Opinion — Erie R. Co. v. New York

IMIR igen pe sd tes ey, ox

The renee

ERIE R. R. CO. »». NEW YORK. 671

233 U.S. Statement of the Case.

ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY »v. PEOPLE OF THE

STATE OF NEW YORK.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

No. 266. Argued April 24, 27, 1914.—Decided May 25, 1914.

When Congress acts in such manner as to manifest its constitutional

authority in regard to interstate commerce the regulating power of

the State ceases to exist, and if there is conflict between state and

Federal legislation the former must give way.

After Congress acts on a matter within its exclusive jurisdiction there

is no division of the field of regulation.

Regulation of the railroads is not a mere wanton exercise of power, but

a restriction upon their management induced by public interest and

safety; and so held, that the Hours of Service Act of 1907 is the

judgment of Congress of the necessary extent of such restrictions as to

employés engaged in interstate commerce which admits of no

supplementary regulation by any of the States.

Provisions in the Labor Law of New York of 1907 relating to the hours

of service of railroad telegraph operators engaged in interstate com-

merce are void in so far as they attempt to regulate interstate com-

merce, as Congress had completely covered the field by the Hours of

Service Act of 1907, although that act did not take effect until

March, 1908. Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Washington, 222 U.S.

370.

Where the state court did not decide that a general law amounted to a

repeal or alteration of the charter of a corporation, the contention

that it did so decide cannot be founded on an expression of personal

opinion to that effect of the judge writing the opinion.

Quere, and not decided in this case, whether it is competent for a

State, through its power to alter or repeal charters of railroads in-

corporated under its laws, so as to displace or share the jurisdiction

of Congress over interstate commerce.

Judgment based on 198 N. Y. 369, reversed.

Tur facts, which involve the constitutionality under the

Fourteenth Amendment of the eight hour provisions of

the New York Labor Law of 1907 as applied to railroads,

aad aaa

LEENA PEAT LEVITT LITLEL LG ROS MEH ME i ae

MEE SEO ee

LEP DRT LAS FE ere Ey

et

we

| a es Os Ot eee.

pS ot aca a,

Pe ee ee

Keene

a

Ditiwresisiicn LT th ARI St NT AY RD Se Cin HY

he Ee tat GALLS ELA Ahi BA

672 OCTOBER TERM, 1913.

Argument for Defendant in Error. 233 U.S.

and employs engaged in interstate commerce, are stated

in the opinion.

Mr. Frederic D. McKenney, with whom Mr. George F.

Brownell was on the brief, for plaintiff in error:

Congress by the “Hours of Service Act” of March 4,

1907, having completely regulated the hours of labor

of railway employés concerned with the movements of

trains, including those making use of the telegraph or

telephone for that purpose, the law of the State of New

York from the date of its passage was void and of no effect

as to all such employés engaged in or performing duties

in connection with interstate commerce. And this is so

notwithstanding that the prohibitions of the Federal law,

by the terms of the act itself, only became effective one

year after the date of its passage, that is to say, on March 4,

1908. Nor. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Washington, 222 U. 8. 370;

see also Adams Exp. Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491, 505,

506; McDermott v. Wisconsin, 228 U. 8S. 115, 131-132;

Chicago, Ind. &c. Ry. Co. v. Hackett, 228 U. S. 559, 567;

Simpson v. Shepherd, 230 U. S. 352, 399, 400; and Mis-

sourt v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 212 Missouri, 658; Wisconsin

v. Chic. Mil. & St. P. Ry. Co., 136 Wisconsin, 407, cited by

this court with approval in Nor. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Wash-

ington.

Mr. Wilber W. Chambers, with whom Mr. Thomas

Carmody, Attorney General of the State of New York, and

Mr. Claude T. Dawes were on the brief, for defendant in

error:

The statute is valid as it is within the reserved power

of the State to amend corporate charters. 1 Rev. Stat.

N. Y. 1827, 600, §8; Const. N. Y. of 1846 and 1894,

art. VIII, $1.

As to this power of the State to amend corporate char-

ters, see Adirondack Railway Co. v. New York, 176 U.S.

