*1 v. R. R. COM. CO. TRUCKING FROST of the Case. Statement Act, the true construction of the and, considering rights; an injunction which would appears justify no ground with proceeding orderly its enforce- them prevent ment.
Affirmed. CO. TRUCKING RAILROAD FROST FROST & OF COMMISSION CALIFORNIA. THE THE COURT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
ERROR TO SUPREME 7, Argued April 21, 22, No. 1926. Decided June 1926. 828. private Assuming, carriers for use of 1. not deny, it can constitu- privilege hire is which the State privilege prece- the unconstitutional 'condition .tionally affix to that against carrier shall assume his will the burdens and dent that the P. 592. duties of a common carrier. Stage Transportation Truck
2. the Auto and Act' of Cali- Under applied by fornia, as amended and construed and - case, private supreme court carriers automobile operate highways between can not over the state for hire fixed having from the Railroad termini without first secured Commis- public necessity, therein convenience sion a certificate of regulations they merely appropriate become n condition carriers but of becom- submit themselves to. Com-, ing being regulated common carriers and of as such n mission. process Held due of the Four- violative of the clause P. 591. teenth Amendment.
70 Cal. Dec. reversed. Supreme Court Califor- judgment Error to a an order the Railroad Commission nia which sustained operations in error to suspend directing for the contract single under a betweep termini, highways, unless over fruit from the Commission a they cer- until should secure necessity required tificate that convenience thereof. or continuance resumption Argument 271U. S. for Plaintiffs Error. (cid:127) Thelen, Sanborn, Mr. Messrs. H. H. Max with whom Devlin, Smith, Douglas R. Delancey C. Frank Brook- man, were on the brief, and Edwin C. Blanchard *2 plaintiffs in error. The Supreme of California conceded the well Court “ rule has no power by State mere
established legislative fiat, or even constitutional enactment, transmute a a private utility public utility, into .or a pri- vate into a public carrier,” carrier but the same result is accomplished by be indirection through condition to if private effect uses the operator public highways, only it can be that you condition in turn shall dedicate the in by you used such to the public public use of transportation.” business in The decision this 70 Cal. case, 457, expressly Dec. concedes that the Act cannot properly be construed to abe statute the use of regulating the highways. There general is no rule to the effect that the State can prevent of its highways by private the use carriers. Davis v. York, 14 Mayor 506; New Y. Nichols, N. Macomber v. 34 212. To protect public Mich. in the use of the highways, established, there was as an exception to the general rule, proposition that, carriers, as to common might prevent the State the use of public highways they if or, willing it was should be used might establish carriers, common such reasonable con be in the might ditions interest. This exception extended private has never been carriers using the to. in the of their pursuit private highways business. One errors in the of the fundamental decision is that it under though in exception were, fact,, takes to treat the Both the rule and the exception rule. were ac general Kuykendall, in Buck 267 U. S. v. curately stated very carefully limited the excep that case This Court carriers. tion to cases of.common hold course, is to decision, The effect for no longer possible any California it the State of 585 COM. R. R. 00. v. TRUCKING FROST ' in Error. Argument Defendant for 583 carrier private as a operate citizen private between over the contract private Michigan Pub. Util. route. See regular or over termini 570; Trans. Co. v. Producers Duke, 266 U. S. Comm. v. In Packing Co. v. 228; Comm., U. S. Railroad Wolf Metcalf, 131 Court, Davis 522; dustrial also Nelson, 457. See Utah 141; Wash. Meyers, St. 59. Hissem v. Guran & Oh. of the equal protection Act denies the laws The only
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. pos- sible difference between two trucks that one is of the in the operated operator business of his own while the other is goods, oper- ated in operator trans- neighbors’ goods pay. case, each portation *3 used for the highway being business “ natural, There is no inherent or operator. constitu- ” ground tional or classification betwen these distinction and if the Frosts are operations, compelled two to discon- private business, tinue the of their operation while at the the other operator permitted same time truck to con- over the tinue his business highways, we a equal a case of denial protection have clear of the. Atchison, Matthews, T. & S. R. R. v. F. 174 laws. U. S. Green, v. 216 S. Ry. 400; Atchison, Sou. Co. U. 96; T. & Vosburg, 56; S. Corrigan, Truax v. Ry, U. F. Airway App. Corp. Day, 71; Elec. 312; U. S. Seavey, Frt. Ass’n. v. 69 Cal. 473. Mot. Dec. Franchise for defendant error. I. Wheat Carl Mr. arbitrary here of discrimination question is no
There they ap- not error, yet have against plaintiffs to cover of the operations nature for a certificate plied and sole of the Railroad them, ruling proposed operate not unless they should so was that Commission If, had such a certificate. secured they until and OCTOBER ' Argument for Defendant in Error. 271U. S. proper application, the Railroad Commission arbi- had trarily them denied the certificate in totally question, a different problem would be presented to this Nor Court. we in are this case with concerned any pro- the other visions the statute. Some may and be some not applicable question such carriers. The sole do here whether or State may require of one who desires to situs its public highways use as the chief paramount of his private haulage business to come some state agency obtain certificate so to While the pub- do. highways open lic are persons State free to all nevertheless, for traverse and at communication all times, properly impose reasonable conditions and regulations any particular individuals who desire to such publicly use constructed and maintained chief situs of their persons transporting property thereover as a hire, business for whether carriage the nature of common or otherwise. use this is unquestionably impression, While case of first we believe that the reasoning of the state court is sustainable upon grounds both of and logic. law
Plaintiffs in error present for consideration the follow- ing purported Say (1) they dilemna. If they, effect: for a apply and, certificate under this statute due after notice, hearing, opportunity present testimony, denied, formal it is findings, they deprived of the are (which they claim to be inviolate) transporting, in their trucks over the hire highways for *4 under private contracts; whereas, (2) if for they apply a certificate and it is granted, they subjected be will regulations which, say they, would, effect, force them into the of common Both' of carriage. these they urge to be results unconstitutional. This second proposition already we believe has been There has met.. here, no attempt been either Legislature Commis- sion, persons to make these unwillingly assume the status
FROST . TRUCKING R. R. CO. v. COM. Argument for in Error. Defendant of common carriers. Most of the cases cited for off on the .go point that there has been an-attempt do this; throughout their brief there appear statements suggest seem to that this attempted here. We submit the most cursory reading of the decision of the state court nothing discloses that could farther be from the fact. The regulation sought imposed them is not common carriers, as but for hire as carriers contract. private Under this statute all car- riers continue exist as carriers.
Plaintiffs have been great pains “analyze certain at. provisions of the California which they Act claim can logically be applied only to common carriers. We sub mit that applicability these provisions is not now before this Court for consideration or determination. The portion of this statute here involved, is that which re quires every “transportation company” to secure a cer tificate of convenience and necessity before operat ing trucks hire over the public highways.' If there be a logical or inherent distinction in kind the classification is sustainable. There is a difference in kind between-the man who, as a mere his incident businéss, transports his own over the highways, who man makes those highways the main instrumentality his hauling business. No person can be said to have a vested to make use of the public highways the situs of business. That his is a privilege to which no one is entitled of right.” See decisions cited in the decision of the court below, particularly Banton, Packard v. U. S.
In the interest of the public at large, which at enor- expense mous and maintains these highways, builds has been found essential to impose regulations those who use them. First came the automobiles licensing of operators, their safety and the enactment of general and weight provisions. broadly These Acts have'been
Argument for Defendant Error. , every sustained But as the use of the auto- State. mobile the life whole communities developed of —as was transformed this new mode of locomotion which has way every made into hamlet —as thé network of its broad,-well-built itself highways rapidly-extended toym town areas, and far out into the farming —there grew business, a trans- up new arid form of potent —the portation of automobile. The persons property first result of this was that most of the development country short-line steam and electric railroads of the went into The second was an insistent bankruptcy. that regulation. demand for arose California this some strong Supreme demand was so that the California the Court, upon petition the short-line railroads of jurisdiction to assume ordered Commission State, provision under over automotive carriers a century auto- quarter before adopted Constitution year, again The next at the be- invented. mobiles were railroads, Legislature passed hest short-line regulation for the providing statute comprehensive ” by automobile, including companies or persons carriers of term all common routes. regular Realizing teririini or over between and to scope, in- inadequate former Act was increasing number regulation under reasonable bring themselves out as common not held who had persons using high- were the public but who nevertheless carriers situs of their situs, only main ways as —indeed legislature amended hauling hire, for —the covered carriers formerly common which had statute regulation. carriers bring alone order the commonweal—in in aid of done And a business for public use these all who regular might routes fixed termini over between hire control, pur- a proper subjected competition purpose of but-for suppressing pose FROST TRUCKING CO. u. R. R. COM. Opinion
583' Court. interest upholding proper and continuous service, and the proper special exercise privilege *6 using public highways place business. rights
This whole claim contract” is .“private such illusory. thb instance there was but one present Case, 752, Dec. there contract; but Cal. Holmes twenty-three, plaintiff’s were and we under suppose that theory might there be a well thousand.'
Mr. Justice the opinion delivered of the Sutherland Court. the,
This case validity involves the constitutional California, Auto Stage'and Truck Act of Transportation c. Statutes' of California, .1917, 330, as construed p. and applied error the state supreme court. The specific challenge is as so construed and applied, their use property public just it. takes without compensation, them of their deprives property .without due process of law, equal and denies them protection of the laws, violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution. The act provides for the supervision regulation and Of transportation com- for. pensation over public by automobiles, auto trucks, etc., by railroad commission. The term “ ” transportation company is defined to mean a common carrier for compensation any over- public highway be- tween fixed termini or over a regular route. By 3, no § corporation or person permitted to operate any auto- mobile, auto truck, etc:, for the transportation of persons or as a common carrier for compensation' any on state, public highway in this between any termini . . unless a permit has first been secured herein provided.” Permits are issued in- upon application by the corporated city or town, city and or county, county within or through which the applicant operate.' intends to By 4, the railroad § commission empowered supervise 271U. S. Court.
Opinion of the fix and to regulate companies aid fares, classifications, regula- rules and rates, charges, their all matters them in affect- tions, and, generally, regulate traveling shipping their with the ing relationship permit, in addition public. requires, Section jthe commission must obtain from applicant railroad necessity declaring convenience certificate require privilege; the exercise of such pro- commission attach the exercise of vides such terms conditions as in its rights granted necessity may arid re- convenience judgment without under such certificate quire. permit Operation In 1919, amended, the act was Statutes prohibited. bring regulative so as to .1919, 280, p. c. commission automotive persons carriers of -control *7 under' of or-property operating private carriage; contracts “ ” transportation company enlarged the térm was so such a carrier. It was further provided ás to include that shall for company operate such com- no. highways having without first pensation-over secured of public from the commission certificate convenience necessity so to do. engaged error were under'a single private Plaintiffs f stipulated, in transporting, compensation, contract om public highways over the fruit between ter citrous brought .before the charged were commission They mini. that act, for the reason had not violating they with a certificate of con public from the commission secured necessity. commission, agreeing while venience private carriers, fact, held plaintiffs .were, that error di of they provisions to the the act and were that their operations their' con suspend them rected secure a certificate and until should that unless they tract resumption necessity required convenience public commission’s up order was continuance or thereof. 70 Cal. court. Dec. supreme held the State R. FROST TRUCKING CO. v. R. COM. of Opinion the Court.
On behalf of in error the contention is application its to private carriers, the act has the effect of them transforming into carriers by legislative Upon fiat. the other side is said that the sole purpose of legislation is to impress such private car- riers certain regulations long they so desire use the publicly built and owned as the chief situs their, business hauling goods for compensation,” and sere “they be, not and cannot forced, directly or indirectly, to become common carriers.” unnecessary
It is to inquire which view correct, since act has been authoritatively construed the state supreme court. court, That while saying the state was without power, by legislative 'mere fiat even or constitutional carrier enactment, transmute private public carrier, into a declared that the state had altogether withhold from grant its citizens the using for public highways privilege purpose of transacting private and. thereon; that, therefore, legislature might grant on conditions impose. light fit to In the general as it state- saw held principle, ment that the effect of the trans- special offer a portation privilege using act public highways compensation carrier condition that he shall dedicate his property to the use quasi-public transportation; obliged is not condition, to submit himself to carrier but, not, if he does he is not entitled to the privilege *8 highways. the using is clear the very act,
It as thus in no applied, is a regulation real of the of the public highways. sense use regulation It is a business those engaged who are using in them. Its primary purpose pro- is to evidently tect the business those who are common carriers fact by controlling competitive conditions. Protection or con- effect, not This, servation the involved. is 1925. 271U. S. Opinion of the Court. Cal. plainly expressed. is of the court below the view pp. 46A-465, Dec.
Thús, by will be under the act as construed seen whose court, binding upon us, state construction is high- himself private carrier .avail of- the use ways only upon condition that his he dedicate him- public to the all the burdens imposed by self to duties and act is presented the case words, common carriers. other order private not that of carrier to have- who, is privilege of using highways, required merely and become certificate convenience sub- secure ject carrier; to that kind of a regulations appropriate private who, but is that of a carrier in order to enjoy condition highways, use of the must submit of be- regulated being common carrier and of as coming a The certificate of the railroad commission. required exacted of a common car- convenience, by 5, is § to that status. require- incidental purely rier and car- qua to a carrier apply private not ment does character of rier, only imposed statutory but to him his signification, from that so far Apart carrier. .common exist. it does not concerned, he is consistently process with of. That, due clause be con á carrier cannot Amendment, Fourteenth his,will into a common carrier mere against verted doubt and open is a rule not command, legislative It de expressly into here. brought question so. Duke, 266 U. Michigan Commission cided Guran, 112 59; Hissem v. O. S. also, 577-578. See question 462. The naked Nelson, 65 Utah therefore, whether state determine, have we imposing the unconstitu the same result bring about enjoy precedent a condition ¡tional requirement - we shall deciding, without so which, a privilege, ment within, altogether to be assume *9 FROST v. R. TRUCKING CO. R. COM. Opinion of the Court.
withhold it if sees fit to do Upon so. the answer to question, constitutionality of the statute now will depend. review
There is in the not but inquiry single power, involved a powers. power two distinct One of these'—the to prohibit use public highways state proper cases—the possesses; other —the to compel private' a carrier to assume against his will the and burdens duties is á common carrier —the state does not possess. It clear that any attempt to exert the latter, separately fall authority must before substantively, paramount form the Constitution. it in the conditional May stand in which it here If so, guaranties, made? constitutional carefully safeguarded against assault, open so direct are to destruction by indirect but no less effective process a form volun requiring surrender, which, though, compulsion. none of the elements1 fact lacks tary, to offer Having regard alone, to form the act here is an may carrier of a which the state privilege, or a grant deny, which the carrier is condition, free. reject. to no accept given the carrier is reality, choice, a except choice between the rock whirl and the pool, option forego privilege may which vital —an to his livelihood or' submit to á requirement which constitute an intolerable burden. would be
It a palpable incongruity strike down an legislation act of state which, words express divest- ment, seeks to. strip rights citizen of guaranteed the federal Constitution, but uphold an act which the same result is accomplished under the guise of a sur- render of exchange for a privilege valuable state ptherwise threatens It withhold. not necessary challenge the proposition gen- that, as a eral rule, state, having power to deny privilege alto- gether, may grant it such conditions fit sees But the impose. power of the is not respect 9542° —26-38 TERM, 1925. . 271U. Opinion of the Court. one of the limitations
unlimited; and relinquishment reqúire the *10 conditions which impose the sur- rights. may compel If the state constitutional its right a condition of constitutional render of one all. of compel a surrender manner, it in like favor, may, the Con- embedded in guaranties It that inconceivable manipulated United thus of the States stitution of out existence. this amply justify of decisions .this court prior the rule Wall. Virginia, 168, 181, In 8
conclusion. Paul v. to ex having the state, was stated to be that admit limits, may from its corporations foreign clude the state terms and conditions as them upon- v. Company think But impose. to proper Insurance sweeping Morse, this was said that 445, 456, 20 Wall. facts with reference to must be language understood include to not be extended it could case; to Constitution and laws repugnant conditions 197, Burnside, 121 186, S. Barron v. U. United States. Justice reaffirmed. Mr. expressly this limitation 200): court, (p. for the speaking Blatchford, said “ impose upon as to of a to right question duty commerce the engaged in interstate a corporation its condition state, from the a. obtaining permit a.question which it on such carry commerce, to right In all the in this case. cases necessary decide granting has considered which court corporation of consent its foreign to a by a state as uniformly it has state, in the of business transaction the state imposed by: can be that no conditions serted laws to the Constitution and repugnant are French, How. 18 Fayette v. La Ins. United States. Co. Co. v. 410, 415; Ins. Chicago, v. Wall. Ducat 407;. 404, 350, Cox, 106 S. St. Clair U. 445, 456; v. Morse, Wall. 110, 120.” York, 119 S.U. Fire Assn. v. New 356; Phila. Denton, 146 Company U. In Southern Pacific re- a Texas statute under consideration there was v. R. COM: FROST TRUCKING CO. R. Opinion
583- of the Court. desiring quiring foreign corporation to do business any it would not remove suit from state, agree the United the circuit court of a court the state into invalid, saying: This court held the statute States. con- corporation, statute, requiring as a But that to do obtaining precedent permit dition se- State, privilege to surrender a within Constitution of the United and laws cured no and could void, give was unconstitutional and States, any agreement or action the cor- validity effect provisions.” poration obedience to Case, Ins. Security Dije the Denton came Mutual After Prewitt, 202 U. That purported S. 246. decision Co. Co., 94 U. S. Doyle v. Continental Ins. follow case *11 and Burnside, supra; and to differentiate Barron v. laid the rule materially it to have modified thought But Morse, cases. Burnside and Denton down the Doyle cases both the Prewitt and may be, however this the recently overruled, and quite have been the views to now minority expressed therein declared be the law . Co., 257 U. Burke Constr. Terral this court dissenting light declaration, In of this these the 533. Doyle and controlling. become pertinent views Case, Bradley, said speaking minority, Mr. Justice 543, 544): (pp. “ if to have the it fit Though may power, a sees State inconvenience, all prohibiting its citizens its transacting business within foreign corporations impose it has to unconstitutional jurisdiction, power no their so. Total doing prohibition conditions upon manifest a of unfriend- produce suffering, spirit and States; prohibition, sister but except liness-towards jurisdiction sovereignty derogatory and conditions to mischievous, productive and States, United aIf general government. hostility disloyalty to Opinion of the Court. enough legislate one, to it has no con-
State unwise legislate other. . . stitutional “ free from dis- thing, The whole however intentional respect loyalty, derogatory comity that mutual general ought prevail between State and -which ought governments, and to meet the condemnation of the brought cognizance.” courts (cid:127)whenever within their proper Case, Day, dissenting, In the Prewitt Mr. Justice said 267-269): (pp. In the this case the doctrine opinion court cannot permitted deprived a be to be corporation of Fed- business because of the assertion a right to do right denied, of a' right not to because eral is said be a State is not secured foreign do corporation Conceding Constitution. the Federal guaranteed by ho means general proposition,' of this the soundness solely foreign may be excluded corporation that a follows Con- right secured the Federal because exercises of a to exclude conceding right stitution. For, we not overlook the limitation foreign must corporations, jurispru- in the equally now well settled right, court, right of this that the to do business cannot be dence of a made to surrender created depend upon Federal Constitution. If this were by the guaranteed otherwise, destroy right permitted the State would the Federal Constitution protected created exercising State, privilege belonging the guise of deprive *12 thus pointed out, might we the and, as have right do of the corporation every foreign borders, except the condition that it upon its within by the Federal protection given strip itself of the ... Constitution. right the of á State to ex- concede
“. . While we doing business within corporations its foreign clude rights, of Federal we destructive for reasons borders depend can the sur- right upon be made deny that the R. R. COM. CO. v. TRUCKING FROST of the Court. Opinion Constitution, which of the Federal protection render of the the courts right to resort to the to alien citizens secures States. the United subsequently court
“In decided this the cases Burnside, general proposition while Barron v. conditions upon that a State prescribe affirmed borders, within' its do business corporation may foreign exclude the State them is it asserted that in no one-of because insist they such corporations or expel Constitution. the Federal right of a created exercise that such repeatedly has said On the this court contrary, right qualified by superior of exclusion was all right of the Federal Constitu- enjoy protection citizens to tion.” Kansas, 34- Tel.
In Western Union Co. principle of the prior decisions, a full review quotations again was reaffirmed. foregoing forth set validity of Kansas statute which That case involved state, though of another en- corporation that a provided doing must, in interstate as a condition of business, gaged graduated per- to the state certain business, pay local capital of its stock. It held that re- centages was as a on quirement operated burden the interstate business violation of the commerce clause company, of the beyond as well as a tax on Constitution, its in violation of state, process limits of the the due thus, was violative of the constitu- clause; law right of the and that of the rights company; tional to continue to do business was not company Kansas general not be affected the condition. and could again announced in following words principle 47-48): (pp. Telegraph Company to continue of local business transaction Kansas could not be made depend upon submission a condition prescribed hostile State, which was both to the spirit letter and *13 TERM, 1925. 598 Opinion 271TJ.S. of the Court. not was company bound, of the Constitution. exemp- to surrender- its any circumstances, constitutional direct or taxation, indirect, respect state tion outside of the business and its its interstate been would have bound to sur- any more than it State, the National Constitu- other secured any render tion.” has been reiter- principle decision, same
Since Pullman Co. from. departed times and never many ated Co. 216 Textbook Kansas, U. S. International 63; v. Chi., & 217 Herndon Rock Island 91; S. v. Pigg, v. U. San S. Harrison St. L. & Ry., 158; U. v. Pac. Co., R., Looney Crane 318, 332; R. 232 U. S. v. Francisco Massachu- Paper International Co. 178, 187; 245 U. S. v. Tel. Co. setts, 135, 142-143; 246 U. S. Western Union Utility Commrs. v. Foster, Public 105, 114; 247 U. S. Burke Terrall v. 401, 404; Co., Ynchausti & 251 U. Duncan, Bank Co., Burnes Natl. supra; Constr. Maryland v. Deposit 24; Fidelity and Co. 17; S.U. al., et Tafoya im- is without that a state principle,
And the
a condition
requirement*
unconstitutional
an
pose
thus
applications
than
privilege,
broader
granting
Foster,
Tel. Co. v.
Union
In Western
of it.
far made
in transmit-
engaged
companies were
supra,
telegraph
two
Exchange
York
New
Stock
ting
quotations
com-
interstate
held
This was
the states.
among
Public
Commission
Service
merce, and an order
companies
remove a dis-
Massachusetts, requiring
their constitutional
infringe
held
was
crimination,
which the order was
grounds
One
rights.
upon-the power
rested
defended
necessary
telegraph
for the
it was
over the streets
114):
broadly (p.
was answered
contention
That
cross.
in error under
assume
if we
But
excluded from the streets,
could be
charters
their present
59Í
CO. v. R. R. COM.
TRUCKING
FROST
Opinion of tbe Court.
lawful
generally
would
follow. Acts
consequence
an un
accomplish
unlawful when done
may become
*14
324,
Reading Co.,
U. S.
United States v.
end,
lawful
way
used
power
cannot be
357, and a constitutional
West
an unconstitutional
to attain
of condition
result.
Pull
1.
Kansas, 216 U.
S.
Telegraph
ern Union
Co.
Remedy Co. v.
Sioux
Kansas,
We hold that rights of in error as plaintiffs below, violates court clause the Fourteenth process due guaranteed using Amendment; privilege the. of their con performance of California by the unconstitutional. be affected not and cannot tract Kansas, Union Co. v. Western Tel. imposed. condition 48. supra, p. think if the state below seemed
The court n provisions error to the carriers, it will be within the of common respect act in carrier, by simple device any making power number, an unlimited to secure all contracts carriers assum- common without afforded privileges It is obligations. enough say duties or any of their ing here; and we are not to case presented no such TERM, n JJ., 271TJ.S. dissenting.- Brandéis, Holmes understood as challenging state, or of the railroad commission under present statute, when- ever it appear carrier, shall that a posing as a carrier, is substance reality carrier, common so declare and regulate operations his or accordingly.
Judgment reversed. MbT'Justice Holmes, dissenting. question is whether may require all corpo-
rations or with persons, exceptions, immaterial who oper- ate for the automobiles,-&c., transportation of persons regular over a route and between termini/ on the public highways State, for compensation, *15 to obtain a certificate from the railroad commission that public necessity and require convenience such operation. ,and A fee has to be for this certificate paid transportation companies are'made power the railroad regulate to their rates, commission accounts and. service. provisions on last point The immaterial here, are arises an the case order the commission 5§ .under (cid:127) error desist .of property as above unless and until they obtain the certifi- by and required, cate terms of the every statute section and clause it is independent validity of all the Supreme rest. 10. Whatever the Court California § may intimated, have the only point that it decided, be- cause, only question that was the it, before was that the order of the commission should stand. portion
This
to
act is
Iceconsidered with reference
to
reasons that
have
legislature
induced the
for if
it,
a warrant can
pass
be found in such reasons they
presumed
must be
have been the
I
ground.
agree, of
course,
with the cases cited my brother Sutherland,
may be added
which
American Bank & Trust.
v.Co.
Fed-
Bank,
eral Reserve
lative all has- introduced. The difficulties keeping automobile and for reasonably clear for travel streets traffic are through If a State very great. speaking legislature think in order to make its highways should most traffic them must be controlled, the business useful, would I that no one doubt suppose constitutionally *16 I presume, most could, as, do, States or cities exercise some ' only question control. The is how far it I go. can nothing prevent going see to point requiring bringing a license and whole business under the con- of a commission trol railroad so far as to determine the number, character and conduct of transportation com- prevent and so panies to streets from being made use- less and dangerous number and lawlessness of those I who seek use them. see nothing this act that would dissenting. 271U. S. J.,
McReynolds, common, if require private carriers, carriers to become but there were such it, a like the con- requirement, provisions rates cerning before accounts, now, would be us I since, have said, every the statute makes section independent and declares that if valid it even shall stand if all the others fall. As to before Ius, what.is see no great difference requiring requir- between certificate bond ing Banton, Packard U. S. as I I although, get have said, do not much help general propositions in a case of this I sort, cannot forbear quoting what seems applicable Distinguish- me here. ing between activities that be engaged as matter of right and those like the use streets are carried by government permission, on it is said: In the latter power case the altogether to exclude in- generally cludes the lesser to condition and may justify a degree regulation not admissible the former.” 264 U, I judgment S. 145- think that the should be affirmed. concurs in this opinion.
Mr. Justice Brandéis separate opinion McReynolds. of Mr. Justice Our'primary 'concern is with the decree below—not with the reasons there support advanced to it. I suppose, if that court had simply approved the action of the Rail- Commission road and had said nothing more, there woüld if little, any, difficulty here finding adequate ground for affirmance. questions involved solely relate matters intra-
state commerce. No complication arises by reason of the commerce; power of Congress regulate interstate Hav- ing built and for paid roads, California certainly has general power of control. Plaintiffs in. error are with- out constitutional appropriate their - private, own as carriers if, hire. -in so And *17 UNITED 603 R. v. STATES. PAC. R. MO. of the Case. 583 Statement had no said that intrastate many words, Legislature shall permitted for hire ones be except carriers have violated no fed- over the roads would operate of error are rights eral far as law. So than that has been done. affected, nothing more'serious now with new. enor- struggling are States of growth incident auto- mously difficult problems refrain from inter- traffic, carefully and we should motive until real, unless and there is some direct ference. guaranteed by rights infraction federal material Constitution. court below should
I the decree be think affirmed. PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY MISSOURI UNITED STATES. OF CLAIMS.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT Argued April 28, 1926. Decided 1926. No. June 280. July Commerce 28, 1916, The Act of authorized the Interstate 1. space compensation basis the Commission to determine on a railway post-office paid of mails railroads for - therewith, connected to allow land- cars and for the service part compensation although grant only roads 80% of this space compensation gauged is not in such cars which such occupied mail on mail matter but is used for the for distribution 606. trains. P. expressed land-grant granting obligation railroads, 2. passed transport mails at
acts “ all times Department, price at such the direction of Post-Office Congress may direct,” looked to and includes the the future furnishing space railway post-office pur- cars distribution n Department pursuant required case.by, the poses as in this July 28, P.
Act of 607. 524; 183; affirmed. Ct. Cls. id. Appeal the Court Claims judgment dis- seeking missing Railroad on demurrer petition the.