*1 TERM, 1913. Syllabus.
THE PIPE CASES.1 LINE THE UNITED STATES COMMERCE FROM COURT. APPEALS Argued 16, 481, 506, 507, 15, 482, 483, October 508. 1913. De- Nos. cided June 1914. Act, amending the Act to provision the Com- Hepburn Regulate engaged in by making persons corporations transporting or merce by pipe provi- lines carriers' one State to another within oil from pipe act, applies to the combination of lines sions of the owned and by Company Standard Oil and to the constituent cor- controlled single line, although only transported in a porations united oil by by purchased Company has been the Standard Oil or that which prior corporations, transportation to the thereof. such constituent existing corporations, pipe provision Hep- applied line to As compel persons' engaged in transporta- interstate Act does not burn operation, require but it does them not tion oil to continue to by purchased or for others themselves ex- transport'oil continue nn cept carriers. common ; as' transported points between interstate the article has The fact that against by carrier, transpor- is not conclusive purchased been commerce; casé, being this held that inter- tation interstate producers by transportation' purchased oil from the Of state the control pipe is interstate commerce under owner (cid:127)Congress. among Congress over commerce the States cannot the control of
While exercising powers by not committed to a means of made may require Constitution,- it those who are common carriers in sub- so-in form. stance become corporations Hepburn requiring pérsons en- provision the Act transportation oil in interstate become com- gaged n subject Regulate provisions of the Act to carriers mon unconstitutional, as is not either lines of Commerce future pipe lines, depriving existing them of their the owners .as process of law.' due without v. Ohio Oil cases: No. 481. United States Docket title these Company. 482. States Standard Oil No. 483. Company. v. No. United No, v. Standard Oil of Louisiana. United States United Company. No. 507. States v. Uncle Oil & Gas United States v. Prairie Benson, doing Company. United States business No. 508. Sam Oil Partnership Pipe Company, Tide Limited. Name of Water under CASES.
THE PIPE LINE Argument COmmissioh. 234 U.' S. for Interstate Coinmieree transportation'of Requiring person engaged in interstate taking private, not involve lines to become a common carrier does *2 effect is not property, provision Hepburn in the Act the under unconstitutional' Fifth the Amendment. may in from its own wells corporation engaged refining oil draw oil A refinery for its own through pipe a state line to its own line across provisions pipe line the being a common carrier under use without merely transportation being incidental Act, Hepburn of the the end; oil at the the use of the part. in Rep. 798, part Fed. in and affirmed 204 revérsed con- facts, constitutionality, the which involve The in the provisions Hepburn struction and the application of oil relating transportation Act to interstate in lines, opinion. are stated Mr: The General for the United Solicitor States Com- Charles W. Needham for the Interstate Commerce mission:
The
line
to these
applies
petitioners.'
amendment
act
interstate'
Congress
apply
every
intended
inter-
line,
compel every
and to
such
oil-carrying pipe
line
become a common carrier as a condition
state pipe
to.
in interstate commerce.. Whether.
engaging
precedent
line had or had not been a common
any particular pipe
act
passage
wholly
immaterial.
prior
carrier
(cid:127)
bfeconsulted to
Congress
ascertain
debates
his-
aimed,
legislative
evils at which
act was
rejected
amendments
that were offered and
tory,
of the times.
during
passage
general history
and the
Minns
468, 473;
141
v.
Worthington,
Am. Net. Co. v.
U. S.
Blake National
States,
486, 495/496;
United
U. S.
v.
194
Trinity Church(cid:127) v.' United
Bank,
307, 319; Holy
23 Wall.
Kirk,
v.
Argument Commission. for Commerce Interstate “for 40 rejected. Rec. public” repeatedly Cong. were 6361, 6365, 6999-7009, 9254-9256. in the Commodities
The rule construction followed Case, S. here. rule 366, applicable 213 U. is not That applies only ambiguous. , when Employers’ the statute Liability Cases, 463, U.
The act is the test down constitutional. stands laid Q. B. & 313, 320; C., Minnesota v. U. S. Barber, 136 By. 561, Mc- Commissioners, 592; v. U. S. Drainage Culloch that: Maryland, namely, Wheat. is one au- object act Federal be exercised. thority may properly The means fact real substan- employed sought. tial relation to the are reasonable object They the necessities case. arbitrary beyond *3 regulate in- amendment, of the line pipe The object protecting oil well owners and by commerce in terstate , duress line pipe owners refiners independent be authority Congress one properly for which States, 221 1; Co. v. United S. Standard Oil U. exercised. 86, 212 Texas, 109; S. Central Waters-Pierce Oil Co. U. v. Dakota, 157; South 226 U. S. Continental Lumber Co. v. Paper 227, Co. 212 U. S. 271. Voight, v. in inter- operation pipe carrying
The
lines
private
Case,
Standard Oil
state
tends to monopoly.
commerce
12, 42,
By.
221
Tex. & Pac.
Co. v. Int.
1,
80-81;
S.U.
210;
on the
197,
Report
Com.
162 U.
Petroleum
Comm.,
S.
Sess.,
29,
House Doc. 812,
1st
Transportation,
Cong.,
pp.
59
37,
Comm.,
Sess.,
Com.
59
Report
Cong.,
Int.
2d
62;
14.
606,
6,
pp. 2,. 5,
Doc.
House
of transportation
No other means
can possibly compete
If
owner cannot
line
ship by
with
lines.
well
pipe
he
line the
cannot
at all. Without
(practically) ship
in was the
truly
small
is as
shut
as
mine owner
producer
Boy Mining Co.,
597,
200 U. S.
Strickley Highland
v.
Nash,
in Clark v.
In instances have taken many regulations except upon protect such conditions would prohibition 366; 17. S. Case, Commodities public welfare. 202, Mills, 186, 219 17. S. Atlantic Riverside Coast v. Line Co., Dixie Tobacoo 203; Ry. Western Co. v. & Norfolk S., 424, Ry. 438. 593; Reid, Southern v. 22217. the condition in the case present is immaterial was true implied. but The same express is not Stat. Amendment, banking act and Carmack 213; Atlantic Haskell, Bank *4 595; Noble State Engel v. see also Case, 186, 203; Line 219 S. Coast 17. S. 623. Mugler 'Kansas, 123 17. O’Malley, 128; 17. v. 219 S. of preventing is as a means statute valid present obtaining inequitable propor- an lines owners Co. v. Oil reservoir. Ohio tion'of the oil from common Car- Natural Lindsley 'V. 190, 210; 17. S. Indiana, 177 law Even at common Co., bonic 220 17. S. 61. Gas to install single for proprietor have been unlawful would 552 1913.
Argument
Commerce
for Interstate
Commission.
U.
234
S.
great
at
expense pumping machinery
powerful
so
that he
could
draw
rapidly
away
entire common reservoir.
Forbell City
York,
v.
N.ew
Nor does the law violate the Fifth Amendment in that, being terms, might in its general cover lines are not for oil. public markets Whether purely private entirely prohibited must be order to give the adequate protection legislative a matter of dis- Purity Lynch, cretion. Extract Co. v. 226 IT. 192; S. Booth Illinois, 425; v. 184 IT. S. Lemieux 211 Young, v. IT. S. 489; Powell 127 Pennsylvania, 678, v. S. Silz 685; IT.. v. Hesterberg, 31; IT. S. v. Gilbert, 160 Commonwealth Knoxville Iron Co. Massachusetts, 157; Harbison, IT. 13; S. The Slaughter-house Cases, 36; 16 Wall. The Pure Food Law, 768, 34 Stat.
Nor does the act take for public use without compensation. This clearly . prohibition true.as purely private element operation. exclusive is the element. monopoly compensation No need be given that. right There is no in a noxious vested use property. S; Standard Oil Case, 1; Mugler IT. Kansas, 123 IT.-*S. 623, 669; Casé, Commodities 213 IT. S. 366, 405; Haskell, Noble State Bank v. 220 IT. S. at Union Bridge Co. 364; Slaughter-house v. United 204 IT. States, Cases, 16 Wall. L. 36; Moitley, & N. B. Co. v. 219 IT.S. 467; C., B. Q.& Drainage Commissioners, Co. v. 561,592. 200 IT.S. R.
The business of appellees gmsf-publie. The test whether a business is gatm-public determine is by as.- *5 LINE. CASES.
THE PIPE Appellees, Argument for S.U. are and franchises essen- grants certaining public whether if the business business; on the carry and tial establish it is quasi- such privileges on without Cannot be carried business to franchises.subject and grants such püblic; with all public as is the case control; continuing public a and public streets requiring rights utility companies reservations. determine a business agents markets where
Public weigh- grading, for public by inspecting, rights for sale offered measuring staple products ing and regularly W. W. interest. with a markets, charged such are at 452. Comm., 180 U. S. & W. Co. Minnesota R. Cargill v. cross franchises to granted, are require, Pipe streets, rights way highways, along public run These privi- lands and reservations. railroads, public of the to each granted been them, leges, or some oil crude buying engaged is appellee Each appellees. head- their business they have of production; in the fields the oil from bought producers; where quarters is. sale, agents for gauged graded inspected, lines. and other appellees miles sixty transportation Case the In the Ohio Oil facility.” a “plant This is not line. across state point the field production transportation oil, or the line, of the Ownership consumption. If it. Congress over the control change does not tax of all persons a license require of Kansas should State means into the State" bringing oik corporations as "a burden held to be invalid lines, would be' If it can of ownership. commerce, regardless interstate n cer- it is commerce.elause, under protection receive Con- provision regulation liable to tainly under Diet, 489. 120 U. S. Shelby Co., Tax. stitution. Robbins Mr. Frank L. Craw- Miiburn, Mr. John G. with whom Mr. '.-M. F. Elliott and Mr. F. Taylor,. Walter Mr ford, 1913. Appellees. Argument, for Swain Nos. brief, appellees Chester on the were *6 482, and 483: amended in 1906 does
The
Act as
Interstate Commerce
private
owner
not
nor
of
apply
appellee,
any
to the
liné.
engaged
to persons
The act was intended
relate
other
transporting
Any
interpretation
the business of
oil..
grave
questions.
raises
and doubtful constitutional
of
to in
Congress
not be
aid
Debates
referred
By.
