272 F. 924 | 1st Cir. | 1921
The plaintiff (appellee) is a Porto Rican corporation owning and operating steam railroad and electric railway lines in Porto Rico. The defendants (appellants) are Porto Rican officials charged with the duty of administering and enforcing the Workmen’s Compensation Act of February 25, 1918.
On August 27, 1919, the plaintiff hied in the court below a bill in equity seeking an injunction against the enforcement of the Compensation Act as against it. The bill alleges the passage of the Compen
“All public carriers operating railroads shall be included in this act while carrying on their business in Porto Rico.”
That the defendants have assessed yearly insurance premiums upon the plaintiff of $4,560.18, which the plaintiff has refused to pay, being advised that the Compensation Act is void so far as it purports to apply to employees of the plaintiff's railroad and railway because the federal Employers’ Liability Act (Comp. St. §§ 8657-8665) is in force in Porto Rico and excludes local legislation upon that subject. That proceedings, civil and criminal, have been threatened by the defendants, or some of them, against the plaintiff and its property. That the Compensation Act is void, not only by reason of conflict with the federal Employers’ Liability Act, but because of lack of due process of law, in that it “does not provide for or require notice to complainant and an opportunity to be heard upon claims presented to the Workmen’s Relief Commission.” That plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law, since, even if it complied with the Compensation Act, and paid the premiums and assessments under protest, it would be left subject to numerous suits brought by employees under the federal Employers’ Liability Act, pending th.e determination of such suit to recover premiums. That’ one such suit under the Liability Act, to recover for the death of an employee occurring since the Compensation Law went into effect, was already pending.
On December. 6, 1919, the defendants moved to dismiss on the following grounds:
(1) Complete and adequate remedy at law.
(2) No irreparable injury nor multiplicity of suits.
(3) The federal Employers’ Liability Act not in force in Porto Rico.
(4) Even if the Liability Act is in force, plaintiff is not thereby relieved from obligation to file reports under the Compensation Act and comply with the other provisions of the same.
On December 9,1919, a supporting affidavit was filed by the plaintiff’s president and general manager, setting up that there was then pending in the same court under the federal Employers’ Liability Act a suit to recover for the death of one Lopez; that, notwithstanding the pen-dency of this suit, the Workmen’s Relief Commission, without notice to the plaintiff, and without affording it an opportunity to he heard, investigated the death of said Lopez, and fixed the damages to be paid to his widow and children in the sum of $3,500, and that the treasurer of Porto Rico had demanded payment of this sum, and threatened to attach plaintiff’s property on failure to pay the same; that, as the court below has held the federal Employers’ Liability Act in force in Porto Rico, the plaintiff would thus, by reason of the conflict of jurisdiction, be left subject to large expense in defending suits brought under the Liability Act while compelled to pay premiums and indemnities fixed by the Workmen’s Relief Commission under the Compensation Act.
The decision of the court below rests upon the proposition that the federal Employers’ Liability Act is applicable to railroads in Porto Rico, and excludes, ex proprio vigore, the local Workmen’s Compensation Act. New York Central R. R. v. Winfield, 244 U. S. 147, 37 Sup. Ct. 546, 61 L. Ed. 1045, L. R. A. 1918C, 439, Ann. Cas. 19F7D, 1139.
By section 37, the Legislature is given broad and inclusive powers:
“The legislative authority herein provided shall extend to all matters of a legislative character not locally inapplieatde, including power to create, consolidate, and reorganize the municipalities so far as may be necessary, and to provide and repeal laws and ordinances therefor; also the power to alter, amend, modify, or repeal any or all laws and ordinances of every character now in force in Porto Rico or municipality or district thereof in so far as such 'alteration, amendment, modification, or repeal may be consistent with the provisions of this act.”
Manifestly this grant of power is nearly, perhaps quite, the equivalent of the power of a state Legislature to enact all laws not inconsistent with the federal or the state Constitution. The Organic Act is the practical equivalent of a state Constitution. The fact that it remains subject to amendment or repeal by Congress is for present purposes immaterial. In that regard, Congress stands as to Porto Rico in the place of the people of a state, acting directly or indirectly through a constitutional convention.
By section 58, all inconsistent laws are repealed, and all existing, consistent laws are retained, until the Legislature shall by new and consistent legislation otherwise provide. It reads as follows:
“All'laws or parts of law applicable to Porto Rico not in conflict with any of the provisions of this act, including the laws relating to tariffs, customs, and duties on importations into Porto Rico prescribed by the act of Congress entitled ‘An act temporarily to provide revenues and a civil government for Porto Rico, and for other purposes,’ approved April twelfth, nineteen hundred, are hereby continued in effect, and all laws and parts of laws inconsistent with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed.”
That Congress intended the Porto Rican Legislature to have full police powers is apparent, not only from the language of section 37, supra, but expressed in emphatic form in the following provision in section 2 — the section containing the Bill of Rights:
“Nothing contained in this act shall be construed to limit the power of the Legislature to enact laws for the protection of the lives, health, or safety of employees.”
The circumstances under which this provision was inserted in the Organic Act give it a special significance. When the act was under consideration, the constitutional status of compulsory compensation acts was still doubtful. The act was approved on March 2, 1917, four days before the Supreme Court, in New York Cent. R. R. v. White, 243 U. S. 188, 37 Sup. Ct. 247, 61 L. Ed. 667, L. R. A. 1917D, 1, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 629, and Mountain Timber Co. v. Washington, 243 U. S. 219, 37 Sup. Ct. 260, 61 L. Ed. 685, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 642, settled the
The above provision in the Bill of Rights of the Organic Act was not in the original draft. It was an amendment inserted on the suggestion of a representative from New York as the result of a discussion concerning the constitutionality of Workmen’s Compensation Acts. In New York, in order to meet the difficulties discussed by the courts in the case of Ives v. South Buffalo R. R. Co., 201 N. Y. 271, 94 N. E. 431, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 162, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 156, an elaborate constitutional amendment had been adopted. The above provision is a copy of a portion of the amendment to the New York Constitution. It is true that the amendment to the New York Constitution is much longer.and more elaborate than the above provision inserted in the Organic Act. But we think it was intended to have the same general effect; that is, to remove all possible doubt that Congress intended to empower the Porto Rican Legislature to pass any Workmen’s Compensation Act not inconsistent with the due process provisions of the Organic Act, which are, of course, in general, the equivalent of those in our own Bills of Right. As pointed out in Camunas v. New York, etc., S. S. Co., 260 Fed. 40, 43, 171 C. C. A. 76, the present Porto Ri-can Compensation Act of February 25, 1918, was promptly enacted after Congress had passed the Organic Act of March 2, 1917, and the Supreme Court had held such legislation constitutional.
We cannot believe that the doctrine of the Winfield Case has any application to Porto Rico. The decision in that case rests upon the re
But the considerations as to desirable uniformity in liability for accidents to employees set forth in the congressional reports referred to in the majority opinion (244 U. S. 150), on which the prevailing opin-' ion largely, if not entirely, rests, do not seem to us applicable to the present situation. In the states, interstate commerce arises in connection with the operation of state-chartered railroads, running through many separate and differing jurisdictions. Thus interstate commerce, conducted by state agencies and subject to numerous conflicting laws, is hampered and complicated in intolerable fashion. Hence the need of one inclusive and exclusive rule of liability. But Porto Rico has no interstate commerce — no railroad running out of its charter home into quasi foreign jurisdictions.
Further support is given the view that Congress did not intend to continue the Liability Act operative in Porto Rico by the provision, in section 38 of the Organic Act, that the Interstate Commerce Act and the Safety Appliance Act “shall not apply to Porto Rico.” The Safety Appliance Act is an important, if not an essential, part of the Liability' Act. It was applicable to Porto Rico. See American R. R. Co. v. Didricksen, 227 U. S. 145, 33 Sup. Ct. 224, 57 L. Ed. 456, where Mr. Justice Lurton commented on its importance in the scheme of the Liability Act, saying:
“It is not easy to see how effect can be given to the Employers’ liability Act of 1908 in Porto Rico, without concluding that this act of 1903 [Safety Appliance Act] is also in force there, since the former, as pointed out in the Birch Case, 224 U. S. 547, 555, provides in its third section ‘that no employee who may be injured or killed shall be held to have- been guilty of contributory negligence in any case where the violation by such common carrier of any statute enacted for the safety of employees contributed to the injury or death.’ The fourth section contains a like provision concerning assumption of risk.”
After this decision on January 27, 1913, the Safety Appliance Act was, as to Porto Rico, suspended by the Interstate Commerce Commission, and remained there inoperative until repealed by the Organic Act on March 2, 1917. Plaintiff contends that, notwithstanding this repeal of.a part of the Liability Act, the balance still remains in force in Porto Rico. If this is so, it is because the Liability A.ct, as thus diminished or amended, is not inconsistent either with the Organic Act or with the Compensation Act. If inconsistent with either act, it has been either repealed or superseded.
