169 U.S. 466 (1898), Smyth v. Ames
|Citation:||169 U.S. 466, 18 S.Ct. 418, 42 L.Ed. 819|
|Party Name:||Smyth v. Ames|
|Case Date:||March 07, 1898|
|Court:||United States Supreme Court|
APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
The adequacy or inadequacy of a remedy at law for the protection of the rights of one entitled upon any ground to invoke the powers of a federal court is not to be conclusively determined by the statutes of the particular state in which suit may be brought. One who is entitled to sue in the federal circuit court may invoke its jurisdiction in equity whenever the established principles and rules of equity permit such a suit in that court, and he cannot be deprived of that right by reason of his being allowed to sue at law in a state court on the same cause of action.
A suit against individuals for the purpose of preventing them as officers of a state from enforcing an unconstitutional enactment to the injury of the rights of the plaintiff is not a suit against the state within the meaning of the Eleventh Amendment.
Until Congress, in the exercise either of the power specifically reserved by the eighteenth section of the Act of July 1, 1862, incorporating the Union Pacific Railroad Company, or its power under the general reservation made of authority to add to, alter, amend or repeal that act, prescribes rates to be charged by that company, it remains with the states through which the road passes to fix rates for transportation beginning and ending within their respective limits.
It is settled that --
(1) A railroad corporation is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment declaring that no state shall deprive any person of property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
(2) Astate enactment, or regulations made under the authority of a state enactment, establishing rates for the transportation of persons or property by railroad that will not admit of the carrier earning such compensation as under all the circumstances is just to it and to the public would deprive such carrier of its property without due process of law, and deny to it the equal protection of the laws, and would therefore be repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(3) While rates for the transportation of persons and property within the limits of a state are primarily for its determination, the question whether they are so unreasonably low as to deprive the carrier of its property without such compensation as the Constitution secures, and therefore without due process of law, cannot be so conclusively determined by the legislature of the state or by. regulations adopted under its authority that the matter may not become the subject of judicial inquiry.
The grant to the Legislature in the Constitution of Nebraska of the power to establish maximum rates for the transportation of passengers and freight on railroads in that state has reference to "reasonable" maximum rates, as the words strongly imply that it was not intended to give a power to fix maximum rates without regard to their reasonableness, and as it cannot be admitted that the power granted may be exerted in derogation of rights secured by the Constitution of the United States, and that the judiciary may not, when its jurisdiction is properly invoked, protect those rights.
The idea that any legislature, state or federal, can conclusively determine for the people and for the courts that what it enacts in the form of law, or what it authorizes its agents to do, is consistent with the fundamental law is in opposition to the theory of our institutions, as the duty rests upon all courts, federal and state, when their jurisdiction is properly invoked, to see to it that no right secured by the supreme law of the land is impaired or destroyed by legislation.
The reasonableness or unreasonableness of rates prescribed by a state for the transportation of persons and property wholly within its limits must be determined without reference to the interstate business done by the carrier, or to the profits derived from that business. The state cannot justify unreasonably low rates for domestic transportation, considered alone, upon the ground that the carrier is earning large profits on its interstate business, over which, so far as rates are concerned, the state has no control; nor can the carrier justify unreasonably high rates on domestic business upon the ground that it will be able only in that way to meet losses on its interstate business.
A railroad is a public highway, and nonetheless so because constructed and maintained through the agency of a corporation deriving its existence and powers from the state. Such a corporation was created for public purposes. It performs a function of the state. Its authority to exercise the right of eminent domain and to charge tolls was given primarily for the benefit of the public. It is therefore under governmental control -- subject, of course, to the constitutional guarantees for the protection of its property. It may not fix its rates with a view solely to its own interests, and ignore the rights of the public; but the rights of the public would be ignored if rates for the transportation of persons or property on a railroad were exacted without reference to the fair value of the property used for the public or of the services rendered, and in order simply that the corporation may meet operating
expenses, pay the interest on its obligations, and declare a dividend to stockholders.
If a railroad corporation has bonded its property for an amount that exceeds its fair value, or if its capitalization is largely fictitious, it may not impose upon the public the burden of such increased rates as may be required for the purpose of realizing profits upon such excessive valuation or fictitious capitalization, and the apparent value of the property and franchises used by the corporation, as represented by its stocks, bonds and obligations, is not alone to be considered when determining the rates that may be reasonably charged.
A corporation maintaining a public highway, although it owns the property it employs for accomplishing public objects, must be held to have accepted its rights, privileges and franchises subject to the condition that the government creating it, or the government within whose limits it conducts its business, may by legislation protect the people against the exaction of unreasonable charges for the services rendered by it, but it is equally true that the corporation performing such public services, and the people financially interested in its business and affairs, have rights that may not be invaded by legislative enactment in disregard of the fundamental guarantees for the protection of property.
The basis of all calculations as to the reasonableness of rates to be charged by a corporation maintaining a highway under legislative sanction must be the fair value of the property being used by it for the convenience of the public, and in order to ascertain that value, the original cost of construction, the amount expended in permanent improvements, the amount and market value of its bonds and stock, the present as compared with the original cost of construction, the probable earning capacity of the property under particular rates prescribed by statute, and the sum required to meet operating expenses, are all matters for consideration, and are to be given such weight as maybe just and right in each case. What the company is entitled to ask is a fair return upon the value of that which it employs for the public convenience, and on the other hand, what the public is entitled to demand is that no more be exacted from it for the use of a public highway than the services rendered by it are reasonably worth.
The effect of the Nebraska statute of 1893, entitled
An act to regulate railroads, to classify freights, to fix reasonable maximum rates to be charged for the transportation of freights upon each of the railroads in the State of Nebraska, and to provide penalties for the violation of this act,
is to deprive each of the companies involved in these suits of the just compensation secured to them by the Constitution of the United States, and therefore the decree below restraining its enforcement was correct.
If the circuit court finds that the present condition of business is such as to admit of the application of the statute to the railroad companies in question without depriving them of just compensation, it will be its duty to discharge the injunction heretofore granted, and to make whatever
order is necessary to remove any obstruction placed by the decrees in these cases in the way of the enforcement of the statute.
The appellees in the first of the above cases were the plaintiffs below, and are citizens of Massachusetts, and stockholders of the Union Pacific Railway Company. They sue on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. The defendants are the Union Pacific Railway Company; the St. Joseph and Grand Island Railroad Company, the Omaha and Republican Valley Railroad Company, and the Kansas City and Omaha Railroad Company -- corporations of Nebraska under the control of the Union Pacific Railway Company; certain persons, citizens of Nebraska, who hold the offices, respectively, of Attorney General, Secretary of State, Auditor of Public Accounts, State Treasurer, and Commissioner of Public Lands and buildings, and constitute the State Board of Transportation, and James C. Dahlman, Joseph W. Edgerton, and Gilbert L.Laws, citizens of Nebraska, and Secretaries of that board. By a supplemental bill in the same suit, certain persons, receivers of the Union Pacific Railway...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP