« AnteriorContinuar »
And this is in general harmony with the northern district of Ohio by the Interstate thought underlying extradition.
Commerce Commissioners against the Lake Entertaining these views, we answer the shore & Michigan Southern Railway Comfirst question in the affirmative and the sec- pany.
pany. The railway company moved to disond in the negative.
miss the petition on the ground that the
court had no original jurisdiction to issue Mr. Justice Harlan did not hear the ar- a writ of mandamus. The motion was gument and took no part in the decision of granted and the writ dismissed. A certifithis case.
cate was duly made showing that a question of jurisdiction was in issue, and recites that
the court acted not only on the motion of (197 U. S. 536)
the railroad, but on its own motion, in disUNITED STATES ex rel. MARTIN A.
ex rel. MARTIN A. missing the petition for want of jurisdicKNAPP, Judson C. Clements, James D.
tion. Yoemans, Charles A. Prouty, and Joseph
The petition alleges that the railroad W. Fifer, Interstate Commerce Commis
company is a corporation created by the sioners, Plffs. in Err.,
laws of the states of New York, Pennsylva
nia, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois, LAKE SHORE & MICHIGAN SOUTHERN and has its principal place of business in RAILWAY COMPANY.
the state of Ohio, and is a common carrier
engaged in interstate commerce, and as such Mandamus-original jurisdiction of Federal is subject to the provisions of the Act of
circuit court under judiciary act—under Congress to Regulate Commerce [24 Stat. at Act to Regulate Commerce.
L. 379, chap. 104, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, 1. A Federal circuit court has no jurisdiction
p. 3154). under the act of March 3, 1887 (24 Stat. at
That under $ 20 of said act the Interstate L. 552, chap. 373), of original proceedings Commerce Commission is authorized to reseeking relief by mandamus.
quire any common carrier subject to the act 2. Jurisdiction, in a Federal circuit court, of to make reports of certain matters and
an original proceeding by mandamus to com. things, and in pursuance thereof the Compel an interstate carrier to make the report mission made an order on the 3d of June, which the Interstate Commerce Commission is authorized by the Act to Regulate Com- 1903, prescribing the manner and form in merce to require, cannot be inferred from the which said reports should be made and the grant of authority to the Commission to en contents thereof, and directed each common force that act, or from the direction to dis-carrier to file the same on or before the 15th. trict attorneys of the United States or the Attorney General to institute all necessary | A copy of the order was served on the rail. proceedings for the enforcement of its pro- road company, but the company failed and visions.
neglected to make out and return a report
in full, in that it failed to set forth in the [No. 251.]
report made and returned by it the data or
information called for, namely, “the tonArgued February 28, 1905. Decided April nage, ton-mileage, earnings, and receipts 10, 1905.
per ton per mile on grain, hay, cotton, live stock, dressed meats, anthracite coal, bitu
, N ERROR to the Circuit Court of the minous coal, and lumber carried in carload
United States for the Northern District lots; and that said data or information reof Ohio to review a judgment which dis- quired by the Commission to be given in missed for lack of jurisdiction a petition said report by respondent is necessary to for a mandamus to compel an interstate enable the Commission to perform the ducarrier to make the report which the Inter-ties and carry out the objects for which it state Commerce Commission is authorized was created, in the interest of the public, by the Act to Regulate Commerce to re- and that promptness by carriers in furnishquire. Affirmed.
ing the same on or before the 15th day of The facts are stated in the opinion. September of each year, as required by the
Afr. L. A. Shaver and Assistant Attor- Commission, is essential for the purpose, ney General McReynolds for plaintiffs in among others, of enabling the Commission error.
to make a full and complete annual report Mr. George C. Greene for defendant in to Congress, which, by § 21 of said Act to error.
