Smith v. State of Alabama

Decision Date30 January 1888
Citation124 U.S. 465,31 L.Ed. 508,8 S.Ct. 564
PartiesSMITH v. STATE OF ALABAMA
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

This is a writ of error bringing into review a judgment of the supreme court of the state of Alabama, affirming a judgment of the city court of Mobile. The proceeding in the latter court was upon a writ of habeas corpus sued out by the plaintiff in error, seeking his discharge from the custody of the sheriff of Mobile county, in that state, under a commitment by a justice of the peace, upon the charge of handling, engineering, driving, and operating an engine pulling a passenger train upon the Mobile & Ohio Railroad used in transporting passengers within the county of Mobile, and state of Alabama, without having obtained a license from the board of examiners appointed by the governor of said state, in accordance with the provisions of an act entitled 'An act to require locomotive engineers in this state to be examined and licensed by a board to be appointed by the governor for that purpose,' approved February 28, 1887, and after more than three months had elapsed from the date of appointment and qualification of said board. The plaintiff in error, upon complaint, was committed by the examining magistrate to the custody of the sheriff to answer an indictment for that alleged offense. The ground of the application for discharge upon the writ of habeas corpus in the city court of Mobile was that the act of the general assembly of the state of Alabama, for the violation of which he was held, was in contravention of that clause of the constitution of the United States which confers upon congress power to regulate commerce among the states.

The facts, as they appeared upon the hearing upon the return of the writ, are as follows: The petitioner, at the time of his arrest on July 16, 1887, within the county of Mobile, was a locomotive engineer in the service of the Mobile &amp Ohio Railroad Company, a corporation owning and operating a line of railroad forming a continuous and unbroken line of railway from Mobile, in the state of Alabama, to St. Louis, in the state of Missouri, and as such was then engaged in handling, operating, and driving a locomotive engine, attached to a regular passenger train on the Mobile & Ohio Railroad, within the county and state, consisting of a postal car carrying the United States mail to all parts of the Union, a southern express car containing perishable freight, money packages, and other valuable merchandise destined to Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, and other states, passenger coaches, and a Pullman palace sleeping car occupied by passengers to be transported by said train to the states of Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky. The petitioner's run, as a locomotive engineer in the service of the Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company, was regularly from the city of Mobile, in the state of Alabama, to Corinth, in the state of Mississippi, 60 miles of which run was in the state of Alabama, and 265 miles in the state of Mississippi; and he never handled and operated an engine pulling a train of cars whose destination was a point within the state of Alabama when said engine and train of cars started from a point within that state. His train started at Mobile, and ran through without change of coaches or cars, on one continuous trip. His employment as locomotive engineer in the service of said company also required him to take charge of and handle, drive, and operate an engine drawing a passenger train which started from St. Louis, in the state of Missouri, destined to the city of Mobile, in the state of Alabama, said train being loaded with merchandise and occupied by passengers destined to Alabama and other states; this engine and train he took charge of at Corinth, in Mississippi, and handled, drove, and operated the same along and over the Mobile & Ohio Railroad through the states of Mississippi and Alabama to the city of Mobile. If frequently happened that he was ordered by the proper officers of the said company to handle, drive, and operate an engine drawing a passenger train loaded with merchandise, carrying the United States mail, and occupied by passengers, from the city of Mobile, in Alabama, to the city of St. Louis, in Missouri, being allowed two lay-overs; said train passing through the states of Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Illinois, and into the state of Missouri.

It was admitted that the petitioner had not obtained the license required by the act of the general assembly of the state of Alabama of February 28, 1887, and had not applied to the board of examiners, or any of its members, for such license, and that more than three months had elapsed since the appointment and qualification of said board of examiners, the same having been duly appointed by the governor of the state under the provisions of said act. The statute of Alabama, the validity of which is thus drawn in question, as being contrary to the constitution of the United States, and the validity of which has been affirmed by the judgment of the supreme court of Alabama now in review, is as follows:

'An act to require locomotive engineers in this state to be examined and licensed by a board to be appointed by the governor for that purpose.

'Section 1. Be it enacted by the general assembly of Alabama, that it shall be unlawful for the engineer of any railroad train in this state to drive or operate or engineer any train of cars or engine upon the main line or road-bed of any railroad in this state which is used for the transportation of persons, passengers, or freight, without first undergoing an examination and obtaining a license as hereinafter provided.

'Sec. 2. Be it further enacted, that before any locomotive engineer shall operate or drive an engine upon the main line or road-bed of any railroad in this state used for the transportation of persons or freight, he shall apply to the board of examiners hereinafter provided for in this act, and be examined by said board or by two or more members thereof, in practical mechanics, and concerning his knowledge of operating a locomotive engine and his competency as an engineer.

'Sec. 3. Be it further enacted, that upon the examination of any engineer as provided in this act, if the applicant is found competent, he shall, upon payment of five dollars, receive a license, which shall be signed by each member of the board, and which shall set forth the fact that the said engineer has been duly examined, as required by law, and is authorized to engage as an engineer on any of the railroads in this state.

'Sec. 4. Be it further enacted that, in addition to the examination provided for in section two, (2,) it shall be the duty of said board of examiners, before issuing the license provided for in this act, to inquire into the character and habits of all engineers applying for license; and in no case shall a license be issued if the applicant is found to be of reckless or intemperate habits.