A majority of the court are of the opinion that the Liability Act and the Compensation Act are inconsistent, and that therefore the Compensation Act is, and the Liability Act is not, applicable to railroads
If any further'support were needed for the conclusion reached, it may be found in the fact that it is provided by section 34 of the Organic Act that—
“All laws enacted by the Uogislature of Porto Rico shall be reported to the Congress of the United States, as provided in section 23 of this act, which hereby reserves the power and authority to annul the same.”
The present Workman’s Compensation Act was enacted soon after the decisions of the Supreme Court holding such acts constitutional. As noted above, at the end of section 10 there is an express provision making the act applicable to railroads. Under these circumstances, the presumption of congressional acquiescence obtains. See People of Porto Rico v. American R. R. Co., 254 Fed. 369, 377, 165 C. C. A. 589, and cases cited; Tiaco v. Forbes, 228 U. S. 549, 558, 33 Sup. Ct. 585, 57 L. Ed. 960; Clinton v. Englebrecht, 13 Wall. 434, 446, 20 L. Ed. 659; Camou v. United States, 171 U. S. 277, 287, 18 Sup. Ct. 855, 43 L. Ed. 163.
One other point requires brief consideration. Plaintiff urges that—
“The Workmen’s Compensation Act is void, because effecting a taking of property without due process of law, in that it does not provide for notice or an opportunity to be heard.”
This contention, as presented, has a double aspect. In paragraph 9 of the bill the allegation is:
“The said Workmen’s Accident Compensation Act is invalid because of repugnancy to the due. process of law provision of the Constitution of the United States and the Organic Law of Porto Rico, in that the law does not provide for or require notice to complainant and an opportuniy to be heard upon claims presented to the Workmen’s Relief Commission.”
Manifestly this is simply a contention of lack of due process in determining the amount of compensation awarded an employee. There is no allegation in the bill of lack of due process in determining the amount of the insurance premiums assessed against any employer.
But in its brief and argument the plaintiff, seems to have abandoned the position taken in the hill, and now urges lack of due process in determining the amount of insurance premiums.
It follows that, all conceivable rights of the employer to be heard as to the amount of compensation to be awarded any employee are fully safeguarded.
In the bill it is alleged that the Commission has adopted certain rules and regulations. But these rules and regulations are not before us. , Certainly there is no presumption that the natural implications of the statute, as to notice and hearing concerning the matters directly affecting the rights of the employers contributing to the trust fund out of which compensation is to be paid, are not in detail covered by such rules and regulations. The mere fact that the statute does not contain an explicit provision for a defined sort of notice and hearing as to the fixing of the assessment to be paid by each employer is immaterial, if in fact under the procedure practiced, if not explicitly required, such right is fully safeguarded. There is certainly no presumption that the statute is administered in any unjust or oppressive manner.
No case is cited which on analysis sustains any such destructive proposition. See Glidden v. Harrington, 189 U. S. 255, 258, 23 Sup. Ct. 574, 47 L. Ed. 798, and cases cited. In that case the court said concerning a similar contention:
*933 “Although, with respect to this class of taxes, we have never had occasion to determine exactly what the Fourteenth Amendment required, we have held that the proceedings should be construed with the utmost liberality, and while a notice may be required at some stage of the proceedings such notice need not be personal, but may be given by publication or by posting notices in public places. It can only be said that such notices shall be given as are suitable in a given case, and it is only where the proceedings are arbitrary, oppressive or unjust that they are declared to be not due process of law. Davidson v. New Orleans, 98 U. S. 97; Hagar v. Reclamation District, 111 U. S. 701; Paulsen v. Portland, 149 U. S. 30; Pittsburgh, etc., Railway Co. v. Backus, 154 U. S. 421; Allen v. Georgia, 166 U. S. 138; King v. Portland, 184 U. S. 61; Simon v. Craft, 182 U. S. 427; Turpin v. Lemon, 187 U. S. 51.
‘Tn the Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, 115 U. S. 321, it was held that a state statute for the assessment of taxes, which gave notice of the proposed assessment to the owner hy requiring him at a time named to present a statement of his property, with an estimate of its value, which fixed time and place for public sessions of other officers, at which this statement and estimate were to be considered, where the party interested had a right to he present and to be heard, and which gave him opportunity to Judicially contest the validity of the proceedings, was due process of law within the Fourteenth Amendment. In Lent v. Tillsou, 140 U. S. 316, it was held that in a case of a special assessment for widening streets, publication in a newspaper was sufficient to property owners interested.”
On the whole record, we conclude that the motion for a preliminary injunction should have been denied, and the motion to dismiss should have been granted.
The decree of the District Court is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court, with directions to enter a decree dismissing the bill, with costs, and the appellants recover costs of appeal.
