122 F.2d 195 | D.C. Cir. | 1941
Defendants are a bus driver and the Maryland corporation which employs him. The corporation carries passengers for hire, by motor bus, on sightseeing tours from Baltimore to the District of Columbia and other places. These tours operate over irregular routes. Passengers are discharged at various “points of interest” or at hotels, within the District, and reloaded to visit other points of interest in and out of the District. Some tours spend several days here. The corporation keeps no office or agent here, and solicits no business here. It complies with the licensing laws of Maryland, and is authorized by the Interstate Commerce Commission to engage in interstate business. On May 1, 1940, its driver, defendant Graff, in one of its buses, brought some thirty passengers from Baltimore to the District by way of Annapolis. It had
Defendants were prosecuted under this statute: “Owners of passenger vehicles for hire having a seating capacity of eight passengers or more, in addition to the driver or operator, * * * shall pay a license tax of $100 per annum for each vehicle used. No such vehicle shall be operated unless there shall be conspicuously displayed therein a license issued under the terms of this subparagraph.”
The statute, as presently applied to defendants, does not interfere with interstate operation, but only with operation from point to point within the District. Moreover, Congress “may exercise * * * within the District * * * the power granted by the commerce clause.”
Reversed.
Act of July 1,1932, 47 Stat. 555, Par. 31(c), as amended, 53 Stat. 1046, D.C. Code, Supp. V, Tit. 20, § 1731(c).
Neild v. District of Columbia, 71 App. D.C. 306, 311, 110 F.2d 246, 251.
43 Stat. 1123, § 8(a), D.C.Code, Tit. 6, § 245(a).
District of Columbia v. Fred, 281 U.S. 49, 50 S.Ct. 163, 74 L.Ed. 694.
47 Stat. 550, Par. 1, D.C.Code, Supp. V, Tit. 20, § 1701.
Capital Transit Co. v. District of Columbia, 66 App.D.C. 351, 353, 355, 87 F. 2d 748, 750.