St.
Int. Com.
construction of
Omaha
a statute.
Comm.,
As the act by construed owning and mon of persons carriers and corporations for solely purpose lines used operating private pipe of of oik of conduct transporting the the owners have business, though such owners private their even carriers, common never out as held themselves any do not now possess never or possessed exercised eminent no state domain, powers of right and derive or- corporations are laws under which common carrier ganized. deprives persons It follows that such act corporations of their without due property process for law, just compen- use without public takes sation.
To owners lines common private make the subject private property carriers as to those lines “taking” to a and is a within use meaning of Amendment. the Fifth construed, private property
Since takes act, as thus without for due providing compensation, violates Fifth Amendment. commerce., power Congress regulate interstate body, subject
like all to that powers delegatéd by the Fifth Amendment. imposed limitations compen- just States that the United contention for to be paid The rates provided sation is untenable. LINE CASES. THE PIPE Argument Appellees. 234U. S.' transportation are intended compensation Fifth Amendment. theory
This cannot be sustainéd on the act United monop- lines is operation private pipe States that (save act as prohibits operation olistic, (cid:127) carriers) an means to appropriate prevent common and that the this means results, adoption monopolistic not within the inhibitions of the Fifth Congress is Amendment. nothing operation
There is inherent nature lines which causes tendency monopoly. private pipe Con- the authorities cited nor the debates in Neither nor the of the Commissioner gress Report Corporations on this point. position sustains the Government’s *7 the of the Interstate Commerce Com- Report Nor does 28, 1907. mission, January dated of the position that support private Cases cited tends to do not the of lines monopoly help operation pipé Government or part no “duress” on “oppression”
There is proof'of this of lines. Cases cited under pipe of private owners irrelevant. head are of or property extent business acquisition
The mere lawful means or commercial domi- by fair and achieved the of . resulting ownership private prop- from fairly nance of monopoly is not the criterion obtained lawfully erty legal meaning within the those monopolization, or words; exclusion of is the unlawful Monopolization right- which are privileges opportunities others sense, is condition legal in the the Monopoly, theirs. fully thus defined. monopolization resulting from act, regarded even as an therefore It follows as common operation pipe save prohibiting act sustained as an means appropriate carriers, cannot is no there real substan- because monopoly, prevent and monopoly. ordains between what relation tial act. (cid:127) Appellees. 234 U. Argument 'for , operation relation, no- such There is. . unless to monop- things, tends line, the nature private pipe “taking” justify a that fact would olization, and ...unless which not just compensation, without . case. . nor act, re- in the fact, any there is no
In: prohibition of election. quirement if elect, . prohibition requirement
.. The assúmed be unconstitutional. act, in the would present to another carry from one State right goods at by Congress or withheld not be granted a franchise citizen, right but is an inherent pleasure, antedated Constitution. Government, violates the act, as construed process clause.
due Each, to be case under police power interpreted according to its own facts. as; sustained*, on behalf
The act cannot be contended Commission, by resorting of the Commerce Interstate Stockyards Cases, because, the doctrine the Elevator and lines, regulate applied private the act does pipe in the interest, a business affected sense public awith those cases. pipe company
Neither aby utilization line right way laying of a common carrier railroad crossing of a nor under line, highway line, such line impressés *8 obligations owner nature of a common or carrier. no;
. .The the con- bearing upon Ohio act 1868 has. troversy.
Prior to to the Oil,Company the.transfer Standard . it, use Jersey New now by- owned by the York National Transit Transit Company and New , Company did not lines. constitute them common carrier lines, But, they they been would had even carrier comhion 557 LINE PIPE CASES. THE Opinion of the Court. S.' 234 U. from the obligations common car-
have been released in 1906. appellee their transfer riers see, amongst many In contentions support these ed.) Encyc. (2d Amer. & of Law following: Eng. cases, Barclay 6 (2d ed.); Howell, Peters, on Angelí Highways v. Y. Calkins, 386; Co. 62 N. Gaslight v.
498; Bloomfield Mackenzie, Maryland, 36; & Pot. Tel. Co. v. 74 Ches. J. Elliott Co., 313; Y. Transit 66 N. on Eq.
Currie v. N. 449; 21 Ind. State, App. Morgan Railroads; v. v. Huffman Oman 217; Bedford-Bowling Co., U. S. v. Louisiana, 93 43 Mo. 64; Dooley', App. 176; Fed. Pemberton v. Rep. 134 308; Boebling By. 11 Y. v. Knight, v. N. Trenton Bexford Co., J. Starr & Atl. B. B. Co., Law, 666; 58 N. v.‘Camden Law, Laveratík, 24 State 34 J. 592; Law, 201;' N. J. v. N. Ford, Thomas Maryland, 346; McCormick, v. 63 Weller v. Winter n 'v. 24 J. Law, 470; Peterson, Law, 524; N. J. N. Co. Wright Carter, Law, 76; N. J. Coal v. Wyoming Price, 81 Pa. St. 156. Fitzpatrick,
Mr. with whom Mr: J. B. F. Cates,- W. Mr. L. Mr. Keplinger W. C. W. Trickett were on the brief, appellee No. 506. L.