Regulate Commerce, is required to be trans
mitted to said body on or before December Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the 1st of each year.” opinion of the court:
It is also alleged that there is no adequate Petition for mandamus filed in the cir- remedy except that afforded by mandamus. cuit court of the United States for the It is admitted that under the judiciary
act of 1789 (1 Stat. at L. 73, chap. 20) and But in what way? Manifestly only in the act of 1875, as construed by this court, such way as the courts have jurisdiction to a circuit court of the United States has no give. All powers are given in view of that jurisdiction of an original proceeding seek- jurisdiction, and the amendments of the Ining relief by mandamus. And counsel, not terstate Commerce Act are so framed. Juto minimize the admission, quotes the cases risdiction to issue mandamus is conferred in which that has been laid down and the by § 6 to enforce the filing or publishing by text books which have expressed the doc- a common carrier of its schedules or tariffs trine as settled. But it is suggested that of rates, fares, and charges. And such juunder the act of 1887 (24 Stat. at L. 552, risdiction is also given to the circuit courts chap. 373), a different ruling should be and district courts upon the relation of any made. No change in language is pointed person or persons, firm or corporation, alout which would justify such change in rul- leging a violation of any of the provisions ing, but we are urged to that radical course of the act, which prevents the relator from in view of the modern development of pro- having interstate traffic moved on terms as ceedings by mandamus, and the very great favorable as any other shipper. The remimportance of the remedy thereby. We are edy is expressly made cumulative of the not impressed by the invocation. We are other remedies provided by the act. It is inable to understand how language confer- clear, therefore, when Congress intended to ring jurisdiction on a court can take a new give the power to issue mandamus it exmeaning from the circumstances suggested. pressed that intention explicitly. Such Difference in remedies is conspicuous in our yower cannot be inferred from the grant of jurisprudence, and some remedies are of authority to the Commission to enforce the that nature that they can be enforced only act, or from the direction to district attorunder exceptional circumstances and under neys or the Attorney General to institute special grants of power. Of this kind is "all necessary proceedings for the enforcemandamus, and if Congress had intended by ment of the provisions” of the act (§ 12). the act of 1887 to confer power on the cir- The proceedings meant are, as we have said, cuit courts to issue mandamus in an orig. those within the jurisdiction of the court. inal proceeding, Congress would not have And special remedies are given. For inemployed the language which had been constance, by § 16 a summary proceeding in strued from the foundation of the govern equity is authorized, and the form of the ment not to give such jurisdiction. We ad- ultimate order of the court may be that of here, therefore, to the prior cases.
a "writ of injunction or other proper proc2. Congress has undoubtedly power to au. Ess, mandatory or otherwise.” thorize a circuit court to issue a mandamus Without attempting pow to define the exin an original proceeding. Kendail
v.tent of that section, we may say, it seems United States, 12 Pet. 524, 9 L. ed. J181; adequate to enable the Commission to enUnited States v. Schurz, 102 U. S. 378, 26 force any order it is authorized to make. L. ed. 167. But has Congress done so, as Judgment affirmed. contended, by $$ 12 and 20 of the Interstate Commerce Act as amended? Under $ Mr. Justice Harlan dissented. 12 the Commission is given the authority to inquire into the management of the busi
(198 T'. S. 45) ness of common carriers subject to the act.
JOSEPH LOCHNER, Piff. in Err., and has the right to obtain from the carriers full and complete information to en- PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. able it to perform its duties. It is also authorized to enforce the provisions of the act. Master and servant-validity of state regu. By $ 20 the Commission may require an- lation of hours of labor-ten-hour law nual reports, and fix the time and prescribe for bakers-freedom to contract. the manner in which such reports shall be made. And it is made the duty of any dis- The limitation of employment in bakeries to írict attorney of the United States to whom sixty hours a week and ten hours a day, atthe Commission may apply, to institute in
tempted by N. Y. Laws 1897, chap. 415, art.
8, § 110, is an arbitrary interference with the proper court and to prosecute under the
the freedom to contract guaranteed by U. direction of the Attorney General all neces- S. Const. 14th Amend., which cannot be sussary proceedings for the enforcement of the tained as a valid exercise of the police power provisions of this act. It is hence contend- to protect the public health, safety, morals, ed that the power of the Commission to re
or general welfare. quire the report stated in the petition is
[No. 292.] undoubted, and, having power to order the report to be made, the Commission has the Argued February 23, 24, 1905. Decided power to enforce obedience to the order.
April 17, 1905.
County, State of New York, to review a fense. The plaintiff in error demurred to judgment entered pursuant to the mandate the indictment on several grounds, one of of the Court of Appeals of that state affirm- which was that the facts stated did not ing the judgment of the Appellate Division constitute a crime. The demurrer was overof the Supreme Court, Fourth Department, ruled, and, the plaintiff in error having rewhich had itself affirmed a conviction in fused to plead further, a plea of not guilty the Oneida County Court of a violation of was entered by order of the court and the the labor law of that state by permitting an trial commenced, and he was convicted of employee in a bakery to work more than misdemeanor, second offense, as indicted, sixty hours in one week. Judgments of all and sentenced to pay a fine of $50, and to the courts below reversed, and the cause re- stand committed until paid, not to exceed manded to the Oneida County Court for fifty days in the
in the Oneida county jail. further proceedings.
A certificate of reasonable doubt was grantSee same case below in Appellate Division, ed by the county judge of Oneida county, 13 App. Div. 120, 76 N. Y. Supp. 396, and whereon an appeal was taken to the appelin Court of Appeals, 177 N. Y. 145, 101 Am. late division of the supreme court, fourth St. Rep. 773, 69 N. E. 373.
department, where the judgment of con
viction was affirmed. 73 App. Div. 120, 76 Statement by Mr. Justice Peckham: N. Y. Supp. 396. A further appeal was
This is a writ of error to the county then taken to the court of appeals, where court of Oneida county, in the state of New the judgment of conviction was again afYork (to which court the record had been firmed. 177 N. Y. 145, 101 Am. St. Rep. remitted), to review the judgment of the 773, 69 N. E. 373. court of appeals of that state, affirming the judgment of the supreme court, which itself Messrs. Frank Harvey Field and affirmed the judgment of the county court, Henry Weismann (by special leave) for convicting the defendant of a misdemeanor plaintiff in error. on an indictment under a statute of that Mr. Julius M. Mayer for defendant in state, known, by its short title, as the labor error. law. The section of the statute under which the indictment was found is $ 110, and is Mr. Justice Peckham, after making the reproduced in the margin † (together with foregoing statement of the facts, delivered the other sections of the labor law upon the the opinion of the court: subject of bakeries, being $$ 111 to 115, The indictment, it will be seen, charges both inclusive).
that the plaintiff in error violated the 110th The indictment averred that the defend section of article 8, chapter 415, of the Laws ant "wrongfully and unlawfully required of 1897, known as the labor law of the state and permitted an employee working for of New York, in that he wrongfully and him in his biscuit, bread, and cake bakery unlawfully required and permitted an emand confectionery establishment, at the city ployee working for him to work more than of Utica, in this county, to work more than sixty hours in one week. There is nothing sixty hours in one week,” after having been in any of the opinions delivered in this Theretofore convicted of a violation of the case, either in the supreme court or the Alme act; and therefore, as averred, he com- | court of appeals of the state, which con
pog 110. Hours of labor in bakeries and con- or buildings. No cellar or basement, not now fectionery establishments.—No employee shall used for a bakery, shall hereafter be so occube required or permitted to work in a biscuit, pied or used, unless the proprietor shall combread, or cake bakery or confectionery estab- ply with the sanitary provisions of this arlisliment more than sixty hours in any one ticle. week, or more than ten hours in any one day, "S 112. Requirements as to rooms, furniture, unless for the purpose of making a shorter utensils, and manufactured products.—Every work day on the last day of the week; nor room used for the manufacture of flour or more hours in any one week than will make meal food products shall be at least 8 feet in an average of ten hours per day for the num Leight and shall have, if deemed necessary by ber of days during such week in which such em- the factory inspector, an impermeable floor ployee shall work.
