Majority — Haelan J.
Syllabus
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP ARKANSAS.delivered the opinion of the court.
Two actions were instituted by the State of Arkansas in one of its courts against the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, a corporation of Illinois engaged in railroad business in several States. The company, it was agreed, entered Arkansas for purposes of railroad business, complying with all the conditions of the laws of that State authorizing foreign railroad corporations to do such business within its limits.
The complaint alleged that the defendant company on a named day and in violation of the law of Arkansas operated and ran in that State a freight train of more than twenty-five cars without having equipped such train with as many as three brakemen; and that the railroad over which the train was operated was moré than fifty miles in length. The State asked a judgment in each case against the railway company for $500. The company filed in each case both an answer and a general demurrer.
The suits were based on an. Arkansas statute (Ark. Laws, 1907, No. 116, p. 295)' prescribing the minimum number of employés to be used in the operation of freight trains and providing a penalty for violating its provisions.
The statute is in these words: “§'l. No railroad company or officer of court owning or operating any line or fines of railroad in this State and engaged in'the transportation of freight over its fine or fines shall equip any of its said freight trains with a crew consisting of less than an engineer, a fireman, a conductor, and three brakemen, regardless of any modern equipment of automatic couplers and air brakes, except as hereinafter provided. § 2. This
The railway company’s answer in each case contained six paragraphs. The court sustained the demurrer to paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 (the defendant excepting), and thereupon, by stipulation, the two actions were consolidated for the purpose of a trial on paragraph five, which was as follows: “Defendant states that its said train was equipped with automatic couplers and air brakes, so that the cars thereof could be coupled and uncoupled without the necessity of brakemen going between the cars, and could be stopped by the application of the air brakes by the engineer of said train without the intervention or assistance of the conductor or brakeman, as required by act of Congress and the order of the Interstate Commerce Commission made thereunder; that it had employed on said train a conductor and two brakemen and that the employment of another brakeman on said train was un
The consolidated causes were by agreement of the parties tried by the court. The result in each case was a judgment against the railway company for $100. Upon appeal by the company to the Supreme Court of Arkansas the action of the trial court was affirmed. 86 Arkansas, 412.
In the state court the railway company* assailed the act in question as being in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as of the commerce clause, of the Constitution of the United Statés. But the Supreme Court of Arkansas overruled these objections, holding that the act was not to be taken as inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States. The case is here for review on the question whether the statute is in' violation of the Constitution.
In our judgment, these questiQns are concluded by former decisions and no extended discussion of them is now required. Yet, an examination of some of the decisions will be proper in order to show the precise grounds on which this court has determined whether state enactments of a particular kind were regulations of interstate commerce or in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
A leading case on the general subject is Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465 , 474, 482, which involved the validity under the Constitution of the United States of a statute of Alabama making it a misdemeanor for an engineer to
In Nashville &c. Railway v. Alabama, 128 U. S. 96 , 101, the question was as to the validity, so far as interstate commerce was concerned, of a statute of Alabama enacted for the protection of the travelling public against accidents caused by color-blindness and defective vision on the part of railroad employés, and which provided for an examination before a state board of any person seeking a position that involved the running or management of a railroad train. In that case the railway company operated its lines through several States and employed as a train conductor one who had not obtained a certificate of his fitness so far as coíor-blindness and visual powers were concerned. After referring to Smith v. Alabama, above cited, as holding that the statute of Alabama, involved in that case, was not displaced by aiiy express