@

ERIE R. R. CO. v» NEW YORK. 673

233 U. S. Argument for Defendant in Error.

335; New York & New Eng. R. R. Co. v. Bristol, 151 U. S.

556, p. 567; People v. O’Brien, 111 N. Y. 1; Greenwood vy.

Freight Co., 105 U.S. 13; Lord y. Equitable Life Assur. Co.,

194 N. Y. 212; N.Y. C. & H. R. R. Co. v. Williams, 199

N. Y. 108.

The only limitation to this general rule is that the power

may not be exercised to destroy property or rights guaran-

teed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States

Constitution, and by similar provisions of state con-

stitutions. St. L., I. M. &e. Ry. v. Paul, 173 U.S. 404,

409. See also State v. Brown & Sharpe Mfg. Co., 18 R.1.

16; Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U.S. 45.

A State’s power to control its own corporations is a

power quite as vital to the State as the power of interstate

commerce is to the Federal Government. It has not been

surrendered to the Central Government, and only to the

extent that a Federal power conflicts with it is the state

power devitalized. See Minnesota Rate Cases, 230 U.S.

352, 399.

This court will follow the New York Court of Appeals in

its finding that the state legislation in question was enacted

under its reserved control over a corporation created by

it. Adirondack Railway v. New York, 176 U. S. 335;

Elmendorf v. Taylor, 10 Wheat. 152, 159; Forsyth v. Ham-

mond, 166 U. S. 506, 518; Covington v. Kentucky, 173

U. S. 231, 237; Schaefer v. Werling, 188 U.S. 516.

The statute is not unconstitutional as an unauthorized

interference by the State with interstate commerce, and

the decision of this court in Nor. Pac. Ry. v. Washington,

222 U. S. 370, is not controlling here.

The Hours of Service Act, 34 Stat. 1415, does not apply

to employ¢s employed in a State and engaged in intrastate

business. In this case the employé was not engaged in

interstate commerce; the corporation involved was a

domestic corporation over which the legislature of the

State of New York had power to amend and repeal its

VOL. CCXXX11I—43

ee |

AER MESO SD LOIRE AN EOE ISLE LIME OT

err PPETE MIME EPRI

lobe hh iii i i eel

-

iE age 02

EAE De Seid eI A

Gtk oviead Miteia tas

PRtieoionnssss

674 ; OCTOBER TERM, 1913.

Argument for Defendant in Error. 233 U. S.

charter; and the employé was not one of a train crew and

the work which he was doing was local or intrastate.

Although the state act affects to some extent the opera-

tion of interstate commerce it is none the less local in its

character. Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465; Nashville &c.

R. R. v. Alabama, 128 U.S. 96.

Regulation of trains engaged in interstate commerce at

crossings is within the power of the State. Southern Ry.

Co. v. King, 217 U. S. 524. So also as to the heating of

passenger cars and requiring guard posts on bridges.

N.Y.,N.H. & H.R. R. Co. v. New York, 165 U.S. 628.

In West. Un. Tel. Co. v. James, 162 U. 5S. 650, the

state law forbade the running of freight trains on Sunday.

In Hennington v. Georgia, 162 U. 5. 299, the statute

sustained required railroad companies to fix their rates

annually for the transportation of passengers and freight,

and also required them to post a printed copy of their

rates in passenger stations. See also Chicago & N.W.R.

R. v. Fuller, 17 Wall. 560; Louis. & Nash. R. R. Co. v.

Kentucky, 161 U. S. 677; Chicago, Mil. & St. P. R. R. v.

Solon, 169 U. S. 133; Richmond & A. R. Co. v. Tobacco

Co., 169 U. S. 311; Wisconsin R. R. Co. v. Jacobson, 179

U. S. 287; Chesapeake &c. Ry. v. Kentucky, 179 U.S. 388;

Louis. & Nash. Ry. v. Mississippi, 133 U.S. 587; Erb v.

Morasch, 177 U. 8. 584; Cleveland, C., C. & St. L.R.R. Co.

v. Illinois, 177 U.S. 514.

