State v. Public Service Commission

• Decision Date: 01 June 1917
• Docket Number: No. 19033.,19033.
• Citation: 271 Mo. 155,196 S.W. 369
• Parties: STATE ex rel. WABASH R. CO. et al. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

196 S.W. 369

271 Mo. 155

STATE ex rel. WABASH R. CO. et al. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION et al.

No. 19033.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

June 1, 1917.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Macon County; Nat M. Shelton, Judge.

Proceeding by the State, on the relation of the Wabash Railroad Company and others, against the Public Service Commission and others. From a judgment affirming an order of the commission requiring relators to construct a new passenger depot, relators appeal. Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

James L. Minnis and N. S. Brown, both of St. Louis, and Guthrie & Franklin, of Macon, for appellants. Wm. G. Busby, Gen. Counsel Public Service Commission, of Carrollton, Alex Z. Patterson, Asst. Counsel Public Service Commission, of Jefferson City, and Geo. N. Davis and D. L. Dempsey, both of Macon, for respondents.

BLAIR, J.

Relators appeal from a judgment of the Macon circuit court, affirming and holding reasonable and lawful an order of the Public Service Commission requiring relators to construct a new passenger depot at Macon, Mo.

The complaint before the commission was filed by the mayor of the city of Macon, and charged that the present Wabash depot at that city is inadequate for "the reasonable accommodation of the public at Macon," and that a new and larger depot was necessary for the adequate service of the community and for its security and convenience. The evidence offered pertained solely to the facilities available for passenger traffic. There was evidence tending strongly to show that the depot platform, in view of the manner of its use, is for a part of its length too narrow; that the men's waiting room is not large enough; the steps leading to the south end of the platform are improperly constructed and, owing to their not being covered, at times become coated with ice; that the steps at the north end are in need of repairs or reconstruction; that a water tank near the north end of the platform sometimes overflows and creates a muddy or icy condition which renders passage from the platform inconvenient and, to an extent, dangerous; that sufficient lights are not provided; that the toilets maintained are not sufficiently protected from freezing weather; that, owing to the smallness of the men's waiting room, it is difficult to keep the waiting rooms in sanitary condition. Other facts necessary to a decision are referred to in the opinion.

I. The first question is as to the weight due the findings of the commission. The Legislature has committed to the Public Service Commission duties of very great importance. The scope of its activities, the character of its powers, and the gravity of the questions it may determine, give to it an authority and a dignity which, in addition to the ability of its personnel, are to be carefully regarded when the reasonableness or lawfulness of one of its orders is drawn in question. We are, however, not left to infer our duty respecting the deference due its findings. Section 123 of the Act of 1913. Laws 1913, p. 647, expressly provides that:

All "rates, tolls, charges, schedules and joint rates fixed by the commission shall be in force and shall be prima facie lawful, and all regulations, practices and services prescribed by the commission shall be in force and shall be prima facie lawful and reasonable until found otherwise in a suit brought for that purpose pursuant to the provisions of this act."

Section 124, Laws 1913, p. 647, provides that:

"In all trials, actions, suits and proceedings arising under the provisions of this act or growing out of the exercise of the authority and powers granted herein to the commission, the burden of proof shall be upon the party adverse to such commission or seeking to set aside any determination, requirement, direction or order of said commission, to show by clear and satisfactory evidence that the determination, requirement, direction or order of the commission * * * is unreasonable or unlawful as the case may be."

That these provisions are valid cannot be successfully denied, and that they mean that the determination of a fact by the Public Service Commission cannot be overthrown by a court until he who assails it discharges the burden of proving its unlawfulness or unreasonableness by clear and satisfactory evidence is the only construction of which the unequivocal statutory language is susceptible. Such is the construction given similar language in other states in like circumstances. Hocking Valley Ry. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, 92 Ohio St. 9, 110 N. E. 521; State v. Great Northern Ry Co., 130 Minn. loc. cit. 59, 153 N. W 247; State ex rel. v. Fla. E. C. Ry. Co., 69 Fla. 165, 67 South. 906; State ex rel. Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Washington, 60 Wash. 218, 110 Pac. 1075; Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 171 Ind. 189, 86 N. E. 328; Settle v. Commission (Ohio) 114 N. E. 1036.

Further, no other position could be maintained. The commission's findings and acts are neither legislative nor judicial. It is an administrative body. It acts at the direction of the Legislature. The courts cannot constitutionally "usurp legislative or administrative functions by setting aside a legislative or administrative order on their own conception of its wisdom."

"The Legislature never intended that the court should put itself in the place of the commission, try the matter anew as an administrative body, substituting its findings for those of the commission. A statute which so provided would be unconstitutional as a delegation to the judiciary of nonjudicial powers." State v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 130 Minn. loc. cit. 59, 60, 153 N. W. 248; Hocking Valley Ry. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 92 Ohio St. 362, 110 N. E. 521.

The direction to the circuit court to try suits brought to review the orders and decisions of the commission "as suits in equity" (section 111, pp. 641, 642, Laws 1913) is necessarily qualified by the specific provisions referred to which prescribe the weight to be given such orders and decisions. The provision (section 114, p. 644, Laws 1913) that "appeals shall be prosecuted as appeals from judgment of the circuit court in civil cases except as otherwise provided in this act" refers rather to the mode of prosecuting the appeal than to the weight to be given the commission's findings. At all events, it does not conflict in any way with sections 123 and 124 of the act. These views are in conflict with Railroad v. Public Service Commission, 266 Mo. 333, 181 S. W. 61, and Lusk et al. v. Atkinson et al., 268 Mo. 109, 186 S. W. 703, in which decisions no reference was made to sections 122 and 123 of the act. In view of these facts, this case should be transferred to court in banc.

II. It may be conceded the Public Service Commission has power, in a proper case, to order the construction of a new depot. Section 49, p. 588, Laws 1913. The question in this case is whether the order made is reasonable and lawful. The evidence does not tend to prove any defect or inadequacy which cannot be corrected by repairs, improvements, and enlargement of the present depot. There is no evidence that it is physically impossible or even difficult to make the changes necessary to meet the objections made to the present structure. It does not appear that there is any legal obstacle to the changes proposed. There is no evidence tending to show that the company's right of way is too narrow to accommodate the improvements desired and necessary, or that the enlargement of the building and widening of the platform will in any way infringe upon any street or interfere with any other property. It conclusively appears that every objection made to the depot, except those to its age and appearance, can be met without erecting a new building in a new place. In these circumstances, it is necessary to hold that the order is unreasonable, since it is unsupported by any substantial evidence. A like situation arose in St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. State, 28 Okl. 372, 111 Pac. 396, 114 Pac. 1096, and a like conclusion was reached. In that case additional evidence was taken, and the order for the new building finally was sustained; but that evidence was such as to show that the repairs tendered could not actually and lawfully be made. Such evidence is not present in this record.

III. It is suggested that appellant made an offer to construct a new building of specified materials and design, and that this was accepted by the city and approved by the commission. The record does not support this contention. The plans submitted were tendered as those of the building appellant would be willing to construct at some time in the future when it deemed itself in a financial condition to erect a new building. This does not constitute an offer in the sense counsel use the term.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

BOND, P. J. (concurring).

The facts in judgment in this case are stated and disposed of in the prefatory paragraph and in the subsequent second and third paragraphs of the opinion of Judge BLAIR, which portions of the opinion also make a complete and correct disposition of the case, and also of all the points suggested in the printed briefs of counsel, which, as far as I am able to gather, do not present a hint of the contention discussed in paragraph 1 of the opinion. Indeed, is was to be hoped that this question was laid by the unanimous decision of the court in banc (Railroad v. Pub. Serv. Com., 266 Mo. loc. cit. 340, 341, et seq., 181 S. W. 61) covering the point suggested in that paragraph of the opinion and the reconsideration of that point in the same case (266 Mo. 346, 181 S. W. 64):

"It is urged that we were in error in holding that we would not be bound by the findings of fact made by the commission in this case. The original opinion holds these cases must be heard as cases in equity. From that opinion we do not desire to depart. The...