But the case more nearly analogous to the present one is that of N. Y., N. H.. & H. Railroad v. New York, 165 U. S. 628 , 631, 632-633, where the court was required to determine the validity under the Constitution of the United States of a statute of New York regulating the heatipg of steam passenger cars and directing guards and guard-posts to be placed on railroad bridges and trestles and the approaches thereto. . The statute provided that no steam-railroad, doing business in New York after a named day should heat its passenger cars on other than mixed trains by any stove or furnace kept inside of the car or suspended therefrom, except that in case of accident or other emergency such stove or furnace, with necessary fuel, could be temporarily used; that where any cars had been equipped with apparatus to heat by steam, hot water or hot air from the locomotive or from a special car the stove then in use could be retained and used when the car was standing still; and, that the statute should not apply to railroads less than fifty miles in length nor to the use of stoves of a pattern and kind to be approved by the state railroad- commissioners for cooking purposes in din-' ing cars. The New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, a Connecticut corporation, during a cer
It was contended in that case that the New York statute was repugnant both to the commerce clause of the Constitution and to the Fourteenth Amendment. . In the opinion of this court, the principle announced in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat, 1 , 211, that the mere grant to Congress of the power to regulate commerce did not of its own force and without legislation by Congress impair the authority of the States to establish reasonable regulations for the protection of the health, the lives or the safety of theV people was reaffirmed and it was said: “The statute in question had for its object to protect all persons travelling in the State of New York on passenger cars moved by the agency of steam against the perils attending a particular mode of heating such cars. There may be a reason to doubt the efficacy of regulations of that kind. But that was a matter for the State to determine. We know from the face of the statute that it has a real, substantial relation to an object as to which the State is competent to legislate, namely, the personal security of those who are passengers on cars used within its limits. Why may not regulations to that end be made applicable, within a State, to the cars of railroad companies engaged in interstate commerce as well as to the cars used wholly within such State? Persons travelling on interstate trains are as much entitled, while within the State, to the protection of that State, as those who travel on domestic trains. The
It was also contended that the statute, if enforced according to its terms, would make' rapid transportation difficult, if not impossible, and that to compel an interstate train to conform to its provisions would be a wholly unnecessary burden on interstate passengers. After observing that possible inconveniences could not affect the question of the power in each State to make such regulations for the safety of passengers on interstate trains as in the judgment of the State, all things considered, were reasonable, appropriate or necessary, this court said ( 165 U. S. 633 ): “Inconveniences of this character cannot be avoided so long as" each State has plenary authority within its territorial limits to provide for the safety of the according to its own views of necessity and public poney and so long as Congress deems it wise not to establish regulations on the subject that would displace any inconsistent regulations of the State covering the same ground.” In reference to the contention that the statute denied the equal protection of the laws, as prescribed by the Fourteenth Amendment, the court said (p. 633): “This contention is based u$on that clause of the statute declaring that it shall not apply to railroads less than fifty
The principles announced in the above cases require an affirmance of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arkansas. It is not too much to say that the State was under an obligation to establish such regulations as were necessary or reasonable for the safety of all engaged in business or- domiciled within, its limits. Beyond doubt, passengers on interstate carriers while within Arkansas are as fully entitled to the benefits of valid local laws enacted for the public safety as are citizens of the State. Local statutes directed to such an end have their source in the power of the State, never surrendered, of caring for the public safety of all within its jurisdiction; and the validity under the Constitution of the United States of such statutes is not to be questioned in a Federal court unless they are clearly inconsistent with some power granted to the General Government or with some right secured by that instrument or unless they are purely arbitrary in their.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases cited
- 93 U. S. 102 93 U. S. 102 p. 454