constructed of cement, or of tiles laid in ce"§ 111. Drainage and plumbing of buildings ment, or an additional flooring of wood propand rooms occupied by bakeries.-All buildings erly saturated with linseed oil. The side walls or rooms occupied as biscuit, bread, pie, or cake of such rooms shall be plastered or wainscoted. bakeries, shall be drained and plumbed in a The factory inspector may require the side manner conducive to the proper and healthful walls and ceiling to be whitewashed at least sanitary condition thereof, and shall be con- once in three months. He may also require structed with air shafts, windows, or ventilat- the wood work of such walls to be painted. ing pipes, suficient to insure ventilation. The The furniture and utensils shall be so arranged factory inspector may direct the proper drain. | as to be readily cleansed and not prevent the age, plumbing, and ventilation of such rooms 'proper cleaning of any part of the room. The
strues the section, in using the word "re- out due process of law. The right to pur
| quired," as referring to any physical force chase or to sell labor is part of the liberty being used to obtain the labor of an em- protected by this amendment, unless there ployee. It is assumed that the word means are circumstances which exclude the right. nothing more than the requirement arising There are, however, certain powers, existing from voluntary contract for such labor in in the sovereignty of each state in the excess of the number of hours specified in Union, somewhat vaguely termed police the statute. There is no pretense in any of powers, the exact description and limitation the opinions that the statute was intended of which have not been attempted by the to meet a case of involuntary labor in any courts. Those powers, broadly stated, and form. All the opinions assume that there without, at present, any attempt at a more is no real distinction, so far as this ques- specific limitation, relate to the safety, tion is concerned, between the words "re- health, morals, and general welfare of the quired” and “permitted.” The mandate of public. Both property and liberty are held the statute, that "no employee shall be re
on such reasonable conditions as may be quired or permitted to work,” is the sub- imposed by the governing power of the state stantial equivalent of an enactment that in the exercise of those powers, and with “no employee shall contract or agree to such conditions the 14th Amendment was work,” more than ten hours per day; not designed to interfere. Mugler v. and, as there is no provision for special Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 31 L. ed. 205, 8 emergencies, the statute is
is mandatory Sup. Ct. Rep. 273; Re Kemmler, 136 U. S. in all cases. It is not an act merely 436, 34 L. ed. 519, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 930; fixing the number of hours which shall Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U. S. 86, 34 L.
, constitute a legal day's work, but an abso- ed. 620, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 13; Re Converse, lute prohibition upon the employer permit- 137 U. S. 624, 34 L. ed. 796, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. ting, under any circumstances, more than 191. ten hours' work to be done in his establish- The state, therefore, has power to prevent ment. The employee may desire to earn the the individual from making certain kinds of extra money which would arise from his contracts, and in regard to them the Federal working more than the prescribed time, but Constitution offers no protection. If the this statute forbids the employer from per contract be one which the state, in the mitting the employee to earn it.
legitimate exercise of its police power, has The statute necessarily interferes with the the right to prohibit, it is not prevented right of contract between the employer and from prohibiting it by the 14th Amendment. employees, concerning the number of hours Contracts in violation of a statute, either in which the latter may labor in the bakery of the Federal or state government, or a of the employer. The general right to make contract to let one's property for immoral a contract in relation to his business is part purposes, or to do any other unlawful act, of the liberty of the individual protected by could obtain no protection from the Federal the 14th Amendment of the Federal Consti- Constitution, as coming under the liberty tution. Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. s. of person or of free contract. Therefore, 578, 41 L. ed. 832, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 427. when the state, by its legislature, in the asUnder that provision no state can deprive sumed exercise of its police powers, has any person of life, liberty, or property with passed an act which seriously limits the manufactured flour or meal food products shall | ing places are on the same floor where such be kept in dry and airy rooms, so arranged that products are manufactured, stored, or sold, the the floors, shelves, and all other facilities for factory inspector may inspect and order them storing the same can be properly cleaned. No put in a proper sanitary condition. domestic animals, except cats, shall be allowed "§ 114. Inspection of bakeries. The factory to remain in a room used as a biscuit, bread, inspector shall cause all bakeries to be inspected. pie, or cake bakery, or any room in such bakery If it be found upon such inspection that the where flour or meal products are stored.
bakeries so inspected are constructed and con. "g 113. Wash rooms and closets; sleeping ducted in compliance with the provisions of this places.—Every such bakery shall be provided tificate to the person owning or conducting such
chapter, the factory inspector shall issue a cerwith a proper wash room and water-closet, or
bakeries. water-closets, apart from the bake room, or rooms where the manufacture of such food prod- the opinion of the factory inspector, alterations
"S 115. Notice requiring alterations.If, in uct is conducted, and no water-closet, earth
are required in or upon premises occupied and closet, privy, or ashpit shall be within, or con
used as bakeries, in order to comply with the nected directly with, the bake room of any provisions of this article, a written notice shall bakery, hotel, or public restaurant.
