Great Northern Railway Company v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 24 October 1969
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 824.
• Citation: 304 F. Supp. 812
• Parties: GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, a corporation; Northern Pacific Railway Company, a corporation; Soo Line Railroad Company, a corporation; and Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation, Plaintiffs, v. Richard J. THOMPSON, Ben J. Wolf, and Bruce Hagen, Commissioners of the Public Service Commission of the State of North Dakota, or their successors, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota

304 F. Supp. 812

GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, a corporation; Northern Pacific Railway Company, a corporation; Soo Line Railroad Company, a corporation; and Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation, Plaintiffs, v. Richard J. THOMPSON, Ben J. Wolf, and Bruce Hagen, Commissioners of the Public Service Commission of the State of North Dakota, or their successors, Defendants.

Civ. No. 824.

United States District Court D. North Dakota, Southwestern Division.

October 24, 1969.

Joseph J. Nagle, Chicago, Ill., Barry McGrath, St. Paul, Minn., Charles H. Clay, Minneapolis, Minn., and Curtis H. Berg, St. Paul, Minn., Nilles, Oehlert, Hansen, Selbo & Magill, Frank J. Magill, Fargo, N. D., of counsel, for plaintiffs.

Jack Stewart, Commerce Counsel, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Bismarck, N. D., for defendants.

Before VOGEL, Circuit Judge, REGISTER, Chief District Judge, and DAVIES, District Judge.

REGISTER, Chief Judge.

By this action the Plaintiffs seek a judicial determination declaring unconstitutional Section 49-14-31 of the North Dakota Century Code (enacted as Chapter 321, Section 1, by the 1965 Legislative Session of the State of North Dakota), which reads as follows:

"49-14-31. Requiring establishment and maintenance of hold points. — Any railroad operating in the state of North Dakota shall establish and maintain at such locations within the state as may be designated by the public service commission, such hold points as may be determined by the commission to be necessary and in the public interest for the sampling of grain shipments originating within the state of North Dakota."

Plaintiffs further seek to enjoin, restrain, and declare null and void that certain order of the Public Service Commission of the State of North Dakota, dated September 23, 1966 (hereinafter referred to), which was purportedly issued by virtue of the provisions of that statute.

This three-judge Court was convened to hear and determine this action, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2284(1). Subsequent to the execution and filing of a stipulation by parties hereto, the Plaintiffs (jointly) filed a motion for summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "on the ground that the records, files, pleadings and stipulation on file herein show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Pursuant to that stipulation, it is agreed that as a part of the record before this Court are the pleadings, transcript, briefs, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order dated September 23, 1966, and Order of October 17, 1966, in North Dakota Public Service Commission Case No. 6477 — which is the case giving rise to these proceedings. Upon the filing of final briefs, the parties agreed that this action be deemed to be finally submitted.

The constitutionality of the subject statute is challenged under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States, generally referred to as the "Commerce Clause," which provides, inter alia, that:

"The Congress shall have Power * * *

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

The proceedings before the North Dakota Public Service Commission in the case designated No. 6477 were instituted pursuant to the provisions of Section 49-14-31, NDCC, and the North Dakota Public Service Commission's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of September 23, 1966 were issued and promulgated pursuant thereto.

Plaintiffs are individually and collectively common carriers of freight by railroad operating between points in the state of North Dakota, and between points in that state and points in the states of Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Iowa, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, California, and the Canadian Provinces of British Columbia and Manitoba, and in connection with other carriers by railroad provide rail transportation between points on their lines and points on other railroads in the United States. Plaintiffs engage in both interstate and intrastate transportation of freight, including grain and other agricultural commodities and products.

Each of the Plaintiffs is a foreign corporation having its principal place of business outside of the State of North Dakota. The Defendants, individually and collectively, constitute the duly elected and acting members of the Public Service Commission of the State of North Dakota, and each of said Defendants concurred in the Commission's report, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order dated September 23, 1966, in Case No. 6477. This is a civil action in which the amount in controversy exceeds Ten Thousand Dollars. Each of the Defendants is a citizen of the State of North Dakota. This Court has jurisdiction under Sections 1331, 1332, 2201, 2202, 2281 and 2284 of Title 28, United States Code Annotated.

On April 21, 1965, a group known as the Southeastern Grain Holding and Inspection Association filed applications with Defendants requesting that the cities of Hankinson and Wahpeton, North Dakota, be designated as hold points for sampling and inspecting grain. The applications were filed to invoke the provisions of Section 49-14-31, NDCC. Following the filing of these applications, the Defendants issued a notice of public hearing to be held at the city of Hankinson. This hearing was held, and thereafter the Defendants issued the order of September 23, 1966, requiring that with respect to grain shipments originating in North Dakota, Great Northern Railway Company and Soo Line Railroad Company publish tariff rules and regulations establishing hold points on their respective lines at Hankinson, North Dakota, and that the Great Northern Railway Company, Northern Pacific Railway Company, and Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company publish tariff rules and regulations establishing hold points on their respective lines at Wahpeton, North Dakota, and specifying the time within which such rules and regulations were to be filed. Thereafter, by appropriate petition the Plaintiffs requested Defendants to rehear, reconsider, and receive oral argument on said order and postpone the effective date thereof pending such rehearing and reconsideration. This petition was denied by order dated October 17, 1966, and it appears to this Court (and the parties have so stipulated) that Plaintiffs have fully exhausted their administrative remedies before the Defendants, acting as the North Dakota Public Service Commission. Subsequent to the institution of this action the parties stipulated to a postponement of the effective date of the September 23 order, pending final determination by this Court in this proceeding.

The parties have stipulated "That the principal and primary purpose of this action is to challenge and test the constitutionality of * * *" the subject statute. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment accordingly, and premise their contention that a substantial question of unconstitutionality is here presented not only on the proposition that the statute is manifestly repugnant to the Commerce Clause, but also that involved herein is the alleged application of the supremacy clause, on the theory that the federal statutes commonly referred to as the Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1 et seq.) have preempted and occupied the entire field of interstate regulation of interstate commerce, including the establishment of grain inspection and hold points. The greater portion of the briefs of the respective parties is devoted to these contentions involving the constitutionality of Section 49-14-31, NDCC. However, this Court is satisfied that it need not and should not consider this issue for the reason that a determination of the validity of the Commission's challenged order is dispositive of the matter.

"If there is one doctrine more deeply rooted than any other in the process of constitutional adjudication, it is that we ought not to pass on questions of constitutionality * * * unless such adjudication is unavoidable." Spector Motor Co. v. McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101, 105, 65 S.Ct. 152, 154, 89 L.Ed. 101.

"It is the duty of the Federal courts to avoid unnecessary decision of constitutional questions." Guy v. Rolvaag, D.C., 233 F.Supp. 301, 304.

It is clear that, on its face, the...