'Sec. 5. Be it further enacted, that any engineer who, after procuring a license as provided in this act, shall at any time be guilty of any act of recklessness, carelessness, or negligence while running an engine by which any damage to persons or property is done, or who shall, within six hours before, or during the time he is engaged in running an engine, be in a state of intoxication, shall forfeit his license, with all the rights and privileges acquired by it, indefinitely or for a stated period, as the board may determine after notifying such engineer to appear before the board, and inquiring into his act or conduct. It shall be the duty of the board to determine whether the engineer is unfit or incompetent by reason of any act or habit unknown at the time of his examination, or acquired or formed subsequent to it, and if it is made to appear that he is unfit or incompetent from any cause, the board shall revoke or cancel his license, and shall notify every railroad in this state of the action of the board.

'Sec. 6. Be it further enacted, that it shall be the duty of the governor, as soon after the approval of this act as practicable, to appoint and commission five skilled mechanics, one of whom shall reside in Birmingham, one in Montgomery, one in Mobile, one in Selma, and one in Eufaula, who shall constitute a board of examiners for locomotive engineers. It shall be the duty of said board to examine locomotive engineers, issue licenses, hear causes of complaint, plaint, revoke or cancel licenses, and perform such duties as are provided in this act: provided, that any one of said board shall have authority to examine applicants for licenses, and if the applicant is found competent, to issue license to him: provided, further, that for every examination provided in this act, the board or member thereof making the examination shall be entitled to five dollars, to be paid by the applicant.

'Sec. 7. Be it further enacted, that all engineers now employed in running or operating engines upon railroads in this state shall have three months after the appointment of the board herein provided within which to be examined and to obtain a license.

'Sec. 8. Be it further enacted, that any engineer violating the provisions of this act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, shall be fined not less than fifty nor more than five hundred dollars, and may also be sentenced to hard labor for the county for not more than six months.'

BRADLEY, J., dissenting.

E. L. Russell, for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 470-472 intentionally omitted] T. N. McClellan, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice MATTHEWS, after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

The grant of power to congress in the constitution to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, it is conceded, is paramount over all legislative powers which, in consequence of not having been granted to congress, are reserved to the states. It follows that any legislation...

To continue reading

Request your trial
365 cases
  • Cobb v. Department of Public Works
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • July 11, 1932
    ...provided it does not subject that business to unreasonable demands and is not opposed to Federal legislation. Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 8 S. Ct. 564, 31 L. Ed. 508; Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U. S. 299, 16 S. Ct. 1086, 41 L. Ed. 166; N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co. v. New York, 165 U. S.......
  • Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Municipality of San Juan
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • September 18, 1980
    ... ... of them, either as a grant of federal power, or as a necessary consequential limitation upon state power, does it affect Puerto Rico. In its aspects of a grant of power to the 505 F. Supp. 541 ... National City Bank of N.Y., 112 F.2d 998 (1 Cir. 1940); Paul Smith Const. Co. v. Buscaglia, 140 F.2d 900 (1 Cir. 1944). In our view, the holding of RCA v ... (12 How.) 299, 13 L.Ed. 996 (1851)), the "direct-indirect" test (e. g., Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 8 S.Ct. 564, 31 L.Ed. 508 (1888); Erb v. Morasch, 177 U.S. 584, 20 S.Ct. 819, 44 ... ...
  • Haeger Potteries v. Gilner Potteries
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • June 28, 1954
    ... ... rule 65, 28 U.S.C.A., and defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement ... Co. v. Call Pub. Co., 1901, 181 U.S. 92, 100-103, 21 S.Ct. 561, 45 L.Ed. 765; Smith v. State of Alabama, 1888, 124 U.S. 465, 478-479, 8 S.Ct. 564, 31 L.Ed. 508; Wheaton v. Peters, ... ...
  • Clark v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • February 26, 1934
    ... ... 114, 9 S.Ct. 231, 32 ... L.Ed. 623, the law was held valid by the Supreme Court of ... West Virginia. The Legislature of Alabama likewise passed a ... law making it unlawful for an engineer to operate a train ... without a license from a board of examiners, leaving the ... atter to the judgment of the board without providing what ... should constitute the qualifications of an engineer. See ... Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 8 S.Ct. 564, 31 ... L.Ed. 508. To the same effect, ... [152 So. 823] ... with reference to the license of plumbers, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Funding 'Non-Traditional' Military Operations: The Alluring Myth of a Presidential Power of the Purse
    • United States
    • Military Law Review No. 155, February 1998
    • February 1, 1998
    ...by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted."); Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 468 (1888) ("The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are frame......
  • Birthright citizenship in the United Kingdom and the United States: a comparative analysis of the common law basis for granting citizenship to children born of illegal immigrants.
    • United States
    • Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law Vol. 33 No. 3, May 2000
    • May 1, 2000
    ...(60.) See BNA, ch. 61, [sections] 50(5). (61.) See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655 (1898) (quoting Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888) ("[t]here is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England."......
  • The Validity of Washington's Antitakeover Act Under the Commerce and Supremacy Clauses
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 13-01, September 1989
    • Invalid date
    ...Co. v. Arizona, 325 U.S. 761 (1945). 27. Primarily a nineteenth century mode of Commerce Clause analysis, see, e.g., Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 482 (1888), the direct versus indirect distinction was used as recently as 1982 in Justice White's plurality opinion in Edgar v. MITE Corp., 4......
  • Ai for President?
    • United States
    • Full Court Press RAIL: The Journal of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & Law No. 3-2, April 2020
    • Invalid date
    ...52.. Ex parte William Wells, 18 Howard (59 U.S.) 307, 311 (1855); Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274 (1875); Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 654-655 (1898); Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 108-109 (1925); Carmel v. Texas, 529 U.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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