Chicago, Burlington Quincy Railroad Company v. Railroad Commission of Wisconsin

• Decision Date: 12 April 1915
• Docket Number: No. 198,198
• Citation: 59 L.Ed. 926,35 S.Ct. 560,237 U.S. 220
• Parties: CHICAGO, BURLINGTON, & QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

237 U.S. 220

35 S.Ct. 560

59 L.Ed. 926

CHICAGO, BURLINGTON, & QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY, Plff. in Err.,

v RAILROAD COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN.

No. 198.

Argued March 12, 1915.

Decided April 12, 1915.

Messrs. Andrew Lees, Robert Bruce Scott, and Chester M. Dawes for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Walter Drew, Byron H. Stebbins, and Mr. W. C. Owen, Attorney General of Wisconsin, for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from page 221 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:

Error to review a judgment of the supreme court of Wisconsin sustaining an order of the Railroad Commission of that state requiring under a law of the state the railroad company to stop two of its passenger trains, each way daily, at the station of Cochrane.

The statute under which the order was made is as follows:

'Every corporation operating a railroad shall maintain a station at every village, whether incorporated or not, having a postoffice and containing two hundred inhabitants or more, through or within one eighth of a mile of which its line or road runs, and shall provide the necessary arrangements, receive and discharge freight and passengers, and shall stop at least one passenger train each day each way at such station, if trains are run on such road to that extent; and, if four or more passenger trains are run each way daily, at least two passenger trains each day each way shall be stopped at each such station. Every such corporation neglecting or refusing fully to comply with this section, after demand therefor by any resident of such village, shall forfeit not less than twenty-five nor more than fifty dollars for each and every day such neglect or refusal shall continue, one half to the use of the person prosecuting therefor.' Wisconsin Session Laws 1911, amending § 1801.

The order was made in pursuance of a petition filed with the Commission by an inhabitant of the town, alleging the inadequacy of the passenger service, and praying for relief under the statute. The facts presented to the Commission are, as stated by the supreme court, as follows:

'The passenger service at Cochrane was as follows: Northbound train No. 91, a freight, carrying passengers, daily, except Sunday, due at 10:17 A. M.; passenger train No. 53, northbound, daily, due at 10:58 A. M.; southbound passenger train No. 54, daily, due at 9:09 A. M.; and freight train No. 92, southbound, carrying passengers, daily except Sunday, due at 1:10 A. M. It is admitted that Cochrane has a postoffice. Further facts shown by the hearing are thus stated in the decision of the Railroad Commission: 'Cochrane is an incorporated village of about 260 inhabitants. It has four general stores, two saloons, two lumber yards and planing mills. The village of Buffalo, having a population of about 250, lies a short distance west of Cochrane. Alma, the county seat of Buffalo county, having a population of 1,000, is situated 8.3 miles north of Cochrane. Fountain City, having a population of approximately 1,000, lies about 8 miles south of Buffalo. All of the limited trains on respondent's line stop at Alma. Two passenger trains each way daily stop at Fountain City. . . . The respondent's road is located on the east bank of the Mississippi river, and runs through a territory that is sparsely settled. About 90 per cent of all the passenger traffic over this line consists of people going from Chicago to St. Paul and points in Minnesota, the Dakotas, and the entire Northwest and Canada. Two trains are run each way daily between Chicago and Portland and Seattle. One train leaves Chicago in the morning, and from St. Paul runs over the Northern Pacific line to the Northwest. Another train leaves Chicago in the evening, and from St. Paul goes over the Great Northern line to the Northwest. There are two corresponding trains eastbound. There is also a train each way daily between Chicago and Minneapolis, known as the Minnesota Limited, which serves the traffic to Minneapolis and St. Paul, on the one hand, and to Chicago and St. Louis, on the other. In addition to these interstate trains, there is a local train each way, running between Savanna and Minneapolis, which takes care of the traffic in the state of Wisconsin. The westbound train from Chicago to the Northwest by way of the Northern Pacific line from St. Paul is known as train No. 51, and is composed of standard Pullman and tourist cars. The number of cars in the train is 12. The corresponding eastbound train is known as No. 53, and contains the same number of cars. Similar trains routed over the Great Northern line from St. Paul to and from the Northwest are known as trains 49 and 52, respectively. Trains 47 and 48 are each known as the Minnesota Limited, and each is composed of one observation car, three standard sleeping cars, one St. Louis standard sleeping car, two Chicago coaches, one combined mail and baggage car, and two baggage cars. Train No. 58 consists of two sleeping cars, and from five to eight baggage and express cars. All of these interstate trains are heavy, and run at a maximum speed of 50 miles per hour in order to make connection with trains for the East at Chicago and with trains for the West at St. Paul. As the distance between Chicago and St. Paul over respondent's line is 33 miles greater than that over the line of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, and 27 miles greater than that over the line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, & St. Paul Railway Company, it becomes necessary for the respondent to operate its trains at a high rate of speed in order to meet the schedule of time of its competitors' trains between such points, as well as to make the connections mentioned."

The Commission, expressing its view of the case presented, said: 'Independent of any statutory provision on the subject, we should feel constrained to hold that the existing passenger service afforded the village of Cochrane was adequate under the circumstances, and that, therefore, interstate trains could not be required to stop at that station.' And further: 'This statute deprives the Commission of any discretion in the matter. It fixes the quantum of passenger service for every station coming within the classification made.'

The railroad company thereupon filed a petition in the circuit court of Dane county to set aside the order of the Commission. The petition set forth the interstate character of its road, attacked the validity of the law and the order of the Commission, and represented their effect to be, if carried out, to stop two of its limited trains at thirteen additional stations in the state, and that such requirement would be an unwarrantable interference with interstate commerce.

The circuit court found that the passenger service at Cochrane was not adequate or reasonable, and that the order of the Commission was a reasonable exercise of the power vested in the Commission, and entered a judgment dismissing the petition of the railroad company.

The supreme court of the state affirmed the judgment. 152 Wis. 654, 140 N. W. 296. The court, however, disagreed with the circuit court in the view that the Commission had exercised its discretion. The supreme court decided that such power was not vested in the Commission nor exercised by it, and further decided that the trial court could not make an 'order based upon the original exercise of its own discretion,' and that the only jurisdiction con- ferred upon it was 'to pass upon the lawfulness or reasonableness of the Railroad Commission's order.' And it was said: 'In the instant case, therefore, since the Railroad Commission did not make an order based upon its discretion, but one based upon the statute, the only question presented by the action was the lawfulness of the order, which, of course, raised the question of the constitutionality of § 1801 [Stat. 1911]. And that question is the only one the appeal presents upon the merits.' In other words, as we understand it, the statute expressed the legislative judgment of what facilities were necessary under the conditions described by the statute, and left no discretion to the Commission or the courts, but 'deemed it best,' to quote the court, 'to exercise its own judgment as to what should be considered reasonably adequate passenger service for stations containing a population of 200 or more.' We are brought, therefore, to a consideration of the statute and its measure.

The statute includes, necessarily, the supreme court held, interstate passenger trains, and clearly excludes accommodation freight trains; and, so viewing it, the supreme court pronounced it a proper exercise of the power of the state.

In reviewing the decision we may start with certain principles as established: (1) It is competent for a state to require adequate local facilities, even to the stoppage of interstate trains or the rearrangement of their schedules. (2) Such facilities existing—that is, the local conditions being adequately met—the obligation of the railroad is performed, and the stoppage of interstate trains becomes an improper and illegal interference with interstate commerce. (3) And this, whether the interference be directly by the legislature or by its command through the orders of an administrative body. (4) The fact of local facilities this court may determine, such fact being necessarily involved in the determination of the Federal question whether an order concerning an interstate train does or does not directly regulate interstate commerce, by imposing an arbitrary requirement. Gladson v. Minnesota, 166 U. S. 427, 41 L. ed. 1064, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 627; Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Ohio, 173 U. S. 285, 43 L. ed. 702, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 465; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. North Carolina Corp. Commission, 206 U. S. 1, 51 L. ed. 933, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 585, 11 Ann. Cas. 398; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 262, 54 L. ed. 472, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 330; Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Illinois, 177 U. S....