Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-05-26
CONTRACT CARRIER
VO|DED.
Supreme Court Ruling Sets
Aside Florida Law Fixing
Special Tax.
By GEORGE e. DOYING.

New laws enacted within the last few
months by half dozen or more States,
as well as . two-year- law OF Florida,
are virtually thrown into the discard
today as result OF the decision Monday
Of the Supreme Court OF the United
States in ruling upon the Florida
statute relative to contract carriers.
Efforts were made in nearly every
State Legislature that was in session
this year TO pass bills for the regulation,
and in many cases for the taxation, OF
all motor vehicle operators carrying
goods for hire, including not only the
common carriers, but also those doing
business under contract. perhaps ex-
clusively for single customer.
The Florida law, enacted in 1929,
provided that all auto transportation
companies" using vehicles "in the busi-
ness Of transporting persons or property
for compensation or as common car
rier" must secure certificates from the
State Railroad Commission, and must
file rates, give bond for the protection
Of shippers and public. and otherwise
submit to control. Buses carrying
school children and trucks used to
transport farm and dairy products and
Had Only One Employer.
4. s. Smith was engaged In hauling
merchandise as q private carrier under
special contract with the Atlantic &
Pacific Tea Co. He had but one Gus
toner and never held himself out as o 1
common carrier. When he refused to
apply for q permit under the new law,
he was arrested. The Circuit Court
held the law as applied to Smith was
unconstitutional. but on appeal the State
Supreme Court upheld the statute, and
the case then was appealed to the
Supreme Court of the United States.
In an opinion written by Chief Jus.
tice Charles Evans Hughes. the court
held the law unconstitutional. Among
other reasons. 1t was declared that
there does not appear to be the slight
est justification for making q distinc-
ton between those who carry for hire
farm products, or milk or butter, or
fish or oysters, and those who carry
for hire bread or sugar, or tea or coffee,
or groceries IN general, or other useful
commodities"
mo separate scheme of regulation
can be discerned in the terms of the
act with respect to those considerations
Of safety and proper operation AFFECT
ing the use Of the highway, which may
appropriately relate to private carriers
as well as to common carriers" the
opinion said
TT is true that the statute does not
In express terms demand that a private
carrier shall constitute itself common.
carrier. but the statute purports TO SUBJ
ject all carriers which are within the
terms of It's definition to the same cbli-
cations. Such scheme of regulation
OF the business Of private carrier 10
manifeStly beyond the power of the
State"
Blow to Railroads.
The decision is a blow to the rail-
roads, many Of which made strenuous
efforts to have similar laws enacted in
other States-and with success in sew.
eral instances. The contract carriers
have taken from the railroads vastly
more feight business than the motor
vehicle common carriers. In many
States the latter are subject TO sub
stantially the same sort Of regulation
that Is applied TO the railroads, In sad.
dition to which the motor carriers FREE
Quently pay special taxes for their use
of the highways. The contract car
riers, however. have paid nothing more
than the customary automobile regis
tration fee until Florida and other
States undertook TO control them and
incidentally levy special taxes. In the
Florida case the Supreme Court held
1t unnecessary to pass upon the. tax
feature of the law.
Law more or less similar to the Flor
ida statute were enacted during the
recent sessions of the Legislatures of
Montana, New Mexico and Texas. The
Georgia law has been enjoined by bus
operator.
tcopyrisht. 1917