- 95 U. S. 487 95 U. S. 487 p. 454
- Railroad Co. v. Husen 95 U. S. 465 p. 454, p. 455
- Gibbons v. Ogden 9 Wheat. 1 at 9 p. 454, p. 455, p. 463
- Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Wharton 207 U. S. 328 p. 454
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission 162 U. S. 197 p. 454
- Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co. 196 U. S. 1 p. 454
- Sinnot v. Davenport 22 How. 227 p. 454, p. 455
- Windsor v. McVeigh 93 U. S. 274 p. 454
- Inman Steamship Co. v. Tinker 94 U. S. 238 p. 454
- 95 U. S. 463 95 U. S. 463 p. 454
- 96 U. S. 387 96 U. S. 387 p. 454, p. 455, p. 456
- Smith v. Alabama 124 U. S. 465 at 482 p. 454, p. 455, p. 459
- 129 U. S. 148 129 U. S. 148 p. 454
- Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Co. v. Hefley 158 U. S. 98 p. 454, p. 455, p. 466
- Interstate Commerce Commission v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co. 167 U. S. 633 p. 454
- Asbell v. Kansas 209 U. S. 251 p. 454, p. 455
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Taylor 210 U. S. 281 p. 454
- Houston & Texas Central Railroad v. Mayes 201 U. S. 321 p. 454, p. 456
- McNeill v. Southern Railway Co. 202 U. S. 543 p. 454
- Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U. S. 356 p. 454
- Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Co. v. Ellis 165 U. S. 150 p. 454, p. 456
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad v. Matthews 174 U. S. 96 p. 454, p. 456
- Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co. 183 U. S. 79 p. 455
- Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. 184 U. S. 540 p. 455
- Walling v. Michigan 116 U. S. 446 p. 455
- Hall v. DeCuir 95 U. S. 485 p. 455
- Sherlock v. Alling 93 U. S. 99 p. 455, p. 460
- Crutcher v. Kentucky 141 U. S. 47 p. 455
- Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway v. Alabama 128 U. S. 96 p. 455, p. 461
- County of Mobile v. Kimball 102 U. S. 691 p. 455, p. 466
- 162 U. S. 656 162 U. S. 656 p. 455, p. 466
- Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Solan 169 U. S. 133 p. 455, p. 466
- Gladson v. Minnesota 166 U. S. 427 p. 455
- New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad v. New York 165 U. S. 628 at 632-633 p. 455, p. 462
- 177 U. S. 544 177 U. S. 544 p. 455
- 133 U. S. 286 133 U. S. 286 p. 455
- Hennington v. Georgia 163 U. S. 299 p. 455
- Southern Railway Co. v. King 217 U. S. 524 p. 455
- 216 U. S. 27 216 U. S. 27 p. 455, p. 467
- Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Kansas ex rel. Railroad Commissioners 216 U. S. 262 p. 455
- Reid v. Colorado 187 U. S. 137 p. 455, p. 467
- Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Haber 169 U. S. 613 p. 455, p. 467
- 205 U. S. 10 205 U. S. 10 p. 455
- Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. North Carolina Corp. Commission 206 U. S. 1 p. 455
- Norwood v. Baker 172 U. S. 269 p. 456
- 179 U. S. 287 179 U. S. 287 p. 456
- Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. Smith 173 U. S. 684 p. 456
- St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. Gill 156 U. S. 649 p. 456
- Smyth v. Ames 169 U. S. 466 p. 456
- Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. Minnesota 186 U. S. 257 p. 456
- Dow v. Reidelman 125 U. S. 680 p. 456
- Chicago & Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. Wellman 143 U. S. 339 p. 456
- Covington & Lexington Turnpike Road Co. v. Sandford 164 U. S. 578 p. 456
- 5 How. 579 5 How. 579 p. 456
- 183 U. S. 518 183 U. S. 518 p. 456
- 179 U. S. 349 179 U. S. 349 p. 456
- Pennsylvania R. R. v. Hughes 191 U. S. 477 p. 456
- Philp v. Nock 17 Wall. 460 p. 456
- 165 U. S. 629 165 U. S. 629 p. 456
- Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois 163 U. S. 142 p. 456
- Cooley v. Board of Wardens 12 How. 299 p. 456
- Cushing v. Owners of the Ship John Fraser 21 How. 184 p. 456
- Steamship Co. v. Joliffe 2 Wall. 450 p. 456
- Olsen v. Smith 195 U. S. 332 p. 456
- Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Mazursky 216 U. S. 122 p. 456
- Hammond Packing Co. v. Arkansas 212 U. S. 322 at 412 p. 456, p. 457, p. 459, p. 465
- Armour Packing Co. v. Lacy 200 U. S. 226 p. 456
- Kehrer v. Stewart 197 U. S. 60 p. 456
- Brownfield v. South Carolina 189 U. S. 426 p. 456
- Osborne v. Florida 164 U. S. 650 p. 456
- Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy Railroad v. Iowa 94 U. S. 155 p. 456
- Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. May 194 U. S. 267 p. 456
- Peik v. Chicago & North-western Railway Co. 94 U. S. 164 p. 456
- 207 U. S. 88 207 U. S. 88 p. 456
- Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Mackey 127 U. S. 205 p. 456
- 169 U. S. 385 169 U. S. 385 p. 456
- 172 U. S. 561 172 U. S. 561 p. 456
- 204 U. S. 362 204 U. S. 362 p. 456
- 120 U. S. 71 120 U. S. 71 p. 456
- 170 U. S. 294 170 U. S. 294 p. 457
- 207 U. S. 354 207 U. S. 354 p. 457
- Welch v. Swasey 214 U. S. 91 p. 457
- McLean v. Arkansas 211 U. S. 539 p. 457
- St. Louis Consolidated Coal Co. v. Illinois 185 U. S. 203 p. 457, p. 460
- 165 U. S. 633 165 U. S. 633 p. 464