Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 24.pdf/295

 264

The Green Bag

Judge Lacombe in the federal District The Commerce Court had held that Court April 6 (New York Times Co. v. the Commission had power to require Star Co.) denied this application, on reports only regarding traffic carried the ground that plaintiff was not en under joint arrangement with railroad titled to maintain the action, inasmuch carriers, but not as to purely intra-state as the two copies required by statute and port to port business. had not yet been "deposited in the Mr. Justice Day said a mistake had Copyright Office or in the mail addressed been made by the Commerce Court in to the Register of Copyright." The confusing knowledge of intra-state com statement in the bill asking for the merce with regulation of it. He said injunction, that complainant was "about it was within the power of the Commis to file two complete copies of the best sion to require a "show down of the edition when published," was held not whole business," intra-state as well as to show any right of action for infringe interstate. ment of copyright. The court could Justices Lurton and Lamar dissented. see no hardship in this ruling, as a per Literary Property. See Copyright. son entitled to copyright the work he is publishing presumably "has copies Police Power. Right of State to of it in his possession and could at once Regulate Practice of Medicine — Osteo deposit in the mail the two copies re paths. U. S. quired." A state may constitutionally pre Interstate Commerce. Carriers scribe conditions to medical practice, May be Required to Give Information and may require the diploma of a legal Regarding Intra-State Business — Inter or reputable college of medicine of appli state Commerce Commission. U. S. cants for a license to practise the art of In Interstate Commerce Commission healing, without violating the rights v. Goodrich Transit Company fif White of osteopaths under the 14th Amend Star Line, October Term, 1911, nos. ment. Such was the holding of the 879-882, decided April 1, the Supreme United States Supreme Court in Col Court of the United States, reversing lins v. Texas, 223 U. S. 288. Mr. Jus the Commerce Court, sustained an order tice Holmes, who wrote the opinion, of the Interstate Commerce Commis followed the Texas court in the latter's sion requiring interstate carriers to in decision that osteopaths are included clude their intra-state business in their in the Texas act relating to the practice accounts, on the theory that while the of medicine, and read the statute as Commission had no power to interfere applying to the practice of medicine in the conduct of purely intra-state in a broad sense, rather than merely business, the information required to forms of medical practice charac might be of value in enabling it to make terized by the administration of drugs. reasonable rates and prohibit unfair and "It is intelligible," said the Court, "that unreasonable ones in the carriers' inter the state should require of him [the osteo path] a scientific training." It is to state business. This was the first case from the Com be presumed, therefore, that the statute merce Court to be considered by the permits osteopaths to practise their Supreme Court, and the Commerce art if they "have gone to a reputable school in that kind of practice." Court was reversed.