*1 known fraud dence which is coerced or to the State him they deny perjured, or unless otherwise ulent process. trial, of a fair which is due See substance California, U. 219, 235-238; Lisenba Buchalter v. v. York, and authorities cited. New U. S. we there no
Judged by standards, these think that was process submitting petitioner of due Malinski’s denial in the manner in which were jury they confession that no submitted, in fact there is constitutional him. setting jury’s aside verdict ground not jury rightly cannot this record that the was say on We to determine whether confessions petitioner’s permitted the verdict was police coerced, to the were or that guilt support evidence, or that the instruction without if jury guilty find the defendant it found could was not confession the result of the second first, given. properly at the time was coercion raised no substantial federal Rudish Petitioner here, conviction, reviewable as well as his question affirmed. Malinski’s, should be RAILROAD CO. et al. PENNSYLVANIA
GEORGIA January 2, 26, 1945. original. Argued 1945. Decided March No. '440 *3 Arnall,
Mr. Ellis Governor of Georgia, with whom Head, Grady Attorney General, Messrs. T. L. Marshall Shaw, Allison and Attorneys General, Claude Assistant Edgar Watkins, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, were on brief, complainant. Dickinson, John
Mr. with P. Anthony whom Messrs. Donadío, Richmond, K. Pierson, L. W. T. Thomas P. Healy, Lynch Younger, D. Randolph E. Williams and Hadley Carleton S. brief, were on the for the Pennsylvania Leisure, Railroad Co. al.; George et Mr. S. with whom Irvine, Purcell, R. Robert W. Messrs..Ralstone James V. Hayes and Hope, Theodore S. Jr. were on the brief, for the Chesapeake Railway & Ohio Co. et al.; Sidney Mr. Alderman, with whom Messrs. Thomas'W.-Davis, J. H. McChord, Foster, Vernon W. Smith, Elmer A. J. Flow- N. *4 ers, Swiggart William H. and S. R. Prince were on the brief, for Railway the Southern Co. et and al.; Mr. W. R. C. submitted, Cocke Air for'the Seaboard Line Railway defendants.
Attorney GeneralBiddle, Solicitor General Fahy, Assist- Attorney ant Berge, General Dumbauld, Messrs. Edward Hodges, Edward P. Sigmund Timberg and Arne C. Wiprud filed' á brief on behalf of the United States, as amicus ' curiae, supporting complainant:' Douglas opinion delivered the of the Justice Mr. Court. a of this motion for leave to file Georgia by
The State complaint1 original bill of seeks to invoke Ill, § of under Art. of the Constitution. See this Court TJ.S. C. The are 233,28 Judicial Code defendants companies. November twenty railroad On some Georgia we a rule cause should not be why issued to show complaint. to file bill of Returns to the rule permitted its argument made oral had. have been and capacities, only in four two of which we Georgia sues quasi-sovereign in her a (1) capacity need mention: as her agent protector people and continu- or as them; (2) capacity in her ing wrong pro- done to as a by the wrongs suffered State prietor redress operator a railroad and as the owner and of vari- owner of of the State. ous institutions complaint charge is a
The essence trade and the defendants restraint of commerce among fixed alleges they It that have among arbitrary the States. charges noncompetitive transportation from prefer railroad to and so as to freight by ports Georgia. over the of other States ports rate sixty bureaus, committees, some charges that con- private and other ferences, rate-fixing associations have utilized defendants to fix been these agencies change joint through no can road rates with- rates; private agencies; these pri- approval out rate-fixing machinery sanctioned vate prohibited Act and which is Commerce Interstate control of put Acts has effective rates to anti-trust complaint 12, 1944 original dated June was followed bill оf complaint September 15, dated bill 1944. Our ref by an amended throughout the amended bill. erences *5 Georgia
and from in the hands of defendants. complaint alleges practices purpose that these and give manufacturers, effect shippers sellers and other the North advantage manufacturers, shippers over and in Georgia. alleges others It that the rates so fixed are approximately per higher cent than the rates and charges transportation of like for commodities like points between in the North. It alleges distances that wholly principally defendants who have lines in the South are generally dominated and coerced by the de- roads, fendants who northern and that, have therefore even when desire, they the southern defendants cannot publish joint through rates Georgia between and the when North the northern carriers join refuse to such rates. the rates as a result of the conspiracy
are so fixed as
“(a) deny many of-Georgia’s products equal access with those of other States to the national market; (b) general to limit way Georgia economy to staple agricultural products, to restrict and curtail oppor- tunity in manufacturing, shipping and commerce,.and prevent full complete utilization of. the natural wealth of State;
(c) to frustrate and counteract the measures taken.by promote State to agricultural well-rounded program, en- courage and shipping, provide manufacture full employr ment, promote general progress and welfare of its people;
(d) to hold the Georgia economy in a state of arrested development.”
The complaint alleges that the defendants are not citi- zens of Georgia; is without remedy her own courts,- as the defеndants are jurisdic- outside her tion; that she has no administrative remedy, Inter- state Commerce having Commission no power afford *6 conspiracy; presented relief such a that the issues a justiciable question. constitute damages
The prayer injunctive is for for relief. will return later to the cause We of action which Geor- allege. to sufficient at to gia point seeks this that say purposes of motion for leave to file we construe the fix that have to the allegation defendants rates conspired of other over “prefer” ports ports States the so as that Georgia charge conspired as defendants have a of against Georgia. fix so as to discriminate And we that allegation southern are construe defendants by the northern roads and and coerced cannot dominated when the northern joint through rates re- roads publish charge that roads join as a northern use coer- fuse fixing joint roads of through the southern on cion rates. returns pray in their that motion for
Defendants grounds: (1) three that file be on the com- denied leave controversy; (2) that justiciable no presents plaint a cause action; (3) fails to of that state complaint Georgia. are of the defendants citizens Leave to two of if that plain be denied it is no relief course file should original in the exercise of the granted may be Arizona, 291 U. 286, Alabama v. S. this Court. See California, 291-292; Arizona v. 298 U. S. 572. Controversy. bill It is that the said does not Justiciable the rule justiciable controversy a within of Mas forth set Mellon, Florida v. Mellon, v. sachusetts for we view, take the other are of S. 12. U. We and as Georgia parens patriae proprietor opinion judicial cog claim within asserts institutions of various respects not The in those complaint nizance. There is involved governmental character. political aof between the State powers question no distribution Mel v. as in Massachusetts government and the national de- as we shall Mellon, And, supra. lon and in Florida v. fully more turn velop when we to a consideration of the stated, assertion that no cause of action has been we dispute asked to resolve a withdrawn has been gov- from the judiciary or which the charter of our ernment has been reposed departments other than the judiciary. Miller, Cf. 433, 456, Coleman U. complaint alleges to restrain trade and through commerce fixing history of rates. The restraints of makes it trade plain problems these present judicial questions with which long courts have *7 dealt.2
It true Georgia is course right does not have a original invoke the merely of the Court be may cause there judicial involved a question. enough that a plaintiff. original juris State is The diction is confined to damage civil suits where has been threatened, inflicted or is not to the enforcement penal Co., statutes of a Wisconsin State. Pelican v. Ins. U. S. though civil, 297-300. And the suit is leave to file will be denied where it appears brought the suit the name of the in reality State is for the benefit of particu Atchison, lar individuals. Oklahoma v. T. & S. F. R. Cook, 277; 220 U. S. Oklahoma v. 387; Jones v. Bowles, 322 U. Moreover, S. 707. Massachusetts v. Mellon Mellon, supra, and Florida v. make plain that the United States, State, not the represents parens citizens as government. their relations to the federal patriae present controversy, however, The does not fall within categories. those This is a not a civil, criminal, pro ceeding. Nor is this a situation where the United States Georgia parens than patriae rather stands as to' the cit Georgia. izens of This is not a suit like those Massa Mellon, Mellon, chusetts supra, v. Florida v. where 2 McLaughlin, See Cases on the Federal Anti-Trust (1933), Laws pp. 7-42; Thornton, Combinations (1928), in Eestraint of Trade chs. II, III. sought her protect State citizens from the operation Georgia rights
of federal statutes. Here asserts based on The fact the anti-trust laws. that the United may States bring injunctions criminal or prosecutions suits for under those laws not mean that not maintain Georgia does present Georgia we have sues seen, pro- suit. As wrongs prietor redress suffered it as owner of owner and operator public a railroad as the various suing institutions. for her own Georgia, injuries, is a meaning Clayton Act; within the of 16 of “person” restrain she is authorized to maintain suits to violations damages by reason laws to recover anti-trust Evans, Georgia Georgia But 316 U. thereof. v. only her designed protect propri- not confined to suits rights Georgia asserts, parens etary interests. arising from patriae, those scheme, said, it is price-fixing whose persons
private
Georgia.
rights
Those
are of
economy of
injured the
laws.
The enforcement of
based on federal
course
ex-
these acts has been entrusted
criminal sanctions
government.
to the federal
See
clusively
Evans,
when it came to other
supra,
162. But
sanc-
p.
*8
course and authorized
Congress followed a different
tions
not
but
other
only by
United States
civil suits
find
indication
when
that,
And we
no
as well.
persons
remedies,
those civil
restricted the
Congress fashioned
their
interests. Suits
proprietary
protect
to suits to
States
recognized.
long been
State, parens patriae, have
by a
should be
why
reason
those suits
no apparent
There is
acts.
purview
from the
the anti-trust
excluded
original
invoke our
determining
whether State
In
(Oklahoma v.
justiciable
dispute
Coоk, supra,
the State are
393)
interests of
p.
proprietary;
they
which are
embrace the
to those
confined
“quasi-sovereign” interests which
the words
so-called
Copper
230, 237,
v. Tennessee
206 U. S.
“independent
citizens,
and behind the titles
its
all the earth and air within
In that
its domain.”
case this
enjoined
Court
manufacturing companies
discharg-
from
ing
gas
noxious
from their
over
works
Tennessee
Geor-
gia’s
territory.
pointed
was
out that “It is a fair and
reasonable demand
part
sovereign
on the
of a
that
air
territory
polluted
great
over its
should not be
on a
by sulphurous
scale
gas,
acid
forests on its moun-
tains, be they
worse,
better or
and whatever domestic de-
they
struction
suffered,
have
should not be further
destroyed or
persons
threatened
the act of
beyond its
control, that
crops
and orchards on its hills should not
endangered
from the same source.” 206 U.
p.S.
238.
That case
Illinois,
followed Missouri v.
which West from interfering gas flow of from with the natural Virginia West to the said: other states. Court complainant of the
“The attitude States is not that of attempting mere volunteers to vindicate the freedom of interstate commerce or purely private redress griev- to protect ances. Each sues a two-fold interest —one as public proprietor various institutions and schools gas will be supply largely whose curtailed or cut off by interference with the threatened the interstate current, and the other as the representative of the consuming pub- lic will supply similarly whose affected. Both inter- ests are and both are substantial threatened with serious injury. large gas uses amounts of
“Each State her several greater schools, part discharge institutions —the relatively imperative. of duties A break or in the her supply will embarrass greatly cessation discharge expose of those duties thousands of de- and school children to pendents serious if discomfort, substitute another form of fuel will more. To very involve large expenditures. public consumers each not only
“The State include private of many inhabitants urban most of the communities but portion a substantial of the popula- constitute State’s health, seriously Their and welfare are tion. comfort gas the threatened withdrawal of the jeopardized from grave stream. This is a matter of public the interstate State, in which the as the representative concern of the apart from interest public, individuals a remote merely is not or ethical interest but аffected. recognized law.” is immediate and one which U. S. pp. 591-592.
450 the of us clear that under authority seems to these parens Georgia may patriae maintain this suit as cases though here, acting Georgia behalf of her citizens as on we treat Copper supra, p. 237, the in v. Tennessee merely a “makeweight.” to the State as as jury proprietor original of this Court is one of the The mighty the framers of instruments which the pro Constitution adequate machinery might vided so available for disputes peaceful of between the settlement States and of between a State and citizens another State. See Mis Illinois, supra, Virginia pp. 219-224; souri v. v. West Virginia, 246 599. Trade barriers, U. S. recrimina commercial rivalries had tions, plagued intense The traditional methods colonies.4 available to a sov ereign disputes of such were the settlement diplomacy provided war. Suit this Court was as an alterna Illinois, supra, p. 241; Georgia Missouri v. tive. Ten Co., supra, Copper p. nessee allegations true,
If of the bill are taken as econ- welfare of her omy Georgia of and the citizens have as result seriously conspiracy. suffered form rates are but one of trade Discriminatory barriers. blight may cause no less serious than the spread They or gas deposit the land sewage noxious over They may prosperity affect the streams. welfare as diversion profoundly waters from of a State stifle, or old They may impede, cripple indus- rivers. new the establishment of ones. They prevent tries and put of a development State at a de- arrest the disadvantage competitive markets. Such a cided Pennsyl- equals gravity one charge at least Virginia over the curtail- Ohio had with West vania from gas Virginia the West of natural the flow ment of рp. (1916), 310-311; Marshall Beveridge, Life John See (1885), pp. of the Constitution History Formation Bancroft, of the 27.130.183,187,454. economy There are substitute fuels which fields. might be But adjusted. discriminatory a State region permanent have a more and in- fastened on representative pub- as a quality. sidious if wrong which, of a complaining proven, lic limits the *11 her her people, industries, of shackles opportunities re- relegates her development, tards her to an inferior her among sister States. These position economic in public Georgia concern which has an grave of matters who particular from that of individuals apart interest Georgia’s remote; interest is not it is be affected. parens Georgia patriae as the If we denied immediate. the of Court right original jurisdiction the to invoke gravity, concept would whittle the a of that we matter of minor down to the stature or conven- justiciability no warrant controversies. There is for such a tional restriction. Atchison, F. R. supra, T. & S.
Oklahoma is not case, In that the defendant to this view. railroad opposed grant Congress from to locate had obtained a company railway through line the Territory a Indian and maintain was later the of Oklahoma formed. The which State out of maximum certain provided transportation act federal charge. company might Oklahoma the sued rates which granted property to have the grant, the decreed to cancel trust, cestui que as in the State Oklahoma to to be operating a from railroad the the defendant enjoin lite the enjoin pendente greater exaction of and to State, specified. maximum rates the Court con than subjecting the Congress as rates to Act of federal the strued part a State, the becаme of a at territory until control subject to state the rates became control. time which jurisdiction could original held our The Court merely because by a State its citizens were be invoked decision. It adhere does not injured. We control attempt orig- one. This no utilize our is present the for established substitution inal a suit enforcing law. This is not local methods of individual plaintiff, nominal a a mere which State is suit This is a being complainants. real shippers laws arising of federal claims out Georgia asserts which claim of beyond far gravamen of which runs damage shippers. to individual Georgia parens patriae as claim which asserts
Since
justiciability
the standards
proprietor
meets
as well
entitled to enforce
“person”
and since
laws, the
of the anti-trust
reasons
sanctions
civil
denying Georgia
opportunity
for
have been advanced
fail.
to this Court
her cause of action
present
Action.
argued
complaint
Cause
that the
fails
out that under
(1)
pointed
It is
cause
action.
state
damages
Abilene case no action
on
principle
discriminatory
unjust, unreasonable,
rail
the basis of
*12
to
may
prior
be maintained without
resort
road rates
Texas &
R.
Commerce Commission.
Interstate
Pacific
Co.,
Abilene
Oil
Great North
426;
v.
Cotton
204 U. S.
Co.
Co.,
Elevator
U.
(2)
R.
Merchants
S. 285.
It
ern Co. v.
injunction may
granted
not be
is
that an
to restrain
said
or
discriminatory
be unreasonable
where
rates
prior
by
determination of the matter
been no
there
only way
that the
a State or
other
the Commission
judicial
may
legality
obtain a
determination
person
by
of the Commission's
is
review
order. Balti
a rate
Co.,
R.
v. Pitcairn
more & Ohio
Co.
Coal
It is that a clear suit could not be maintained here to review, annul, or set aside an order of the Interstate Com- Congress merce Commission. prescribed the method obtaining that relief. is exclusive of all other this Court. North remedies, including by a suit State Dakota Chicago & N. W. R. supra; Texas Inter- v. v. Commission, supra. state Commerce The same result obtains where the attacking basis for an order of the Com- mission is a laws, violation of the anti-trust save case where the United complainant. States is the For of the Clayton Act which gives by way injunction relief against damage through threatened loss or violation of provides anti-trust laws except that no one the United bring States shall be entitled to such suits common subject carriers to the Act “in Interstate Commerce re- subject spect regulation, matter supervision, of the Commission. Central Trans- jurisdiction” other Assn., supra, Co. Terminal R. if indicates that fer present proceeding sought to set aside the defendants, rates of the leave to file would have to be In denied. that case the approved Commission had cer- tain rate abandoning schedules which entailed certain employment “off-track” stations and the by the carriers of single transfer company to do interstation hauling. The proceeded carriers agreement to make an to carry out the program which had been submitted to the Commission and approved was later it. Suit brought was by a private company enjoin performance of the contract ground on the it created a monopoly in violation of the anti-trust laws. The Court held that the suit was barred Clayton Act. The Court pointed purpose out 16 § was “to рreclude any inter- by injunction ference with any business or transactions of interstate carriers of sufficient public significance and importance to be within of the Commis- sion, except when the brought suit is Government *14 288 TJ. p. (p. 476): itself.” added “True, a may precede and have apart contract existence from the required it, and perform several acts all of conceivably might be done if no agreement those acts contract or them had ever existed. perform they But when done are agreement, in an performance way there is no by which agreement by injunction itself can be except assailed restraining by performance That, acts done of it. forbids, this statute not because the case, the contract jurisdiction within the of the Interstate Com- Commerce performance it, mission, but because the acts done enjoined if necessarily any given, be relief is which must jurisdiction of subject matters to the the Commission.” are placed on suitors policy behind these restrictions in Terminal Warehouse aptly Congress was stated “If supra, R. as follows: Pennsylvania p. v.Co. rail carriers discriminatory from acts a sufferer injunction Clayton under the sue an byor water may regulatory first to the without resort instance Act system regulation breaks unity of the commission, the But these adhere to decisions. We beyond repair.” down they principles for which they or the do not believe we maintenance of suit barrier to the stand are Georgia. subject not matter
The relief seeks Georgia in this of the Commission. to the con- injunction against seeking an is not proceeding have tariff any tariff; does she nor seek tinuance of merely She asks that provision cancelled. de- among the
rate-fixing combination and
ais
see, that
enjoined. As we shall
fendant-carriers
jurisdiction.
has no
matter over which
Commission
con-
to the
end
injunction designed
put
And an
enjoin
under established
operation
need
spiracy
issued
injunction
have
the case had an
as would
been
Assn., supra.
Terminal R.
Central
Co.
Transfer
subject
to the anti-trust
laws.
These carriers
*15
Co., 259
S. 214.
U.
Con
United States v. Southern Pacific
fix rates
included
spiracies among carriers to
were
Act. United States
Trans-
sweep
broad
of the Sherman
v.
Freight Assn.,
United
290;
166
S.
States v.
Missouri
U.
Congress by 11
Assn.,
5 provisions relating These are those to discriminations in price, services, (§2); facilities certain sales of goods, wares, merchandise 3); acquisition (§ and the like corporation one of the stock of (§7); interlocking another directorates (§8). and officers See 15 13, 14, U. 18, S. C. and 19. The machinery §§ enforcement is com posed of cease and desist orders enforceable in the courts. 15 U. S. C §21. the old law Only repugnancy a clear between
favored. giving way in the former and then new results and the United repugnancy. to the extent of the only pro tanto Borden, supra, powers 199. None of the pp. States v. by the Commission since the enactment of acquired regulation rate-fixing to the com- Act relates Sherman Congress proposals Twice has been tendered binations. rate-fixing combinations.6 But it has legalize In view of this we can con- adopted history only them. immunity no from they have the anti-trust clude laws. out, however, that under pointed (4)
It is
(54
(4))
Act
Stat.
C. 1
Interstate Commerce
U. S.
every
subject
common carrier
to this
duty
it is “the
*16
and furnish
rea-
transportation upon
chapter
provide
therefor, and to establish reasonable
request
sonable
through
carriers,
just
routes with other such
and
and
rates, fares, charges,
appli-
reasonable
and classifications
agreement among
thereto.” And it is noted that
cable
joint
in the establishment of
rates.
provided
carriers is
it would be a
of those
perversion
6. That is true. But
§
they legalize
rate-fixing
combina-
to hold that
sections
The
alleged to exist here.
collabora-
tion of the character
through
joint
and
rates
fixing
contemplated
tion
stage
stop
at this
nature. We do
of a restrictive
area which
legitimate
to delineate the
proceedings
(260
Keogh
In
case
operate.
may
that collaboration
damages
under
Sher-
was one
156) the suit
U. S.
carriers
defendant
charge
was
man Act.
9583;
Sess.,
9582,
Cong.
Cong.,
pp.
(1)
Record, 63d
2d
See
2720,
Cong., 1st Sess.
Cong.,
Sess.;
78th
1st
H. R.
(2)
942,
S.
78th
fixing
designed (1)
lawful the
proposals
to make
latter
were
These
associations;
bureaus, conferences,
by
through
carriers
rate
of rates
Com
(2)
group
the control
put those
activities under
and
extensively
history
and activities of rate bureaus
mission. The
Hearings,
Commerce on
reviewed in
Senate Committee on Interstate
Bureaus,
Cong.,
942, Regulation Rate
78th
1st Sess.
formed
had
a rate bureau or committee to
agree
secure
freight
ment
respect
among
rates
the constituent
which
companies
railroad
would otherwise be competing
carriers. As we have seen, the Court held that damages
could not be recovered. But Mr. Justice Brandéis speak
ing for
a unanimous Court
stated
to fix
illegal
might
rates
be
though the rates fixed were reason
able and non-discriminatory.
(260
He said
pp.
U. S.
161-162): “All the rates fixed were reasonable
non
and
discriminatory.
by
That was settled
be
proceedings
fore the Commission.
.
.
under
.
But
the Anti-Trust
Act, a combination of
fix
carriers to
reasonable
non
discriminatory
may
if
illegal;
so,
the Govern
by
ment
have redress
proceedings
criminal
3,§
under
by injunction
4,
under
forfeiture
under 6. That
was settled
United States
Freight
v. Trans-Missouri
Association,
166 U. S.
and United States v. Joint
Association,
What we disposes have said for the most part of argument recognized principles equity prevent granting us from the relief which is asked. Sec. Clayton provides injunction by Act for relief “when and under principles injunc- the same conditions and tive relief that will threatened conduct cause loss damage granted equity.” courts of Those require- ments are sufficiently justify satisfied a filing of this bill. It must be remembered that is a suit to dissolve illegal combinаtion or to confine it to the legitimate area collaboration. That relief cannot be obtained from the Commission for it has no supervisory authority over the combination. It is true that the injury to Geor- gia is not the existence of the per combination se but rates which fixed the combination. The fact that the which have been may rates fixed or may be held unlawful Commission is immaterial to the issue The Keogh before us. case indicates that even a fix combination to reasonable and non-discriminatory illegal. 260 U. S. p. 161. The reason is that the Interstate Commerce Act provide does not remedies for the correction all the abuses rate-making which might constitute violations of the anti-trust laws. Thus a “zone of reasonableness exists between maxima and *19 ordinarily adjust free which a carrier to minima within is Chicago, M., States charges for itself.” United St. its Co., P. & R. P. Within that zone the U. S. though relief even power grant lacks Commission conspiracy among are rates raised to maxima a employ rate-making who unlawful tactics. If the carriers from function is freed the unlawful restraints of the al leged of the future will then be fixed conspiracy, rates by Congress in when it enacted the manner envisioned Damage presumed must be legislation. to flow from a within conspiracy manipulate rates that zone. sought relief from this
Moreover, the Court is not an rates. are not of established We asked for uprooting a gesture. be an idle We are not decree which would asked might the Commission later enjoin approve what or not asked to trench on the domain condone. We any may nor need decree which be ulti- Commission; Georgia this cause have that effect. entered mately proceeding against administrative directed alleges, “No of rates would afford relief to the schedule particular remained long as the defendants free Georgia so State agreement. Until the con- by collusive promulgate schedules, corrosion of new estab- ended, the spiracy power of the defendant carriers by the collusive lished sought action to be concert, would frustrate acting grievances redress the process to administrative taken Rate-making suffers.” from which State seeking- a decree which Georgia is process. a continuous harmful conduct the kind of the future prevent will the case of coercion. Take past. has occurred exists and uses combination If it is shown in- rates, an through only fixing joint- in the coercion that character can conduct of at future junction aimed the collaboration long as Indeed, so relief. give adequate in oper- and continues limits exceeds lawful which exists dissolving the lies remedy ation, only effective inor confining it legitimate combination within bound- Any aries. decree which is entered would look to the and would free rate-making future tomorrow’s from the and collusive influences alleged coercive to exist. It can- not of course be determined in advance what rates lawfully established. But enjoined. coercion can be can purpose And so a combination which has as its in- discrimination or region locality. vidious Dis- illegal solution of combinations a restriction of their *20 conduct lawful channels is a conventional form of relief envisaged accorded anti-trust suits. No more is here. If alleged the combination exist, is shown to the decree gesture. which can be entered will no or be idle futile It degree competition will restore that of envisaged by Con- gress when it enaсted the Interstate Commerce Act. will rate-making from practices eliminate the collusive which the laws condemn anti-trust and which sanctioned the Interstate Commerce Act. It will supply remedy effective without which there can be only rectify an endless effort to the injury continuous inflicted the combination. unlawful The threatened injury damage clear. The is sufficient to satisfy of motion requirements this to file. preliminary There is no administrative control over the combination. And no adequate remedy effective other than this suit is suggested Georgia can to eliminate from employ rate-making the influences of the unlawful conspiracy alleged to exist here.
As we said, have we charge construe the bill to a con- spiracy among defendants to use coercion of fixing rates and discriminate against Georgia in the rates which are fixed. We hold that under that of construction the bill a cause of action under the anti-trust laws alleged.8 We opinion might intimate no whether bill question We therefore do not reach the whether an action based on common principles law could be maintained. charge than that more or whether rate- construed a
be under the legal would be Interstate fixing combination Act but for the and the Sherman features Act Commerce charged and coercion here. We are deal discrimination Mis ing only preliminary manner. Cf. with case a Illinois, U. 518. The complaint souri v. amplified respects clarified may have to charged, damage suffered, and discrimination coercion the various against types We not test or otherwise. do may be We con pleadings which filed. motions and complaint liberality accorded it with strue a with sovereign question State as substantial presenting a require joinder clarity specificity as to sufficient issues. Two of Misjoinder Parties
Alleged Defendant. Georgia. citizens of claim to be defendant-corporations is an That issue involved Georgia are not. they asserts original juris- invoke Georgia may not of course one. of her one citizens. Court a suit diction of the defense is who assert If either of the defendants file leave to necessary party, is a citizen *21 Quicksilver Pennsylvania v. have to be denied. would Co., Southern 553; 10 Wall. v. Mining Pacific California Co., Co., 229; U. v. Northern Securities S. Minnesota 157 Cummins, U. S. 577. We 199; 314 U. S. Louisiana v. 184 stage pro- however, have to decide at this not, do are citizens corporations question ceedings whether Ill, Art. 2 of the Con- meaning within Georgia In a suit indispensable parties. are not They stitution. are neces- conspirators all the enjoin not challenged and not is averred sary parties defendant.9 9 49; 33, 215 U. S. Co., v. Canal-Louisiana Bank See Waterman 451, 456; States, 258 U. S. Machinery v. Corp. United Shoe United 915-916; Rocky 912, Co., Hopkins v. F. Oxley Mountain 83 Stave 809, Labor, 156 F. 811-812. Co. v. Montana Federation Bell Tel. 150, 247. Co., 310 U. Socony-Vacuum United States v. S. Oil Cf. 464 the other defendants are citizens of other States.
The citizenship
question
of the two
defendants
be
challenged by
Cummins,
a motion to strike. Louisiana v.
Exercise Original Jurisdiction. It does not necessar- ily follow that this Court must exercise original juris- its diction. It has at been times held that this Court is not appropriate tribunal which to maintain suits brought by a State. 1
By Clause
2
III
§ of Article
of the Constitution,
judicial power of the United States extends “to all Cases,
in Law and
arising
Equity,
under . . . the Laws of the
United States” and “to Controversies . . . between a
10
State and Citizens of another State.”
Clause of 2§ of
III
Article
confers on
jurisdiction
this Court
of those cases
“in which a State shall
Party.”
But Clause 2 of 2§
merely
jurisdiction
distributes the
conferred by
Clause
of 2.
Texas,
Louisiana v.
176 U.
1, 16;
S.
Massachusetts
Missouri,
v.
1,
Clause 2 does not grant
jurisdiction
exclusive
to this Court in the cases enumer
ated by
Kansas,
it.
Ames v.
U. S.
469; Plaque
mines
Henderson,
Fruit Co. v.
465 Chattanooga, supra; v. Massachusetts v. tice. Missouri, supra. by that the issues tendered suggestion
There is some which a district complaint present questions the bill of that pointed to decide. It is out quite competent court is in the district courts normally pursued is one remedy judicial are better whose facilities and duties prescribed of fact than the extended trial of issues adapted to appears it that no reason this Court. And is said those of conveniently in the proceed not may suit why present convenience why or proper district court of the venue courts, of the would as well parties witnesses, master appointed a trial a be served before better with the district court than a trial a this Court suggestion is that we review.11 The customary appellate to the prejudice without file, the motion for leave to deny district court. appropriate in an suit maintenance Missouri, supra, 17-18. рp. Massachusetts See follow why we should not however, a reason is, There it respects in other we assume though here procedure Clayton 16 Act wholly appropriate. be Sec. would already noted, exceptions with the 26), C. (15 § U. S. to sue be entitled “any person . . shall provides that . of the United court injunctive relief, have for and threat- against parties, over the having jurisdiction States antitrust laws.” damage by a violation ened loss or 22) provides C. (15 Act U. S. Clayton § Sec. antitrust laws under the action, suit, proceeding “Any brought only may be corporation inhabitant, but also it whereof judicial district or transacts busi- may be found wherein any district in the be served cases may such process and all ness; directly in this had appellate review proper In case Appeals. Circuit Court of in the judgment by certiorari before Court (a). (a), C. Code 240 Judicial
466 is inhabitant, district of which it or wherever may- it be found.” provisions
From it is that apparent Georgia might these in only judicial they sue defendants district where are or where be they may inhabitants found or transact business. bill complaint, however, alleges (with exception of the two defendants men- already tioned) it that “the parties is not denied defendant are citizens of Georgia, jurisdiction or within the of its courts.” If that allegation true, is taken as it apparent is that Georgia could not find all of the in defendants one judicial districts of maintain so as to a suit character all of them in in Georgia. a district court Certainly no assuming we have basis for that all of the so- roads, called northern in such incorporated States as Penn- sylvania, Maryland, Indiana, Ohio, New York and Illinois, in doing are It is Georgia. business said that most in in Georgia, defendants can found the District other Columbia, or districts. But no such facts appear in the And we judi- record before us. cannot take district wherein cial notice of the or districts all “found” defendants are or “transact business.” We would not be in depriving Georgia warranted of the original jurisdiction this Court merely because each of de- found in judicial fendants could be some district. Unless it were all clear that of them could be found some con- we venient forum could not that say Georgia had adequate remedy” from the “proper apart original Missouri, of this Court. Massachusetts v. supra, p. showing such has been made. No Once a state a case which comes within original makes out our right to come is jurisdiction, its here established. There no requirement go is Constitution further other forum show no is available to it. n 5 of the Act empowers § is true that Sherman 4 proceedings court before whom under pending § parties who reside the district in bring outside procedure held.12 That available court is civil brought by the United States. Standard Oil Co. suits States, 221 U. 46. But since limited to United States, brought by similarly the United 5 is con suits Greer, Stoller, F. Mills Hansen 1; *24 fined. See & Co. v. Co., 784, Armour & F. Packing Supp. Apart Co. v. 16 specific by Congress-the juris from exceptions created of in diction the district courts is territorial. As stated Board, 619, Robertson Railroad Labor v. 622- 623: personam jurisdiction
“In in the de- a civil suit over among from fendant, distinguished venue, implies, as him voluntary by or things, appearance other either serv- place serving him where the officer process upon ice of at a the authority of summons. Under to execute writ court a United States district general provisions law, of 12Sec. 4 reads: States are invested with several district courts of the United
“The 15 jurisdiction prevent and violations of sections 1-7 restrain attorneys title; duty district the several of and it shall be the of districts, States, respective under the direction in their United the equity prevent Attorney proceedings in General, to institute may way proceedings be violations. such Such and restrain praying that such violation shall setting forth petition the case and complained parties enjoined prohibited. the otherwise When be pro- shall duly petition such the court been notified of of shall have hearing case; may the be, and determination of ceed, soon as to the decree, may petition final the at pending and before court such restraining any temporary prohibition order or as- make such time just premises.” deemed in the shall be 5 reads:
Sec. any appear proceeding which it shall to the court before “Whenever justice may pending, title be that the ends of section 4 of this under brought parties court, be before the require other should summoned, they whether reside in the cause them to court not; subpoenas is held or end court district by the marshal district thereof.” may be served cannot process beyond issue district, limits Hyde, Graham, Harkness v. 98 U. Ex 476; parte S. 3 Wash. 456; and a defendant a civil subjected suit can be to its personam only service within dis Sprague, trict. Toland v. 300, Pet. 330. Such was general Judiciary rule established Act September 24, 1789, 20, 11, c. 73, 79, Stat. in accordance with the practice Swan, Piquet at the common law. 5 Mason seq. 39 et And such has general been the rule ever since. Weil Munter v. Corset 261 U. 279.” It follows that we should not the exercise our dis- cretion remit Georgia federal district courts relief injuries complains. which she The motion for leave to file the amended bill of com- plaint granted.
It is so ordered. Mr. Stone, dissenting. Chief Justice *25 Frankfurter, Justice Justice Roberts, Mr. Mr. Justice Jackson, and I think the applica- that Mr. tion of the State of file Georgia for leave to its amended complaint bill of in this (1) Court should be denied be- judicial cause in its discretion, should, this Court without deciding merits, the if leave the State to its remedy, any, the (2) district court; standing because the State lacks present only the substantial case; (3) issue the because in present posture the case, of the the bill of com- plaint, for several reasons, fails to state a of cause action for which a court of equity can give effective relief.
As the Court concedes and for reasons which will pres ently fully be more considered, the State, under the rule laid in Keogh down v. Chicago & Northwestern R. 260 U. 156, cannot maintain its suit for damages result ing from the fix conspiracy to unlawful interstate railroad freight But grants rates. the Court Georgia’s application to file on the ground that its bill of complaint,
469 the of under of amended, a cause action now states 26, 15 TJ. S. C. for Act, 38 Stat. Clayton c. the antitrust a violation injunction within that The Court holds such suit laws. by Article jurisdiction conferred
original Court, of this pro- Clause 1 Cls. and 2 of the Constitution. III, 2,§ judicial United States extends power vides arising . Cases, Equity, in Law and under . . “to all of the United “to . . . Laws States” and Controversies and Citizens another between State State. . . .” original Clause confers on this Court or controversies “in those cases which a State shall be Party.” disregards the fainthearted
The Court uncon- assertion of the State that has a “common law” vincing entitling it, independently Clay- of action cause laws, federal to maintain ton Act antitrust alleged conspiracy to fix and suit restrain present charges transportation for the interstate maintain stop contention, We do consider this freight. objections opinion of the that the to the main- we are essentially the present same, of the suit are tenance a cause of regarded upon it be аs a suit action whether Clayton upon Act or as one maintainable arising under the in the applicable federal principles generally equitable Clayton Act. independently courts
I maintain the State this ac- If it be assumed *26 injury or for the -parens patriae itself either as tion, freight, right the consignee of interstate shipper a and as that point like to be is of substance sought established asked one remedy and the is private corporation, of a and facilities in district whose normally courts pursued trial adapted the judicial duties are better prescribed of issues of fact than are those of this In Court. original suit, even when the case is first referred to a master, the duty this Court has of making an independent examination of evidence, a time-consuming process seriously which interferes with discharge of our ever- increasing appellate duties. No appears reason why the present may suit not be as conveniently proceeded with in the district court of the proper venue Court, as this why parties convenience and witnesses, as well as of concerned, the courts would be better served a appointed trial before master by this Court than by a trial in the appropriate district court with the customary appellate The case preeminently review. seems one where should, this Court and in the exercise of its discretion the interest aof more efficient administration of justice, decline jurisdiction, to exercise its and remit the parties appropriate to the district proper court disposition North Dakota & Chicago case there. 485; Northwestern R. Georgia 257 U. S. v. Chat- tanooga, ex Oklahoma rel. Johnson v. 483; Cook, Missouri, 387, 396; 304 TJ. S. Massachusetts v. 1,17-20. 308 U.S. Georgia
It is said be deprived that should not jurisdiction bring of this Court unless it can suit all district; the defendants in one convenient is assuming there no reason for that all the defendants judicial airy amenable to suit in district. But this one puts wrong the shoe on the foot. seeks equity case, to invoke our to hear this question power when the our discretionary to remit parties adequate remedy to an other court some raised, upon it is incumbent it to that will un- show be able to reach all the defendants in convenient district. And on Georgia, although argument invited of this so, showing motion to do made no suit cannot proceeded readily with in a district court as
471 in the amended bill allegation It made no such Court. con- complaint only which it Hence we can of tenders.1 there is no such obstacle. clude that readily be determined from Further, may it standard Rail- reference, of such as The Official Guide of the works timetables, railroad Moody’s Railroads, Steam ways, directories, supposed is not telephone difficulty Clayton 12 15 U. Act, a real one. Under of the S. C. may be sued 22, any these defendants district corpo- they are “found” or “transact business.” A ration both is “found” “transacts business” in a dis- operates in which a or which it main- trict it railroad freight or passenger an office for solicitation tains Co., traffic. See Eastman Kodak Co. v. Southern Photo United States v. Univis Lens 359, 370-374; U. S. 273 These facts be read- may ascertained appears have mentioned. ily from the sources we from which would be there are several districts as them C., pro- D. where Washington, trial as convenient had, and in which ceedings this Court would be before least as upon at Georgia may process obtain service of complaint, may as named of the defendants many Court, itself, as well this Georgia, For Court. sue but continuing here with to the suit’s seems reconciled two defendants, since twenty eighteen of the citizens suit as from the be dismissed required to Georgia.2 amended allegation proposed placed on an reliance is Some com of which context, the matters which, is that
complaint, in its state courts of within the plaint is made are not they are question whether bearing on Georgia; that has no but inor court in competence district federal within the other State. Railway Co., Air Line the Seaboard These two defendants are largest Ry., two Chattanooga Nashville, Louis & St. defendants. the southern
Of twenty defendants, including at least *28 the York, Chicago New & Louis R. Co. and the Rich- St.
mond, Fredericksburg (R. & & P.), Potomac R. Co. F. are within the the of of Northern District Georgia. defendants, Of at but 19, these least all the F. in P., R. & the transact business Northern District of in Illinois and the Southern District of New York. At including the R. F. & P. Nashville, least and the Chattanooga Ry., & St. Louis are amenable to in suit the Western Pennsylvania District of and in the Eastern Dis- trict Michigan. At least all but the R. & P. F. and Carolina, Railway,3 the Clinchfield and Ohio are suable in the Eastern District of Thus, Missouri. there is no want in of a suitable forum which can at reach least the same number of in defendants as she sue this And it may Court. be that service can be had on the other in defendants the districts named.
II If leave file were as denied, we think it be, should prejudice without to suit a district court, it would be unnecessary stage at this of the proceedings to pass upon whether question the the suit is one which a court of equity assuming jurisdiction could entertain. But passes Court case, the the on that question. Hence it necessary state the why, pres- becomes reasons the case, posture the State ent does not state a case original jurisdiction. relief within our for of the gist cause action asserted the amended injury is the complaint upon visited the inhabitants of Georgia by alleged State of conspiracy among defendant railroads to fix and maintain unlawfully and discriminatory rates uрon freight excessive moving operating This defendant has been since 1924 as the Clinchfield Company, under lease Railroad to the Atlantic Coast Line Co. R. the Louisville & Nashville R. Co. Georgia. transportation interstate rail to and from alleged
is further
violates the Sherman
Act,
effect
growth
its
is to retard
economic
State. To
is added what the Court concedes
“makeweight” allegation
injury
is mere
State
an owner of a
capacity
railroad,
shipper
its
and as a
freight.
consignee
the inhabitants of the
But
State who have
in
suffered
jury
injury
who are threatened with
unlawful
alleged
complaint
the amended
alone
practices
legal
their injury,
seek a
and are
remedy
entitled to
in any
their
parties plaintiff
suit
enforce
proper
infringed.
to have been
It has
rights which are
*29
by the decisions of this Court
that
long been settled
injuries
to
suit for
standing
maintain
is without
State
they
and inhabitants
for which
by its citizens
sustained
Louisiana,
v.
Hampshire
behalf New
their own
sue
.
Texas,
1;
176 U. S. Okla
Louisiana v.
76;
08 U. S.
1
Co., 220
Atchison,
289;
F. R.
U. S. 277,
T. & S.
homa v.
Cook, supra, 396-396;
v.
Jones
ex rel. Johnson
Oklahoma
Bowles,
And many
In the Atchison relief, to for capacity sue see 220 U. S. its as the basis for Georgia here, the maintenance 283-284, as does. at freight on commodities of the unlawful structure “ n (cid:127)the State was 'a used widely inhabitants menace to future of said State’ . . . to the а hindrance [and] growth of the State.” This Court nevertheless held that wrong was to the State, individuals of the and that the bring State was not a position therefore to the suit as parens patriae. respect with government parens patriae federal
of the cause of alleged, action here and not the State. The government federal relationship alone stands such States, citizens and as to inhabitants United permit protect them bringing behalf, suit their from the relating violation of federal laws to interstate Mellon, commerce. See Massachusetts v. U. S. Mellon, 485-486; Florida v. 12,18; ex Jones rel. Bowles, supra. Louisiana Act, 1-4, The Sherman §§ it 1-4, recognized U. S. C. is the United States §§ parens patriae, which is when authorized it the United not States, States, bring pros- the individual criminal injunctions Act. ecutions or suits under the brings such a acting When the United States suit people States, on behalf of the the United national bring interest. The in- authority such suits bring discretionary cludes the not to if authority them, responsible government officers of the are of the opinion that a suit is warranted or would be of disservice to permit the national interest. To a State to bring a Sher- *30 man Act suit in behalf the in fly of is to the face public of the national policy by Congress established that the fed- government eral determine when should such a suit is to brought be and how be prosecuted. should
Thus the Sherman Act entrusted to the gov- national duty ernment the to represent the people in the vindica- tion rights of their under the antitrust laws. And this is confirmed by 16 of Clayton the Act, permits in- junction suits by against the United States common car- in respect riers of matters within province the of the Inter- Commission, state Commerce while prohibiting such suits ' " to including all others, State.
475 Ill Georgia standing decides, the Court if, even as
But right parens own оr as suit, either its maintain this to jurisdiction of and the suit and this Court has patriae, discretion, entertain it rather should, in exercise of its the court, the more im- the district parties remit the than present suit is one question remains whether portant give any effective relief. can equity which a court of prosecution, its is far the Court allows suit, The so as defendant alleged conspiracy an equity restrain unjust, unlawful, fix maintain ex and rail carriers discriminatory freight rates violation cessive, and Act, 16 15 Clayton the antitrust laws. Section person” maintain “any a suit 26,§ U. S. C. authorizes laws, the antitrust State to restrain violations suing injuries, person is within Georgia, its own Evans, 316 meaning of that section. v. U. S. relief to given The that the provides section damage injunction a vio “against threatened loss laws, . when and under the antitrust . . lation injunctive relief principles conditions and as same damage will cause loss or threatened conduct governing under the equity, courts rules granted And proceedings though, asserted, . . .” even such in the independ federal courts the suit be maintainable controlling Act, principles gov ently Clayton erning the maintenance of suit are same either injury, must show threatened Vicks plaintiff case. Vicksburg, 65, 82; Co. 185 U. S. Paine burg Waterworks v. Neal, 459, 471; Duplex 244 U. S. Co. v. Co. Lumber v. Florida, Deering, 443, 464-465; compare U. S. Texas v. 254 Missouri, 398, 406-412 with U. Massachusetts v. supra, adequate for which he is without other rem 15-16, Rodgers, 521, 525-526, edy, Matthews v. U. S. Irving Trust cited;
cases Schoenthal v. Myers 50-52,
94; Corp., Bethlehem U. S. *31 cited, equity court of is able
cases for which a a remedy. provide
Georgia only with as the injury is threatened in charging freight will result the defendants’ in rates than those which would exist the absence other conspiracy. is, Georgia injured That unless the in if charged other rates than those now force would be alleged conspiracy were to cease. While threatened in damage that sense competi- could be assumed a free market, freight tive rates nоt, are under the Interstate Act, processes Commerce arrived at of free com- petition. requirements see, will are, Act as we just that the that they rates reasonable and accord with transportation the national policy; the determina- tion, instance, the first whether the rates conform to Congress those standards is left by to the Interstate Com- merce not to the courts. And Commission, Georgia unless can present unlawful, show that the or that some structure, other rate which could be substituted for that just now in force, would be and reasonable, prior cannot do without resort to Commission, it can not show that other any structure lawfully could exist or any injury to it is threatened the conspiracy.
It follows from this that the prerequisites to the main- present of the lacking tenance suit are for following First, reasons: the State has not availed itself of or ex- hausted administrative provided remedies In- Act, terstate Commerce which may afford an adequate remedy and which must any case precede the institu- tion present suit equity. Second, the suit as now framed falls within proviso §of 16 Clayton of the Act denying to any “person,” except the United States, authority bring “to suit equity injunctive relief against any subject common carrier to the provisions of” the Interstate Commerce “in respect Act, matter subject regulation, to the supervision, or jurisdic- other tion Interstate Commerce Commission.” And
477 the third, by a Commis- in the absence of determination freight tariffs of the unlawfulness of the interstate sion the defendant car- by filed or to be filed several proposed the of its could, scope within riers, equity no court agree- effectively enjoining frame decree authority, a establishing interstate ment to tariffs “conspiracy” or file freight rates. invoke may constitutionally The fact that a State
First. by brought the of this Court in a suit with fur- not the State, dispense of another does citizens bill of sought, if relief the equitable ther requisite cognizable must a of action complaint state cause give can relief. the Court of such a nature that equity, we have a Florida, supra, is, said, It as Texas v. juris- equity exercise governing the principle familiar in- equitable may relief be federal courts that diction of adequate without other only plaintiff when the voked may a corollary And of this that suitor it is remedy. his until he has exhausted available relief seek such Corp., Myers Bethlehem remedies. v. administrative Slattery, Co. cited; n. and cases Natural Gas supra, 51, 310-311. 302 S. U. Act, Clayton well as the terms 16 of
Here, governing generally equitable relief principles the aid courts, State, equity, order secure federal caused or threatened un- injury must show wrongful of which it Since acts complains. lawful acts adopt unjust, and maintain upon relied freight discriminatory rates, or unlawful, excessive injury to State its only inhabitants, threatened resulting conspiracy, from the is that which is or rates. caused such unlawful Act requires Interstate Commerce all
But the interstate putting charges into effect rates or carriers, rail before adopt and file with the Com- transportation interstate (4) (5) 1 (6),6 (1) §§ and reasonable rates. just mission (3). 6 (4) (5) (6), (1) 1 confers on (3), 49 U. S. C. §§ 478 jurisdiction to determine the exclusive
the Commission appearing tariffs, all the filed lawfulness rates, and authority suspend to order railroad to charging than the cease desist from other lawful rates. (1) (7). U. C. (1) (7), §§ Commission’s with determination is to be accordance the “national develop preserve transportation policy,” to a national transportation Wisconsin system, see Railroad Commis Chicagо, Q. 563, 585; sion v. B. & R. New *33 England Case, 184, Divisions 261 U. Railroad 189-190; S. v. Southern 264 331, Commission U. S. 341- Pacific 342, and to establish maintain and charges “reasonable . ., . . without . . unfair competitive destructive practices Transportation . . of 1940, 722, Act c. 54 1. 899, Stat. §
The Commission is directed to consider the effect of rates on the movement traffic, adequate and need of transportation and efficient railway service at low cost, as well carriers’ need as the of revenues sufficient to en- provide able them to that service. Interstate Commerce Act, amended, 15a, § 49 U. C. fixing § S. In 15a. divisions, rates or the Commission’s determination may take account the financial needs of the weaker carriers, by giving larger them a of divisions, general share or by a England Case, rate increase.4 New Divisions supra, 189- 4 recapture Transportation 1920, Under the clause Act 91,41 488, adding 422, e. Stat. 15a to the Interstate Commerce Act, § § profits of carriers in excess of a fair return were held in trust improving purposes Dayton-Goose railroad service. R. Creek Co. States, recapture 263 United U. S. 456. The repealed clause was by 16, 1933, 91, 220, the Act of June c. 48 Stat. 205. But its under § lying purpose permit provide sufficient adequate transportation system efficient was reaffirmed the declaration of a Transportation Policy” “National which the Commission is com observe, by Transportation manded to 1940, 722, Act of c. 54 899, 1. Stat. § States, Beaumont, L. & R. Co. v. United S. W. 195; States, R. United 281 U. cf. Ann Arbor Co. v. S. 74; U. S. rates, as maximum fix minimum as well § It may cut-throat prevent it to permitting 15,§C. thus U. S. may competitors. protect weaker competition transportation, means of competing effect consider attending conditions relevant circumstances or other Barringer v. United & Co. transportation service. See States, and on con cited; and authorities rates, the Commission fixes see which upon siderations Commission, Volume Sharfman, The Interstate Commerce many controlling factors, These and other which III-B. rates, determination of may the Commission’s enter ordinary in an Sherman Act case, to decision but irrelevant present suit, interwoven with inextricably which are injury must establish it is threatened the State fix freight rates. conspiracy to The Commission’s orders enforceable injunc in the district 16 (12), courts. 49 U. tions C. 16 remedy And the administrative (12). is exclusive of any at by courts, be afforded until least Com *34 validity of passed upon the rates and mission clas & Texas Co. v. involved. R. Abilene sifications Pacific Co., 426; S. Robinson Oil 204 U. v. Baltimore & Cotton Co., Northern 506; 222 U. R. R. S. Co. Ohio Pacific Director General Solum, 477; Railroads v. Midland 498; Valley 254 U. R. Co. v. Bark S. Viscose no acts, Until the Commission U. S. 482. court ley, 276 not lawful the rates are and reasonable or say that can range within the lowest of the zone of they are assumed, be Nor can either the burden reasonableness. injured by to that it is Georgia show being upon acts present And if the it rates are complains. at which reasonableness, they as well point may be, lowest in that event no lower injured, for Georgia is not 480 or the lawfully be enforced the Commission
could courts. pertinence present application
It not without to Georgia other the State and seven southern States parties now the Inter- proceedings pending before Commission, 28300, state Commerce Docket No. Class Rate Investigation, and No. Consolidated Docket Ereight Classification, which the Chairman of the appeared Public Service Commission has as the principal witness on behalf In proceed- State. these ings urged uniformity the witness of rates southern territories, conformity official classification to the offi- system cial territory of rates. The witness relied on (1)3 Act, (1), making 49 U. S. C. 3§ § unlawful for rail any carrier to make or give undue or unreа- preferences advantage sonable any particular or per- locality son, particular or description of traffic; (4) on § (5) (6), (4) (5) (6), U. C. requiring common just carriers rail rates, establish and reasonable fares, charges and classifications; (b) and on 5 Transportation Act of which requires the Commis- investigate the lawfulness sion to of rates points between in different classification territories and to enter such may appropriate orders as for the removal “of may unlawfulness which be found to exist.” plain that the Commission has in these proceedings to set aside such unlawful rates as may have from the conspiracies resulted alleged in the State’s If complaint. amended the Commission orders them set aside, nothing further remains for any court do, reasons will presently fully more appear, only save it be asked to review enforce the Commission’s prior order. Without resort to the Commission, Georgia *35 does not and cannot establish a court proceeding that it is threatened with injury by the conspiracy it or that the to secure the courts for to resort to necessary is it suit. present it in the seeks relief which the plain provisions these seeks to avoid State its insistence by Acts Clayton Commerce and Interstate not the it asks relief from complaint by its amended as will established rates which have unlawful been conspiracy from the conspiracy, the but a result of Commerce Commission itself, which the Interstate over give from it no and can jurisdiction, is said to have originally complaint, In bill of as no relief. the State's injunction setting it aside the unlaw- sought an presented, precluded realizing that all courts Evidently ful rates. taking before Commission has de- from such action rates, sought to validity the State termined amendment difficulty оvercome the its bill its on rates to withdraw attack complaint, purporting as assailing But, alone. the Court con- complaint even the amended recognize, seems to as to whether the allegations tains and raises issues rates discriminatory. The charged the defendants are com- to interference questions as with the plaint therefore raises Commerce jurisdiction of the Interstate Com- primary essentially presented the same as those mission which are original bill. juris- maneuver, conferring a means of verbal as This reason, have Court, futile, as we diction on maintain said, equity cannot its suit State Clayton general equity Act or upon 16 of either under establishing injury a threatened without principles, And represents. equally whom this is true it or those patriae railroad, or as parens whether it sues owner consignee freight. The threatened and a shipper injury ensue from maintenance of the unlaw- only can practices, specially charged ful which are to be necessarily illegal be- discriminatory. But “a rate *36 is the in in conspiracy cause it result of a restraint trade legal of the Anti-Trust Act. rates are violation What by Regulate by determined the Act to Commerce” and not Keogh Chicago v. & Northwestern R. the antitrust laws. Co., it case that supra, Hence follows this the suit only by showing can be maintained con rates, has spiracy resulted or will result unlawful or that lawful than conspiracy, rates, without other those now prevail, would can force, determinations which be made only by Commission, Interstate Commerce and which made by it, must be before this Court can take any judicial upon action based such determinations. present purposes
We assume for that a fix conspiracy to may lawful rates be a violation of thе laws, antitrust Keogh as was intimated But case. as this Court pointed out, pages remedy there 161-162, the is not to by be had the suit private individual; of a “the Govern- by ment have proceedings redress criminal under injunction 3, by under forfeiture under 6.”§ cannot, The State than private more a individual, bring a the Clayton suit under Act to restrain the conspiracy it be a something unless to do injurious to plaintiff. The only injury alleged such great ways is that variety caused unlawful and discrimi- freight natory rates established by the conspiracy. No can injury presumed such from a fix conspiracy to fix lawful or to rate unless can be known with new what rates those now in force will be replaced by Commission action. reasons, like Court uniformly
For this
under
party
guise
suing
permit
under
refused
seek in the
laws,
courts
indirection, deter-
antitrust
which are reserved for the Commission in
minations
Chicago
Keogh
Co.,
v.
& Northwestern
first instance.
R.
Co. v.
Assn.,
Terminal Railroad
supra; Central Transfer
Terminal
469, 476;
S.
Warehouse Co. v. Pennsyl-
288 U.
Co.,
United States
500;
compare
vania R.
297 U. S.
Armour
Co.,
474;
S.
Navigation Co. Cunard
show,
Alton
cases
these
& Co. v.
R.
Second. indicate the unmistakable intention of siderations present the like should not be made Congress a suit breaking regulatory down the the powers means of the Commission, provisions Clayton the 16 of the Act. noted, proviso the section withholds from already As right than the United the “to other States “any person” against relief injunctive any com- for bring equity suit provisions of” the subject to the Interstate carrier mon subject “in matter the respect any Act Commerce supervision, or other Inter- the regulation, Commerce Commission.” state Act Clayton adopted 1914, was
When Com- given already powers had been broad to fix mission Hepburn 29, Act of June by 1906, regulate Act Mann-Elkins of June 3591, 584, c. 34 Stat. Congress c. realized the 309, 36 Stat. under the injunctions for that indiscriminate suits danger laws, many antitrust affecting cases interstate rail carriers, many would substitute the district courts Commission, single rate-making authority, retro- gression from Congressional the consistent policy avoid confusion and conflict Hence, field. when Congress, 16 of the Clayton Act, for the first time private authorized suitors to seek relief injunction under the antitrust laws, pains was at to bar such suits respect carriers with matters within the province of the Commission. Thus it was the purpose § 16 to preclude the breakdown of the unified rate struc- ture established for the nation Commission, inevitably would result from the maintenance under the Act Sherman of numerous suits, individual like the present one, affecting rates which Congress had left within Commission's exclusive control first instance. statutory no command can more be than evaded *38 may jurisdiction the of exclusive the regu- Commission to rates, by late saying that the “relief” which Georgia seeks is not matter subject jurisdiction a to the of the Commis- sion. Section 16 does not foreclose merely a suit where subject the is a jurisdiction “relief” matter to the the of Commission'. Its words are much broader. They deny remedy, States, the to the “in except United respect of any matter subject jurisdiction” to . . . the of the Com- said, Georgia mission. As we have cannot damage show by showing the approve save that Commission would some rate than presently structure other that existing. That certainly subject jurisdiction” to the “matter . . . Commission, the sufficient to preclude a suit under 16.§ inseparability equitable against relief rate- making conspiracy from that the unlawfulness of which the rates are or be its fruits; already has been pointed out. Suffice it to here say precisely argu- that the ment disregarding now made for the prohibition of 16§ rejected by was in brought by this Court a suit an injured
485 agreements or private party conspiracies, to restrain to do within, Central jurisdiction acts Commission. Assn., supra. Co. v. Terminal Railroad And Transfer Navigation Co. v. Cunard S. S. compare United States supra, gave Court the like 16 where this construction to Act, comparable its relation to the Clayton of the fix authority Shipping Board to rates under Act 39 46 Shipping 1916, 451, 728, c. Stat. U. S. C. 801-842, as amended the Merchant Marine Act of §§ c. Stat. the Central Co. case it
In urged was Transfer Act Clayton preclude sought, of the did not the relief jurisdiction did not have the Commission over the since or agreements complained of, only contracts but .over performance. gave acts involved their This Court given answer which we think should be now, the conclusive effectively given against the injunction that no could be manner agreement relating or without some done in the lawfulness of the acts done or to be it to de- agreement contract, of the or execution their regu- of the lawfulness of those acts and termination jurisdiction within the exclusive of the ad- lation were United case, In that as well agency. ministrative Navigation Co. States case, pointed was out that the plain purpose defeat of § construction would other judicial except Government, suits preclude, prejudgment with lawfulness of interference Congress indubitably placed within matters agency. the administrative *39 in the present relief under 16 must case be Equitable upon identical with upon principle that which denied in denying right relied of the has State to the Court which it damages proposes the suit here. The recover in Keogh Chicago case, of the v. this branch fact Co., supra, and Terminal R. Warehouse Northwestern & Co., supra, Pennsylvania R. damages suit is for Co. v. resulting rates, injunction of from unlawful instead an damage restraining injury, sig- threatened or is without case, damage For either cannot unless nificance. ensue or in an rate agreement conspiracy results unlawful of whose lawfulness Commission is the sole ar- practice both, has held that the biter. And this Court suit cannot resorting without first the Commission. maintained be fit its extensive of the Congress did see revision Transportation Act in Act of Interstate Commerce application Clayton Act to the to alter Interstate jurisdiction Commerce Commission. exigencies partic- For it now to meet the of a us to alter presents plausible no relevant differences case, ular which decided, from those which we have heretofore as- power only Congress rightly sumption of could exercise, power plainly which it declined exercise.
Third. Even
assuming,
as the
does,
State
and as the
persuaded,
Court is
a court
equity
could be called
upon
enjoin
to establish
anticipa-
rates in
tion
a determination
their unlawfulness,
it would
plainly
impossible
to frame a decree for relief in ad-
vance
a determination
the Commission that
present
unlawful,
rates are
or that
those resulting from
the decree would be lawful. Courts cannot enjoin,
general
terms,
violations
the Sherman Act, without
specifying what
enjoined
acts are to be
as violations, or as
aiding or inducing violations.
& Co. v. United
Swift
States,
487 suggestion, Hence the which the has been per- Court accept, to that this can find way enjoin suaded Court a to fix alleged conspiracy regard the to without rates, to what may agreed upon rates are or be whether and the Com- finds them unlawful, mission to be lawful or anis invita- a futility. Any injunction tion to course of the veriest which Court properly could frame must not be an idle gesture. prevent must be one to injury. the threatened injunction An prevent to a conspiracy without relation injurious to its consequences effect, could have that not injunction and the could be related to consequences those defining practices rates and which the only by in this case declare, declared, may may has not Commission to be unlawful. enjoin fix attempt to futile to
It is on it injurious plaintiff, their effect unless because be and they are unlawful or will unless known that is And it is futile for point. free to determine Court what rates will be law attempt prescribe this Court binding upon the its determination will not be ful since Indeed, after ignored by it. even Commission, made a determination this such the Commission instance, power is without set first Court, Chicago R. & Northwestern Dakota v. aside, North Comm’n, 258 U. Interstate Commеrce Texas v. supra; aside an jurisdiction to set 164-165, for exclusive 158, district court vested order of Commission Urgent Act, Deficiencies c. 38 judges under three (28), amended, 28 U. S. C. §§ Stat. original to dismiss suit of this Court duty
It is the Arizona decree. See make an effective it cannot which cases cited. A 558, 572, California, such a suit. fortiori, not to entertain duty it is its necessity for con- compelling The soundness and the given §to has hitherto the Court struction and em- illustrated Act could not be better Clayton phasized than reference *41 to situation by exhibited the case which now Any before us. decree, effective to prevent injury of which the State complains, would in necessarily result inequalities further in rates, such alleged as are now to exist. The Court enjoin cannot unlawful the conspiracy to establish rates without undertaking say what rates and practices are to be deemed lawful and what unlawful. But this deter- mination the Interstate Commerce Commission would bound, not be nor would the United States or railroad other than those which are parties defendant.
Only Georgia would secure relief approximating that sought by the If bill. relief enjoining the conspiracy com- plained of were effective to relieve State of the injury from unlawful rates to which it objects, and without which it could not maintain the suit under 16,§ the decree must in result a new rate structure applicable to the railroads which parties Prejudice defendant. and discrimina- tion would be every created toas other State southern territory and as to shippers consignees of freight in those who governed States would still be by the published rates, against tariff only Georgia and its citizens would have secured some measure of relief. There would be two sets of rates between the south and the north, one, effected as a result of this Court’s decree, applicable to shippers Georgia over the railroads which are defend- here, ants governed and another by published tariffs ap- proved by the Commission and applicable to all other shippers and railroads the south. Since illegality in existing rates is averred because of disparity the level rate-making of rates two areas, allegation with no southern carriers receive more than a fair charge for their transportation service, the Court required would be determine whether the discrimination should be removed by increasing rates in official or establishing an territory intermediate rates, level of new Interstate Commerce v. United States, Commission de- U. S. 392—a only by per- which could be arrived at termination function of legislative Court of the formance making hitherto been reserved to rate which has Commission. injunction against the
If all this is to be avoided enjoining any without its as- alleged conspiracy, but origi- in rate making, issue consequences serted evil by the amendment bill of nally would, tendered if anything seem amount to little more than complaint, alleges complaint political The amended issue. wrong experienced by transcends that individ- “The done firms, have come and corporations Eor as men, uals. *42 has continued over the decades.” gone, the upon original might re- complaint trial the have While of grievance this to the of a cause action duced dimensions the it enjoin illegal freight injurious State, rates to to country grievance of a of the appears now section system which existing making, federal of rate against an Congress than be to rather to this addressed should Court. Department Justice support
The
of
lends
which
amicus,
the brief
filed in this
Georgia’s
by
contentions
removes
evident
States,
behalf of the United
Court
this
The Government
entertaining
suit.
need
laws,
with
of the antitrust'
charged
the enforcement
the Sherman Act and
16 of the
by
authorized
of
Act
that purpose,
maintain suits for
which
Clayton
If
bring.
cannot
it
con-
others
believes
stopped by
exists
be
remedial ac-
spiracy
and should
there
Commission,
resort
of
without
courts,
tion
avoiding
many
why,
no reason
would seem to be
pro-
present suit,
obstacles to the
should
technical
grievances
in the usual manner the
of
remedy
ceed to
including
United
citizens
the citizens of the
States
'
’
Georgia.
objections aside,
Other
it seems obvious that this Court
give any
cannot
effective relief removing the threat injury to
resulting
the State
from a railroad rate con
spiracy
breaking
without
system
down the
regu
rate
lation
system
the Commission —a
which Congress has
painstakingly
up
built
since the decisions, more than
forty-five
years ago, United States v. Trans-Missouri
Freight Assn.,
and United
Joint
States v.
Assn.,
A. H. ADMINIS- DIVISION, THE AND TRATOR OF WAGE HOUR DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. U. S. Argued
No. 608. March 1945. Decided March