Mr. Albert Wilson for appellee No. 507. B, I. Mr. W. Mr.. Lewis, Archibald F. Jones and Mr. B. Lewis, for appellees 508, No. submitted. the; (cid:127)
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion court.
By Congress 29, 1906, 3591, act of June c. Stat. the Act to Regulate was amended Commerce so that the first section reads in as follows: part “That the provisions of this Act shall apply any corporation or any person persons engaged transportation-of fin the *9 1913. U.S;
Opinion '234 Court. natural water and commodity, except excépt oil or or pipe lines, by by partly or artificial means gas, lines and by railroad, by pipe partly partly lines and held who considered to be by water, shall be and partly meaning and this purpose common carriers within the Act.” Thereafter the Interstate Commerce Commission among others, an requiring appellees issued order to file lines, control of with Com being parties'in charges rates and trans mission, schedules 24 I. C. C. 1. The portation appellees thereupon oil. set Court to and annul suit the Commerce aside brought injunction by was issued that order, and a preliminary applies on the statute court, ground the broad boundary and that that crosses a state every pipe line . Rep. 204 Fed. thus is unconstitutional construed Commis States, the Interstate Commerce The. United appealed. intervening respondents sion and other was passed The circumstances which the amendment Oil Company, known one. The Standard a every are the stock of the Jersey owned corporation, New New line a common York Transit made Company, by York, laws of New and of the National carrier of like Pennsylvania Cpmpany, Transit corporation character, these it connected Appalachian ip It nearly all with its refineries east. field owned which Company, stock the Ohio Oil connected system; with the National Lima-Indiana field owned all the it, nearly Transit controlled Company, Oil and ran from Company, stock Prairie Gas which field Oklahoma Kansas and the the Mid-Continent field in Louisiana Indiana connected with Caddo largely mentioned lines. in- was previously also Limited, Pipe Company, the. Tide Water terested and other fields and Appalachian connected with Oil Company Standard pursued the methods of the about and subordinate before mentioned By to be described. PIPE LINE THE CASES. Opinion of the Court.
234 U. Oil Company the Standard had itself made master *10 oil only practicable transportation of between oil the the fields east of California and Atlantic and the Ocean carried of greater part the oil much the between points. those the the Before recent dissolution New York and Penn- sylvania Companies had extended their lines into New and to refineries the laws of Jersey Maryland the those States did not to be common require them carriers. To meet the the Oil present amendment Standard Com- took conveyance a of New pany Maryland the Jersey lines, and common carrier lines at now end insignif- icant where there nor places are neither market appliances those of except Oil, the Standard it by which would seem that the whole of transport the carriers’ lines received. There what seems to be a formal breach of con- merely tinuity when the carriers’ The is not pipes stop. change to our material view of the case.
Availing itself of its of means of monopoly trans- portation the Standard Oil Cómpany through refused its carry subordinates to oil any unless to the same was sold it or them through them on terms more or less it itself. by dictated In this itself way made master of the fields without them and car- necessity owning across, ried half great the continent a subject interna- coming tional many commerce but, by owners duress which the Oil master, Standard Company was it all its carrying as own. main question whether does and constitutionally act can to the apply several. constituents that then had been united into single fine.
Taking up first the construction of statute, think we that it intended to plain was reach the combination that we described. provisions of the act any are apply person engaged in the transporta- tion of oil means lines. The words ‘who shall be considered and held to common carriers be within meaning and of this act’ purpose obviously not in- are 1913:
Opinion the Court. 234 U. tended, declara generality previous to cut down the shall be held common meaning that those only tion to the who common carriers carriers the act were within in control those sense, injunction technical but an oil transportation in the shall lines and engaged If the Standard Oil be dealt with as such. not so no one engaged were cooperating companies but of fact to form only It not would a sacrifice
was. act if seaboard carriage empty would held not to California, east of were be. nearly all the exer because transportation meaning,- within a condition to carriers power imposed cise applied them, As a sale to themselves. . carriage *11 them to continue compel does not while the amendment except it in does them not to continue operation require has meaning That is as plain common carriers. the as similarly with to statutes framed. regard been held 219 S. Mills, Atlantic Line R. R. Co. v. Riverside U. Coast . Its was to within 186, 195, purpose bring 203 evident not common although technically lines that scope pipe if offered, carriers all oil the offerers yet carrying only were price. would sell at their consideration is the only matter much requiring of the act. the
constitutionality transportation That That commerce the States wé think dear. con among technical ception wholly upon cannot made dependent transported the oils title, and fact that the questions to owner of line is not conclusive belonged commerce., Rearick against transportation being such 507, S. Texas & New Pennsylvania, v. U. 512. See Co., Sabine Tram 111. The Orleans R. R. Co. v. 227 U. S. it illusory, make situation that we have described would transportation, to of commerce to such deny the title sale, in same ending beginning purchase it within the act. transportation that reasons make commerce Congress among ever The control THE PIPE LINE CASES. Opinion of the Court.