Congress under its commerce power may, by occupy-

ing the entire field of regulation of hours of service on

interstate railroads, render nugatory, with respect to that

subject, a State’s police power or its local power over

interstate commerce; but not with the State’s power

over its own corporations, which continues and gives

force to a state statute regulating hours of service except

at those points of conflict with the Federal commerce law.

Cases supra, and see also Mo., Kans. & Tex. Ry. v. Haber,

169 U.S. 613, 623; Sinnot v. Davenport, 22 How. 227, 243.

Sect Cg RNA EAA PIT PERLE IEF EEC IED ALT TR AAPA

a rit POTS ANB BECO BERL IEE RIDE LOREAL ELLA LEAPED SAI

ERIE R. R. CO. ». NEW YORK. 675

233 U.S. Opinion of the Court.

Where there is direct opposition or antagonism between

state and Federal law, or Congress under its delegated

power over commerce has seen fit to act upon the entire

subject, such congressional action is exclusive of any state

action under state police or commerce powers. Tua v.

Carriere, 117 U. S. 201; Gulf, Col. &e. Ry. v. Hefley, 158

U.S. 98; Nor. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Washington, 222 U. 8. 370,

378. See also Gladson v. Minnesota, 166 U. 8. 427, 430;

Lake Shore Ry. v. Ohio, 173 U.S. 285.

In this case the statute is a direct aid to the purpose of

the Federal statute, and should be sustained as an addi-

tional benefit to the State with no injury to the Federal

legislation. Reid v. Colorado, 187 U. 8. 137, 148; Minn.

&c. Ry. v. Haber, 169 U. 8. 613; Wisconsin &e. R. R. v.

Jacobson, 179 U. 8. 287; Chi., R. I. & Pac, R. R. v. Ar-

kansas, 219 U.S. 453; Grand Trunk Ry. v. Michigan Ry.

Comm., 231 U. 8. 457.

The state act having been enacted under the reserved

power of the State of New York over one of its corporations,

and there being no conflict or repugnance between it and

the Federal act, the state act should be held to be valid.

Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the

court.

Action for penalty brought by the people of the State

of New York against defendant in error, herein called the

railroad company, for an alleged violation of the Labor

Law of the State entitled “An Act in relation to labor,

constituting chapter thirty-two of the General Laws,”’ as

amended by Chapter 627 of the Laws of 1907."

“Section 1. Chapter four hundred and fifteen of the laws of eight-

een hundred and ninety-seven, entitled ‘An act in relation to labor,

constituting chapter thirty-two of the general laws,’ is hereby amended

by adding a new section after section seven thereof, to be section

seven-a, to read as follows:

“Spcrion 7-2. Regulation of hours of labor of block system telegraph

,

CR lL, bi adh

AS PSUR EEN SOLEIL SEE IIE

Riles kis alban Sea Ease ae

676 OCTOBER TERM, 1913.

Opinion of the Court. 233 U.S.

It is alleged that at the times hereinafter mentioned the

railroad company was a corporation under the laws of the

State of New York and was and is operating a line of rail-

road in the State of New York, in Rockland County and

and telephone operators and signalmen on surface, subway and elevated

railroads.—The provisions of section seven of this chapter shall not be

applicable to employés mentioned herein. It shall be unlawful for

any corporation or receiver, operating a line of railroad, either surface,

subway or elevated, in whole or in part, in the state of New York, or any

officer, agent or representative of such corporation or receiver, to re-

quire or permit any telegraph or telephone operator who spaces trains

by the use of the telegraph or telephone under what is known and

termed the “block system” (defined as follows): Reporting trains to

another office or offices or to a train dispatcher operating one or more

trains under signals, and telegraph or telephone levermen who manipu-

late interlocking machines in railroad yards or on main tracks out on the

lines or train dispatchers in its service whose duties substantially, as

hereinbefore set forth, pertain to the movement of cars, engines or

trains on its railroad by the use of the telegraph or telephone in dis-

patching or reporting trains or receiving or transmitting train orders as

interpreted in this section, to be on duty for more than eight hours ina

day of twenty-four hours, and it is hereby declared that eight hours

shall constitute a day of employment for all laborers or employés

engaged in the kind of labor aforesaid; except in cases of extraordinary

emergency caused by accident, fire, flood or danger to life or property,

and for each hour of labor so performed in any one day in excess of such

eight hours, by any such employé, he shall be paid in addition at least

one-eighth of his daily compensation. Any person or persons, company

or corporation, who shall violate any of the provisions of this section,

shall, on conviction, be fined in the sum of not less than one hundred

dollars, and such fine shall be recovered by an action in the name of the

state of New York, for the use of the state, which shall sue for it against

such person, corporation or association violating this act, said suit to be

instituted in any court in this state having appropriate jurisdiction.

