Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/237/597/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 12:29:03+00:00

Document:
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 237 › Charleston & Western Carolina Ry. Co. v. Varnville Co.
A state law not contrived in aid of the policies of Congress, but to enforce a policy of the state differently conceived, cannot be said to be in aid of interstate commerce.
state law on the same subject cannot he sustained as a help to the federal statute because it goes farther than Congress has seen fit to go.
A state statute which is a burden on interstate commerce is not saved by calling it an exercise of police power.
Section 2573, Code of 112, of South Carolina, imposing a penalty on carriers for failure to settle, or adjust, claims within forty days is an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce and is also in conflict with the provisions of the Act to Regulate Commerce, as amended by the Act of June 29, 1906 (Carmack Amendment).
Atlantic Coast Line v. Mazursky, 216 U. S. 122, distinguished, as that case was decided prior to the enactment of the Carmack Amendment.
The facts, which involve the constitutionality under the commerce clause of the federal Constitution of certain provisions of the South Carolina Civil Code of 1912 imposing penalties on carriers for failure to pay claims within a specified period, are stated in the opinion.
a South Carolina statute, Civil Code 1912, § 2573, for a failure to pay the claims within forty days. The defendant contended that the law imposing the penalty was invalid under the Act to Regulate Commerce, especially § 20, as amended by the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3591, 34 Stat. 584, 593, known as the Carmack Amendment. The lower courts gave judgment for the plaintiff, and the judgment was affirmed by the supreme court of the state. Atlantic Coast Line v. Mazursky, 216 U. S. 122, was relied upon as still sustaining the law notwithstanding the amendments of the federal act. 98 S.C. 63.
carrier in South Carolina no longer is correct, perhaps because of amendments in what now is § 2572.
It is true that, in the opinion of the supreme court, the judgment is spoken of as being for damage done to a shipment "while in defendant's possession in this state," and it is said that the statute limits the liability to such damage. But, in view of the record, this can mean no more than that there is a presumption that the carrier that fails on notice to point out some other as responsible is itself in fault. The defendant happened to be the last carrier of the line, and in many states, including South Carolina, a so-called presumption has been established at common law that property starting in good condition remained so until the latest moment when it could have been harmed. But, while this seems to have made its first appearance in the guise of a true presumption of fact, it became, if it was not always, a rule of substantive law, a rule of convenience, calling on the last carrier to explain. Willett v. Southern Ry., 66 S.C. 477, 479; Moore v. N.Y., New Haven & Hartford R. Co., 173 Mass. 335, 337. The rule is stated as a rule of policy in South Carolina, and the statute makes it still more clearly so, since, with the limits that we have stated, it applies indifferently to any carrier in the line, if within the state, according to the accident of the plaintiff's demand. The case, then, we repeat, is that a carrier in interstate commerce has been held liable for a loss not shown to have happened while the goods were in its possession or within the state, or to have been caused by it, if those facts are now in any way material, on the strength of a rule of substantive law.
"the special regulations and policies of particular states upon the subject of the carrier's liability for loss or damage to interstate shipments, and the contracts of carriers with respect thereto, have been superseded."
It is true that, in that case, the inclusion of the attorney's fee not exceeding $20 in the costs upon judgments for certain small claims was upheld, although incidentally including some claims arising out of interstate commerce. But, apart from the effect being only incidental, the ground relied upon was that the statute did not "in any way enlarge the responsibility of the carrier" for loss or "at all affect the ground of recovery, or the measure of recovery" (pp. 234 U. S. 420-422). The South Carolina act, on the other hand, extends the liability to losses on other roads in other jurisdictions, and increases it by a fine difficult to escape. It overlaps the federal act in respect of the subjects, the grounds, and the extent of liability for loss. We leave on one side the remote analogies put forward in the decision of the state court, as, in our opinion, the cases and principle to which we have referred are sufficient and direct. We should add that the item for overcharges also falls under the act of Congress, § 2, as it now stands, since that section makes the receiving of greater compensation than is received from others for similar services an unjust and unlawful discrimination.
The penalty, the only matter that we are considering, was exacted for a failure to pay both claims, within forty days, irrespective of the question whether adequate investigation had been possible, as required by the Interstate Commerce Commission's rulings, Nos. 462, 236, and 68.
It is suggested that the act is in aid of interstate commerce. The state law was not contrived in aid of the policy of Congress, but to enforce a state policy differently conceived, and the fine of $50 is enough to constitute a burden. Southern Ry. v. Reid, 222 U. S. 424, 222 U. S. 443. But that is immaterial. When Congress has taken the particular subject matter in hand, coincidence is as ineffective as opposition, and a state law is not to be declared a help because it attempts to go farther than Congress has seen fit to go. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. v. Hardwick Elevator Co., 226 U. S. 426, 226 U. S. 435; Southern Railway v. Indiana Railroad Commission, 236 U. S. 439, 236 U. S. 446-447. The legislation is not saved by calling it an exercise of the police power, or by the proviso in the Carmack Amendment saving the rights of holders of bills of lading under existing law. Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491, 226 U. S. 506-507.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 2573
 § 20
 v. 
 § 2572
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.