234 U. exercising powers cannot be a means of not States made it but it Constitution, may to require entrusted to those are common carriers substance become so who contemplates in form. far as the statute future So the conditions prescribes they may lines there be no doubt that it is be established can valid. So to fact it objection applies that narrowed as But, already engaged transportation. lines we those that intimated, we are consider- already now in but ing everything are common carriers form. market, although oil to everybody’s They carry they it into their taking pipes. outsiders sell before compel is not that objection they give The answer the statute business, that, them, but up applied give up more must re- they means no than practically that carrying to themselves before quiring a sale that if appellees case is The whole they now receive. do not like. they There way must do it they carry consider necessary no does taking become loss subject them pecuniary far could Congress how the end in accomplish in order to compensation without Lottery States, 308, Hoke United 323. view. U. S. Case, dispose us sufficient to
These considerations seem to Ohio Oil Oil Company, cases of the Standard and the Tide the Prairie Oil Gas Company, *12 Oil Com- Limited. The Standard Pipe Company, Water passage since the incorporated of Louisiana was pany suit to of this the'beginning amendment, and before Oil Standard Jersey of the New the monopoly break up its oil from the Prairie buys large part It a Company. it at the wells buys in Company Oil and which Gas Louisiana the title to the field and transfers Mid-Continent Its is what in that State. case also covered we said. Oil Sam only considered the Uncle
There remains ccxxxiv —36 vol.
.562 concurring. Justice, The Chief in refinery a Kansas and has company This Company. connecting a line Oklahoma, with oil in wells of conducting for the sole purpose two it has used which It would be a refinery. own oil from its own wells in it the sense which language, considering perversion that man was engaged a statute, say is in the used pumped pail he of water whenever transportation oil. When, his as to from his well-to house. So water drawing from its case, company simply as in this refinery line to its for its across a own own wells state do as all, regard falling own and that we not use, act, description transportation being within at the In that an incident to use end. case merely In the will be decree will be affirmed. others decree reversed. Decree 507,
No. affirmed. Decrees reversed. 481, 482, 483, 506 and Nos. concurring. Chief The Justice every with the conclusions of the Agreeing particular court and with its to one reasoning except special sub- n to that ject, my concurrence as matter because of its stated. matter to I importance separately The refer is the exclusion the Uncle Oil Company Sam leads operation the act. view which the court (cid:127) to it is engaged exclude was not company statute, I transportation a conclusion which under do not assent. facts are That these: owns company wells in one State from which lines re- has to its finery State, in another oil through its own pumps such to its and the refinery product course when reduced at the into the refinery passes markets consumption. seems to me that the business thus car- ried transportation on is interstate commerce within I statute. But this think the despite company is *13 PIPE LINE CASES.
THE McKenna, J., 234U. S. dissenting. because it would be impossible statute
embraced to it without applicable violating to make the statute Fifth Amendment, of the since to due clause process to a necessarily taking the prop- it would apply amount It is shown compensation. without erty company no oil and. company buys beyond question have been mentioned carries simply the methods which in it refinery; words, its own its to product own business. Under these con- engaged private in a purely Consti- power there no under 'the opinion ditions in my right of eminent the exercise domain tution without its consent business private convert without into a one. company application
Of course this view has no the other com- subject court holds are the act because panies which the out the ones were as com- pointed principal chartered they directly mon carriers and all either or as a necessary association in engaged buying result of their were oil and it in other through pipes; words, were shipping a common it doing reality business, disguised, carrier form, changed but not in substance. Under may be, I conditions do not see how would be possible these conclusion which court has reached without avoid the that the shadow and not the substance was declaring purpose determining to be resorted to criterion legislative power. the exercise validity McKenna, dissenting. Mr. Justice I of the court judgment am unable to concur I con which is reasoning upon pass by based. (c. 3591, 34 of June struction the amendment although application set out in the 584), opinion, Stat. controversy. is in companies of appellee the business therefore, pass the. application, I shall assume discussion serious Extended questions. other and more TERM, 1913. J., dissenting. 234 S.U. *14 McKenna, Indeed, any may now discussion possible. is not themof I individual views. while, express only my worth not be of principles I refer to the brief, to be have to In order I impelled of and indeed am more to court, decision It of judgment. from them than from is little dissent rights of com- appellee aside from the consequence, to regulated be as com- they subject whether are panies, great but it of carriers, mon is whether consequence be property impaired. of sanctions of is the of principle power The outside the decision to regulate commerce, interstate but assert Congress solves none the difficulties the questions. power that that I need not to demonstrate pause in the case. provisions that is to other power subject exercise one of those Constitution, provisions invoked that the act It is contended offends the appellees. property in that it takes their without Fifth Amendment But process law, of law. what due due process limit power Congress? requirement does wherein be in a and the word, can answered question Neither are encountered when the courts are usual consideration^ limits investigate legislative tlie power, called is free from such au- Autocracy