Such fine, when recovered as aforesaid, shall be paid without any

deduction whatever, one-half thereof to the informer, and the balance

thereof to be paid into the free school fund of the state of New York.

The provisions of this act shall not apply to any part of a railroad where

not more than eight regular passenger trains in twenty-four hours pass

each way; provided, moreover, that where twenty freight trains pass

each way generally in each twenty-four hours then the provisions of

r

ERIE R. R. CO. v. NEW YORK. 677

233 U. S. Opinion of the Court.

other counties, extending from Piermont to Dunkirk, both

in that State.

The following facts are also alleged: The railroad com-

pany, in violation of § 7-a of the Labor Law, required and

permitted one David Henion, a telegraph operator, to be,

on duty more than eight hours, that is, from seven o’clock

a.m. to seven o’clock p. m., 6n the first day of November,

1907, in the railroad company’s tower at Sterlington, in the

County of Rockland, New York, there being no extraor-

dinary emergency caused by accident, fire, flood or danger

to life or property.

His duty was to space trains by the use of the telegraph

under what is known and termed the ‘block system” and

to report trains to another office or offices and to train dis-

patchers, whose duties pertain to the movement of cars,

engines and trains on the company’s railroad, by the use

of the telegraph.

There passed over the tracks of the railroad company

on the day named more than eight regular passenger trains

each way.

Judgment is prayed in the sum of $100.

The answer of the railroad company admits its incor-

poration and that it is operating a railroad as alleged, but

alleges that its road extends from Jersey City, New Jersey,

to Suffern, New York, and from Salamanca, New York, to

2 Marion, State of Ohio, and clsewhere, passing through

New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio, and that

at all times mentioned in the complaint it was and is now

engaged in interstate commerce and the transportation of

persons, goods and merchandise by railroad from one

State of the United States to other States of the United 3

States, and to foreign countries.

7

x

:

&

e

2

A

€

ad

Ce ss a ae Ca

5 SID MRAP ALES EH

fn i ale foi alte

ve

this act shall apply, notwithstanding that there may pass a less number

of passenger trains than hereinbefore set forth, namely, eight.

“Secrion 2. This act shall take effect October first, nineteen hun-

dred and seven.”

4 hey PE LAMELLAE LLL ALAA IED AAS Stee a a

678 OCTOBER TERM, 1913.

Opinion of the Court. 233 U.S.

It admits that the company required and permitted

Henion to work as charged, but alleges that the cars, en-

gines and trains that he was engaged in spacing and re-

porting were engaged in interstate commerce.

_ That the Labor Law of the State violates the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United

States, as applied to Henion and other employés in the

same class of work, in that it deprives both the railroad

: company and Henion of the liberty of contract and of

é property without due process of law and of the equal pro-

tection of the laws.

The answer also set up in defense the Federal “Hours

Sein

; of Service” act, approved March 4, 1907, in force one

; year after its passage (34 Stat. 1415, ¢. 2939), entitled

4 “An Act to promote the safety of employés and travelers

j upon railroads by limiting the hours of service of em-

4 ployés thereon.”’

| The law, among other things, authorizes the employ-

x ment of employés such as Henion was, for nine hours in

A twenty-four hour periods when employed night and day

and for thirteen hours when employed only during the

daytime, and, in case of extraordinary emergency, to be on

duty for four additional hours in such period on not ex-

ceeding three days in any week.’

re

1“ Spc. 2. Thatit shall be unlawful for any common carrier, its officers

or agents, subject to this act to require or permit any employé subject

to this act to be or remain on duty for a longer period than sixteen

consecutive hours . . .

