US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

1. The Massachusetts law requiring a license and a certificate of public convenience and necessity for such operation of motor vehicles on public highways for intrastate carriage of passengers for hire as affords a means of transportation similar to that afforded by a railway company is not shown in this case to work a direct interference with or burden upon the interstate business of the plaintiff bus company, which carried both interstate and intrastate passengers. P. 273 U. S. 50

2. The burden is upon the plaintiff bus company to prove that the enforcement of the act would prejudice its interstate passenger business. P. 273 U. S. 51.

3. The act cannot be evaded by unnecessarily using the same vehicles and employees for both classes of passengers. P. 273 U. S. 51

4. A state has power reasonably to regulate and control the use of its public highways in the public interest, not directly burdening or interfering with interstate commerce. P. 273 U. S. 52.

5. The Massachusetts act is not arbitrary or unreasonable, and the plaintiff, not having applied for a license under it, had no standing to attack its validity under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 273 U. S. 52.

Affirmed.

Appeal from a decree of the district court dismissing the bill in a suit by the plaintiff bus company to enjoin chanrobles.com-red

Page 273 U. S. 46

the defendants, a street railway company, some of its officers, and various public prosecuting officials of Massachusetts, from taking steps to enforce a Massachusetts statute regulating common carriers of passengers by motor vehicle. chanrobles.com-red

Page 273 U. S. 48