State v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 March 1911
• Citation: 61 Fla. 799,54 So. 900
• Parties: STATE et rel. RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

54 So. 900

61 Fla. 799

STATE et rel. RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

March 16, 1911

Application by the State, on the relation of the Railroad Commissioners for a writ of mandamus to the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. Writ granted.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

The sufficiency of the return to an alternative writ of mandamus may be determined on a motion for a peremptory writ.

The Constitution and statutes of this state considered together contemplate that the initial discretion as to the operation of trains shall be in those charged with the management of the railroad operations, and that the exercise of such discretion shall be subject to lawful governmental regulation.

The difficulty of making a specific enumeration of all such powers as the Legislature may intend to confer upon Railroad Commissioners for the regulation of common carriers in the interest of the public welfare renders it necessary to confer some power in general terms; and general powers given are intended to confer other powers than those specifically enumerated.

Relief against an unreasonable and unjust order by the Railroad Commissioners that the running of a regular intrastate train carrying passengers shall not be discontinued may be had in due course of law; and an unlawful refusal or failure of a railroad company to comply with a valid requirement may be redressed in the manner provided by law.

Even if the information necessary to the determination of the question whether a train should be discontinued is not accessible to the Railroad Commissioners except through the railroad company, it does not relieve the commissioners of the duty to supervise and regulate the operation of trains nor does it deprive them of any authority they have to acquire the information in the way provided by law.

The duty imposed upon railroad companies to make written application to the Railroad Commissioners for their consent before discontinuing any regular intrastate train carrying passengers is not an unlawful burden upon or a regulation of interstate commerce.

Where it clearly appears from the pleadings that a regulation of the Railroad Commissioners is lawful and just, it is not necessary to take testimony upon the subject.

COUNSEL L. C. Massey, for relators.

W. E Kay, for respondent. A motion to quash the alternative writ herein having been overruled (State ex rel. v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co., 60 Fla. ----, 54 So. 384), the respondent filed the following return:

'Now comes the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, respondent in the above-entitled cause, and, answering the alternative writ of mandamus, for answer says:

'(1) Respondent admits that it is in possession and control of the lines of railroad mentioned in the first paragraph of the said alternative writ, and that it is operating the same as a common carrier of property and persons in this state.

'(2) It admits that it has operated since July 1, 1902, and is still operating, many regular intrastate passenger trains in Florida.

'(3) Answering the third paragraph of the alternative writ, it admits that the Railroad Commissioners of the state of Florida on December 3, 1908, after a hearing before them, prescribed rule 12 of 'the Rules Governing the Transportation of Passengers'; that this respondent was present at said hearing, and protested against the putting into effect of said rule. Respondent admits that it had due notice of the adoption of said rule, and that same should take effect January 1, 1909.

'(4) Answering the fourth paragraph of the alternative writ, respondent says that, without previously applying to the Railroad Commission for consent, it has discontinued since January 1, 1909, certain intrastate passenger trains in Florida, which trains were not passenger trains put on for special occasions, such as fairs, carnivals, conventions, excursions, and the like; but that respondent, further answering, says that, after the discontinuance of said trains, the Railroad Commission of this state gave their consent to and acquiesced in the withdrawal of said trains, thus conclusively demonstrating that in these cases the respondent, in the exercise of its initial discretion, committed no abuse of discretion, and, whenever this respondent has discontinued a train, such act has always met with the approval of the commission.

'(5) Respondent denies the power of the Railroad Commissioners to prescribe said rule 12, and denies that there has been any omission of duty on the part of this respondent as to the discontinuance of trains, and asserts that by section 2803 of the General Statutes of the state of Florida the question as to discontinuance of trains is within the discretion of this respondent.

'Further answering, respondent says that there is no power in relators to require this respondent to make application to the Railroad Commissioners of this state for their consent when respondent proposes to discontinue a train; that the part of rule 12 sought to be enforced by the alternative writ involves the details of management and the control of the business of this respondent, and is peculiarly within its discretion, for the reason that, when it is desired to discontinue a train, the officials of the company resort to the following sources of information, which are not accessible to the Railroad Commission, save and except as they may be furnished by this respondent upon making such application, should the commission have the determination of the question: Reports of conductors and superintendents as to the number of passengers carried for a given time by a given train between given points; reports of auditor of passenger receipts and conductors showing the amount of fare paid by each passenger so carried, and the total income in money from the operation of said trains during said period; expenses of operation, involving also the question of distribution of work among various train crews and the working agreements existing between respondent and the labor organizations to which members of train crews belong; distribution of work among employés so as to comply with the federal act relating to hours of service; proposed installation of other trains at different hours which will meet the reasonable requirements of the public convenience.

'Moreover while rule 12 under consideration does not undertake to apply to the through or intrastate trains operated by respondent, yet the conditions in Florida are such that many of the intrastate trains are put on and taken off with reference to the payment of the interstate tourist train service. Respondent necessarily must be in touch with, and fully advised of, the large and extraordinary volume of business which is handled into Florida on its interstate trains, and must, when the tourist travel is proceeding to such a point that the intrastate trains specially provided for this abnormal business are no longer needed and can no longer be operated except at a loss, fix its train movements, arrangements, and schedules, and change the same so as to provide and eliminate train service which in intrastate business can be justified only on account of...