Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/91980/adams-express-vs-new-york
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 16:51:31+00:00

Document:
A state law is unconstitutional and void which requires a party to take out a license for carrying on interstate commerce, no matter how specious the pretext may be for imposing it. Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U. S. 47 .
of all articles (§ 332). Provision is also made for the regular inspection of "all licensed vehicles and places of business" (§ 374), the report of any change of residence to the Bureau of Licenses ( id., ) the exhibition of licenses upon demand (§ 375), and the display of the prescribed letters and numbers (§ 376). Penalties are provided for the violation of these requirements, and any person carrying on any business regulated by the ordinance, without license, is guilty of a misdemeanor (§§ 307, 315, 379).
of fees in § 308, cannot be regarded as imposing a fee, or tax, for the use of the streets; if they were such, the question would at once arise as to the validity of the discrimination involved in such an exaction. Nor can they be considered as a regulation in the interest of safety in street traffic. Other ordinances provide for the "rules of the road" to which wagons of express companies, as well as those of other persons, are subject (Code of Ordinances, c. 12). The sections now under consideration constitute a regulation of the express "business." Article I. is entitled, "Business Requiring a License;" § 305, containing the enumeration, provides that "the following businesses must be duly licensed," and § 306, that "no person shall engage in or carry on any such business without a license therefor" under a stated penalty ( ante, p. 232 U. S. 24 , note). The right of public control, in requiring such a license, is asserted by virtue of the character of the employment; but while such a requirement may be proper in the case of local or intrastate business, it cannot be justified as a prerequisite to the conduct of the business that is interstate. Not only is the latter protected from the action of the state, either directly or through its municipalities, in laying direct burdens upon it, but, in the present instance, Congress has exercised its authority and has provided its own scheme of regulation in order to secure the discharge of the public obligations that the business involves. Act of June 29, 1906, c. 3591, 34 Stat. 584; Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491 , 226 U. S. 505 ; United States v. Adams Express Co., 229 U. S. 381 .
It would seem to follow, necessarily, that the annual license fees prescribed by § 308 ( ante, p. 232 U. S. 25 , note) cannot be exacted so far as the interstate business is concerned. They cannot be regarded as coming within the category of inspection fees, which are sustained when fairly commensurate with the cost of local supervision of such matters as are under local control ( Western Union Tel. Co. v.
New Hope, 187 U. S. 419 , 187 U. S. 425 ; Atlantic &c.; Tel. Co. v. Philadelphia, 190 U. S. 160 , 190 U. S. 164 ). The provisions of § 308 are inseparably connected with those of §§ 305 and 306. The sums fixed "for each express wagon" and "for each driver" measure the amount to be exacted for the granting of the license required for the carrying on of business. And it is difficult to see how the payment can be enforced as to the interstate business if the taking out of the license therefor cannot be compelled.
Similar considerations are controlling with respect to the provision of § 332 for the giving of license bonds. This in terms is related to the requirement of § 305. It is provided that a bond shall be given "for each and every vehicle licensed," and it is to be conditioned "for the safe and prompt delivery of all baggage, packages," etc., entrusted to the owner or driver "of any such licensed express." As applied to the company's business of interstate transportation, it must fall with the provision regarding the license, and, further, it must be regarded as repugnant to the exclusive control asserted by Congress in occupying the field of regulation with regard to the obligations to be assumed by interstate express carriers. Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, supra; Southern Ry. Co. v. Reid, 222 U. S. 424 ; Same v. Reid & Beam, 222 U. S. 444 , 222 U. S. 447 .
" TITLE I. -- BUREAU OF LICENSES"
" TITLE II. -- THE GRANTING AND REGULATION OF LICENSES"
" Article I -- Business Requiring a License "
" Article II.-Licenses and License fees. "
" Article III. -- Special Regulations and Rates "
" I. Public Carts and Cartmen "
" II. Drivers of Licensed Vehicles "
" III. Public Hacks and Hackmen "
" IV. Public Hack Stands "
" IVa. Public Porters "
" V. Expresses and Expressmen "
" TITLE 4 -- VIOLATIONS"

References: v. 
 § 308
 § 305
 § 306
 v. 
 v. 
 § 308
 v.

 v. 
 § 308
 § 332
 § 305
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V.