Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1919-05-20

Supreme Court held as an unconstitu.
tional interference with Interstate com
merce q statute Of Oklahoma prohibit
ing Gas from . well owned by II In
Oklahoma through its own pipe line
into KRnaAs for sale to consumers
there. and In the pipe line cases ~
U. s.. p So. the court held that the
conveyance across q state line. by the
Standard Oil Company. through its
own pipe lines. OF oil owned by 1t con-
stituted Interstate commerce. and was
within the competency OF Congress 70
control. The conclusion there reacheo
was announced as follows:
THAT the transportation Is COM
merce among the states we tnink 70
clear That conception cannot be mace
wholly dependent upon technicai quSs
lions of title, and the fact that tne
oils transported belonged to the owner
of the pipe line is not conclusive
against the transportation being such
"in T. S. VS.. Burch. 236 Fed, 974,
Burch was tried In the district court
for California upon an indlctmeh.
charging him with violating the
white slave law. in that he trans
ported a woman in an automobile
from Wheeling W. Va. to San Fran
cisco. Calf. for the purpose OF pros
titution. The Indictment was de-
INJURED to upon the ground that, as
the transportation was not by COM
mon carrier no element of interstate
commerce was involved In tho trans
action, the court overruled the de-
murrer, saying:
Interstate commerce then 49,
among other things. the passage OF
persons or property from one state
or indeed at all. involve the idea of
common carrier. or the payment OF
freight or fare.
Hendricks Maryland Case.
"In Hendricks vs. Maryland, 235 L.
s., p. $40, Hendricks, citizen OF the
District of Columbia. was fined by a
Justice of the peace for the state or
Maryland for operating an automobile
in the state of Maryland, having
driven from the District without hav
ing procured a certificate of registra'
ton required by the motor vehicle
law Of Maryland. Hendricks con
tended that the Maryland law was an
unconstitutional interference with in
terstate commerce. and appealed to
the Supreme Court of the United
States. 1t appears from the opinion
that the court assumed without ex-
pressly deciding that the travel by
automobile into Maryland was inter-
state commerce. The contention OF
Hendricks. however, was denied upon
the ground that the Maryland act was
reasonable police regulation. as its
effect upon interstate commerce was
merely incidental.
I'm Kane VS.. New Jersey. 2i2 U. S.,
page, 100. Kane. resident OF New
York, was arrested while driving an
automobile through New Jersey on
his way to Pennsylvania. and fined
for violating a statute similar to the
n ~
pealed to the Supreme Court of the
United States. where the same con-
tentions as in the Maryland case were
made and denied by> the Supreme
Court upon the same grounds. In that
case the court assumed. without ex-
pressly deciding. that tint defendant
was engaged in interstate commerce,
and this seems to have been conceded
by the. defendant. In the Kane case
the court quoted. with approval, from
the Maryland case:
"In the absence Of national legis-
lation covering the subject. a state
may rightfully prescribe uniform
safety and order in respect to the OPP
Grafton upon its highways of all mo-
tor vehicles, those moving in inter-
state commerce as well as others
I'm passing we may note that while
the conception Of interstate commerce
VI
portation or passage such commerce
does not consist wholly in transporta-
ton or passage. 1t has many other
elements. such as the nature OF the
thing carried. the manner of it's ac-
QUESTION, ownership. its intended use,
etc
I'm Wilson va. United States. 1872
q. s.. ps $751;. Wilson was indicted and
tried for violating the white slave act.
In the Supreme Court appellant con-
tended that the case was not fully
proven because there was nothing to
show that defendant either directed Oh
knew how the girls were to come from
vate vehicle or through the instru-
mentality Of a common carrier. The
court in answer to that contention
said:
"'But in our opinion. in order to
constitute an offense under the act 1t
is not essential that the transportation
be by common carrier
overrules Petitioner.
"Ex. parte westbrooke ct al, $50
federal rep. 636, was an application
for writ of habeas corpus in United
States district court for southern dis
trict of Florida. and presented the fol-
lowing state of facts:
Liquor was procured from deal
er in jacksonville, loaded in an auto
mobile and started On It's way to Al
bany. Ga, the automobile being driy-
en- by one of the defendants; the other
residing with him and admitting the
ownership of the liquor to be his ia :
Their. After having proceeded about a
mile and one-half the arrest was
made
Petitioner contended that no Of
Tense had been committed. In deny
ing that contention, Judge Call said
Now. II transportation by auto
mobile from one state to another tz
in iaterUtate commerce. and this
seems to be the law. then the testi-
mony before the commissioner waa
sufficient to hold the defendants on
one, il not all, of the prohibitions
contained In the act
Beyond question these cases estab-
lish that in interstate con,merce
transportation 10 not confined to
common carriers. and, therefore. the
fact that conveyance in the case at
bar was not by q common carrier Is
not determinative, If the transaction
as a whole has other distinctive
characteristics of interstate COM
,'merce. Are such other characteristics
of interstate commerce found In this
Transaction
Defines "Commerce."
I'm the lottery case, 1873 q. s.. p. 345
Justice Harlan. writing for the court
said:
what is the import of the word