“Provided, That no operator, train dispatcher, or other employé

who by the use of the telegraph or telephone dispatches, reports, trans-

i mits, receives, or delivers orders pertaining to or affecting train move-

: ments shall be required or permitted to be or remain on duty for a

longer period than nine hours in any twenty-four-hour period on all

towers, offices, places, and stations continuously operated night and

day, nor for a longer period than thirteen hours in all towers, offices,

places and stations operated only during the daytime, except in case

Bittscces wh einen eres

LF REOREAOLA E ere FMI Pi OF

Sr ere See

Ee NE AE FINS WAS TS

att Se ee ee ee

ERIE R. R. CO. ». NEW YORK. 679

233 U.S. Opinion of the Court.

The answer also alleges that the jurisdiction of Congress

is exclusive, and that the Labor Law of 1907 is in excess of

the power of the legislature of the State of New York and

unconstitutional and void, in that it is an attempt to

regulate commerce between the States.

A jury was waived and the case tried by the court, which

found the facts as alleged in the complaint and that upon

the trains which passed the tower at Sterlington there

‘““were passengers whose journey commenced and ended

in the State of New York and did not extend into any

other State, and some of said trains carrying passengers

and property from one point to another in the State of

New York.”

As a conclusion of law the court found that the railroad

company violated the law, had incurred a penalty of $100

by so doing, and that § 7-a of the law ‘‘is valid and its pro-

visions do not violate and are not in conflict with the Con-

stitution of the United States or the constitution of the

State of New York.”

Upon the request of the railroad company the court

also found the facts of the interstate character of the rail-

road as alleged in the answer and that Henion was em-

ployed as alleged, and found a number of other facts con-

cerning the manner of operating the ‘block system”’ and

the duties of Henion. There were also findings relative

to the Labor Law, the Penal Law, so called, and the act of

Congress of March 4, 1907. The findings only serve to

emphasize the defenses of the company and need not be

set out at length.

The court also made the following findings:

“That at all times mentioned in the complaint or here-

inafter mentioned, the defendant was, and now is, engaged

in interstate commerce, and the transportation of persons,

of emergency, when the employés named in this proviso may be per-

mitted to be and remain on duty for four additional hours in a twenty-

four-hour period on not exceeding three days in any week; . ~~”

SRF TRE

errs srersrys Pe a Cn ade ae ale ile ae al

4

?

Fee ee

BS RRR RS eh ON 0k CRED PATO Soc

Vibe Re aR RATE

inepees Bet Re ine? ae

Ditcissie isin sisicisser

680 OCTOBER TERM, 1913.

Opinion of the Court. 233 U.S.

goods and merchandise by railroad from one State of the

United States to other States of the United States.

“On that day [the day Henion was employed] there

were fourteen eastbound and twelve westbound passenger

trains, and twelve eastbound and fifteen westbound freight

trains, which passed the Sterlington tower during said

twelve hours.

“On November Ist, 1907, a majority of the trains which

the said David Henion was engaged in spacing and report-

ing were engaged in interstate commerce, or in the trans-

portation of passengers, persons, or property from one

State to another.”

The court refused to find—‘That on November 1, 1907,

said David Henion in the performance of his duties was

an employé of the defendant engaged in interstate com-

merce.”

The court further found that the effect of the Labor Law

‘was materially to increase the cost to the Erie Railroad

Company of operating the ‘Block System.’”

Judgment was entered for the penalty sued for. It was

reversed by the Appellate Division, and a new trial

granted, the court deciding that the jurisdiction of the

subject-matter was exclusively in Congress and was ex-

ercised by the Hours of Service Law of March 4, 1907.

The Court of Appeals reversed the action of the Appel-

late Division and affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

The Court of Appeals rested its decision on three proposi-

tions: (1) The Labor Law of the State was a legal exercise

of the police power of the State. (2) There was no conflict

between it and the act of Congress of March 4, 1907.

