Railroad Commissioners of State of Florida v. Burleson

• Decision Date: 24 January 1919
• Citation: 255 F. 604
• Parties: RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS OF STATE OF FLORIDA v. BURLESON, Postmaster General, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida

255 F. 604

RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS OF STATE OF FLORIDA v. BURLESON, Postmaster General, et al.

United States District Court, N.D. Florida.

January 24, 1919

Dozier A. De Vane, of Tallahassee, Fla., for complainants.

John L Neeley, U.S. Atty., of Tallahassee, Fla., for respondent Burleson.

W. A Blount, of Pensacola, Fla., and Fred T. Myers, of Tallahassee, Fla., for respondent Southern Bell Telephone &amp Telegraph Co.

SHEPPARD District Judge.

The complainants' bill, exhibited against the Postmaster General and the Telephone & Telegraph Company, asks for a restraining order against the defendants, pendente lite, and ultimately an injunction against the defendants, their agents, etc., from putting into operation, or from continuing in effect on toll lines of the Southern Bell Telephone &amp Telegraph Company, in Florida, on any intrastate telephonic connection, the toll rates and charges prescribed by the Postmaster General's order No. 2495, or in any wise establishing, or attempting to establish, maintain or collect toll charges for intrastate telephonic communication, other than those authorized by the Railroad Commissioners of Florida.

The jurisdictional averments of the bill show that complainants are citizens of Florida; that defendant Burleson is a nonresident of Florida, at present residing in Washington, District of Columbia; the Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, a 'foreign corporation,' organized and existing under the laws of New York.

There is no attempt to define the Telegraph and Telephone Administration, except to say that the Postmaster General has proclaimed his operation of the Bell system under that designation, and this may be passed as merely descriptio personae. The complainants do not rest the ground of jurisdiction upon diversity of citizenship alone, but, after asserting diversity of citizenship and amount involved, aver that defendants seek to take the property of their patrons without due process of law and in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; that the Postmaster General is assuming to take possession of and operate intrastate lines in Florida under regulations and rates prescribed by him, in virtue of a resolution of Congress and the proclamation of the President, pursuant thereto, vesting in said Burleson the assumed authority to supervise and regulate intrastate as well as interstate rates.

The bill further avers that the resolution of Congress under which the Postmaster General was designated for federal administration, by the President, limits his authority to government communications and censorship, and preserves and continues the law of the state, and authority of complainants for rate regulation over telephone lines in Florida.

The United States attorney, on behalf of the defendant Burleson, filed written objection to the granting of any injunction against the latter, because it appears by the bill that he is an inhabitant personally and officially of the city of Washington, District of Columbia, and objects to being sued in the Northern district of Florida, or elsewhere than in the district whereof he is an inhabitant.

Defendant Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company answers that it is misjoined in the suit, and that no relief can or should be granted against it, because of the resolution of Congress and proclamation of the President, pursuant thereto, and the official orders of the Postmaster General assuming exclusive control and supervision of defendant's system in Florida and designating certain persons therein named as the personnel of his administration; that the Postmaster General has taken over the entire system of defendant under the President's proclamation, and that the Postmaster General and defendant had entered into a contract for the control of the properties of defendant, the former taking its revenues as earned and paying the operating expenses, including the compensation of its employes. Quoting a pertinent paragraph in the answer:

'That on the 1st day of August, 1918, under authority of the resolution and President's proclamation, the Postmaster General went into complete and exclusive possession and control of respondent's lines. While the employes and officers of the company were continued in their positions, they ceased to operate the properties on behalf of the respondent; their services in connection with the operation, maintenance, and extension of said lines and properties were, since that date, exclusively for the United States government, conformably with the orders and instructions constantly and uniformly given by the Postmaster General. * * * That, when the contract was made with the government, provisions were made for the rental to be paid by the government to the respondent for the use of its properties, and that the respondent is not now, has not been, and will not be, as long as the property is in

...