Evening star., 1930-12-07
Interstate Problem in Aviation
BY FREDERIC J. HASKIN.

tory ordinances he encounters In cross
ing q few State lines.
For a State to set up q more lax
standard of skill and airworthiness for
aeronautics than the Federal one Ia TO
invite danger: for 1t TO set up a more
rigorous standard is to retard develop
ment along lines which the Federal
q conclusion which it nearly has been
in the past in the case Of railroad
transportation. an aviator would have
to take cut 49 licenses Federal one
and one in each Of the 48 States
provided he desired unlimited freedom
to navigate over the entire country, and
even II he held the necessary State
licenses, he might be required to land
at every State line for inspection of his
quirement. The burden this would
place upon the development Of COM
f1ercial aeronAutics Is obvious.
In railroad regulation considerable
dif1culty has been ironed out by max
ing the Federal statute supreme save
where the movement Is wholly within
State boundaries. Attempts have been
made by States to require an interstate
shipment to conform to local require
n1ents for that part Of the haul within
State. In the Shreveport rate case
and the Minnesota rate cases the Su-
preme Court Of the United states es-
tAblished the governance Of the Fed
eral law for the entire length Of the
haul in every case where . State linC
IL crossed.
Federal Standard II q Solution.
A very substantial burden would be
placed on the States themselves II thsy
set up inspection STATS for enforcement
OF their local laws. This burden would
be multiplied e. the number Of states
and, OF course, the cost would mean
multiplied taxation.
The system which is regarded a. most
workable is for States to enact laws
which restrict their licenses TO only
those who have obtained Federal
| licenses. This in effect, IL a complete
acceptance Of the Federal standard. Il
would only be necessary for q man, In
! applying for o State license, to exhibit
his Federal license, In order to do busi-
ness even wholly within q given State.
This would entail no heavy burden on
the States; the matter could doubtless
be handled by the Automobile Licensing
Bureau with no extra cost 70 The tax
payers.
Il Il the best opinion Of legal experts
30 far that the Constitution gives Con-
| grees sufhcient authority to regulate air
traf1c under the interstate commerce
clause. It Ia agreed, however, that the
individual States can be Of much use
fulness In assisting, within their juris-
dictions, in the enforcement Of such
Federal code as Is established.
The late Chief Justice Taft Is quoted
in air cases on the broad question of
Federal Jurisdiction. The opinion quoted
was handed down in railroad case, but
u regarded a. peculiarly applicable In
principle to aviation. 1t reads:
Commerce is a unit and does not
regard State lines and while under the
Constitution, interstate and intrastate
commerce are ordinarily subject to
regulation by different sovereignties, yet
when they are so mingled together that
the supreme authority, the Nation, can
not exercise complete control over inter-
state commerce without incidental reg1-
lation of intrastate commerce, such In
dustrial regulation Is not an invasion Of
State authority"