“The State,” the court said (198 N. Y., p. 381) “has sim-

ply supplemented the action of the Federal authorities. It

is the same as if Congress had enacted that the classes of

employés named might be employed for nine hours or less,

and the State had then fixed the lesser number, which was

left open by the Federal statute. The form of the latter

Be

Bis ts

Drees

ERIE R. R. CO. ». NEW YORK. 681

233 U.S. Opinion of the Court.

fixed the outside limit, but not expressly legalizing employ-

ment up to that limit, fairly seems to have invited and to

have left the subject open for supplemental state legislation

if necessary.” (3) A statute does not become controlling

until it actually becomes operative and that therefore, even

if it should be decided that there was a conflict between the

I’ederal and the state legislation after the former became

effective, as the act of Congress did not take effect until

March 4, 1908, in the meantime the state law was in

operation.

The propositions decided by the Court of Appeals ex-

press the contentions made here by defendant in error

and they are attempted to be supported by a citation of a

number of cases in which this court has sustained legisla-

tion by the States more or less affecting interstate com-

merce. A review of them is unnecessary. Whatever diffi-

culty may otherwise have been in the questions presented

by the record have been met and overcome by decisions

more apposite than the cited cases. The relative suprem-

acy of the state and National power over interstate com-

merce need not be commented upon. Where there is

conflict the state legislation must give way. Indeed, when

Congress acts in such a way as to manifest its purpose to

exercise its constitutional authority the regulating power

of the State ceases to exist. Adams Express Co. v. Cron-

inger, 226 U.S. 491, and eases cited. Also Chicago, R. I.

& Pac. Ry. Co. v. Hardwick Elevator Co., 226 U. 8. 426;

Chicago, Ind. & L. Ry. Co. v. Hackett, 228 U.S. 559; Me-

Dermott v. Wisconsin, 228 U.S. 115; Minnesota Rate Cases,

230 U.S. 352; Taylor v. Taylor, 232 U.S. 363.

This is the general principle. It was given application

to an instance like that in the case at bar in Northern

Pacific Ry. v. Washington, 222 U.S. 370. The case arose

upon an asserted conflict between the Hours of Service

Law of March 4, 1907, the one involved here, and a law

of the State of Washington which also regulated the hours

‘

‘

‘

5

a

3

é

aoe ah

ERIE S

Fa rma Ate cali

Pe PL Ee

ES te ee eRe

6382 OCTOBER TERM, L913.

Opinion of the Court. 233 U.S.

of railway employés. The latter became effective June 12,

1907, that is, before the time the Federal Hours of Serv-

ice Law was in force but after its enactment. The state

act resembled the Federal act, and prohibited the con-

secutive hours of service which had taken place on the

Northern Pacific Railroad and on account of which the

action was brought by the Attorney General of the State

against the company for the penalties prescribed for

violation of the act. The railroad company admitted the

facts but denied liability under the act, asserting that its

train was an interstate train and was not subject to the

control of the State because within the exclusive control

of Congress on that subject. The trial court granted a

motion for judgment on the pleadings, which was affirmed

by the Supreme Court of the State. That court held that

the train was an interstate train and conceded that Con-

gress might prescribe the number of consecutive hours an

employé of a carrier so engaged should be required to re-

main on duty; and when it so legislated upon the subject,

its act superseded any and all state legislation on that

particular subject. But the court held that the act of

Congress did not apply because of its provision that it

should not take effect until one year after its passage and

until such time it should be treated as not existing.

We reversed the judgment on the ground that the view

expressed was not “compatible with the paramount power

of Congress over interstate commerce, ’”’ and we eqnsidered

it elementary that the police power of the State could only

exist from the silence of Congress upon the subject and

ceased when Congress acted or manifested its purpose to

call into play its exclusive power. It was further said that

the mere fact of the enactment of the act of March 4,

1907, was a manifestation of the will of Congress to bring

the subject within its control, and to reason that because

Congress chose to make its prohibitions take effect only

after a year it was intended to leave the subject to state

— ASABE ate) wee TA OR eee WBNC ee

ERIE R. R. CO. ». NEW YORK. 683

233 U.S. Opinion of the Court.

power was to cause the act of Congress to destroy itself.

There was no conceivable reason, it was said, for postpon-

ing the prohibitions if it was contemplated that the state

law should apply in the meantime. The reason for the

postponement, it was pointed out, was to enable the rail-

roads to meet the new conditions.

The reasoning of the opinion and the decision oppose the

contention of defendant in error and of the Court of Ap-

peals, that the state law and the F ederal law can stand

together, because, as expressed by the Court of Appeals,

“the State has simply supplemented the action of the

Federal authorities,” and, on account of special conditions

prevailing within its limits, has raised the limit of safety;

and the form of the Federal statute, although “not ex-

pressly legalizing employment up to that limit, fairly

seems to have invited and to have left the subject open for

supplemental state legislation if necessary.”

We realize the strength of these observations, but they

put out of view, we think, the ground of decision of the

cases, and, indeed, the necessary condition of the suprem-

acy of the congressional power. It is not that there may

be division of the field of regulation, but an exclusive

occupation of it when Congress manifests a purpose to

enter it.

Regulation is not intended to be a mere wanton exer-

cise of power. It is a restriction upon the management

of the railroads. It is induced by the public interest or

safety, and the “ Hours of Service” law of March 4, 1907,

is the judgment of Congress of the extent of the restriction

necessary. It admits of no supplement; it is the prescribed

measure of what is necessary and sufficient for the public

safety and of the cost and burden which the railroad must

endure to secure it.

Defendant in error attempts to distinguish Northern

Pacific Railroad Co. vy. Washington, supra, on the ground

that the State was dealing with a corporation organized

&

;

;

t

z

i

Yd LIES A FOIE SPENT

_——

Sreyry

se captains

Awe A POO POS

3 GR Si

Ge rome

=

se

wn

684 OCTOBER TERM, 1913.

Opinion of the Court. 233 U. S.

under the laws of another State, and, the State of Washing-

ton had no power to alter or repeal its charter. This

power, it is contended, the State of New York has over the

Erie Railroad and exercised the power in the law under

review, and that the Court of Appeals has so decided. It is

asserted besides, that Henion was not engaged in interstate

commerce. These assertions are not justified. The Court

of Appeals did not decide that the Labor Law constituted

an alteration or repeal of the charter of the company. The

learned judge who delivered the opinion of the court

expressed such to be his view, saying (p. 376) that “if the

statute failed as a valid exercise of the police power, per-

sonally”’ he was ‘‘not doubtful that under its reserved

control over corporations the legislature might pass such

an act in regulation of the performance of the business

for which a railroad was organized.”

It is clear that the learned judge did not express the

views of the court. We have no doubt that if the court

entertained such view it would have been declared. It

would have been a direct and, from the standpoint of the

State, an adequate, solution of the questions involved, and

would have made unnecessary the elaborate consideration

of the extent of the police power of the State and its co-

incident exercise and adjustment with congressional power

of regulation. The contention of defendant in error,

therefore, has not the foundation asserted for it, and we

may pass it without further comment, not considering

whether it is competent for a State, through its power to

alter or repeal the charter of railroads incorporated under

its laws, to displace or share the jurisdiction of Congress

over interstate commerce.

The assertion that Henion was not engaged in interstate

commerce is also without foundation and is besides pre-

cluded by the opinion of the Court of Appeals. The inter-

state character of the business was recognized by the court

and the law considered in view of such recognition, The

|

ERIE R. R. CO. v. WILLIAMS. 685

233 U.S. Syllabus.

court said (p. 376) “that the Labor Law purports and at-

tempts indiscriminately and inseparably, to regulate the

hours of the classes of employés designated whether en-

gaged in interstate or local traffic, and that, therefore, its

validity must be tested by the power of the legislature

over the former.”

The trial court, it is true, undertook to make a distine-

tion between the interstate business of the railroad and

Henion’s duties, but, in view of the cases which we have

cited and of the decision of the Appellate Division and of

the Court of Appeals, the distinction is untenable. Balt.

& Ohio R. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 221

U.S. 612; Second Employers’ Liability Cases, 223 U. 8. 1.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further pro-

ceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Ha ERE

a

pg TE