Pacific Coast Steamship Co. v. Board of Railroad Com'rs

Decision Date17 September 1883
Citation18 F. 10
CourtUnited States Circuit Court, District of California
PartiesPACIFIC COAST STEAM-SHIP CO. v. BOARD OF RAILROAD COM'RS.

Joseph P. Hoge and John J. Roche, for plaintiff.

N. P Chipman, for defendants.

Before FIELD, Circuit Justice, and SAWYER, Circuit Judge.

FIELD Justice.

The plaintiff is a corporation formed under the laws of California for the transaction of the business of a steam-ship company on the Pacific coast, and in its bays and harbors, and on the Pacific ocean. It is the owner of a large number of steam-ships engaged in the coasting trade, making voyages from San Francisco, in California, to Astoria and Portland, in Oregon; to ports on Puget sound, in Washington territory, and to ports in British Columbia, and from San Francisco to San Diego, in California, touching at intermediate ports on the coast.

All the steam-ships in making their voyages navigate the Pacific ocean more than a marine league from the shore. They carry goods sent from Europe, Asia, and states east of the Rocky mountains, upon through bills of lading via San Francisco. Some of the goods are transferred to the vessels in the original packages, and some after the packages have been opened. Passengers, with and without through tickets from other states and from Europe, are carried on the steam-ships north and south from San Francisco. Passengers and freight are also carried in these vessels from ports in California to other ports in the state. All the vessels are enrolled and licensed to carry on the coasting trade under the acts of congress.

By the constitution of California, adopted in 1879, all railroad canal, and other transportation companies are declared to be common carriers and subject to legislative control. Provision is also made for the election of three persons called railroad commissioners, whose duty it is to establish rates of charges for transportation of passengers and freight by such companies, and publish the same from time to time; to examine their books, records, and papers; to hear and determine complaints against them; to punish for contempt of the orders and processes of the commissioners, and enforce their decisions; and to provide a uniform system of accounts to be kept by the companies.

The complaint in this case is that the defendants, the commissioners elected under the constitution, intend and threaten to establish rates of charges for passengers and freights on the steam-ships of the plaintiff engaged in the coasting trade as mentioned, and exercise with respect to them all the other powers there conferred; and the plaintiff prays that they may be restrained in that respect. This suit was commenced when the late commissioners were in office, but as it is against the board as an official body, and not the members personally, it has been resubmitted for decision within the past month.

The defendants admit that it is their purpose to carry into execution the powers with which they are invested, and to establish rates of charges for passengers and freight upon the steam-ships, so far as relates to transportation between ports within the state, but disclaim all intention to regulate or interfere with the transportation of persons or freight from ports within the state to ports without it, or from ports without it to ports within it.

The question is, can they regulate or interfere with the transportation of persons or merchandise between ports within the state, if they be in transit to or from other states, or the transportation involves a voyage upon the ocean? The question in one of its aspects is new, but in neither of them is it difficult to solve. The constitution vests in congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states. The power to regulate is the power govern; to prescribe the rules by which commerce shall be conducted; to declare when it shall be burdened with conditions, and when it shall be free and untrammeled.

Commerce as has often been said, is a term of large import. It includes the carriage of persons, and the transportation, purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities between citizens or subjects of other countries and our people, and between the people of different states. It embraces navigation, and extends to all the instruments used in navigating inland waters and the ocean.

It was at one time a subject of much discussion and some disagreement among judges whether the power conferred upon congress to regulate commerce is exclusive in its character or concurrent with that of the states. By recent decisions this question has been put at rest. When the subject upon which congress can act under this power is national in its character, and admits and requires uniformity of regulation, affecting alike all the states, then the power is in its nature exclusive; but when the subject upon which the power is to act is local in its operation, then the power of the state is so far concurrent that its action is permissible until congress interferes and takes control of the subject. Of the former class, is all that portion of commerce with foreign countries and among the states which...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lee
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • 23 Febrero 1917
    ......672, a tax upon the receipts. from railroad shipments between points in Pennsylvania, which. ... Pacific Coast S. S. Co. v. Railroad Commissioners (C. ......
  • Com. v. Housatonic R. R.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 7 Enero 1887
    ...... 1885,) and the said order of the railroad commissioners made. by virtue thereof, are, so ... prevent. Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 12 How. 299;. Case of State Freight ...of Tenn., 16 Amer. & Eng.R.Cas. 1; Pacific. Coast S.S. Co. v. Board Ry. Com'rs, 18 F. 10;. ......
  • Seawell v. The Kansas City, Ft. Scott & Memphis Railroad Company
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 23 Diciembre 1893
    ......557; Hall v. De. Cuir, 95 U.S. 485; Lord v. Steamship Co., 102. U.S. 541; Pacific Steamship Co. v. ......
  • Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Rogers
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 19 Noviembre 1917
    ...... & Hurdle against the Illinois Central Railroad. Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, ...R. Co., 47 L.Ed. (U.S.) 333; Lord v. Steamship. Co., 26 L.Ed. (U.S.) 224; Steamship Co. v. R. ......
  • 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