St Louis, Iron Mountain Southern Railway Company v. State of Arkansas

Citation36 S.Ct. 443,240 U.S. 518,60 L.Ed. 776
Decision Date03 April 1916
Docket NumberNo. 302,302
PartiesST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN, & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. STATE OF ARKANSAS
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Messrs. Robert E. Wiley, Edgar B. Kinsworthy, and Edward J. White for plainin error.

Messrs. Henry M. Armistead, Ashley Cockrill, Hamilton Moses, W. D. Jackson, Gus K. Jones, and Mr. Wallace Davis, Attorney General of Arkansas, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:

An act of the state of Arkansas, entitled, 'An Act for the Better Protection and Safety of the Public,' provides as follows:

'Section 1. That no railroad company or corporation owning or operating any yards or terminals in the cities within this state, where switching, pushing or transferring of cars are made across public crossings within the city limits of the cities, shall operate their switch crew or crews with less than one engineer, a fireman, a foreman and three helpers.

'Section 2. It being the purpose of this act to require all railroad companies or corporations who operate any yards or terminals within this state who do switching, pushing or transferring of cars across public crossings within the city limits of the cities to operate said switch crew or crews with not less than one engineer, a fireman, a foreman and three helpers, but nothing in this act shall be so construed as to prevent any railroad company or corporation from adding to or increasing their switch crew or crews beyond the number set out in this act.

'Section 3. The provisions of this act shall only apply to cities of the first and second class, and shall not apply to railroad companies or corporations operating railroads less than 100 miles in length.

'Section 4. Any railroad company or corporation violating the provisions of this act shall be fined for each separate offense not less than $50 and each crew so illegally operated shall constitute a separate offense.' [Acts 1913, pp. 211, 212.]

The railroad company violated the terms of the statute for a day in the city of Hot Springs, and, being convicted thereof, was sentenced to pay the minimum fine imposed by the statute. The judgment which was entered upon the sentence was affirmed by the supreme court of the state. This writ of error was then granted.

The railroad company contends that the statute violates (1) the due process and equality clauses of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, (2) that it operates as an interference with interstate commerce, and (3) prevents a contest of its validity by the excess of its penalties. Of the last ground it may be immediately said that it is without merit.

The other grounds are in effect disposed of by prior decisions.

In the case of Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Arkansas, 219 U. S. 453, 55 L. ed. 290, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 275, a statute of Arkansas was considered which required freight trains to be equipped with crews consisting of an engineer, a foreman, a conductor,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • Francis Wilson v. Alexander New
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 19, 1917
    ...& O. R. Co. v. Conley, 230 U. S. 513, 522-524, 57 L. ed. 1597, 1603, 1604, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 985; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Arkansas, 240 U. S. 518, 60 L. ed. 776, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 443. 10 United States ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Delaware & H. Co. 213 U. S. 366, 417, 53 L. ed. 836, 852, 29 ......
  • Louisville Gas Electric Co v. Coleman
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 30, 1928
    ...Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Arkansas, 219 U. S. 453, 31 S. Ct. 275, 55 L. Ed. 290; St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. Arkansas, 240 U. S. 518, 520, 36 S. Ct. 443, 60 L. Ed. 776. An inspection law which applied to mines employing 6 or more men, but not to those employing 5 o......
  • South Carolina State Highway Department v. Barnwell Bros
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 14, 1938
    ...S.Ct. 418, 41 L.Ed. 853; Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Arkansas, 219 U.S. 453, 31 S.Ct. 275, 55 L.Ed. 290; St. Louis, I.M. & S.R. Co. v. Arkansas, 240 U.S. 518, 36 S.Ct. 443, 60 L.Ed. 776; cf. Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U.S. 299, 16 S.Ct. 1086, 41 L.Ed. 166, an unnecessarily harsh restriction......
  • Southern Pac Co v. State of Arizona Sullivan
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 18, 1945
    ...crews, Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. State of Arkansas, 219 U.S. 453, 31 S.Ct. 275, 55 L.Ed. 290; St. Louis, I.M. & S.R. Co. v. State of Arkansas, 240 U.S. 518, 36 S.Ct. 443, 60 L.Ed. 776; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Norwood, 283 U.S. 249, 51 S.Ct. 458, 75 L.Ed. 1010; and for the equipment of f......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Supreme Court and Interstate Barriers
    • United States
    • ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, The No. 207-1, January 1940
    • January 1, 1940
    ...306 U. S. 79.25 South Carolina Highway Department v.Barnwell Bros., 303 U. S. 177.26 St. Louis & Iron Mountain Ry. Co. v.Arkansas, 240 U. S. 518; cf. Seaboard AirLine Ry. v. Blackwell, 244 U. S. 310.27 Munn v. Illinois, supra note 18; also 94U. S. 155, 164, 179, 180, 181.28 Mentz v. Baldwin......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT