*1 1908. Syllabus.
are too to be copied difficult to summarize. long They! are set out in opinion the-Court Appeals, it will be seen from them that those which were given court, not objected embodied as the to, all, Court Appeals held, that was in contained the instruction refused, adapted to the testimony and the consideration which the jury might give to its various phases.
Judgment affirmed. PRENTIS et al., THE STATE CONSTITUTING CORPO
RATION COMMISSION OF VIRGINIA, v. ATLANTIC LINE COAST COMPANY.
SAME v. CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY.
SAME v. CHESAPEAKE WESTERN RAILWAY. SAME v. LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE RAILROAD
COMPANY. SAME v. NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY
COMPANY. v. SOUTHERN SAME RAILWAY COMPANY. CIRCUIT COURT OP UNITED APPEALS PROM THE THE STATES FOR DISTRICT OP THE VIRGINIA. EASTERN 270, 273, 274, Argued 20, 271, 272, 16, 19, October Nos. 1908.— Decided November concerned, may, by Federal Constitution is far as the a State So con- legislative judicial imite in provision, powers stitutional the same body. investigates,
A declares they enforces liabilities as inquiry past laws, facts and under present on existing legisla- stand while changes conditions, looks to the future and making tion new rules applied. to be thereafter body, making of a a legislative hearing rate after the interested upon parties, judicata ques- not res rate when validity in a court. parties Litigation tioned those a suit does not arise legislative can a State make such legislation; until after nor action in subsequent litigation. judicata res v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE. Argument Appellants. 2il Proceedings legislative nature are not within Rev. meaning Stat. no be the char- matter what' § body they in which place. acter take *2 confiscatory a railroad rate deprive company Whether is so as to the of property process without due of law within the meaning of the ' depends upon Amendment Fourteenth the of the property, valuation rate, income derivable from proportion the the and the between the two, of matters fact which company pre- which the cannot be from trying competent vented before a- of choosing. tribunal its own commission, Where railroad power by a state which is granted rates, constitution to make attempts state and enforce enacts and rates which are low confiscatory, to enforce so as proper remedy by equity enjoin enforcement, bill such and such a the members against suit will commission not be bad as one against the but should not be commenced until the rate by body having has been fixed last word. party
While a .right complain does not lose his of action under an by prevent unconstitutional law not using diligence to its enact- ment, rates, on a of railroad an appeal Supreme when to the of Court the State from an order of Corporation the State Commis- fixing by sion such rates is given- constitution, proper state it is that dissatisfied railroads should take this matter to the of Court their State before bringing a in the Circuit Court of the bill United States. Under circumstances of this action a case on bill suspended was to await the result of such appeal.
The facts are stated the opinion.
Mr. William A. Anderson, Attorney General of the State of Mr. John W. Daniel A.Mr. Ion Brax- Gaper ton, for appellants: of
Regulation
transportation
companies, particularly as intrastate
rates is an essential attribute of the State govern-
ment,
legitimate
necessary
part
the police power, to be
such
as
by
body
exercised
the State may select and clothe with
Munn v.
necessary powers.
Illinois,
Argument Appellants. S.U. experience through States more half a cen- than dealings tury governmental companies with such had demon- regulation and duties could not powers strated these legis- exercised an ordinary satisfactorily or efficiently, executive or ad- lature, merely invested body .with judicially, according nor proceeding ministrative powers, law, equal in interest due parties process protec- required tion of the the Fourteenth Amendment. laws, demonstrated that courts of ordinary had been also afford relief for a so country adequate could not situation might Such a determine that complex. difficult and was unreasonable unjust, rate or schedule rates particular but it illegal, confiscatory; because could not prescribe which be adopted. Any rate or should redress schedule negative was and is its char- give purely such courts could *3 meet to the acter, absolutely inadequate requirements and supervision of which demand constant and prompt conditions and positive relief. Commission was accord- Corporation State Virginia of the
ingly provisions the express created under the by it and statutes subse- by and endowed constitution, all necessary powers. with quently passed first as a place judicial therefore It was constituted in. its more court to tribunal, distinctly expressly respect and with all the and functions, equipped machinery important within its broad of court but powers invested with all of in law a It is in fact and court. jurisdiction. special intrastate rates are just and what ascertaining deciding In and after judicially, ample and the commission acts reasonable, judicial all appropriate notice to all in interest accords parties to law, every all of process, opportunity and due process and fair heard, a full and trial.
As a against possible injustice, further protection given any ag- of to Court of to right Appeals any right if denied grieved by appellate party, and the United States, and laws of assured the Constitution by v. ATLANTIC LINE. COAST Argument Appellants. for invoking paramount jurisdiction redress be had of this court.
While duties in determining its most and important powers with rates are the tribunal is also endowed extra judicial, effective regula- and just powers, .essential' as “legislative,” tion of such defined companies technically — having and after tentatively proposing, of namely, power the rates considered and ascertained judicially investigated, the rates reasonable, formally prescribing which are just so ascertained to be reasonable and judicially just. commission was so constituted not to but to evade, do,
This oust the court which could justice; jurisdiction any not to to com- relief, give afford but adequate transportation to the Commonwealth a tribunal panies appropriately complex effectively clothed with deal powers justly with complex problems, complex subject.
The commission is a tribunal. valid It is sanctioned state for it is the crea- constitution, of that instrument. ture Constitution; to the Federal it not repugnant only
It is not accord, litigants, but is due required process does not deny, laws, give and to as full equal protection of law and the possible fair a and trial as would be hearing any nor can without re- docs, it, committing Nor give. court to one of the equal protection error, deprive any versible laws. blending not inhibit Constitution does
The Federal or even of all two, three powers States .the *4 a single the hands great departments government Anderson, 171 v. Tinsley a official See single body: or officer n 106; Railroad Commission 116 U. 101, Cases, S. S. 307: U. Loan & Co., 362, 394, Farmers’ 154 U. S. v. Trust. Reagan v. 658'; R. 156 U. S. Oill; Smythe &c. R: Co. v.- 413; St. Louis Minneapolis n 524; Minne- & R. Co. v. St.-L: R. S. 169 U. Ames, U. S. v. 127 Mackey, R. R. Co. 257; Missouri sota, 186 U. S. S., 32; Hing v. Crowley, 113 Soon Conally, Barbier v. II. 209; 214
Argument Appellants. for 211 U. S. Kentucky 321; Tax 703; Ry. Cases, S. 115 S. 113 U. U.. 606; New S. Orient Co. v. York, Ins. v. 134 U. Ins. Home Co. Atchison,, Fé 562; Topeka S. & 557, 172 U. Santa Daggs, ,S- 95; Fischer Louis, 174 St. 'Matthews, R. R. Co. U. v. v. Mettler, Association 194 v. 361; Fidelity U. S. Mut. Life Co. v. 327; Valley 185 U. S. Water'Works 325, Spring 308, Q.& R. R. 354; Nebraska, S. B. Co. v. Schottler, 347, C., U. 110 Ken- & Nashville R. R. Co. v. 76; U. S. Louisville 57, 75, 170 Riverside Co. v. U. S. tucky, 503; Hitchcock, 183 U. S. Oil 190 109; U. 324; Payne, 108, Bates & Guild Co. v. S. 316, 106, 508, 509; House 194 U. S. Coyne, 497, Public v. Clearing S. v. Dreyer 57, 84; Michigan, Reetz Illinois, 505, 507.
These in contravention of Rev. Stat. The are suits § to all and being validly commission thus intents purposes a court, grant injunction constituted as prayed by that which in direct violation of section forbids appellees, is a United court from writ of to any granting injunction States stay any of a where except such any law injunction may relating proceed- authorized et et Peck al. v. Jenness 7 How. ings al., in bankruptcy. Wadley, Harkrader v. cited; and cases there Mercantile U. United v. Parkhurst-Davis S. Co., States U. 254-257. Haines Carpenter, res judicata Whether the applies. doctrine commis- court, legislative as regarded body, sion or what- related characteristics as great ever its distinctive depart- it is government, unquestionably ments of tribunal and fully and constitution validly laws empowered under Constitution and laws States, and United determine the case hear, try, finally very and which it did hear twelve months and try during prior April 27, 1907, and final order, decide adjudicate findings, did which pronounced day, judgment upon rendered upon were and conclusive findings, order, judgment here, proceeding, upon the defendants in that appellees *5 PRENTIS v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE. 215 foj Argument 211 U. S. ¡Appellants. world; and under the Constitution and laws of the United
States and of Virginia, can be reviewed or reversed upon only taken in the manner provided by Constitution and laws of Virginia and of the United States.
All matters and questions the bills presented by in these causes, or on the were Passen- merits, presented ger Rate Case decided already said commission on April
As the acts or findings of a town or of council, any tribunal whatsoever, however humble or done in important, the exercise of a lawfully conferred within the discretion, scope of their validly conferred can never be either authority, directly or collaterally attacked for judgment, law, fact, errors of or of by any court, State Federal, however exalted, except in such manner as so the prescribed by law, acts and findings of the Virginia State done Corporation Commission, within limits of lawful can- authority jurisdiction, not be attacked or the Su- impeached except upon appeal to preme Court of or to Court of the Uni- ted manner States in the law. provided by suits,
These in their are analysis, last suits against and cannot be maintained. members of the commission have no personal or with the subject- connection individual matter of these suits, personal no interest whatever in the suits or in the and order judgment vMiichit is the of these object suits to impeach. They constitute the official personnel of the corporation commission, integral coordi- department nate of the state government, only as such Ex here. impleaded parte Ayers, 443; U. S. Louisiana v. 711; 107 U. S. Antoni Jumel, Greenhow, 769; v. 107 U. S. Macon & Cunningham v. B. R. R. Co., 446; Hay- good v. 117 U. S. Southern, 516; Fitts McGhee, Smith U. Reeves, Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U. S. 386.
For Federal court to entertain these suits operates as a great injustice Virginia. to the State ais hardship
Argument Appellees. 211 ü. S-. wrong’ to her for these grievous any court, after matters litigated been before the already exhaustively have state *6 brought final there, tribunal and after trial to decision fair at again, great to these matters to be require inconvenience Virginia, litigated, and cost to and only this, enormous “mend their and hold," but the to to make permit appellees aup new case.
On hand, hardship the other no whatever will injustice be done the them to their appellees by remanding ample remedy judgment from the of the commission to by court of the State and if oc- supreme thence¡ they find casion writ of error. it, for this court by
The of the constitution sections statutes from which commission derives its existence and its violate no of the Federal powers, provisions Constitution, are in conflict with no essential to the principle preservation of valid, but are liberty, constitutional enact- competent, ments; of the judgments and orders tribunal con- thus stituted, collaterally cannot attacked in the United States inor Circuit, any other, court, and can be reviewed, only brought in question, and erroneous, reversed set if and. aside, by the of appeals byor this court in regular and orderly mode of procedure by appeal pre- by scribed the Constitution and laws of the State, and of the States. United
Mr. P. for Thom, with appellees, whom Messrs. Alex- Alfred ander Hamilton, William B. T. Mcllwaine, Henry Wickham, Henry Taylor, Jr., S. S. P. Patteson, Geo. H. Taylor, H. L. Jos. I. Stone, Lucian H. Cocke Doran*, and John K. Graveswere .on the briefs. Mr. Henry L. Stone filed a brief separate for n & Louisville Nashville Railroad Company on the arbitrary classification the' Corporation State Commission of Vir- in fixing the rates ginia complained of: unnecessary to discuss whether the rates complained of are confiscatory, the fact that they are confiscatory being ATLANTIC COAST LINE. Argument Appellees. of for the appellants purposes admitted pleadings of made in the Circuit Court, these cases. No was none is made here, to the truth of allegations the several bills of the truth these complaint, allegations by the for the of these cases admitted being purposes pleadings and the on objection appellants being entire insisted in the The bills filed jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. jurisdiction. Circuit Federal Court show grounds show a case confiscation, each of the bills allegations Railway & Chesapeake Company, the bills of The Ohio Nor- Railway folk & Railway Western Southern Company Com- the rates com- pany necessary facts show that allege and the plained of violate a valid contract between them City Co. v. Citizens' Railway Ry. Co., State Virginia. *7 Walla 557; City Walla Walla v. Walla 172 Water.Co., v. 184 U. Ry. S. Detroit Detroit Citizens’ S. 368. 1; Co., U. Even on the concession that com- argumentative the Virginia body, is a the Four- notwithstanding mission constitutional States, to the Constitution of the United teenth Amendment by in this case subject enjoined members were to Circuit Court. is vested constitu- Virginia commission with the full (d), (e), power 156, (a), (b), (c), (g), (h),]
tion [§
in their
companies
public
over transportation
State
of the
which the whole
is
department
through
relations,
is administered.
respect
laws in
them
of the State’s
body
Co. v.
103
Commonwealth,
Portsmouth Belt Line R.
&'
Norfolk
whole
of
power
possesses
The commission
Virginia,
final step.
from the initial to the
confiscation
even if it tried,
of
for the State
competent
Virginia,
is
of
in violation
an invasion of property rights
accomplish
con-
of
the device
States
Constitution
United
denomi-
which it
on a tribunal
of confiscation
power
ferring
has
Court
Federal Circuit
Whether or not the
nates a court.
of
invasion
property
an unconstitutional
enjoin
power on the character
depends
state officers
rights attempted
TERM, 1908.
218
Argument- for
211 U. S.
Appellees.
not on the title of.the officer
sought
enjoined,
the act
to be
v.
perform
the tribunal
it.
attempting
Marbury
697;
1
U.
137;
Gordon v.
117
S.
Untied
Madison, Cranch,
States,
865; August-Busch
25 Fed.
v.
&
Rep.
v.
Weil
Calhoun,
Co.
122
665;
Fed.
Nashville R. Co. v.
&
Rep.
Webb,
Louisville
123
948;
Fed.
v.
Union
Rep.
Western
Tel.
Brown,
Myatt,
Co.
341;,Nr
98 Fed.
48
parte Candee, Alabama, 399;
v.
Rep.
Roley
163;
92
v.
George's'
Prince
Maryland,
County,
County
Upshur
S,
Rich, 135 U.
473;
339;
100 TJ. S.
Ex
parte
Virginia,
McNeill v. Southern
affirming
Fed. Rep. of Commission v. Illi- R. R. 68; 144 Fed. Mississippi Co., Rep. Co.’s Ry. Street 335; Central Norwalk nois Co., JR. v. Ferreira, United States Appeal, Connecticut, 202 INS. Ry. Co., How. v. Sou. McNeill hearing preliminary If a notice and a State requiring fyy n 'to which in is that essence judicial make legislation could destroy device very juris- a legislative, simple could by a Whether or not of Federal courts. diction in equity taking meaning when tribunal is a court within § that, a action be under'consideration any may, necessarily At the for States courts to determine. the United had juris- cases were no court taken time the bills in these filed cases diction of the matters See cited controversy. The writ of no injunction pro- furnishes preceding paragraph.. is a function. making judicial to show that the of fates totype The based upon advanced propositions by appellants § Reagan Case, Rev. made counsel in the Stat., by were 362,' by this court-. and overruled n Virginia The to make attempted has not constitution while or in engaged rate-making the commission court Various provisions thereto. preparatory Line Atlantic Coast R. Co. v. Virginia constitution examined. Co. Com- Virginia, 621; Ry. Southern Commonwealth, 102 commission not monwealth, making when its order establish- being rates, neither rates conclusions matters of fact or law lead- ing the nor its on ing it are res and members are up judicata, protected Statutes issuing of the Revised from from injunction 720§ a confiscatory the-Federal court when to enforce attempting rate.
Due law requires process company complaining of a it is in- rate after shall, fixed, right have vestigation form with process due law, under ages of successive machinery provided wisdom investigation in con- judicially the truth of the matter
220 1908.
Argument
Appellees.
for
211 U. S.
M. & St. P.
Co. v.
176
troversy. Chicago,
R.
U. S.
Tompkins,
172;
M. & St. P.
Co.
134 U. S.
Chicago,
Minnesota,
R.
v.
458, 461; Smyth
527;
v.
169 U. S.
Ames,
Ex-parte Young,
209
Louis &c.
156
166;
U. S.
St.
R. Co. v.
S.
Gill,
649, 659,
U.
666. Due
law
must be such
as is
process
proceeding
ap-
for
propriate to the nature of the case. What is sufficient
one
case
be
to and insufficient in another.
inapplicable
Cooley,
(7th
506; Chicago
Constitutional Limitations
&c.
ed.), 502,
R. Co.
240;
v.
166 U. S.
v. Reclamation
Chicago,
Pagar
Dist.,
Ill U. S.
Davidson v. New
708;
96 U.-S.
What is
Orleans,
107.
of law a
necessary
process
very
due
in rate case is
different
from what
Chicago
tax case.
cfee.R. Co. v.
required
134
Minnesota,
460;
U. S.
State Railroad Tax
92 U. S.
Cases,
613;
Hoboken
Murray v.
Land
18
Co.,
282;
parte
How.
Ex.
Young,
The provided for in the appeal constitution of,the Court of Appeals State from the commission’s making action in the rates of does not constitute complained due of law, and does not process destroy equity jurisdic- Smyth tion of the Federal court. S. 474; Ames, Farmers’, Cohn, Mills v. U. S. Mississippi 204; Reagan 150 391; Loan & 154 U. S. U. Co., S. 25 Stat. L. Statutes, Trust Court of the Circuit United States had in. jurisdiction - to consider and determine equity these cases, notwithstanding allowed the state laws. Chicago &c. R. Co. v. 460; 134 Ex U. S. Minnesota, parte Young, U. S. 142, 143, 209 166; v. Farmers’ Loan & Reagan Trust 400; 154 U. S. Co., note of Chief Posthumous Justice v. United Taney Gordon ,U. States, Wallace v. Appendix, 204'U. S. Adams, has Equity jurisdiction such cases in the interest of so that an public 'orderly and comprehensive settlement may made as a basis of doing a business essential to the M. & public welfare; Chicago, St. P. R. Co. v. Minnesota, Ex Young, U. parte S. 166; and also to prevent See multiplicity'of actions. cases. above of appellants The contention the act sought en- v. ATLANTIC LINE. COAST Argument Appellees. *10 cannot be en- and hence legislative act, is of joined part v. Board R. R. Com- is unsound. Southern Co. joined, Pacific of 43 246; v. ex Morris 78 Fed. Mason, rel. State Rep. missioners, 347; High Wall. on In- 590; v. 7 La. Ann. Thompson, Gaines v. 876; Wise Virginia, v. 71 135; junctions, § McCaull, Wolfe (N. J.’), 269; Reed v. &c. 79 Mayor Bigger, Virginia, Woodcliff of 866; v. 35 Fed. 1128; Rep. R. 60 Atl. Bey, &c. Co. Chicago 47; Minneapolis Rep. v. 91 Fed. Keyes, Northern Co. Pacific 992; Mc- 155 Fed. Rep. v. City Minneapolis, Street Ry. Co. 497; Mar- 183 U. S. Nashville R. Chord v. Louisville Co., & 4 v. 137; Cranch, 1 Johnson, v. Mississippi Madison, bury 159; Alpers U. S. v. San Fran- 498; 209 Wall. Young, Ex parte 503; New. Orleans Water Works Rep. 32 Fed. cisco cfee. R. Co., See U. S. 482. Chicago R. v. New 164 &c. Orleans, Co. U. S. 235. 166 Co. v. Chicago, and the bills were finality was a of the commission
The order Co. v. Common- R. filed. Atlantic Coast Line prematurely not v. 599; Virginia, Ry. Southern Co. 102 Commonwealth, wealth, I], 543; 771; McNeill v. Southern 202 Ry. Co., 107 362; 154 U. S. Trust v. Farmers’ Co., Chicago Loan & Reagan 168; U. S. Co. v. Chicago 176 Ry. &c. &c. R. Co. v. Tompkins, R. Co. v. 91 866; Northern Rep. 35 Fed. Keyes, Dey, Pacific 35 833; Co. v. Fed. &c. R. 47; Rep. Chicago Becker, Rep. Fed. v. 98 335. Rep. Fed. Myatt, Tel. Co. Western Union of the equal system deprives appellees pro- Virginia The in that laws, transportation it denies com- of the tection to courts declared equity, access panies to be the if not the proper, only, United States Court of while against multiplicity suits, relief mode of such given remedy in State in equity all other interests 150; v. 165 U. S. Ellis, &c. R. Co. defense. such Gulf 466; U. S. &c. R. Co. v. v. Chicago Minnesota, Smyth Ames, U. S. 666; v. Detroit S. 460; Railway Company Gill, 184 U. S. R. Haverhill Street Gas- v. Co., Detroit Citizens’ v. 109 Fed. Rep. Barker, light Company however, commission, -the foregoing, Independently Argument Appellees.
because the
constitution
in
undertakes
unite
legislative,
the whole
power
ju-
executive
dicial,
to the rates
the law
respect
controversy,
its creation made a
and therefore its
partial
tribunal,
judg-
process
ments cannot
due
of law.
satisfy
requirements
The law creating
being
this union of
powers,
separable in
its several
conferring
is itself unconstitutional
provisions
them,
under the
so far as it confers
Amendment,
Fourteenth
powers
therefore,
to.
can have
referred
no
commission,
existence. An
no law,
act is
creates
.valid
unconstitutional
Shelby,
no office
no
Norton
authority.
confers
425; Chicago
R.
Dash
&c. Co. v.
35 Fed.
Dey,
Rep.
*11
(5th
Van Kleeck,
447;
ed.), 393;
7
Story,
Johns.
Constitution
Western Union Tel.
v.
344, 346, 352;
Co.
98 Fed.
Myatt,
Rep.
v. Johnson,
State
Street
Kansas, 603;
Ry,
61
Nonoalk
Co’s.
69
Appeal,
Connecticut, 576;
Moral
Mon-
Paley’s
Philosophy;
6;
tesquieu,
“Spirit
Laws,”
Pennoyer Neff,
Book
c.
v.
95
U.
733;
S.
Ex parte Wall,
289;
U.
Lessees
Murray’s
S.
v.
Hoboken-Land Co.,
276;
18 How.
Burns v. Multonomah R. Co.,
183;
15 Fed. Rep.
752;
Railroad Tax
13 Fed.
David-
Cases,
Rep.
son
New
v.
Orleans,
102;
96 U.
v.
S.
Weimer
Bunberry, 30
201;
Michigan,
Dr. Bonham’s Case, 8 Coke, 118; Violett v.
Alexandria,
Meyers
567;
Shields,
v.
61 Fed. Rep.
725;
1084;.
8 Cyc.
London v. Wood, 12
687;
Mod.
Heslceth v.
Braddock,
1856;
3 Burr.
Meyer v. City
San Diego, 121 Cali-
104; Tootle
fornia,
v. Berkley, 60 Kansas, 446; Slate v. Crane,
J. L. 394;
30 N.
Washington Insurance Co. v. Price, Hopkins
1;
Ch. Matter
.Hancock,
“The States,” 68, United for to the Court of appeal provided Supreme Appeals not avoid
Virginia does
referred to
the unconstitutionally
in the next
but is itself invalid
preceding paragraph,
under
to the Constitution of
the Fourteenth Amendment
the Uni-
in the
Court of
because it unites
States,
Appeals
ted
functions in
legislative
these same objectionable
If
remedy
one
does not
subject-matter.
to the same
respect
it does not constitute
law, doubling
process
constitute due
R. Go.
Pittsburgh
Backus,
due
of.law.
process
Me. in the Circuit Court brought in equity These are bills to. State Corporation members and clerk enjoin taking any other to en- steps Commission from publishing The bills allege, force a certain order rates. fixing passenger that the rates in facts, elaboration of the with some necessary mention, other matters not confiscatory, etc. The defendants Amendment, the Fourteenth and set up respectively and plea demurrer specially, appeared commission are before that the proceedings forward put courts of which a court of *12 Stats. and Rev. to epjoiñ, § are forbidden States United of the legality makes the the commission the decision that final were en- decrees On these pleadings res rates judicata. to this appealed and the defendants plaintiffs, for the tered it is to be assumed Therefore, as the case is presented, court. and infringes property the plaintiffs’ confiscates the order that to is open inquiry. matter if the Amendment the Fourteenth to be main question and the argued, The principally of its which, spite one is order whether .discussed, is States of the United the courts invalidity, constitutional impugn. not at liberty
Opinion of the Court. Commission is established State Corporation The and length the constitution of the State. are defined at powers that give it'dignity rehearse the provisions There is no need to add to its other functions, or that and importance it is a purposes we that for some because shall assume Rev. and in the meaning commonly Stats. within § Among that word. its duties it exercises sense of accepted regulate of the State to and control authority supervise, and to that as is said end, service public corporations, at the counsel repeated Court Supreme with .and executive legislative, judicial it has been clothed bar, Belt & Portsmouth Line R. R. Co. v. Common powers. Norfolk 289, 294. wealth, constitution provides commission,
The state duty of the shall from just mentioned, time performance and enforce such rates, charges, time classifica- prescribe and rules and traffic, regulations, transportation tion of doing companies and transmission business in them to establish and maintain all .require public shall such facilities and service, conveniences, may as be reasonable prescribing fixing any charge, etc., Before rate or just. (in case a general against it is to notice order not directed give in a company by name, by publication four weeks’ any specific the substance of the action and of newspaper)'of contemplated when the commission will hear place objections a time If an is against again it. order the order is to passed, evidence above before it go shall into effect. published An Court of is Appeals given right any party conditions not to be and that aggrieved, upon necessary stated, has been if it reverses is substitute such court, done, .what as in its have made. opinion order commission should certify commission is to which its action facts upon such based and evidence as but no new was be required, to be received, findings is and how far the evidence No can be revised perhaps quite plain. commission or annul of the State can correct review, reverse, other court *13 ' LINE. v. ATLANTIC COAST . Opinion of the Court. in collateral commission, and the action of the called in it cannot be doubt. the rates established validity has power been the commission fixed, When a rate has and adjudging enforcing, with its order by enforce compliance offending company against own appropriate process, a hearing law. But established by the fines and penalties of the order reasonableness validity and the required, and all defenses again proceeding, be attacked in this with a breach. charged be open party seem to the com- outlined, On under the July 31, 1906, provisions to the several steam in a notice newspaper mission published all persons business companies doing railroad would hear that at a certain time and interested, place a maximum rate two cents an order prescribing objections with details not a for of passengers, mile the transportation A and the hearing had, complain- was needing to stated. urged ants (appellees) severally appeared objections bills. On com- April 27,1907, similar to those set up an order in more rates, mission but passed prescribing For certain railroads all of named, including form. specific as we shall the rate was to complainants except state, for branches of the Southern Rail- cents; excepted two certain half; others, including Chesa- two way Company, three and a three; and for others Railway, Western peake cents. Pub- charge with minimum of ten mile, half cents and at that these bills directed, stage order was lication of the brought. were all to discuss necessary decide the cases it is not
In order xipon argument, were raised or touched that the questions We shall assume that when, on one side. lay we shall and some legislative to unite constitution sees’fit a state here, as hinder nothing there is so single hand, 'in powers United States is concerned. Constitution of the far as the Strasburg Winchester & Illinois, 71, 83, Dreyer We shall Commonwealth, Virginia, 264, R. R. Co. said, have some of the com- powers we of the> assume, ccxi—15 von. *14 n
Opinion 211 of the Court. U. S. we assume, without.deciding, and shall judicial, mission are enforce against if was that, proceeding appellees it a them it then be breach, and to for would punish order this would be from protected as a court and interference sitting of courts of the United States. on part drawn plain
But we think
equally
proceedings
legislative
are
in their
nature,
in
here
and none
taken
with a
at an-
they
body
less so that
have
place
which
in its
or dominant
is a
moment,
aspect,
other
or.
principal
A
is
judicial
court such as meant
720.
investi-
inquiry
§
they
pres-
and enforces liabilities as
stand on
gates, declares
,
exist,
facts and under
supposed already
ent
laws
past
Legislation
That
and end.
on the other'hand
is its purpose
future
changes existing
making
looks' to the
conditions by
a new rule to
thereafter
to all or some
of those
applied
part
power.
to its
of a rate
mak-
subject
establishment
is the
ing of
rule
act
future, and therefore is an
legislative
in
not
as seems
kind,
recognized
to be fully
Supreme Court
Commonwealth
Appeals,
v. Atlantic Coast
Line Ry.
106
Co.,
Virginia,
61, 64,
its learned
especially by
his pointed
President
in
remarks Winchester
Strasburg
R. R. Co.
others v. Commonwealth,
264,
106
281.
Virginia,
Interstate
See further
Commerce Commission v.
New
Cincinnati,
Orleans & Texas
Ry.
Co.,
479, 499, 500,
S.
Pacific
U.
Land &
Diego
San
Town Co. v.
Jasper, 189
S.
439,
Proceedings legislative in nature are
not
court within the meaning of Rev. Stats.
no
720,
what
matter
§
may
general
or dominant character of the
which
body in
take
they may
place. Southern
Ice
Ry. Co. Greensboro
&
v.
Coal Co., 134 Fed. Rep. 82, 94, affirmed sub nom. McNeill v.
Southern Ry. Co.,
U. S.
543. That
not
question depends
the character of
upon
but
body
upon character
Ex
proceedings.
parte
U.
339,
S.
They
suit in which a writ of error would lie under Rev. Stats.
709, and Act of February 18, 1875, c.
18 Stat. 318. See
§
135 U. v.
Upshur County
Rich,
Adams,
Wallace
LINE,
ATLANTIC COAST
Opinion
of the Court.
423. The decision
them cannot be res
upon
judicata
a suit is
See
brought.
Reagan v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust
when
n Court. Opinion of the in other United States-courts in this and many in cases plied been has enjoined, rates notwith enforcement which the counsel this call hearing, and what case standing notice cannot bolster Legislation itself up in advance. litigation moment of legis arise until the cannot Litigation way. Co. Ry. Commonwealth, Southern See past. lation is 771, 772. to objection these to that the most plausible us It appears but that argument, they upon one most dwelt bills is is a narrow one and its Our doubt brought- too sooh. were us clear that It seems to understood. limits should brought to proceedings to wait for were not bound appellees them for from it. departing rate to punish enforce would be appellants have in favor of we assumed Those, enjoined; not be while to in court and could con- rights assertion of their would fine railroads to them for the If rights. the railroads them of a of those part deprive bring active until could steps they take no required were from error this court Court Appeals writ of final come here with the facts judgment, they after a would found them. But the determination as against already to be the facts found. rights wholly upon their turns almost was unconstitutionally depends Whether their taken property the income to be derived upon the valuation property, *16 rate and the between two—(cid:127) proposed proportion from the When law matters of fact. are is tol- pure those settled- All their constitutional we de- erably- plain. rights, repeat, what facts are the- found to be. are not to be. pend upon They to try choosing forbidden facts before court of their own those "A if otherwise a citizen State cannot tie up competent. State, another having property territory within its invaded by unauthorized for officers, of its own redress to suits -acts' in Farmers’ & Trust Reagan Co., v. Loan own.courts.’’ S. 362, Smyth 154 U. See 391; Ames, 517. Ex 543; McNeill v. Southern Co., Railway parte U. illustrating S. cases further Young, Other LINE. ATLANTIC COAST Opinion of the Court. this & point Chicago Ry. N. W. Co.v. Fed. Dey, Rep. Northern Ry. Co. v. 91 Fed. Western Keyes, Rep. Pacific Union Co. v. 98 Fed. Telegraph Myatt, Rep.
Our narrower hesitation has been on the whether question the Circuit before resorted to should railroads, they Court, them not have taken the allowed to appeal make so as to legislative stage, absolutely constitution at the of the State would to establish try certain that the officials rule. and enforce an unconstitutional Considerations of this court ordinarily convenience have led to de- comity and habeas cline to interfere where corpus petitioner had higher him a of error to a court of a open writ reason for merely logical refusing cases where there was no similar writ. The is whether somewhat considera- question weight not to have here. ought tions some have weight We admit at once that not the same they we repeat, legislative, this case. The to be is question decided, Although whether a rule is certain shall be made. called. At given as a it is not a so that right, remedy, properly general time no We hesitate to as a say, case exists. should that a to the courts could be made rule, right always resort that upon watch bodies depend upon keeping previous make all the avail- laws, using machinery effort and every from It being able to unconstitutional laws prevent passed. to assume that the might right be that a citizen has said that the very meaning constitution will respected, constitutional our word system giving upon ques- last that he rest may upon assumption tions to the courts is against on the alert covert bound to be continually and is not in bodies that cannot finally upon rights or attacks his open a man a ground denying a novel away. take them he not used due diligence pre- courts that has resort being from passed. vent a law general can be on hardly disposed purely case But this
. that we are considering The question principles. fitness and must equitable propriety,
termed a *17 Opinion of the Court. 211 U. S. be the facts. particular answered on The establishment of not like a law that railroad rates is affects who private persons may never have heard of it till it was a passed. It is matter the to great interest, both to railroads and the public, and scrutinizing watched both with care. The railro'ads went into evidence before the commission. well They very might have taken the matter before the Court of Appeals. No great new evidence no additional would have expense been involved.
The State of has to impose highest endeavored the safeguards possible upon great exercise of the given power Corporation Commission, State not only by char- acter members of that but commission, making its decisions dependent upon assent the same historic body that is entrusted with preservation of the most valued if rights\ constitutional see railroads fit to appeal. seems to a only recognition us just the solicitude with which their rights have guarded, they been make should sure that the legislative State in its final action would they not what respect think to before rights be, their resorting to courts of the States. United
If the rate should be affirmed Supreme Court Ap- peals and the railroads still should regard it as confiscatory, it will be understood from what we have they said that will be at then renew liberty their application Court, Circuit being without fear of of res bymet It will plea judicata.. necessary to wait for prosecution by the commission. We add that when rate is against fixed bill ‘ commission restrain the members enforcing from it will not be bad as an attempt enjoin legislation or as a suit against a State, and will the proper form of remedy. Reagan v. & Farmers' Loan Trust Co., 362; 154 U. S. Smyth v. Ames, 466; Chicago, & St. Paul Milwaukee Ry. Co. v. U. Tompkins, Hanley v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., Southern McNeill v. Ry. Co., 202 U. S. 543; Railroad Mississippi Commission v. Illinois COAST LINE. ATLANTIC *18 Opinion of the Court. 211 U. S. Ex Ry. parte Young,
Central 203 U. S. 209 U. Co., S. 123. mention one decision closing
It is before to that was proper and one two other relied the matters upon by appellees, McNeill v. Southern to before the court. In the cases peculiar same moment was selected for Ry. Co., 543, the while an examination of the bringing cases, as in these suit were Carolina that there statutory laws North discloses in somewhat similar to those the provisions we now are from referring. But, apart to which constitution, ground that decree was other case the differences, the dealing subject-matter that the commission was with state would been no have beyond regulation valid, power; are giving U. S. considerations to which we now 561, and the decision, But weight urged. were not this naturally suggests that in three of the cases constitu- present equally potent bar the alleged against tional of the commis- The Ohio, sion. Norfolk and Western Chesapeake all Railway Companies .up general and the Southern set alleged to be their charters to con- laws, incorporated that their not be tolls should contracts, providing stitute alleged not to diminished under'-conditions fact except exist.
If to down the State has bound itself not cut contract no reason rates there would contemplated, .the seem to.be See Reagan the suit should be entertained now. why not Trust & 393. But would Farmers’ Loan it Co., and is whether the State unnecessary decide premature be No State or not. rate is fixed has done so irrevocably last having has until the matter been laid before the body that will the old rate that body word. adhere It’may vio- charge of one that riot be open or will-establish will not alleged The do contracts lating alleged. contracts realized if the heretofore profits a certain reduction prohibit con- On have a certain amount. exceeded reasonable, and proper it is tract as on that confiscation J., Fuller, Ch. dissenting. before laid, instance, should be in the first evidence legislative last word. having body
(cid:127) to these cases difficulty applying another There is yet if possible apply. is desirable which comity into effect carry enacted to 15, 1903, April Virginia statute certain, constitution, requires, by provision § within six months perfected if taken all, appeals of Virginia, Pollard’s Code order. from the date of the is taken' to when an appeal c. be that 56a, held section will be to apply Court of Appeals-this la,te. We no *19 express opinion upon too the be declared . but- decide, tribunals to for the state the which is matter, If bills should -be.dis- the present notice a simply possibility.. injustice reached, conclusion possible thten missed, and tliat a denial ouy go upon decision does not 'As might'be done. of ouy stage but upon the bills at the present entertain power to cases, course in orderly most and proper views as to what is the the us that of it seems to bills this sort when practicable, of the the result for the to await' present should be retained If the appeals fit to take them. if the see appeals companies entitled will be too late the brought companies as dismissed of thé com- the orders If are entertained and they decrees. prejudice,, without the bills be dismissed affirmed, mission and filed again.
Decrees reversed. the opinion the decrees Me. Justice Brewer should affirmed. in concurring reversing Fuller, Justice
Mr. Chief from the opinion. dissents decrees, I with a sketch I have to say- what preface record brief of coünsel. from the abbreviated cases, these was created and Commission Corporation State The of its and procedure duties the essentials functions, powers, its v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE. J., dissenting. Fuller, 211'U. Ch. of the State
were detail constitution as prescribed court,of a judicial .well as It was statute. made primarily special also jurisdiction, possessing record of limited certain When make and it legislative powers.' proposed executive or otherwise change corporation, in a rate of a service public the commission .was regulation therefor, a new prescribe in the nature court, process, as a to issue its sitting required, it to against' corporation concerned, requiring rule, .a at a certain and place the commission time and before appear could, why proposed if it rate should not cause, any show judicial involved on return question prescribed. or not the rate was contemplated to such rule was whether in the unreasonable, or otherwise and confiscatory, unjust hearing and this disposition as law were same prescribed by every respect
commission ex- issued, of record. any those of other it could issue processes; and enforced own writs and ecuted its it' injunction; punished and enforce writs mandamus record and docket of its complete contempt, kept their compelled at- witnesses proceedings; it summoned of.documents; it ruled upon tendance, production evidence; exception certified its 'any admissibility same, and orders decrees had rulings; judgments, *20 of record in other court any force and as those effect processes. its own It Was by proper and were enforced State, and from court, any to restraint subject by any'other not state appeal lay or decision an every ruling and and was heard the record of the State, upon Court of Appeals commission, exactly for and certified made and the decision court; pending from other any base appeals supersedeas might by order from a appealed such its operation. be suspended laws of make Virginia
Not do the constitution only all it with by clothing a of record judicial commission declare such a tribunal, they expressly 'of but the attributes of law due require only "by process it to it a court, proceed OCTOBER TERM, 1908. Fuller, J., dissenting. Ch. into and inquire determine every judicial question coming
before it. It has held repeatedly itself to be a court and sub- ject to all the obligations and the thereof, Supreme Court of Appeals, highest has tribunal, state formally so expressly held.
When this court shall in the manner above have indicated fully heard all parties interested, and, due proceeding by law process of as to them, has judicially determined that the proposed regulation rate or is not nor otherwise confiscatory, unjust unreasonable, then, but not until it is authorized then, by the constitution and laws of Virginia to enter order prescribing such rate or regulation, from which order an appeal lies to the Supreme Court of Appeals, with, as has been said, the right of suspension supersedeas pending appeal. Assuming that the prescribing of the rate after it has been determined to be judicially reasonable is necessarily legis- lative act, then the constitution of the State confers expressly this upon commission the legislative power of prescribing rate after it has judicially ascertained' and decided it below the limit of “reasonable.”
On July 31, 1906, the State Commission issued Corporation to be served a notice to the “steam railroad com- caused panies doing business and all persons interested,” at o’clock that, noon, on November at 1, 1906, Richmond, the commission would “hear and consider any objections which urged against rule, order or regulation, requirement of the commission fixing and a maximum rate of prescribing charge of two cents mile for the per transportation pas- over sengers the line of railroad any in this company operated between Vir- by steam, points within the State of ginia.”
Accordingly, on November companies the appellee before appeared commission, their answers in and filed writing, setting forth in their two why, proposed, opinion, rate would be than cent less reasonable. thorough entered into a most thereupon commission *21 COAS'j LINE. v. ATLANTIC J., dissenting. Fuller, Ch.
211 U. of the reasonableness hearing proposed of this in which were hearing appellee companies represented rate, elaborate evidence. counsel and introduced save, considered, No evidence was taken or in the publicly, given sessions of the when were open commission, appellees themselves) (of availed they fullest which to opportunity testimony, by to introduce their own witnesses present, to documents, opposing witnesses, object to cross-examine documents, of witnesses or and to except introduction whatever of the commission. ruling record to any any No evidence was which railroad rejected company months, offered. The was continued for several hearing until involved had companies case was not closed n court, they nothing that had formally announced, open more to offer. hearing
On months after the six April 27, 1907, practically (which entered its order is the basis began, commission cause), in this with an appellees’ complaint accompanied grounds giving elaborate written opinion. therefor. certain rates —in no case less than passenger this order
By for the mile—were defendant rail- prescribed per cents two on July effect the commission go 1,1907, to into companies, road deciding, and so rates therein fixed being opinion, nor otherwise or unreasonable confiscatory unjust were companies. said refused either to companies obey order appellee therefrom, publication or commission, but it had been directed, accomplished, before was order in the filed bills Circuit Court 15,1907, appellees May and on of Virginia, enjoin District for the Eastern States the United 27, 1907, of April its order enforcing from the commission was order restraining and a therein, steps other taking any their of the commission the members enjoining entered motion matter until a proceeding further clerk from them lite could be heard, and requiring injunction 'pendente Carolina, North Judge Asheville, the Circuit before appear *22 J., dissenting. Fullee, Ch. should injunction
on June to show cause such 1907., why 27, limited a and granted. special ap- not be entered Appellants rule, their and answers joint separate and filed pearance, of the court. in which the jurisdiction they denied thereto*, and the rule answers heard on been having cause the objection the overruled .1907, Circuit on Judge July 10, lite, injunctions pendente the and granted jurisdiction, court’s filed his Prentis, defendant, the prayed Thereupon for. those grounds as on the same demurrer, substantially based the and other defend- assigned rule, answer to three the the setting specifically ants separate plea, up filed their and joint a of 720 of purview that the court within commission § 10,1907, on Statutes, September Revised and United States four of their joint leave-of all the defendants filed court, and res separate judicata. of plea overruled demurrer 1907,
December 26' declining further, to answer both and the defendants pleas, each taking that case day final on entered decree was with costs. pro perpetuating injunctions, bills confesso, (cid:127) front said were allowed and Thereupon, prosecuted appeals final decrees. is fatal the main-
In preliminary objection my opinion, on their face the appel- of bills. appears tenance these of right appeal themselves of the to the Court lees did not avail absolutely which was in them of of vested Appeals of and laws that Commonwealth. Such an the constitution . brought alleged un- up would have cannot designated rate, and appellees reasonableness necessarily decision would that the assume commission If to meet changed appellees’ have been affirmed. reversed or disap- would views, ground interposition whole equity courts rule that it is the settled such circumstances pear. In be complete, transaction must will not interfere. The equity A fortiori, hypothesis. be rested on cannot jurisdiction to interfere courts asked this must where Federal be so unless acts executive or judicial the legislative, with COAST LINE. ATLANTIC PEENTIS CO !>(cid:127) 21rU. Fuller, J., dissenting. Ch. is shown to exceptional imperative necessity
some exist, here. which cannot asserted and what
Moreover, by comity, this is demanded comity in courts of as in requires justice is as much required anything else. “ ” Mr. Justice in the ‘Comity,’ Gray leading said case of Hilton “in the legal Guyot, sense, is on obligation, neither a matter of absolute the one hand, nor will, the other. courtesy good upon of mere But it is the *23 within which one nation allows to the recognition territory acts of another nation, having executive or legislative, judicial to international and duty convenience, both regard due and or of of its own citizens other who are rights persons of its laws.” under the protection interference with acts, to Federal state the applied
And as be regarded rule of should as observance of this comity of as the recognized by Revised. obligation. such § Statutes: Virginia of the commission is vested the constitution
By well and judicial powers, as as legislative with validity the. been the repeatedly upheld of has powers by that union of of that matter tribunal Commbnwealth—the highest the State.' It to the determination committed being seems commission, an adjudication that whether true, equally rates are and reasonable hearing, proposed on notice had prior legislative be lawfully may confiscatory, not a matter for state determina- the rates is also imposing act of should, in the first in- that question all events at tion, I cannot Appeals, the Court appeal by on decided stance, be aof rate not be and justness reasonableness why s.ee determined at the time into and judicially inquired judicially afterwards, but that and well as rate, as fixing con-, this provided by should tested kindred questions controversy is precipitated laws before these stitution and Power grows of the United States. Circuit ’Court into a can railroad companies hold that state and to on, what it feeds J., dissenting. Hablan, 211 TJ.S. of rates in accordance fixing for the with chances take their for that provided purpose by in a tribunal state views their if with the laws, dissatisfied then, result, constitutions highest a review in to seek decline right so, of the to do and invoke absolute though possessed proceed- Federal to such put stop of the courts the power inadmissible and of utterly palpably is, my opinion, ings, dangerous tendency.
Mr. in the reversal of the concurring Justice also Harlan, court. dissenting from the opinion but décree, Chief observations of the general Justice, I in the concur I go from the of the court. But opinion him dissent with I he done. hold that the Circuit further than has somewhat without authority, by injunction, stay entirely was Court of the State Commission. Corporation By it is that “the writ of in- provided Statutes Revised § court of the United States granted by any shall junction court of a cases any State, except.in stay proceedings bemay authorized law injunction any where such author- been Such has the law bankruptcy.” izing proceedings State Corporation In my judgment, since *24 a court. is cofi- sense, in substantial is, every Commission the of the constitution by provisions to be such- clusively shown highest the court of by Virginia, of as and laws interpreted Chief of the Justice. in the opinion aúd as summarized 'Virginia of meaning 720, within the court, If the commission § is then n wholly was of the- United without the Circuit Court States writ, of the by the that tribunal stay authority injunction. grant -.of Circuit could not the writ of Court in face of injunction Congress forbidding the act of expressly , such action. No óne will the of authority Congress limits, the of the of the courts created prescribe jurisdiction it. n by danger that view is that suggested
It is under this there or the secured be rights granted by Constitution violated WILDER INTER-ISLAND NAVIGATION CO. 239 Syllabus. commission the by judgment, judgment A Virginia. Court conclusive Appeals answer to this if is that the final action of the suggestion commission, in any rate-making, case amounts confiscation of the property of the whose corporation rates regulated, and therefore to be held wanting is due law process as taking private use without property public just if compensation, and such action be sustained by highest court of then bring that way plainly open.to question to this court ofwrit error. Rev. Stat. In upon this way any § Federal and denied right, specially up set state can tribunals, the final adequately protected by judgment of this court. In my opinion, the decree should with reversed, direc- tion to dismiss the original suit brought the Federal court. WILDER,1 ASSESSOR, INTER-ISLAND STEAM NAV
IGATION COMPANY, LIMITED. TO THE ERROR SUPREME OP THE COURT TERRITORY OF HAWAII. 22, No. 30. Submitted October 30, 1908. Decided November 4536, Stat., Section Rev. providing seamen’s wages shall not be subject to attachment or is to be construed in arrestment, light provisions of other liberally same title and is to be interpreted seamen; a view protect with and, construed, as so that section prevents seizure of only before, wages attachment but after, execution judgment, wages and such cannot be seized under 2118 of the Laws of § Hawaii. Qucere 9, 1874, and not decided whether act c. of June Stat. §4536, repealed Stat., Rev. so engaged far vessels coastwise trade are concerned. Hawaii, 416, affirmed. *25 The facts stated the opinion. Ilolt, Substituted for Assessor.