New York Central & H. R. R. Co. v. Hudson County, 227 U.S. 248 (1913)

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 227 U.S. 245, click here.

New York Central & Hudson River

Railroad Company v. Hudson County
No. 50

Argued November 13, 1912
Decided February 24, 1913
227 U.S. 248

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Syllabus

Congress, by passing the Act to Regulate Commerce, has taken control of interstate railroads, and, having expressly included ferries used in connection therewith, has destroyed the power of the states to regulate such ferries. Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U.S. 196, distinguished.

Quaere whether Covington Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U.S. 204, overruled Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U.S. 196.

An assertion of power by Congress over a subject within its domain must be treated as coterminous with its authority over the subject, and leaves no element of the subject to control of the state.

The operation at one time of both the power of Congress and that of the state over a matter of interstate commerce is inconceivable; the execution of the greater power takes possession of the field, and leaves nothing upon which the lesser power can operate.

No portion of the business of a ferry which is part of an interstate railway is under the control of the state, and so held that the state authorities have no power to regulate the fare of passengers, whether railroad passengers or not, on the ferry between Weehawken, New Jersey, and New York City, known as the West Shore Ferry and operated by the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad.

76 N.J.L. 664 reversed.

The facts, which involve the constitutionality under the commerce clause of an ordinance of Hudson County, New Jersey, fixing rates of ferriage across the Hudson River to New York city on the ferry operated by the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad as lessee of the West Shore Railroad Company, are stated in the opinion.