Summary

Pierce Butler Missouri Pacific Company v. Norwood…

Has Congress prescribed, or authorized the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate, the number of brakemen to be employed for the operation of freight trains or the number of helpers to be included in switching crews?
In the absence of a clearly expressed purpose so to do Congress will not be held to have intended to prevent the exertion of the police power of the states for the regulation of the number of men to be employed in such crews.
Source: Wikisource

Pierce Butler Missouri Pacific Company v. Norwood…

Plaintiff, while not claiming the Interstate Commerce Act in terms purports to cover that subject, insists that the act does give the Commission jurisdiction over freight train and switching crews and so excludes the states from that field. It call attention to a number of provisions of the act. [5] And maintains that under them the Commission is empowered to regulate the 'practice' to carriers in respect of the 'supply of trains' to be provided by any carrier.
Source: Wikisource

Pierce Butler Missouri Pacific Company v. Norwood…

Freight trains and switch engines are safely operated on lines similar to those of plaintiff 'wherever the traffic and circumstances make such operation advisable, without such extra switchmen and extra brakemen.' By increasing lengths of their freight trains, the plaintiff and other railroads in States 'where such extra brakemen and extra switchmen are not (by law) required' have been able to effect great economies.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature