Charles Chord v. Cincinnati, New Orleans Texas Pacific Railway Company Charles Chord v. Louisville Nashville Railroad Company Charles Chord v. Louisville, Henderson St Louis Railway Company Charles Chord v. Chesapeake Ohio Railway Company Charles Chord v. Southern Railway Company 1901, Nos. 141-145

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtFuller
Citation22 S.Ct. 165,46 L.Ed. 289,183 U.S. 483
PartiesCHARLES C. McCHORD, James F. Dempsey, and John C. Wood, Appts. , v. CINCINNATI, NEW ORLEANS, & TEXAS PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY. CHARLES C. McCHORD, James F. Dempsey, and John C. Wood, Appts. , v. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY. CHARLES C. McCHORD, James F. Dempsey, and John C. Wood, Appts. , v. LOUISVILLE, HENDERSON, & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY. CHARLES C. McCHORD, James F. Dempsey, and John C. Wood, Appts. , v. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY. CHARLES C. McCHORD, James F. Dempsey, and John C. Wood, Appts. , v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY in Kentucky. Argued January 7, 8, 1901. Ordered for reargument
Docket NumberNos. 141-145
Decision Date25 March 1901

183 U.S. 483
22 S.Ct. 165
46 L.Ed. 289
CHARLES C. McCHORD, James F. Dempsey, and John C. Wood, Appts.,

v.

CINCINNATI, NEW ORLEANS, & TEXAS PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY. CHARLES C. McCHORD, James F. Dempsey, and John C. Wood, Appts., v. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY. CHARLES C. McCHORD, James F. Dempsey, and John C. Wood, Appts., v. LOUISVILLE, HENDERSON, & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY. CHARLES C. McCHORD, James F. Dempsey, and John C. Wood, Appts., v. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY. CHARLES C. McCHORD, James F. Dempsey, and John C. Wood, Appts., v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY in Kentucky.

Nos. 141-145.
Argued January 7, 8, 1901.
Ordered for reargument March 25, 1901.
Reargued November 11, 12, 1901.

These are appeals from the final decrees of the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky, perpetually 484

Page 484

enjoining Charles C. McChord and others, railroad commissioners of the state of Kentucky, from doing any of the things required by, or from taking any action whatever against complainants under, a certain act of the general assembly of the commonwealth of Kentucky, approved March 10, 1900, which is entitled and reads as follows:

'An Act to Prevent Railroad Companies or Corporations Owning and Operating a Line or Lines of Railroad, and its Officers, Agents, and Employees, from Charging, Collecting, or Receiving Extortionate Freight or Passenger Rates in this Commonwealth, and to Further Increase and Define the Duties and Powers of the Railroad Commission in Reference Thereto, and Prescribing the Manner of Enforcing the Provisions of this Act and Penalties for the Violations of its Provisions.

'Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky:

'Sec. 1. When complaint shall be made to the railroad commission accusing any railroad company or corporation of charging, collecting or receiving extortionate freight or passenger rates over its line or lines of railroad in this commonwealthk or when said commission shall receive information or have reason to believe that such rate or rates are being charged, collected, or received, it shall be the duty of said commission to hear and determine the matter as speedily as possible. They shall give the company or corporation complained of not less than ten days' notice, by letter mailed to an officer or employee of said company or corporation, stating the time and place of the hearing of same; also the nature of the complaint or matter to be investigated, and shall hear such statements, arguments, or evidence offered by the parties as the commission may deem relevant; and should the commission determine that the company or corporation is or has been guilty of extortion, said commission shall make and fix a just and reasonable rate, toll, or compensation which said railroad company or corporation may charge, collect, or receive for like services thereafter rendered. The rate, toll, or compensation so fixed by the commission shall be entered and be an order on the record book of their office, and signed by the commission, and a copy thereof

Page 485

mailed to an officer, agent, or employee of the railroad company or corporation affected thereby, and shall be in full force and effect at the expiration of ten days thereafter, and may be revoked or modified by an order likewise entered of record. And should said railroad company or corporation, or any officer, agent, or employee thereof charge, collect, or receive a greater or higher rate, toll, or compensation for like services thereafter rendered than that made and fixed by said commission, as herein provided, said company or corporation, and said officer, agent, or employee shall each be deemed guilty of extortion, and upon conviction shall be fined for the first offense in any sum not less than $500 nor more than $1,000, and upon a second conviction, in any sum not less than $1,000 nor more than $2,000, and for third and succeeding convictions, in any sum not less than $2,000 nor more than $5,000.

'Sec. 2. The circuit court of any county into or through which the line or lines of road carrying such passenger or freight owned or operated by said railroad, and the Franklin circuit court, shall have jurisdiction of the offense against the railroad company or corporation offending, and the circuit court of the county where such offense may be committed by said officer, agent, or employee shall have jurisdiction in all prosecutions against said officer, agent, or employee.

'Sec. 3. Prosecutions under this act shall be by indictment.

'Sec. 4. All prosecutions under this act shall be commenced within two years after the offense shall have been committed.

'Sec. 5. In making said investigation said commission may, when deemed necessary, take the depositions of witnesses before an examiner or notary public, whose fee shall be paid by the state, and upon the certificate of the chairman of the commission, approved by the governor, the auditor shall draw his warrant upon the treasurer for its payment.'

All the bills sought the same relief, and their averments, excepting those in respect of alleged contracts with the state in relation to rates set up in the bills of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company and of the Cincinnati, New Orleans, & Texas Pacific Railway Company, were in substance the same.

Page 486

The act of March 10, 1900, was set out in full, its provisions recapitulated, and complainants' view of the legal effect thereof given. The 3d paragraph was: 'All of your orator's rates charged, collected, or received within the state of Kentucky are just and reasonable, and have not been sufficient for many years to give it a fair return upon the reasonable value of its investment, notwithstanding it has at all times operated its property with the strictest economy and in the most skilful manner.'

It was then averred that it was the duty of the railroad commission to see that the laws relating to all railroads, except street, were faithfully executed, and to exercise a general supervision over the railroads of the state; that its functions were administrative; that it was not established as a court; and that under the state Constitution it could not be permitted to exercise judicial powers. That all common carriers were subject only to the requirement that their rates should be just and reasonable, and they were in case of controversy entitled to have the judg- ment of the courts on that question; but that the act referred to singled out railroad corporations, and deprived them of any opportunity to have a judicial determination of the reasonableness of their rates when disputed, substituted the nonjudicial determination of the railroad commission, and subjected them to penalties, there being no infliction of penalties provided as to other common carriers. That if defendants be permitted to proceed under the act, each complainant 'will be compelled to charge the rates fixed by them, without any opportunity for a judicial investigation and determination as to their reasonableness, and it will thus be deprived of the lawful use of its property, and, in substance and effect, of its property itself, without due process of law, and will also be denied the equal protection of the laws, in violation of § 1 of article 14 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.'

It was further averred that the act was in conflict with clause 3 of § 8 of article 1 of the Constitution of the United States, giving Congress the exclusive power to regulate commerce among the states, and with the acts of Congress in that behalf.

Page 487

The bills then continued:

'And defendants have called for and obtained from your orator a list of rates fixed and charged by it for transportation of freight and passengers over its railroads in the state of Kentucky, for the purpose of considering whether or not they shall be altered and reduced in accordance with the terms of said act, and are giving it out in speeches and interviews that they intend to proceed at once under said act, and unless restrained by the order of this court defendants will proceed at once to hear and determine complaints under said act, although the same is in contravention of the Constitution of the United States in all the particulars hereinabove set out, and is therefore null and void; and will proceed thereupon to reduce your orator's rates to such as they think your orator should charge, and will thereafter at pleasure modify and still further reduce the rates so fixed, and if your orator does not observe the rates so fixed, no matter how unjustly and unreasonably low, your orator will be subjected to innumerable prosecutions throughout the state of Kentucky for failing to comply with such rates fixed in this unconstitutional manner, and it will be subjected to innumerable suits by consignors and consignees, who will claim the right to ship at said rates so unconstitutionally fixed and to sue for any excess they may be charged over said rates, though rightfully charged, and at the same time all your orator's officers and agents and servants, though perfectly innocent of any offense, and though merely assisting your orator to maintain its constitutional rights, will be indicted, prosecuted, and heavily fined, to the great demoralization of the public service which your orator is bound to render, and so it is, unless said defendants are restrained by the order of this court from proceeding under said act, your orator's contract rights will be impaired, it will be deprived of its property without due process of law, denied the equal protection of the law, and subjected to great and irreparable wrong and injury, and to a vast multiplicity of prosecutions and actions in the courts of said state.'

The cases were disposed of on demurrer.

The Constitution of the state of Kentucky provided:

'§ 209. Railroad commission—Number—Qualifications—

Page 488

Powers—Election—Term of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
59 practice notes
  • Sabre v. Rutland R. Co.
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • January 21, 1913
    ...The court declined to interfere on the ground that the remedy was legislative rather than judicial. In McChord v. L. & N. R. Co., 183 U. S. 483, 22 Sup. Ct. 165, 46 L. Ed. 289, an injunction was sought to restrain the Kentucky Railroad Commission from proceeding under an alleged unconstitut......
  • Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Siler, 686.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Kentucky
    • January 9, 1911
    ...need not be set out, for it appears in 213 U.S. at page 179, 29 Sup.Ct. 451, 53 L.Ed. 753, as also 183 U.S. at page 484, 22 Sup.Ct. 165, 46 L.Ed. 289, and in 103 F. at page 218. The rate order now in dispute was made by the Commission in virtue of this act. As pointed out in the statement, ......
  • Petroleum Exploration v. Public Service Commission of Kentucky, 705
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 2, 1938
    ...11 Wall. 108, 20 L.Ed. 65; Cruickshank v. Bidwell, 176 U.S. 73, 81, 20 S.Ct. 280, 44 L.Ed. 377; McChord v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 183 U.S. 483, 495, 22 S.Ct. 165, 46 L.Ed. 289; Shelton v. Platt, 139 U.S. 591, 596, 11 S.Ct. 646, 35 L.Ed. 273; Boise Artesian Hot & Cold Water Company v......
  • Southern Pac. Co. v. Bartine
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada
    • March 3, 1909
    ...of such a power. Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210, 29 Sup.Ct. 68, 53 L.Ed. . . . ; McChord v. Louisville & N.R. co., 183 U.S. 483, 495, 22 Sup.Ct. 165, 46 L.Ed. 289; Southern Pacific Co. v. Bd. R.R. Com'rs (C.C.) 78 F. 236; Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Brown (C.C.) 123 F. 946, 9......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
59 cases
  • Common Cause of Pennsylvania v. Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 1:05-CV-2036.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • June 12, 2006
    ...when deliberating upon the adoption or rejection of ordinances proposed for their adoption."); McChord v. Cincinnati, N O & T P Ry Co., 183 U.S. 483, 495, 22 S.Ct. 165, 46 L.Ed. 289 (1902) ("The fixing of rates is essentially legislative in its character, and the general rule is that legisl......
  • Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Siler, 686.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Kentucky
    • January 9, 1911
    ...need not be set out, for it appears in 213 U.S. at page 179, 29 Sup.Ct. 451, 53 L.Ed. 753, as also 183 U.S. at page 484, 22 Sup.Ct. 165, 46 L.Ed. 289, and in 103 F. at page 218. The rate order now in dispute was made by the Commission in virtue of this act. As pointed out in the statement, ......
  • Sabre v. Rutland R. Co.
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • January 21, 1913
    ...The court declined to interfere on the ground that the remedy was legislative rather than judicial. In McChord v. L. & N. R. Co., 183 U. S. 483, 22 Sup. Ct. 165, 46 L. Ed. 289, an injunction was sought to restrain the Kentucky Railroad Commission from proceeding under an alleged unconstitut......
  • Southern Pac. Co. v. Bartine
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada
    • March 3, 1909
    ...of such a power. Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210, 29 Sup.Ct. 68, 53 L.Ed. . . . ; McChord v. Louisville & N.R. co., 183 U.S. 483, 495, 22 Sup.Ct. 165, 46 L.Ed. 289; Southern Pacific Co. v. Bd. R.R. Com'rs (C.C.) 78 F. 236; Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Brown (C.C.) 123 F. 946, 9......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT