State of Texas v. Eastern Texas Co State of Texas v. United States
Decision Date | 13 March 1922 |
Docket Number | Nos. 298 and 563,s. 298 and 563 |
Citation | 258 U.S. 204,42 S.Ct. 281,66 L.Ed. 566 |
Parties | STATE OF TEXAS v. EASTERN TEXAS R. CO. et al. STATE OF TEXAS v. UNITED STATES et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Tom L. Beauchamp and C. M. Cureton, both of Austin, Tex., for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 205-207 intentionally omitted] Mr. E. B. Perkins, of Dallas, Tex., for appellee railroad companies.
Mr. Solicitor General Beck, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 207-212 intentionally omitted] Mr. Walter McFarland, of Washington, D. C., for Interstate Commerce Commission.
By section 402 of the Transportation Act of 1920, c. 91, 41 Stat. 456, 477, several new paragraphs were added to section 1 of the Act to Regulate Commerce (24 Stat. 379) as theretofore amended. Paragraphs 18, 19, and 20 are copied in the margin.1 By them Congress has undertaken to regulate the construction and acquisition of new or additional lines of railroad and the extension and abandonment of old lines, and to invest the Interstate Commerce Commission with important administrative powers in that connection. Like the act of which they are amendatory, these paragraphs are expressly restricted to carriers engaged in transporting persons or property in interstate and foreign commerce.2
Our present concern is with the provisions relating to the abandonment of existing lines. They declare that 'no carrier by railroad subject to this act shall abandon all or any portion of a line of railroad, or the operation thereof, unless and until there shall first have been obtained from the Commission a certificate that the present or future public convenience and necessity permit of such abandonment' (paragraph 18); that when application for such a certificate is received the Cimmission shall cause notice thereof to be given to the Governor of the state wherein the line lies and published in newspapers of general circulation in each county along the line, and shall accord a hearing to the state and all parties in interest (paragraph 19); that the Commission may grant or refuse the certificate in whole or in part and impose such terms and conditions as in its judgment the public convenience and necessity require; and that when the certificate is issued, and not before, the carrier may, 'without securing approval other than such certificate,' comply with the terms and conditions imposed and proceed with the abandonment covered by the certificate (paragraph 20).
The Eastern Texas Railroad Company, a Texas corporation, owns and operates in that state a line of railroad 30.3 miles in length. Approximately three-fourths of the traffic over the road is in interstate and foreign commerce and the rest is in intrastate commerce. The company neither owns nor operates any other line. The road was constructed in 1902 to serve extensive lumber industries, but in subsequent years the adjacent timber was removed and the mills dismantled. The company claims that since 1917 the road has been operated at a loss.
On June 3, 1920, the company filed with the Commission an application for a certificate authorizing it to abandon and cease operating its road, full notice of the application being regularly given. The state declined to appear before the Commission, but others, who were being served by the road, appeared and opposed the application. A full hearing was had and, on December 2, 1920 the Commission made and filed a report concluding as follows:
The certificate and order were issued and the railroad company indicated its assent to the condition imposed, but, so far as appears, no one sought to purchase under the condition.
While the application was pending before the Cimmission and before the certificate was issued, the state brought a suit in one of its courts against the railroad company and some of its officers to enjoin them from ceasing to operate the road in intrastate commerce. The bill was brought on the theory that under the laws of the state the company was obliged to continue the operation of the road in intrastate commerce; that the provisions of the Transportation Act were unconstitutional and void, if and in so far as they authorize the abandonment of such a road as respects intrastate commerce, and that the company in asking the Commission to sanction such an abandonment was proceeding in disregard of its obligations to the state. At the instance of the defendants the suit was removed to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas. During the pendency of the suit the Commission issued the certificate and the defendants then sought the benefit of it by a supplemental answer. The court held that the certificate constituted a compete defense, and without a hearing on other issues dismissed the suit. The state appealed directly to this court. That appeal is No. 298.
After the Commission granted the certificate the state brought a suit in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Texas against the United States, the railroad company and others to set aside and annul the Cimmission's order and certificate on the grounds, first, that the provisions of the Transportation Act, rightly interpreted, did not afford any basis for granting a certificate sanctioning the abandonment of the company's road as respects intrastate commerce, and, secondly, if those provisions purported to authorize such a certificate, they were to that extent in excess of the power of Congress and an encroachment on the reserved powers of the state. The defendants moved to dismiss the bill as ill founded in point of merits, and the court sustained the motions and entered a decree of dismissal. The state appealed directly to this court. That appeal is No. 563.
Counsel attribute to these cases a breadth which they do not have; and for obvious reasons we shall deal with them as they are, not as they might be.
Up to the time Commission made the order granting the certificate a part of the commerce passing over the road was interstate and foreign, that is, was bound to or from other states and foreign countries. It is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State of Missouri Southwestern Bell Telephone Co v. Public Service Commission of Missouri
... ... general rule is well expressed in States Public Utilities Commission ex rel. Springfield ... 394, 411, 41 Sup. Ct. 169, 65 L. Ed. 322; Texas v. Eastern Texas R. R. Co., 258 U. S. 204, 42 ... recessions) for the 20 years before the United States entered the World War. From the low level ... ...
-
Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority
... ... its distribution generally throughout that state; its lines reaching 66 counties. The transmission ... , at the Muscle Shoals plant owned by the United States on the Tennessee river in ... Page 316 ... In Texas v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 258 U.S. 158, ... the Tennessee Company which operated in eastern Tennessee. Huge sums were invested in these ... ...
-
Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. v. Northern Oklahoma Rys.
... ... v. United States, 263 U. S. 456, 478, 44 S. Ct. 169, 172 68 L. Ed ... tracks located or to be located wholly within one state or of street, suburban, or interurban electric railways, ... Cases involving abandonment (Texas v. Eastern Texas R. R. Co., 258 U. S. 204, 42 S. Ct. 281, 66 L. Ed ... ...
-
Blanchette v. Connecticut General Insurance Corporations Smith v. United States United States Railway Association v. Connecticut General Insurance Corporations United States v. Connecticut General Insurance Corporations 8212 165 74 8212 168
...States ex rel. Attorney General v. Delaware & Hudson Co., supra 213 U.S. at 407, 29 S.Ct. at 535; Texas v. Eastern Texas R. Co., 258 U.S. 204, 217, 42 S.Ct. 281, 283, 66 L.Ed. 566 (1922). The principle is applied so as to preserve substantially the legislative purpose, even where a statute ......