Southern Pac. Co. v. Railroad Commission of California, 3683.
Citation | 10 F. Supp. 918 |
Decision Date | 06 May 1935 |
Docket Number | No. 3683.,3683. |
Parties | SOUTHERN PAC. CO. v. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF CALIFORNIA et al. (BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN et al., Interveners). |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Guy V. Shoup, Henley C. Booth, and Burton Mason, all of San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff.
Ira H. Rowell, Roderick B. Cassidy, and Frank B. Austin, all of San Francisco, Cal., for defendant Railroad Commission of California.
M. Mitchell Bourquin, of San Francisco, Cal., for interveners.
Before WILBUR, Circuit Judge, and ST. SURE and LOUDERBACK, District Judges.
This is a suit in equity brought by the Southern Pacific Company, seeking to enjoin the enforcement of an order of the State Railroad Commission. The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen complained to the commission that the rules and practices of the Southern Pacific Company in operating freight trains in the Sierra Nevada Mountains from Roseville, Cal., to the Nevada state line subjected train crews to unreasonable hardship and danger. After a hearing, the commission issued the following order:
Hearing was had before a statutory three-judge court (section 266, Judicial Code, 28 USCA § 380), and an interlocutory injunction was granted. The suit was referred to one of the members of this court as special master, who heard the evidence and transmitted the transcript thereof to this court. Final hearing and arguments were had, and the case is now ready for decision.
The issues may be briefly stated as follows: Plaintiff alleges that the order interferes with and places an undue burden upon interstate commerce, and that the order is so vague and uncertain as to render it unreasonable and arbitrary, and therefore violates the commerce clause of the Constitution (article 1, § 8, cl. 3).
The commission's defense is that the extreme and unusual condition of weather during the winter months and the topography of the country covered by the order justified its issuance in the interest of public health and safety; that the order is not capricious or arbitrary.
Said interveners as parties interested in sustaining the order of defendant commission participated in the hearing, and the conclusions reached herein are also applicable to them.
The pleadings and the undisputed evidence establish that the plaintiff is a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce, and is subject to the regulations of the Public Utilities Act of the state of California (St. Cal. 1915, p. 115, as amended), and of the act of Congress known as the Interstate Commerce Act (49 USCA § 1 et seq.); that the defendant commission is the duly constituted board, consisting of five members, which administers the regulatory powers over public utilities in the state; that intervener Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen is a labor organization composed of trainmen employed in train and yard service of railroads in various parts of the United States; intervener Harry See is a citizen and resident of California, and is an official of said brotherhood, having the title of "state representative"; that plaintiff operates a line of railroad between and in the several Western states, among them California and Nevada; that the line involved in this controversy runs from Oakland, Cal., in a general easterly direction across the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the boundary line common to California and Nevada; that said railroad line passes through Roseville (a division point 18 miles northeast of Sacramento), Emigrant Gap, Andover, and Truckee, Cal., and on into Reno and Sparks, Nev., the latter station also a division point. The line is double tracked between Roseville and Sparks. Two-tenths of a mile west of the state boundary line plaintiff has established a station called Calvada. This station has no switching facilities for making up or breaking up trains; nor is it a station where freight is received for shipment or delivered. From Calvada to Sparks is 17.6 miles. It was shown that 94 per cent. of the freight trains passing over this line consist of 57 cars or more, the general average being approximately 80; that, of all of the freight trains passing over the line in 1933 during the six months covered by the order, 93.85 per cent. of the cars in eastbound traffic, and 98.36 per cent. of the cars in westbound traffic, were interstate. There was not a single train during that period that was wholly intrastate.
Preliminarily the defendant commission urges that it is not within the function of this court "to review the evidence for the purpose of determining whether it would have reached some other conclusion * * * nor to substitute its judgment for that of the Commission." A rule for our guidance is found in Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 661, 8 S. Ct. 273, 297, 31 L. Ed. 205: "If, therefore, a statute order purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the constitution."
The commission contends that the order was not directed at interstate commerce, and that it has no extraterritorial effect.
In determining the validity of a statute, courts are not bound by the form. It is their duty to look at the substance. The order is to be determined in the light of its effect upon interstate commerce. In the Minnesota Rate Case, supra, the acts and orders prescribed by the state commission applied solely to intrastate commerce, but, despite this obvious purport, their inevitable effect was the basis of the court's decision on one branch of the case.
Plaintiff challenges the order upon the ground of its extraterritorial effect. While the order designates only intrastate lines, it has a direct bearing on interstate commerce. Defendant commission, appreciating that in practical operation the order would have extraterritorial effect, said in its decision:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Conway v. Southern Pacific Co.
... ... Burton ... Mason, of San Francisco, California, for Appellee ... OPINION ... association, company or corporation, operating any railroad ... in the State of Arizona, to run, or permit to be run, ... The state, through its ... Public Service Commission, attempted to compel, by ... mandamus proceedings, the ... v. La Prade, ... D.C., 2 F.Supp. 855; Southern Pac. Co. v ... Mashburn, D.C., 18 F.Supp. 393; Texas & ... ...
-
Great Northern Railway Company v. Thompson
...point in North Dakota and before it crosses the border lines in interstate commerce." The case of Southern Pacific Company v. Railroad Commission of California et al., D.C., 10 F.Supp. 918, was a suit in equity in which the plaintiff sought to enjoin the enforcement of an order of the State......
-
Erie-Lackawanna R. Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
...a valid exercise of the state's power to regulate health and safety. In Southern Pacific Company v. Railroad Commission of California, 10 F.Supp. 918 (Dist.Ct.N.D.Cal.S.D.1935) upon Page 912 which the appellant relies heavily, the commission ordered an unusual innovation in requiring a cabo......