Chicago, Rock Island Pacific Railway Company v. State of Arkansas

• Decision Date: 20 February 1911
• Docket Number: No. 50,50
• Citation: 55 L.Ed. 290,219 U.S. 453,31 S.Ct. 275
• Parties: CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND, & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. STATE OF ARKANSAS
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

219 U.S. 453

31 S.Ct. 275

55 L.Ed. 290

CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND, & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err.,

v STATE OF ARKANSAS.

No. 50.

Argued November 11, 1910.

Decided February 20, 1911.

Messrs. Thomas S. Buzbee, Lawrence Maxwell, Edward B. Peirce, and Erasmus C. Lindley for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from page 454 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Hal L. Norwood and W. L. Terry for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 455-457 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court:

Two actions were instituted by the state of Arkansas in one of its courts against the Chicago, Rock Island, & Pacific Railway Company, a corporation of Illinois engaged in railroad business in several states. The company it was agreed, entered Arkansas for purposes of railroad business, complying with all conditions of the laws of that state authorizing foreign railroad corporations to do such business within its limits.

The complaint alleged that the defendant company on a named day, and in violation of the law of Arkansas, operated and ran in that state a freight train of more than twenty-five cars without having equipped such train with as many as three brakemen; and that the railroad over which the train was operated was more than 50 miles in length. The state asked a judgment in each case against the railway company for $500. The company filed in each case both an answer and a general demurrer.

The suits were based on an Arkansas statute (Ark. Laws 1907, No. 116) prescribing the minimum number of employees to be used in the operation of freight trains, and providing a penalty for violating its provisions.

The statute is in these words: '§ 1. No railroad company or officer of court, owning or operating any line or lines of railroad in this state, and engaged in the transportation of freight over its line or lines, shall equip any of its said freight trains with a crew consisting of less than an engineer, a fireman, a conductor, and three brakemen, regardless of any modern equipment of automatic couplers and air brakes, except as hereinafter provided. § 2. This act shall not apply to any railroad company or officer of court whose line or lines are less than 50 miles in length, nor to any railroad in this state, regardless of the length of the said lines, where said freight trains so operated shall consist of less than twenty-five cars, it being the purpose of this act to require all railroads in this state whose line or lines are over 50 miles in length, engaged in hauling a freight train consisting of twenty-five cars or more, to equip the same with a crew consisting of not less than an engineer, a fireman, a conductor, and three brakemen; but nothing in this act shall be construed so as to prevent any railroad company or officer of court from adding to or increasing its crew beyond the number set out in this act. § 3. Any railroad company or officer of court violating any of the provisions of this act shall be fined for each offense not less than $100 nor more than $500, and each freight train so illegally run shall constitute a separate offense. Provided, the penalties of this act shall not apply during strikes of men in train service of lines involved.' Ark. Laws 1907, No. 116.

The railway company's answer in each case contained six paragraphs. The court sustained the demurrer to paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 (the defendant excepting), and thereupon, by stipulation, the two actions were consolidated for the purpose of a trial on paragraph 5, which was as follows: 'Defendant states that its said train was equipped with automatic couplers and air brakes, so that the cars thereof could be coupled and uncoupled without the necessity of brakemen going between the cars, and could be stopped by the application of the air brakes by the engineer of said train without the intervention or assistance of the conductor or brakeman, as required by the act of Congress and the order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, made thereunder; that it had employed on said train a conductor and two brakemen, and that the employment of another brakemen on said train was un- necessary, because there were no duties connected with the running and operating of said train to be performed by a third brakeman, and said act, in attempting to require the defendant to employ three brakemen on said train, attempted to require the defendant to expend a large amount of money for a useless and unnecessary purpose, and to deprive the defendant of its property without due process of law, and is therefore in violation of and in conflict with § 1 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.'

The consolidated causes were, by agreement of the parties, tried by the court. The result in each case was a judgment against the railway company for $100. Upon appeal by the company to the supreme court of Arkansas, the action of the trial court was affirmed. 86 Ark. 412, 111 S. W. 456.

In the state court the railway company assailed the act in question as being in conflict with the 14th Amendment, as well as of the commerce clause, of the Constitution of the United States. But the supreme court of Arkansas overruled these objections, holding that the act was not to be taken as inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States. The case is here for review on the question whether the statute is in violation of the Constitution.

In our judgment, these questions are concluded by former decisions, and no extended discussion of them is now required. Yet, an examination of some of the decisions will be proper in order to show the precise grounds on which this court has determined whether state enactments of a particular kind were regulations of interstate commerce or in violation of the 14th Amendment.

A leading case on the general subject is Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 474, 482, 31 L. ed. 508, 510, 513, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 804, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 564, which involved the validity under the Constitution of the United States of a statute of Alabama making it a misdemeanor for an engineer to operate, in that state, a train of cars used for transportation of persons or freight without first undergoing an examination before and obtaining a license from a board appointed by the governor. The statute provided that before issuing a license, the board should inquire into the character and habits of the applicant; that no license should be granted if he was found to be of reckless or intemperate habits; that any license granted should be forfeited if, upon notice, the engineer was found to have been intoxicated within six hours before or during the time he was engaged in running a railroad engine; and that the license should be revoked or canceled if the engineer was ascertained from any cause to be unfit or incompetent. That case related to an engineer whose ordinary run was over the Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company, between Mobile, Alabama, and Corinth, Mississippi. He never handled the engine of any train between points wholly within Alabama. As an employee of the company he also operated an engine drawing a passenger train between St. Louis and Mobile. It was contended that the statute was repugnant to the commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States. This court referred to the decision in Sherlock v. Alling, 93 U. S. 99, 102, 23 L. ed. 819, 820, which involved the question whether an Indiana statute authorizing a suit by the personal representative of a deceased person whose death was caused by the wrongful act or omission of another could be applied where the death was the result of a collision between steamboats navigating the Ohio river. And, speaking by Mr. Justice Matthews, it said: 'Legislation, in a great variety of ways may affect commerce and persons engaged in it without constituting a regulation of it within the meaning of the Constitution. . . . And it may be said generally, that the legislation of a state, not directed against commerce or any of its regulations, but relating to the rights, duties, and liabilities of citizens, and only indirectly and remotely affecting the operations of commerce, is of obligatory force upon citizens within its territorial jurisdiction, whether on land or water, or engaged in commerce, foreign or interstate, or in any other pursuit.' The court proceeded: 'In conclusion, we find, therefore, first, that the statute of Alabama, the validity of which is under consideration, is not, considered in its own nature, a regulation of interstate commerce, even when applied as in the case under consideration; secondly, that it is properly an act of the legislation...