to registration, paying OF license |
and filing a power OF attorney with tho |
Secretary OF State, providing that the laws |
of his home State extend the same privilege |
to New Jersey motorists. For cause, how |
ever. the state Commissioner OF Motor |
Vehicles may suspend this privilege
Tho suit testing the New Jersey act OF
1906 and its amendment In 1908 was |
brought by Frank j. Kane against tho |
State OF New Jersey, and although OF in |
terest primarily TO New Jersey. the decision |
sustains the automobile tax laws OF sew |
eral other commonweRlths.
ARGUED FEE WAS UNREASONABLE
The case hinged on three points In tho |
New Jersey statute: First. that Kane had |
failed TO register his automobile in New |
jersey: second that he had failed to pay |
the tax imposed on nonresldents. and third |
that he failed to file with the secretary OF
State a power Of attorney.
In their argument before the court.
for the motorists emphasized six |
points summarized as follows: That tho
New Jersey charge on automobiles was not
In conformity with proper tax laws: that
the license fee was unreasonable and void |
that expenditures for improved roads
should be paid out of the general tax fund
that the law was discriminatory and class
legislation that provision for powor OF
attorney ousted n user OF the highways
from his domicile, and that the law was a
burden on interstate commerce.
1t was argued that the tax was not I'M
posed equally on the users OF the roads
In that horse-drawn vehicles used the roads
and damaged them and that therefore the
tax should have been imposed upon these
vehicles as well upon automobiles.