be served by him upon the owner, agent, or “No person shall sleep in a room occupied lessee of such premises, either personally or by as a bake room. Sleeping places for the per- mail, requiring such alterations to be made sons employed in the bakery shall be separate within sixty days after such service, and such from the rooms where flour or meal food prod.alterations shall be made accordingly.” [N. Y. ucts are manufactured or stored. If the sleep Laws 1897, chap 415.)
right to labor or the right of contract in can fix the hours of labor in other employ. regard to their means of livelihood between ments." persons who are sui juris (both employer It will be observed that, even with regard and employee), it becomes of great import to that class of labor, the Utah statute proance to determine which shall prevail,—the vided for cases of emergency wherein the right of the individual to labor for such provisions of the statute would not apply. time as he may choose, or the right of the The statute now before this court has no state to prevent the individual from labor- emergency clause in it, and, if the statute ing, or from entering into any contract to is valid, there are no circumstances and no labor, beyond a certain time prescribed by emergencies under which the slightest the state.
violation of the provisions of the act would This court has recognized the existence be innocent. There is nothing in Holden v. and upheld the exercise of the police powers Hardy which covers the case now before us. of the states in many cases which might Nor does Atkin v. Kansas, 191 U. S. 207, 48 fairly be considered as border ones, and it L. ed. 148, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 124, touch the has, in the course of its determination of case at bar. The Atkin Case was decided questions regarding the asserted invalidity upon the right of the state to control its of such statutes, on the ground of their municipal corporations, and to prescribe the violation of the rights secured by the conditions upon which it will permit work Federal Constitution, been guided by rules of a public character to be done for a of a very liberal nature, the application of municipality. Knoxville Iron Co. v. Harbiwhich has resulted, in numerous instances, son, 183 U. S. 13, 46 L. ed. 55, 22 Sup. Ct. in upholding the validity of state statutes Rep. 1, is equally far from an authority for thus assailed. Among the later cases where this legislation. The employees in that the state law has been upheld by this court case were held to be at a disadvantage with is that of Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366, the employer in matters of wages, they 42 L. ed. 780, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383. A pro- being miners and coal workers, and the act vision in the act of the legislature of Utah simply provided for the cashing of coal was there under consideration, the act orders when presented by the miner to the limiting the employment of workmen in all employer. underground mines or workings, to eight The latest case decided by this court, inhours
per day, "except in of volving the police power, is that of Jacobson emergency, where life or property is in im- v. Massachusetts, decided at this term and minent danger.” It also limited the hours reported in 197 U. S. 11, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. of labor in smelting and other institutions 358, 49 L. ed. — It related to compulfor the reduction or refining of
sory vaccination, and the law
held metals to eight hours per day, except in valid as a proper exercise of the police like cases of emergency. The act was held powers with reference to the public health. to be a valid exercise of the police powers It was stated in the opinion that it was a of the state. A review of many of the case "of an adult who, for aught that apcases on the subject, decided by this and pears, was himself in perfect health and a other courts, is given in the opinion. It fit subject of vaccination, and yet, while re
. was held that the kind of employment, min-maining in the community, refused to obey ing, smelting, etc., and the character of the the statute and the regulation, adopted in employees in such kinds of labor, were such execution of its provisions, for the proas to make it reasonable and proper for tection of the public health and the public the state to interfere to prevent the em- safety, confessedly endangered
by the ployees from being constrained by the rules presence of a dangerous disease.” That case laid down by the proprietors in regard to is also far from covering the one now belabor. The following citation from
from the fore the court. observations of the supreme court of Utah Petit v. Minnesota, 177 U. S. 164, 44 L. in that case was made by the judge writing ed. 716, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 666, was upheld the opinion of this court, and approved : as a proper exercise of the police power re“The law in question is confined to the pro-lating to the observance of Sunday, and the tection of that class of people engaged in case held that the legislature had the right labor in underground mines, and in smelters to declare that, as matter of law, keeping and other works wherein ores are reduced barber shops open on Sunday was not a and refined. This law applies only to the work of necessity or charity. classes subjected by their employment to the It must, of course, be conceded that there peculiar conditions and effects attending is a limit to the valid exercise of the police
a underground mining and work in smelters, power by the state. There is no dispute conand other works for the reduction and re- cerning this general proposition. Otherwise fining of ores. Therefore it is not necessary the 14th Amendment would have no efficacy to discuss or decide whether the legislature and the legislatures of the states would