Court Opinion

ID: 9418105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:08:46.925569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:38.750064
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Holmes,
dissenting.
I must admit that I think there are strong reasons in favor of the interpretation of the statute adopted by a majority of the court. But, as it is possible to read the words in such a way' as to save the constitutionality of the act, I think' they should be taken in that narrower sense. The phrase “every common carrier engaged in trade or commerce” may be construed to mean “while engaged in trade or commerce” without violence to the habits of English speech, and to govern all that follows. The statute then will regulate all common carriers while so engaged in the District of Columbia or in any Territory, thus covering the whole ground as to them; and it will regulate carriers elsewhere while engaged in commerce between the States, etc., thus limiting its scope where it is necessary to limit it. So construed I think the act valid in its main features under the Constitution of the United Statés. In view of the circumstances I do not'discuss details.