wise, Indiana Laws of 1920, chapter 165, Utah Laws of 1921, chapter 38. New Jersey and Minnesota prohibit flying in certain localities at altitudes of less than two thousand feet. Numerous city councils acting under the police power have adopted ordinances regulating aerial navigation in the air space within their respective city limits. Their validity is yet to be tested in the courts. In the meantime Congress has failed to pass any law on this important subject, notwithstanding the fact that several bills have been introduced at each session during the last four years and the aeronautical interests have exerted their influence to obtain some federal legislation on the subject. So far the controversy has hinged upon the extent of the Federal Government's power to regulate aeronautics in all of the space over the United States, its territories and the territorial waters adjacent thereto. For a time there was some question as to whether or not sovereignty of the air over any country in time of peace would be recognized by international law. But the development and importance of aeronautics during the World War made necessary the recognition: "(1) of the principle of the full and absolute sovereignty of each state over the air above its territory and territorial waters, carrying with it the right of exclusion of foreign aircraft; (2) of the right of each state to impose its jurisdiction over the air above its territory and territorial waters" as adopted by the International Air Navigation Convention, which was held in conjunction with the Peace Conference. This declaration of principle applies only to International Law and is not controlling as between the several states and the Federal Government. This is particularly true since the United States has not adopted the air convention because of its relation to the treaty of Versailles. There can be little doubt, however, but that the principle of sovereignty of the air will be recognized by the United States Supreme Court once that question is presented to it for determination. This being true, the control of the air space over the United States is vested in the respective states, except insofar as the Federal Government may exercise control over it under the powers delegated to it by the states in the constitution and amendments thereto. BAR ASSOCIATION URGES LAW As previously noted, a constitutional amendment vesting in the Federal Government power to regulate the use for air travel of all space over the United States has been suggested. However, the American Bar Association at its meeting in August, 1922, adopted a recommendation "That until Congress has enacted legislation fostering and regulating aeronautics and until the Supreme Court has determined the extent of federal control over aeronautics no further consideration be given to the question of a constitutional amendment to vest exclusive jurisdiction over aeronautics in the federal government." The bills which have been introduced in Congress have been drafted under one or more of the following clauses of the federal constitution: The interstate commerce clause; the treaty making clause; the admiralty clause; the post roads clause; the national defense clause and the clause granting jurisdiction over limited areas acquired or purchased from the various states. While all of these clauses may be helpful in reaching the conclusion that Congress may assume for all practical purposes exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of aeronautics, undoubtedly the greatest power comes from the grant contained in the interstate commerce clause and the treaty making clause. To exercise the latter requires the ratification of a treaty with some foreign country which would make necessary federal legislation on the subject of intrastate aerial navigation. While such a treaty will undoubtedly be ratified in the course of time, there is no such treaty now in existence and therefore the most logical procedure would be the exercise of the power under the interstate commerce clause. CONGRESS EMPOWERED TO REGULATE In the Shreveport case, 234 United States, page 342, the United States Supreme Court in discussing the power under the interstate commerce clause said: "Congress is empowered to regulate,—that is, to provide the law for the government of interstate commerce; to enact 'all appropriate legislation' for its 'protection and advancement' (The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557, 564, 19 L. ed. 999, 1001); to adopt measures 'to promote its growth and insure its safety' (Mobile County v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691, 696, 697, 26 L. ed. 238-240); 'to foster, protect, control, and restrain' (Second Employers' Liability Cases (Mondou v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 223 U. S. 1, 47, 53, 54, 56 L. ed. 327, 345, 347, 348, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 44, 32 Sup. Ct. Red. 169, 1 N. C. C. A. 875). Its authority, extending to these interstate carriers as instruments of interstate commerce, necessarily embraces the right to control their operations in all matters having such a close and substantial relation to interstate traffic that the control is essential or appropriate to the security of that traffic, to the efficiency of the interstate service, and to the maintenance of conditions under which interstate commerce may be conducted upon fair terms and without molestation or hindrance. As it is competent for Congress to legislate to these ends, unquestionably it may seek their attainment by requiring that the agencies of interstate commerce shall not be used in such manner as to cripple, retard, or destroy it. The fact that carriers are instruments of intrastate commerce, as well as of the interstate commerce, does not derogate from the complete and paramount authority of Congress over the latter, or preclude the Federal power from being exerted to prevent the intrastate operations of such carriers from being made a means of injury to that which has been confined to Federal care. Wherever the interstate and intrastate transactions of carriers are so related that the government of the one involves the control of the other, it is Congress, and not the state, that is entitled to prescribe (352) the final and dominant rule, for otherwise Congress would be denied the exercise of its constitutional authority, and the state, and not the nation, would be supreme within the national field." In the case of R. R. Com. of Wis. v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., U. S. Adv. Ops. 1921-22, 236, the court sustained an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission which was much wider than the order in the Shreveport case. Chief Justice Taft in the course of his opinion said: "Commerce is a unit and does not regard state lines, and while, under the Constitution, interstate and intrastate commerce are ordinarily subject to regulation by different sovereignties, yet when they are so mingled together with the supreme authority, the nation, can not exercise complete, effective control over interstate commerce without incidental regulation of intrastate commerce, such incidental regulation is not an invasion of state authority." UNIFORM REGULATION INDISPENSABLE Uniform regulation of aeronautics is admittedly not only desirable but absolutely indispensable to the effective development of aerial transportation as an instrumentality of interstate commerce. It therefore seems reasonable to believe that legislation for the regulation of aeronautics by the Federal Government would be sustained as constitutional, notwithstanding the fact that its scope would be broad enough to regulate both inter- and intrastate aerial navigation. An aircraft which is so constructed as to be used both in the air and upon the water, presents a conflict of jurisdiction between the courts of admiralty and the courts of law. This conflict, however, is one which can and should be settled by legislative enactment. The draft of the uniform state aviation law contains the following declaration: "A hydroairplane while at rest on water and while being operated on or immediately above water should be governed by the rules regarding water navigation; while being operated through the air other than immediately above the water, it shall be treated as an aircraft." While this dual jurisdiction may give rise to some confusion, it would seem to be the most logical solution of this particular problem. It has also been suggested that Congress in the exercise of its power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce could require corporations engaging in interstate or foreign aerial navigation to be incorporated under a federal incorporation law. If this suggested legislation is enacted, Congress could confer upon the federal courts exclusive jurisdiction of suits brought by or against such corporations. CHRONOLOGY OF AERONAUTICAL EVENTS DURING Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc., Chicago, start registry of aircraft. The Aeronautical Chamber of Commerce of America, Inc., or- Navy completes mapping of the Parish of Orleans (New 1922 Jan. I Aeromarine Airways establishes 21⁄2 hr. service between Miami, Jan. I Jan. 1 Jan. 5 Jan. 7 Jan. 8 Jan. 9 Jan. 9 Jan. 20 Jan. 21 Jan. 28 Feb. 4 Feb. 4 Feb. 15 Feb. 21 Feb. 27 Feb. Mar. 6 Statue to Colonel Raymond C. Bolling, first officer of American Army Air Service personnel at Crissy Field, Presidio, San Fran- Aero Club of America holds 14th Annual Banquet at Hotel Collier Trophy awarded to Grover C. Loening. Lt. John A. Macready, U. S. A. S., Chief Test Pilot at McCook Field, Dayton, O., awarded Clarence Mackay Cup for having accomplished greatest feat in aviation during the year 1921—his record-breaking altitude flight of September 28, 1921. Army Air Service personnel at Bolling Field, Anacostia, D. C., holds aerial exhibition. 5th Group (Observation), Army Air Service, stationed at Luke National City Bank (New York) officials fly from Havana to Lt. C. V. Haynes, U. S. A. S., makes record non-stop flight be- Army Air Service personnel at Carlstrom Field, Arcadia, Fla., U. S. Senate passes Wadsworth Bill (S. 3076) providing for U. S. Army Semi-Rigid Airship "Roma" destroyed with 33 of National Vigilance Committee, Associated Advertising Clubs of the World, issues warning against fake stock schemes, affecting aviation. U. S. Chamber of Commerce at 9th Annual meeting, endorses legislation for national air laws. N. D. Trinler, in Longren biplane, with 60 H.P. Lawrance engine, ascends 17,900 ft. in 140 min. at Topeka, Kans. Mar. 6 Mar. 15 Mar. 24 Mar. 27 Mar. 27 Mar. 30 Apr. 1 Apr. 6 Apr. 6 Apr. 17 Apr. 21 Apr. 29 Apr. 30 May 4 May 7 May 9 May 12 Major Gen. Mason M. Patrick, Chief of Air Service, makes inspection of Army Air Service stations in the Southwest, via a DH-4-B. airplane. Goodyear A C blimp successfully tested at Akron, O. Two Aeromarine 11-passenger flying cruisers establish record for flight between Key West and Havana, covering 100 mi. in 55 min. Prof. J. G. Butler, Department of Agriculture, makes airplane Commercial Aeronautical Association of the 7th Army Corps Bombing record for Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Md., made Two 5-ship formations from Mather Field, Mills, Cal., welcome Woman's life is saved by Aeromarine flying boat carrying Flying meet at Wichita Falls. Spring flying meet at Curtiss Field, Garden City, L. I. Twenty airplanes compete in the various races at the Spring flying meet at Curtiss Field, Mineola, L. I., N. Y., held under the auspices of the Rotary Club of New York, Aero Club of America, the Aeronautical Chamber of Commerce, and Curtiss Aeroplane & Motor Corporation. Fastest time ever made between Kelly Field, San Antonio, Tex., and Pacific Coast negotiated by Lts. James H. Doolittle and Leland S. Andrews, U. S. A. S., 1,200 mi. being covered in 13 hrs. 25 min. 464th Pursuit Squadron, Organized Reserves, 100 acre tract used as flying field at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Ind., dedicated to the memory of Lt. Carl Shoen, an Indianapolis boy, who at the time he was shot down in the World War in 1918 was credited with seven enemy planes. "Santa Maria," Aeromarine 11-passenger flying cruiser, arrives in New York from Havana, Cuba, with 9 passengers-17 hrs. 35 min. flying time. Boston Airport provided by State of Massachusetts. |