perplexities. When is I!” it ho impedi- “The State —it meets thority say, can illustration is to its- exercise. But that extreme ments a a government constitution, Even under necessary. unwritten, nothing a that may power if it be leaves of legis- to do other than to fiats the courts for enforce a authority. constitution, Under written however, lative legislature, to the that of sovereignty superior is a there the Constitution. How recon- expressed people with the limitations Constitution legislation cile in its exercise is a practical problem government leave It is problem to this court comes often. It is to be there is no indis- regretted case at bar. indisputable test solution —no standard putable PIPE LINE CASES. THE McKenna, J., dissenting. legislation of law. We know that ah act due process it. be suffi satisfy may, however, necessarily does not there be accurate, to be more careful and cient, or, cannot legality whose of the uses of regulation n brought and we are taking, is not a Regulation denied. it to subject will what uses of property the inquiry, not in sense, regulation special I regulation? mean public its uses be whether the sense in property, which-all it is "“Property,” regulation. private, subject in a manner when used said, “becomes interest the com and affect it of public consequence, make his one devotes therefore, large.” “When, at munity *15 interest, he, has an the public to a use which use, in that and interest an effect, public grants common for the public by must submit to be controlled created.” he has thus interest to the extent good, 143 York, Budd v. New 113; Munn Illinois, v. 94 U. S. Alliance 391; U. German Brass S. 517; Stoeser, U. S. v. Manifestly 389. Kansas, Insurance Co. U. cases. of the of the facts needs the definition principle regu were storage grain for In three of them the fees domi insurance; but of fire in the other the lated; price was the to the property, nant in character all, giving public. to the offered its voluntarily fact use was be This must of use or service. There was no compulsion Conduct determining circumstance. in mind as the kept initially commanded. cannot be may regulated be which can loans but regulated, of interest be The rates case sub in a There is further compelled; illustration Minnesota, Co. v. Cargill to those cited. In W. W. sequent the opera sought against 180 U. S. an was injunction right on -the situated tion of an elevator and warehouse ob should operator of a until way railroad Com and Warehouse tained a license from the Railroad de The of the State. under a law1 mission of the State although grain, soíd bought and company fendant J., McKenna, dissenting. grain only. for its own storing was used
elevator was of a “public business decided that court state public affected with a “sufficiently character” and was amount of regula- considerable very interest warrant This conclusion was put tion of the State.” kind of market elevator was a that the ground weights to see that correct important and it was place of dock- given, amount had, grades proper were uniform provi- allowed. The age practice taken and no dishonest act, however, sustained. The pro- sion a license was for the regulations, among many others, vided for. other of the of others rates receipt grain storage court, passing on these charges therefor. state provisions said that there were regulations, many act and elevators thé warehouses applied only or for grain in which stored for others the public was to such as the one in which could not warehouses apply act in the perhaps provisions and there were question, to apply which it be unconstitutional to such ware- would “Such need however, said, houses. The matters court, not be at' this time. The provision recognizing considered court judges license not of these.” of the one One opinion -was that on account of the interdependence them, act. when provisions applied many grain storage others, warehouses not used for the *16 beyond and, therefore, were of the State police power so. This Mr. invalid, court, by made the whole act Justice sustained the the state court Harlan, judgment and said of a not requirement “that the mere license was Answering forbidden Amendment.” by the Fourteenth to suggestion other were provisions repugnant that States, it was said that the the United Constitution on carry license would the business give authority regulations under the valid of the valid laws State therefore, case, manifestly Commission. The de- cides by the use of the warehouse others could not LINE CASES.
THE PIPE McKenna, J., 234 U. dissenting. and in the cases, as we legally compelled,
have been it was the act of the not the seen, parties, power have which to the in- law, public devoted In the Munn Case it of the owners of the terest. was.said no them “to attempt compel elevators that there was in their but to de- property, an interest grant if used it in this obligations they clare their particular withdraw his further, may grant by manner.” And “He use; long but so as he maintains the discontinuing - he must submit to the control.” use, cited, therefore, In the cases there was a regulation I voluntarily were extended others. recall uses which compelled no where the use was the use so case justified. was The case at bar compelled regulation has no in our jurisprudence. fellow
These considerations are not touched in the court, they of the and how far affect the decision opinion all. conjectured. any It be not at At only can rate, given explicit prominence. other considerations are of the is said to be the control impulse amendment which Standard had acquired Oil over of oil. It is further said that transportation pipe-line of its of the means of monopoly transporta- availed “itself its subordinates refusing carry “through any tion” by sold to through oil unless the same was them and them itself, thereby more or less dictated on terms owning of the fields without them.” became master clear this is as a statement very not whether intended or of its legal of the motive of the amendment merely If stated as the motive the amendment justification. it; justification with as a the amend- I no concern its foundation must be considered ment facts of cases the of the court does opinion discussion however, necessary They are, quite give. they present. I sum- questions quote the 802): of the Commerce mary (p. Court *17 568 dissenting.
McKenna, J., corporation is a Company Oil and Gas Prairie “The of Kansas. laws'of the State in 1900 under organized of consisting of system pipe a operates It and owns in States field, mid-continent lines in the gathering from that field Oklahoma, a trunk line and Kansas it connects with the Indiana, where in the State Griffith Arkansas, line in the State line, and a trunk Indiana pipe line line the Oklahoma connecting with This company of Louisiana. Oil Company the Standard is confined producing, and its business refinery, has no it delivers oil, which selling crude and purchasing, Its own lines described. customers means and it pur- barrels 12,000 per day about yield only wells on the aver- 70,000 barrels per day approximately chases in length, about 860 miles Its trunk lines are age. way located on the right miles are which some 300 & Fe Atchison, Railway Company Santa Topeka with that arrangement company: under contract or- corporation Sam Oil “The Uncle (then laws of the Terri- in 1905 under the State ganized line from operates It owns and a pipe Arizona. tory) Cherry- in of Oklahoma at refinery its wells the State to which this vale, company purchases Kans. The extent if it business at engages from other producers, from the record. all, appear does “Robert D. Benson et al. are the members a partner- re- for the term of 20 organized years ship, further term of 20 in com- organized years, with the of the State of Pennsylvania, laws pliance Pipe under the of the Tide-Water doing business name Ap- Co. This oil from the (Ltd.). company transports field in the western part Pennsylvania, palachian connecting lines from other through also oil received refinery Oil Co. at fields, Bayonne, Tide-Water branch Jersey. operates of New also owns and State extending Pennsylvania, York and a line lines in New THE PIPE LINE CASES. *18 McKenna, J., dissenting. U. S. 111., Illinois,
from of Stoy, through Indiana,. States Ohio, and of Pennsylvania. greater part the crude oil this transported by company purchased from other The lines which it owns producers. and the Bayonne refinery are which serves under or common unified control.
“The Oil a Ohio Co. is in corporation organized under the of of laws the State Ohio. It and operates owns lines in the of States Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois and also leases a line operates and from Negley, Ohio, Cen- terbridge, in the State of Pennsylvania. It is an extensive of crude oil from other purchaser producers.
“Standard Oil Company, designated, convenience, Oil of ‘Standard New Jersey/ corporation organized in 1882 under the laws of the State New its and Jersey, principal pipe following: lines are the A (a) extending line from Unionville, in the State New York, boundary near the line of New Jersey, through the latter to its State refineries at (6) a line from Bayonne; in the Centerbridge, State Pennsylvania, near of New boundary Jersey, through the to its latter State refineries Bayonne Bay way; at and from a line (c) in the Grove, Fawn State Pennsylvania, near bound- through ary Maryland, refinery the latter State to its at Baltimore. The record that the greáter indicates much of the oil part transported lines, these through per- all of is oil this haps it, which company has purchased. “The Standard Oil Company of is a corpora- Louisiana organized tion 1909 under It the laws of State. refinery owns at and a trunk operates Rouge Baton extending line thereto from Ida, the town of near northern line lines Louisiana, gathering also the Caddo and Texas. field, Louisiana States its purchases part a considerable which crude lines transport.
“None of the petitioning corporations organized J., dissenting.
McKenna, from of its laws of the State any corporate powers derives public under which common carrier or other creation but each of them organized, are was corporations service under and operations conducted always formed and has with laws relate to compliance private state business.” distinguished possess do do- companies right eminent private rights laid over of way, their lines are main, and them for short distances 'have laid their some of except of certain railroads under rights way along *19 railroads, one of arrangement with contract some however, They, of 300 miles. distance about them for a along their lines across or instances also laid many have in or consent of by and highways permission streets public them ever held itself None of has the local authorities. oil for in fact ever carried as a common carrier or out they pro- carried such as others, they only but have othei purchased wells or from duced from their own transportation which owned when producers they place. took Court
Concluding facts, recitation the Commerce legal so far as fixed 803): short, said “In their status (p. far as creation, the laws of the States of their so pe- make them all the such, their acts and attitude could business, on a companies] carry private titioners [appellee their own they transport only at least in the sense that others; always transport oil and have refused so con- sought and claimed to evidently all of them have any public activity their as to avoid operations duct regulation.” might them subject insisted that facts, yet ap- it is being These “in carriers substance” and are common pellee companies form,” made them so “in only its action has Congress of Con- power within and that this unquestionably to be something more considered there is gress. But There is an antithesis than an of words. antithesis THE PIPE LINE CASES. J., McKenna, dissenting.
legal consequences subjecting property other —the A uses than those of its owner. manifest taking, therefore.
But let get away me any appearance considering words or forms of expression to an estimation of the facts. Standard Oil of New is made Jersey prom- inent, and all exemplar of the other companies, and its stock ownership some them is assumed to destroy their individuality unite them all opera- tion, and effect. Indeed, as represented character single controlling force and master of the transportation of oil “between the oil fields east of California and the Atlantic ocean.” Under its are sway pictured all the other companies except the Standard Oil Louisiana, the latter company, however, having a baneful potency of dictation to the other owners in the oil as fields, has -exemplar, Standard Oil of In New Jersey. words it is argued the companies made themselves masters of their respective fields by the constraint of the sale the oil of other owners to them terms more or less dictated by them by availing themselves “monopoly of the means of transportation.” This is the charge. facts of the case do not sustain except exhibit the they advantages of the possession *20 which others do not possess. Must it be shared by those others for that reason? The of conception property exclusiveness, rights of enjoy- exclusive possession, ment and disposition. Take away rights you these take all that there is of property. of away any Take them, force a participation in of you them and take any property to that extent. These are but commonplaces, at times—-it may be always commonplaces our best are — guides rights when are concerned. They pertinent are to this case. employment of one’s wealth to con- or purchase struct facilities for one’s greater business than others possess constitutes no monopoly that does not to all appertain property. give may Such'facilities S 234 U.
McKenna,. J., dissenting. advantages and, may so does all be, power; property in It may then, to its extent. well be proportion advantages, degree extent of what asked —What trade in of power of in what facilities purchasing, superiority of transportation may grounds or articles be disposition If control? the owner of the exercise of congressional facilities may given rights small oil be a well of a appellee not the owner companies, why may of a rights larger small be the facilities given business say if sees welfare business, Congress fit that for oil Can claimed requires gift? any privilege be a claimed for other commodities? May thát cannot be Washington who conducts jobber of merchandise special and owns places trade in Baltimore and other merchandise, his be transportation facilities for not them with who competitors to share compelled be ample consequence to afford as ones and be able disadvantage? him their at a property forced to sell Co. of W. to the illustration W. Or, recurring Cargill storage for the elevators Minnesota, can one who erects exist) uses instances raising (such of his own grain more of such (there of his are grain purchase it as well advantage, with share their instances), compelled advantages of grain? The growers purchasers or advantages manifest as the are quite his situation commerce interstate and the effect on the appellees enjoy one principle, the same Upon as marked. transportation or to forest must a coal field who builds a railroad to if in the field forest he ven owners share with other is the principle Such productions. to purchase tures Under it what attribute pri decision. the present is left? vate conditions or form exaggerate not
Let us essential elements. What out of view put statement when are employed terms employed duress Or, rather, use property? as a exacted condition *21 PIPE LINE CASES. THE dissenting. McKenna, J., duress is used the what exclu- accurately, except and more of which do property they the use not others from sion of rights prior present no other own? There were of of the appellee oil use the of wells the owners nothing the construc- contributed companies. They is from their use the and their exclusion tion of the lines of separate ownership from the resulting prop- exclusion of rights community erty distinguished ownership. from which body opinion is a quite There considers polit- and ownership economically individual community insists of all that is wrong and ically cause, among This has its other opinion profit-bearing. duress? —of wealth. in the I canses, say power may— put it its power, may If it political accumulates 51% the law the advance- conviction into law justify monopoly by destroying ment of the welfare ownership? of individual mastery misleading that it is submit, deference, say I with oil owners permitted that use the lines by was and that companies, through terms dictated only on without masters fields “became they such dictation if companies I it had not And take them.” owning of oil, offers would they of oil or refused made purchases situation to the act. Such subject not be held of decision in ground Sam Uncle It is held to within the to that not regard company. big not be minimized and considered act. It seems to law, yet owns and application for the enough the oil fields Oklahoma its line from operates oil purchases The extent refineries Kansas. does not all, appear if it at does so from producers, if it venture that make bemay supposed record. why But immunity. oil it will lose purchases oil impor- purchases fact Why exemption? to get of the small owners Is it not the concern tant? they Indeed, advantage get to market? *22 574 J., S. 234 U.
McKenna, dissenting. being away to from the thereby able break the law “duress” the subjection to, of, and superior supposed result which companies? appellee the advantages intended to under review was effect was the amendment occurs, then welfare. public query the beneficial give purchases the their companies up May all the should, thereby get will freedom they they if and, then of the Sam What owners Company? of the Uncle sell oil at all—the may they of oil? It be- cannot their from them —a distant market is not local market taken Is not public for them. welfare concerned possible in such Must in it de- they for them situation? remain the richer balancing advantages owner pendent remaining becoming under law free from it? brought them to such Situa- power Or which has may legislation one them from more act tion extricate and take from interest their companies of production? of the fields mastery Delaware Hudson States & U. Co., United a curious and illustrates the opens speculation effect in the legislation exercised under power review. The is, the decision appellee companies, engaging in interstate declared common commerce be carriers and made others as well as their own carry products prod- carriers, Then, having ucts. been made common under authority case, they of the cited can be forbidden so by legal their own circumlocution carry products, use of legally devoted its owners is for- bidden such use and devoted the use others. wholly A queer outcome.
I I beyond extended this discussion what in- had however, Much could more, tended. be said and deci- on the various elements case. Prophe- sions adduced principles cies of the result of the decision could be I fanciful, not be pronounced which am afraid could made may even now whose shadows be discerned projects PIPE LINE CASES.
THE McKenna, J., dissenting. S. U. by the decision in these cases. justification plead will jurisdictions that there are many remembered to be It is to be remembered that there cannot legislation. Congress over private prop- of control for one measure of control for the another measure its uses and erty has in words, Congress power In other States. Alarms, domain. the States have domain, legislation I grant arguments, however, are making concession, this But while practical. must be *23 question the legislation presumption giving I am constitutionality legislation entitled, to which all the limits say transcends constrained yet due regulation and takes without the power of law. process I do into decision, not enter power I
As have distinguish facts the cases. a discussion Court as of the Commerce judgment be that may Oil should be because Company reversed to the Standard before common carriers Company were & the Prairie Oil be that acquisition, law made common carrier was Gas controversy. however, it. This, which created Oil as to the Uncle Sam Com- judgment concur in the I I other companies, judgments pany. From dissent.