State Pub. Utilities Comm'n of Illinois v. Atchison

• Decision Date: 19 April 1917
• Docket Number: No. 10973.,10973.
• Citation: 115 N.E. 904,278 Ill. 58
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF ILLINOIS et al. v. ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO. et al.

278 Ill. 58

115 N.E. 904

STATE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF ILLINOIS et al.

v.ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO. et al.

No. 10973.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 19, 1917.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sangamon County; Norman L. Jones, Judge.

Proceeding by the State Public Utilities Commission of Illinois, on the relation of the Farmers' Grain Dealers' Association and others, against the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railway Company and others. From a judgment upholding the determination of the State Public Utilities Commission, the defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded. with directions.A. P. Humburg and John G. Drennan, both of Chicago, and George B. Gillespie, of Springfield (E. S. Ballard, M. L. Bell, O. E. Butterfield, C. B. Cardy, James L. Coleman, and Homer W. Davis,all of Chicago, Hugh J. Graham, of Springfield, W. S. Horton, K. K. Knapp, and R. B. Scott, all of Chicago, P. B. Warren, of Springfield, D. P. Williams, of Indianapolis, Ind., Garrard B. Winston, R. H. Widdicombe, C. C. Wright, Chester M. Dawes, and Homer T. Dick, all of Chicago, Edward M. Hyzer, of Glencoe, L. J. Hackney, of Cincinnati, Ohio, Gardiner Lathrop, Robert Dunlap, and Blewett Lee, all of Chicago, J. L. Minnis, of St. Louis, Mo., S. H. Strawn, of Chicago, Edward Barton, of Cincinnati, Ohio, Clarence Brown, of Toledo, Ohio, N. S. Brown, of St. Louis, Mo., H. W. Bremner, George W. Burton, of Peoria, E. A. Smith and William W. Collin, Jr., of counsel), for appellants.

P. J. Lucey, Atty. Gen., and George M. Morgan, of Springfield (A. D. Stevens, of Springfield, and William Bach, of Bloomington, of counsel), for appellees.

CRAIG, C. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court of Sangamon county entered April 27, 1916, affirming an order made by the State Public Utilities Commission on October 8, 1914, disapproving a proposed increase of rates by appellants on intrastate shipments of grain and grain products in the state of Illinois.

Appellants and other railroad companies filed with both the Interstate Commerce Commission and with the Railroad and Warehouse Commission of Illinois, on different dates during February, 1913, and prior thereto, and prior to 30 days before March 15, 1913, numerous schedules and tariffs of grain rates, advancing said rates over those before that time charged from one-half cent to 1 1/2 cents per 100 pounds, being an average, approximately, of one cent per 100 pounds. These rates were, first, interstate from stations in Illinois and some points in Indiana near the Illinois-Indiana state line to the east and to the south, namely, New York City, Buffalo, New York, Evansville, Indiana, Louisville, Kentucky, Memphis, Tennessee, New Orleans, Louisiana, and other markets and points; second, interstate from certain producing points in Indiana to Chicago; and, third, intrastate from producing points in Illinois to the four primary markets, Cairo, East St. Louis, Peoria, and Chicago. The said rates, both interstate and intrastate, are shown in the same tariffs and schedules, no separate tariffs having been made and published for interstate and intrastate rates, and were filed with the Railroad and Warehouse Commission more than ten months before the taking effect on January 1, 1914, of the act entitled ‘An act to provide for the regulation of public utilities,’ approved June 30, 1913. This proceeding was commenced by petition filed by the Farmers' Illinois Grain Dealers' Association, the Illinois State Grange, the Peoria Board of Trade, the Cairo Board of Trade, the Merchants' Exchange of St. Louis, and the Springfield Chamber of Commerce before the Railroad and Warehouse Commission, objecting to and protesting against the advance made by the various tariffs filed by Illinois carriers, the appellants here, with the Railroad and Warehouse Commission, which were to become effective March 15, 1913. In 1906 the Illinois Railroad and Warehouse Commission, after an exhaustive examination into the subject of rates and tariffs and many hearings of the parties interested, had fixed maximum rates and charges for the transportation of grain within the state, commonly known as the Illinois schedule or the Illinois distance tariff. The petitions protesting against the advance in rates filed with the Railroad and Warehouse Commission came on for hearing on March 6, 1913, at which date the Railroad and Warehouse Commission entered an order suspending the proposed tariffs and rates, and postponing their effective date until May 1, 1913, or until the further order of said commission. Further orders were entered by the Railroad and Warehouse Commission from time to time suspending the said tariffs, and they were finally suspended until January 8, 1914. On January 1, 1914, the statute creating the State Public Utilities Commission went into effect according to section 86 of the act (Laws 1913, p. 460), and the Public Utilities Commission succeeded the Railroad and Warehouse Commission. On January 6, 1914, the Public Utilities Commission entered the following order:

‘The tariffs of carriers carrying the increased rate complained of were suspended until the date January 8, 1914, and by direction of the State Public Utilities Commission of Illinois the secretary was directed to invite all the parties interested to appear before them on the date Thursday, January 6, 1914, at their offices in Springfield, and all the parties having due notice, the case being on the docket of the commission, both parties to the matter in controversy being present, after hearing orally the statement of both sides, it is hereby ordered that said suspension order be continued in effect until the date Monday, February 23, 1914, and that the hearing on the merits of this case be set for the date of Thursday, February 3, 1914, at the offices of the commission in Springfield.’

Thereafter a hearing was had before the commission on different dates, at which numerous witnesses were examined and exhibits offered in evidence. The final order and decision of the Public Utilities Commission was entered October 8, 1914, and it was ordered that the proposed increase of rates on intrastate shipments of grain and grain products in the state of Illinois be disapproved. Notices of appeal of the various railroad companies interested were filed and the cause was appealed to the circuit court of Sangamon county, where it was argued and taken under advisement, and on April 27, 1916, that court entered its order affirming the order of the Public Utilities Commission. The railroad companies prayed and were allowed an appeal to this court.

As before stated, at the time the proposed tariffs and schedules of rates were filed with the Railroad and Warehouse Commission of Illinois the same tariffs were filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission, and were protestedby the same protestants. The Interstate Commerce Commission entered a temporary suspension order and set the cause for hearing, and the cause was heard by it prior to the hearing before the Public Utilities Commission. The Interstate Commerce Commission by its report and order of December 8, 1913, in Grain Rates in Central Freight Association Territory, 28 I. C. C. 549, approved certain advanced interstate rates, and held that the carriers' proposed general increase in grain rates from Illinois points to markets outside the state were justified, and the advanced interstate rates have since January 8, 1914, been in full force and effect.

It is claimed on behalf of the railroad companies, appellants in this proceeding, and was claimed before the Railroad and Warehouse Commission, that if the Interstate Commerce Commission permitted the proposed rates to become effective, such action should have a material bearing on the action of the Railroad and Warehouse Commission, which was superseded by the Public Utilities Commission. It was also contended by the carriers that as the rates carried by the tariffs do not exceed the maximum schedule of rates in force in Illinois as provided by the order of the Railroad and Warehouse Commission in 1906, said rates became effective when made and filed by them pursuant to the provisions of the Railroad and Warehouse Act then in force, and that said rates being lower than said maximum schedules fixed by the order of 1906 of the Railroad and Warehouse Commission, the burden of showing that said proposed rates were unreasonably high was on the protestants. The Illinois maximum schedule of rates was offered in evidence and treated by the commission and the parties as being in force in accordance with the provisions of the Public Utilities Act, which provides in section 82:

‘All findings, orders, decisions, rules and regulations issued or promulgated by the board of Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners under the acts established or conferring power on said board, shall continue in force and have the same effect as though this act had not been passed; and the State Public Utilities Commission hereby created is empowered to enforce said findings, orders, decisions, rules and regulations in the same manner and under the same conditions as though said findings, orders, decisions, rules and regulations had been made, issued or promulgated by the State Public Utilities Commission.’ Laws 1913, p. 502.

Evidence was offered by appellants tending to show that the proposed rates and tariffs under protest were reasonable. This evidence consisted of the testimony of rate and tariff experts, to the effect that the rates charged by the carriers before the proposed advance were too low, and that the rates proposed were reasonable. In their testimony they compared the grain rates in Illinois and the grain rates in similar territory in other states. They also testified to the increased cost of materials entering into railroad construction and operation; the increased wages paid to railroad employés; the increased cost of operation; the general financial situation affecting the solvency...