Gulf, C. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. State

• Decision Date: 23 July 1912
• Citation: 125 P. 1103,33 Okla. 378,1912 OK 520
• Parties: GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. v. STATE.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

125 P. 1103

33 Okla. 378, 1912 OK 520

GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

July 23, 1912

Syllabus by the Court.

On appeal from an order assessing a penalty under section 19 art. 9, Williams' Constitution, against a railway company for an alleged violation of an order of the Corporation Commission, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to pass upon the power of the Commission to make the order violated, and whether it is reasonable and just, notwithstanding such an order is not appealable when made.

OrderNo. 148 of the Corporation Commission is not violative of the commerce clause of the federal Constitution, and was not superseded by the act of Congress of May 6, 1910, c. 208,36 Stat. 350(U. S. Comp. St. Supp.1911, p. 1329).

As construed by the Corporation Commission, it cannot be said that order No. 148 is unreasonable or unjust.

Appeal from the State Corporation Commission.

Appeal by the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Company from an order of the Corporation Commission.Modified and affirmed on rehearing.

Cottingham & Bledsoe, of Oklahoma City, for appellant.

Chas West, Atty. Gen., and Chas. L. Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

KANE J.

This is an appeal from an order of the Corporation Commission imposing a fine of $500 on the plaintiff in error for failing "to make report to Corporation Commission in time specified on derailment of passenger train," in violation of OrderNo. 148 of the Commission, which requires all railway companies operating within the state, upon the happening of an accident, to at once telegraph to the Commission the following information in the following class of accidents: All accidents resulting in loss of life or limb or serious injury to passengers or employés.The telegraph report shall show the date, time, and place of accident, the train or trains involved, the number of passengers killed or injured, if any.The accident, which was not reported within the time prescribed in the order, was the derailment of a passenger train at a bridge on the Washita river on appellant's line of railway, which occurred on the 14th of December, 1910.The passenger train left the track and plunged into the river, killing 1 and injuring about 40 passengers.It appears that the appellant is an interstate railway, and that the train was an interstate train, engaged in interstate as well as intrastate traffic.

Appeals from OrderNo. 148 were taken to this court by several railway companies, which were dismissed upon the ground that the court is without jurisdiction to review such order.St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. v. State et al.,24 Okl 805, 105 P. 351;A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. State,24 Okl. 807, 105 P. 352.It is now contended by the Attorney General that, "this court having twice declined to review the Commission's general OrderNo. 148, on appeals attempted for that express purpose, holding that it had no jurisdiction to do so ( 105 P. 351 and 352), we assume that the same will not be inquired into in the present proceeding, except for the purpose of determining the Commission's power to make the same; it being jurisdictional as to OrderNo. 466, herein appealed from, predicated thereon."

As the Corporation Commission is only empowered by the Constitution to enforce compliance with its lawful orders by adjudging fines or penalties against the delinquent or offending parties or companies, after a hearing wherein an opportunity is afforded to introduce evidence and be heard, "as well against the validity, justness, or reasonableness of the order or requirement alleged to have been violated, as against the liability of the company for the alleged violation"(Constitution, § 19, art. 9), this court must have jurisdiction to pass upon the power of the Commission to make the order violated, and whether it is reasonable and just, when cases of this class come before it on appeal.A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. State,26 Okl. 166, 109 P. 218.

The grounds upon which the appellant seeks a reversal may be briefly stated as follows: (1) OrderNo. 148, in so far as it relates to common carriers engaged in interstate commerce, covers the same subject-matter embraced within certain sections of the act of Congress of May 6, 1910, c. 208,36 Stat. 350(U. S. Comp. St. Supp.1911, p. 1329), entitled "An act requiring common carriers engaged in interstate and foreign commerce to make full reports of all accidents to the Interstate Commerce Commission, and authorizing investigations thereof by said Commission," and is therefore superseded by the federal act.(2) OrderNo. 148 is unreasonable and unjust, because "the urgency of the higher duty of looking after and caring for the injured and the dead, and clearing the track, so as to permit the resumption of transportation" render it practically impossible for a report to be made upon the spur of the moment covering with any degree of accuracy the matters inquired about.(3) The Commission erred in adjudging the defendant guilty of a violation of OrderNo. 148, because it appears conclusively from the evidence that it had no intention to violate same, but there was an honest endeavor on behalf of the railway company to comply with the same.And it further appears that as quick as the attention of the officers was called to the fact that officers are required to report by wire the report was promptly made.

In a former opinion, the first contention of the appellant was sustained, upon the supposition that the act of Congress of March 3, 1901, c. 866,31 Stat. 1446(U. S. Comp. St.1901p. 3176), was still in force.Counsel for appellant cited that act as controlling, and our attention was not called to its repeal and the enactment of the act of May 6, supra, until the petition for rehearing was filed; whereupon counsel for appellant voluntarily corrected the error, but still insist that under either act their first contention is well taken.We cannot agree with counsel.The latter act, while entitled practically the same as the former, differs from it in several important particulars.Both acts require common carriers engaged in interstate commerce by railroad to make to the Interstate Commerce Commission a monthly report of all collisions and derailments of trains, and of all accidents which may occur to its passengers or employés, and empower the...