Fantastic blog post, saw on…

[...]we prefer to display other online websites on the net, even if they aren’t associated to us, by linking to them. Below are some online websites really worth checking out[...]…

[...]Tom Davis Endorses Ron Paul (and Rick Santorum is Impressed) | in freedom's cause[...]…

[...]GOP Debates | in freedom's cause[...]…

I have quite a bit of information regarding this, New York has generally always made a distinction between owner of the vehicle, operator and *chauffeur*, a chauffeur is one required to be licensed.

I’m not sure how long a comment I can make, so hopefully this all fits otherwise I’ll just e-mail the blog author.

New Jersey appears to be the first state to suggest they can take your common law right to travel away.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F60A13F83C5C1A728DDDAF0A94DB405B858CF1D3

“The bill which provides for the tagging and licensing of all drivers of motor cars is one which is arousing the greatest indignation. The bill introduced, if it become a new law in New Jersey, makes every man who drives an automobile, every lady who drives an electric a professional chauffeur, and compells all such persons, at all such times, to wear a huge tin badge, to have a number, and it further provides that anybody may stop an automobile on the road and demand inspection of the badge and of the license. Failure to comply with such demand renders one liable to arrest.”

“There is not a State in the Union which has automobile legislation that does not distinguish between the private owner and the professional chauffeur, or the man who runs an automobile for hire. Automobilists claim that the principle will be the same as the cabman’s license and badge and numbers on his carriage if this probision is made compulsory on individuals and drivers on the road.”

March 26th, 1905. New York Times.

As late as 1909, New York still recognized the difference between private owners of vehicle using their vehicles for travel, and chauffeurs, using the public streets for profit or hire, something the government can regulate under commerce.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F40E1EF83A5A15738DDDA10994DC405B898CF1D3

“When a car is purchased the owner registers it at Albany and pays a fee that entitles him to a number to be displayed at the back of the car. In case of infraction of the law the owner may be located through this number, but there is no indication of the identity of the driver, on whome the responsibility really rests. Licenses are only required by those who are paid for driving. and the fact of ownership is taken as evidence of ability to handle the car with safety to the public, but the owner’s children or friends or any one who is not paid for it, may drive the car. and of them the law takes no cognizance.”

April 18th, 1909. New York Times.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F00713F8385517738DDDAE0994DA405B818DF1D3

“While representatives of the chauffeurs declared that owners and all who operate automobiles should be examined as to fitness, it was pointed out by lawyers in attendance that the plan is unconstitutional.”

NY TIMES, Feb 17th, 1911

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F60E12FB3E5D11738DDDAF0894DA405B808DF1D3

“Pennsylvania motor car owners are unwilling to be mistaken for professionals and will test the new State automobile licensing law for the purpose of security a judicial interpretation of the word “chauffeur.”"

NY TIMES, Feb 6, 1910

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0D1FFA355517738DDDA10894DA415B818DF1D3

AUTO MEN WIN TEST CASE.; Magistrate Decides Dealer’s Employe Needs No License to Run Cars

NY TIMES, Dec 8, 1911

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F30915F6355517738DDDA80894D9405B828DF1D3

The question of what constitutes a chauffeur?

NY TIMES January 1, 1912

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=FA0613FE3C5813738DDDAF0994D9405B828DF1D3

In court Hessler told the Magistrate the same thing, and asked for an adjournment, contending that as a salesman he did not come within the provision of the Callan law and was not a chauffeur. The law requires a chauffeur to obatain a chauffeur’s license, but defines him as “a driver acting as an employe, or for hire.” Magistrate Herbert, in his decision, said: “I hold that at the time of Hessler’s arrest he was operating the car as an employe, that in doing so he acted or was employed as a chauffeur within the meaning of the act, and not being duly licensed was guilty of violating one of the provisions requring that chauffeurs be licensed. To hold otherwise would authorize owners of high powered motor vehicles, whether they be manufacturing corporations or private individuals, to call upon the salesman, bookkeeper, or the office assistant or any employe however unskilled in the mechanism of inexperienced in the handling of such motor vehicle, to take the place of the regularly employed chauffeur in transporting motor vehicles through the crowded streets of this city. To accept the construction contended for by the defendant would, in my opinon, defeat the sole purpose of the provision of that law relating to licenses, namely the protection of pedestrians.”

NY TIMES Jan 16, 1912

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F60E10F83B5813738DDDA90994DB405B838DF1D3

“The Callan Motor Vehicle law defines a chauffeur as any person who operates a motor vehicle as an employee or for hire. If the opration of a motor vehicle by a salesman is merely incidental to his duties, and not a necessary part of them, he does not need a chauffer’s license; however if driving is part of his duties then he must have a chauffeur’s license. A person can drive a friend’s car, providing he does not come under the above definition of a chauffeur. is over 18, and does not have exclusive use of the motor vehicle for a period of 30 days.”

NY TIMES, March 10, 1913