State v. Burton
| Decision Date | 19 June 1918 |
| Docket Number | No. 5141.,5141. |
| Citation | 103 A. 962,41 R.I. 303 |
| Parties | STATE v. BURTON. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Case Certified from Superior Court, Newport County.
William Burton, on the complaint of James R. Crowley, was charged with operating a motor vehicle at an unreasonable rate of speed. Question of law certified by the superior court. Papers in case, with decision certified thereon, sent back to superior court for further proceedings.
Fred A. Otis, Third Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. Sheffield & Harvey, of Newport, for defendant.
This case is a criminal complaint charging the respondent with operating a motor vehicle on Thames street, a public highway in the city of Newport, at an unreasonable rate of speed. The respondent is a machinist mate, second class, regularly enlisted in the United States Naval Reserve force, and said alleged violation of law occurred while the respondent was on duty as a dispatch driver. The case is before us upon the certification by the superior court of a question of law raised by the Attorney General. The question certified is as follows:
The question is inexact, and appears to us somewhat lacking in clearness. No person is amenable to the laws of the state for violating the speed laws under the provisions of chapter 298, section 5, of the General Laws, as said section is entirely without reference to the regulation of speed upon the highway. The provision of law which is probably referred to is that contained in chapter 1354, section 17, Public Laws approved March 30, 1916, regulating the operation of motor vehicles. From the language of the charge it is apparent that the complainant intended to set out in said complaint a violation of the provisions of the last-named section. From the argument of counsel before us we assume that the question intended to be propounded to us might be formulated as follows:
Is a man of the United States Naval Reserve force, on duty as a dispatch driver, amenable to the provisions of chapter 1354, section 17, of the Public Laws, while acting under the specific instructions of his superior officer to proceed in a motor vehicle with all possible dispatch along one of the highways of the state, which instruction said man was obliged to obey, which instruction was assumed by said officer to necessitate the violation by said man of the speed laws of the state, and which instruction was given by said officer in a matter deemed by him to be of urgency and appertaining to the conduct of the war between the United States and Germany?
In essence this question is: Are the rules established by the General Assembly regulating the use of the highways of the state subordinate to the exigencies of military operations by the federal government in time of war? In our opinion they are. Under the Constitution of the United States, the conduct of the war now existing between this country and Germany vests wholly in the federal government. Any state law,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jefferis
... ... been sustained by the courts. (Ex parte Beck, 245 F. 967; ... United States v. Casey, 247 F. 362.) A war emergency ... requires the enactment of laws that may come in contact with ... State laws and constitutions and in that event the acts of ... congress must prevail. ( State v. Burton, 103 A ... 962.) Inasmuch as a Selective Service Law has pressed the ... sheriffs and clerks of counties into the service as draft ... officers, it would be absurd to say that the acceptance and ... performance of such service operated to vacate their offices ... The Selective Service Act ... ...
-
Hall v. Commonwealth
...362, Ann. Cas. 1917A, 274; South Carolina v. U. S., 199 U. S. 437, 455, 26 Sup. Ct. 110, 50 L. Ed. 261. 4 Ann. Cas. 737; State v. Burton, 41 R. I. 303, 103 Atl. 962, L. R. A. 1918F, 559; Johnson v. Maryland, U. S. Sup. Ct., Oct. term 1920. Of these authorities this is said in the brief for ......
-
Neu v. McCarthy
...upon by all other persons using the highways. The lack of any justifying military necessity distinguishes this case from State v. Burton, 41 R.I. 303, 103 A. 962, L.R.A.1918F, 559, where it was held that a ‘dispatch driver’ of the navy who, in time of war, had been ordered to proceed ‘with ......
-
Neu v. McCarthy
...relied upon by all other persons using the highways. The lack of any justifying military necessity distinguishes this case from State v. Burton, 41 R. I. 303, where it held that a "dispatch driver" of the navy who, in time of war, had been ordered to proceed "with all possible dispatch" was......