478
The Green Bag
Natural Gas Co. (decided May 15, L. ed.
reasonable relation to this end there is
adv. sheets, no. 13, p. 564). Prohibiting the construction of pipe lines for natural gas, or the transporta tion of the gas by such lines except by
as guaranteed by the Constitution. Chicago, B. &Q. R. Co. v. McGuire, 219
domestic corporations, under certain con
Bag 320].
ditions, and giving to such domestic corporations the exclusive right of emi
nent domain and the use of the highways as attempted by Okla. Laws 1907, chap. 67 — unconstitutionally interferes with interstate commerce,
and cannot be
justified as an exercise of the police power of the state to conserve its natural resources. 50 held the Court (Mc Kenna, 1.). Hours of Labor of Railway Employees —Federal Statute not Void for Uncer
tainty.
U. S.
In Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Inter state Commerce Commission, decided by
no interference with liberty of contract
U. S. 549, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 259 [23 Green "If, then, it be assumed, as it must be,
that, in the furtherance of its purpose. Congress can limit the hours of labor of employees engaged in in tersta te transpor
tation, it follows that this power cannot be defeated either by prolonging the period of service through other require ments of the carriers, or by the com
manding of duties relating to interstate and intrastate operations." See Monopolies. Landlord and Tenant. Constructive Eviction — Adjoining Premises Leased to Prostitutes. N. Y.
the United States Supreme Court May
The owner of an apartment house at
29, it was held, inter alia, that the federal act of March 4, 1907' limiting
342 West Fifty-sixth street, New York,
hours of labor of railway employees does not apply to intrastate commerce, and that merely because many such em
ployees are necessarily engaged in intra state commerce, it does not follow that the restrictions are void. (L. ed. adv. sheets, no. 13, p. 621).
The Court (Hughes, J.) said: “In its power suitably to provide for the safety of employees and travelers
Congress was not limited to the enact ment of laws relating to mechanical appliances, but it was also competent to consider, and to endeavor to reduce, the dangers incident to the strain of
sued for rent for an apartment which had been vacated, and the defense was a constructive eviction because of the
fact that the owner allowed an adjoin ing apartment to be tenanted by prosti tutes. The Municipal Court of the fifth district, in New York, decided for the
plaintiff. The defendant appealed, and the Ap pellate Term reversed the decision, in Dale v. Fyfe. In ordering a reversal Presiding Jus tice Seabury said in part: “The actions
which the landlord permitted to take place in the elevators and halls consti tuted a common nuisance which the land lord had the complete power to abate.
excessive hours of duty on the part of
His failure to do so justified the defend
engineers, conductors, train dispatchers, telegraphers and other persons embraced within the class defined by the act.
ant in vacating the premises. The de fendant was not obliged by any rule of
And in imposing restrictions having ‘34 Stat. at L. 1415. c. 2939. U. S. Supp. 1909, p. 1170.
Comp. Stat.
law or reason to remain in the premises and permit his wife to be grossly insulted and the peace and comfort of his family to be rudely interrupted. The actions
