State ex rel. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. Public Service Commission of State of Missouri

• Citation: 235 S.W. 131,290 Mo. 389
• Parties: THE STATE ex rel. ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY and WALKER D. HINES, Director General of Railroads, Appellants, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI
• Decision Date: 30 November 1921
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

235 S.W. 131

290 Mo. 389

THE STATE ex rel. ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY and WALKER D. HINES, Director General of Railroads, Appellants, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Supreme Court of Missouri

November 30, 1921

Appeal from Cole Circuit Court. -- Hon. J. G. Slate, Judge.

Affirmed.

W. F Evans, E. T. Miller and A. P. Stewart for appellants.

(1) Appellants were denied a hearing before the Commission as provided by law. The appointment of the general counsel to the Commission as special examiner was improper and unwarranted in law. Secs. 6 and 119, P. S.C. Act, Laws 1913 pp. 562, 646. (2) Upon the record the court should have reversed the order of the Commission as to St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company, the record showing that the company was not operating its railroad at the time or after the complaint was filed. (3) The order of the Commission affirmed by the circuit court is arbitrary, unjust unreasonable and excessive, and is without warrant on the record. (4) The order of the Commission affirmed by the circuit court, in requiring appellants to stop their interstate trains Nos. 105 and 106 at Mountain Grove, directly burdens and interferes with interstate commerce, and is therefore void because in conflict with Section 8, Article I, Constitution of the United States. Illinois Cent. Ry. Co. v. Illinois, 163 U.S. 142; Cleveland Railway Co. v. Illinois, 177 U.S. 514, 521; McNeill v. Southern Railway Co., 202 U.S. 543, 561; Mississippi Railroad Com. v. Illinois Cent. Ry. Co., 203 U.S. 335, 344; Atlantic Coast Line v. Wharton, 207 U.S. 328, 334; Herndon v. Chicago Ry. Co., 218 U.S. 135, 156; Chicago Ry. Co. v. Wisconsin Railroad Com., 237 U.S. 220, 231. (5) The order of the Commission affirmed by the circuit court, in requiring appellants to stop train No. 106 at Mountain Grove to let off passengers who board said train at points south of the Arkansas State line, is void because an unlawful regulation of interstate commerce, the exclusive power to regulate which is conferred upon Congress by the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. Hall v. DeCuir, 95 U.S. 485, 488; County of Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U.S. 691, 697, 702; Wabash Ry. Co. v. Illinois, 118 U.S. 557, 570; Bowman v. Railway, 125 U.S. 465, 484.

R. P. Spencer and James D. Lindsay for respondent.

(1) Appellants were not denied a hearing before the Commission as provided by law. The Commission might "reasonably require" the counsel to proceed to Mountain Grove and take this testimony. Though the Governor appoints the counsel, the Commission must make use of his services or "employ" him. At the hearing, the Commission is not a party to the suit. Sections 6, 7, 9, 24, 119 and 127, P. S.C. Act, Laws 1913, p. 562; Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, definition of "Employ." (2) The circuit court should not have reversed the order of the Commission as to St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company. While the ultimate control of the line was in the Director General of Railroads, this was a temporary arrangement. The company was a proper party, and the order, being in the nature of a legislative act, applies to whichever of the two organizations is engaged in operating the roads. Both were made parties in order to meet just such a situation as is now presented by the surrender of the technical control of the road by the government. Grand Trunk Western Ry. v. Indiana, 221 U.S. 400, 403. (3) The order merely provides for adequate local service, equal to the reasonable requirements of the locality, regard being had to the size of the city, the territory served, the cost of the proposed service, and all other facts having a bearing upon the relative convenience and necessity, and the relative cost of the service, and is, therefore, reasonable. State ex rel. v. Public Service Comm., 273 Mo. 632; Lusk v. Public Service Comm., 210 S.W. 72, 277 Mo. 264; Gulf Ry. Co. v. Texas, 246 U.S. 58; State ex rel. v. Public Service Comm., 210 S.W. 386, 277 Mo. 175. (4) The order imposes no undue burden upon, nor does it interfere with, interstate commerce. Gulf Ry. Co. v. Texas, 246 U.S. 58; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. v. Railroad Com., 237 U.S. 220; Lake Shore Railway v. Ohio, 173 U.S. 285. (5) The order of the Commission relative to Train 106 is not an attempt to unlawfully regulate interstate commerce, but a reasonable order made by the only commission, State or Federal, authorized to make it, and designed to serve passengers from a distance whose destination is Mountain Grove and is, to that extent, in aid of interstate commerce. In the absence of congressional legislation covering that particular subject-matter, the State may make reasonable orders governing the stopping of trains engaged in interstate commerce. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. v. Ohio, 173 U.S. 285; Minnesota Rate Cases, 230 U.S. 480; Valley S. S. Co. v. Wattawa, 244 U.S. 202; Gladson v. Minnesota, 166 U.S. 427.

MOZLEY, C. Railey and White, CC., concur. Seehorn, Special Judge, James T. Blair, C. J., and Graves and Walker, JJ., concur; Woodson, Higbee and Elder, JJ., dissent; David E. Blair, J., not sitting.

OPINION

In Banc.

MOZLEY C.

-- This case comes here on a writ of review of a judgment of the Circuit Court of Cole County affirming an order of the Public Service Commission.

The complaint filed with the Commission, upon which its order was based, is as follows:

"Now comes the Commercial Club of Mountain Grove, Missouri, and respectfully shows to the Commission that this club is a voluntary organization of the business men and citizens of the city of Mountain Grove, organized for the development of said city. Your petitioner further states that at a regular meeting of said commercial club the undersigned, A. F. Collier, was appointed chairman of a committee for the purpose of instituting the necessary proceedings to cause the St. Louis-San Francisco Railroad to regularly stop trains Nos. 105 and 106 at Mountain Grove, Missouri.

"Your petitioner further states that the St. Louis-San Francisco Railroad is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Missouri and is engaged in the operation of a line of railroad between points in Missouri and points in the States of Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, etc., and specifically that it operates a line of railroad from Kansas City, Missouri, through Springfield, Missouri; thence through Webster, Wright, Texas, Howell and Oregon counties, to points in Arkansas and other states, and that said line of railroad passes through Mountain Grove, Missouri. That in operation of such line of railroad said company is a common carrier engaged in the transportation of freight and passengers for hire, as defined by the laws of the State of Missouri. That at the present time the properties of said St. Louis-San Francisco Railroad are under the control of and being operated by Walker D. Hines as Director General of Railroads, United States Railroad Administration, under and by virtue of an appointment by the President of the United States, and he is responsible for the operation of the trains of said co-defendant at the present time.

"For cause of action your petitioner shows that Mountain Grove, Missouri, is an important and growing city in the southern part of the State of Missouri and that the passenger traffic in and out of said point is extremely heavy, and that the proper growth and development of Mountain Grove, Missouri, is dependent upon better passenger service being furnished than is now operated by the defendants herein.

"Your petitioner further alleges that for a long time past the defendant company did stop trains Nos. 105 and 106 at Mountain Grove, Missouri, on flag, for passengers to and from Springfield on the west, and for passengers to or from certain points south, but about sixty days ago a change in train schedules was made by said St. Louis-San Francisco Railroad, and as a result thereof trains Nos. 105 and 106 do not now stop at Mountain Grove, to the detriment of your petitioners and the city of Mountain Grove."

The prayer was for a hearing to enable the petitioner to show the necessity for the regular stopping of said trains, and such order or orders in the premises as appeared proper to the Commission.

To this complaint the railroad filed its separate answer, denying that it had anything to do with the operation of said railroad, and averred that since January 1, 1918, it is now and has been continuously operated by the Director General of Railroads appointed as such by the President of the United States.

The Director General filed a separate answer, in which, among other admissions, is the following:

"Defendant admits that prior to the 17th day of November, 1918, Train No. 105 on said St. Louis-San Francisco Railroad was stopped at Mountain Grove, Missouri, on flag, for passengers destined to Memphis, Tennessee, and points south and east of said latter point, and that Train No. 106 on said St. Louis-San Francisco Railroad was stopped at Mountain Grove, Missouri on flag, for passengers destined to points north and west of Springfield, Missouri, and admits that on or about said date a change in schedule was made, as a result whereof said trains Nos. 105 and 106 do not now stop at Mountain Grove, Missouri, on flag, but denies that said change in schedule or the failure to stop said trains 105 and 106 at Mountain Grove is to the detriment of complainant or to the detriment of said city of Mountain Grove.

"Further answering, defendant states that this defendant now operates in addition to trains Nos. 105 and 106, four passenger trains daily on said St. Louis-San Francisco Railroad, through said city of Mountain Grove, all which trains, except trains Nos. 105 and 106, are scheduled and do stop at...