State v. Public Service Commission

• Decision Date: 02 July 1914
• Docket Number: No. 18332.,18332.
• Citation: 168 S.W. 1156,259 Mo. 704
• Parties: STATE ex rel. MISSOURI SOUTHERN R. CO. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MISSOURI.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

168 S.W. 1156

259 Mo. 704

STATE ex rel. MISSOURI SOUTHERN R. CO. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MISSOURI.

No. 18332.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

July 2, 1914.

1. CARRIERS (§ 12) — RATES AND CHARGES— POWERS OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

Public Utilities Act (Laws 1913, p. 583) § 47, providing that when the Public Service Commission shall be of the opinion that the rates, fares, etc., charged by any common carrier are unjust, unreasonable, etc., or in violation of any provision of law, or that the maximum rates and fares chargeable by any such carrier are insufficient to yield reasonable compensation for the service rendered, and are unjust and unreasonable, it shall, with due regard to a reasonable average return upon the value of the property used in the public service and the necessity of making reservation out of the income for surplus and contingencies, determine the just and reasonable rates and fares to be thereafter observed and enforced as the maximum to be charged, notwithstanding that a higher rate or fare has been theretofore authorized by statute, construed in connection with other statutes bearing on the subject and with the other provisions of that act, and especially section 127, requiring that act to be liberally construed with a view to public welfare, efficient facilities, and substantial justice between patrons and public utilities, and section 60, authorizing the commission to ascertain the value of the property of any railroad corporation and every fact having a bearing on such value and providing for the receipt of its findings

as to value in evidence in any proceeding to which the state, county, etc., and the carrier are interested, empowers the commission to authorize a carrier, where the maximum rates prescribed by statute (Rev. St. 1909, § 3231 et seq.) do not produce a reasonable return on the value of the carrier's property, to charge greater rates and fares than the maximum rates so prescribed.

2. STATUTES (§ 176)—CONSTRUCTION—DUTY OF COURT.

An intricate statute like the public utilities act (Laws 1913, p. 557), evidencing such a departure from prior statutes in the matter of dealing with common carriers and public utilities, should be construed with caution, and no question should be decided except such as is necessary to a determination of the questions in the concrete case.

3. EVIDENCE (§ 11)—JUDICIAL NOTICE—MATTERS OF CURRENT HISTORY.

In construing the public utilities act (Laws 1913, p. 557), it may be judicially noticed that when such act was passed the statutory maximum freight and passenger rates in this state were challenged in the federal courts as confiscatory and unconstitutional; that there existed grave doubts in the well-informed public mind as to the validity of such rates; that it was recognized that a mere legislative opinion on what a just rate should be was an uncertain and unscientific basis for a rate; and that a scientific plan of valuation of railroad property had come to be deemed an essential element in fixing railroad rates, these being facts of current history.

4. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (§§ 77, 79)—RATES AND CHARGES—POWERS OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

Under Const. art. 4, § 1, vesting the legislative power of the state in the General Assembly, and article 6, § 1, vesting the judicial power in the courts, the Public Service Commission can neither repeal a statute nor declare it unconstitutional.

In Banc. Original mandamus proceeding by the state, on relation of the Missouri Southern Railroad Company, against the Public Service Commission of the state of Missouri. Absolute writ issued.

Counsel for the petitioner cited the following authorities: Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. R. R. Com. of Ala. (C. C.) 161 Fed. 925; Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 28 Sup. Ct. 441, 52 L. Ed. 714, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 932, 14 Ann. Cas. 764; Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Tucker, 230 U. S. 340, 33 Sup. Ct. 961, 57 L. Ed. 1507; Ry. Co. v. Minn. 134 U. S. 418, 10 Sup. Ct. 462, 702, 33 L. Ed. 970; Interstate Commerce Commission v. U. S. ex rel. Humboldt Steamship Co., 224 U. S. 474, 32 Sup. Ct. 556, 56 L. Ed. 849; State ex rel. Bayha v. Philips, 97 Mo. 331-347, 10 S. W. 855, 3 L. R. A. 476; State ex rel. Union Electric Light & Power Co. v. Grimm, 220 Mo. 483, 119 S. W. 626; State ex rel. C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Smith, 172 Mo. 446-459, 72 S. W. 692; Knight v. Rawlings, 205 Mo. 412, 104 S. W. 38, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 212, 12 Ann. Cas. 325; State ex rel. v. Miles, 210 Mo. 127, 146, 109 S. W. 595; Skouten v. Wood, 57 Mo. 380; Skrainka v. Allen, 76 Mo. loc. cit. 389; Snyder v. Railroad, 86 Mo. 613; 2 Public Service Commission Rep., N. Y., 2d District, 78; People v. Public Serv. Com. of State of N. Y., 140 App. Div. 839, 125 N. Y. Supp. 1000; Henderson's Tobacco, 11 Wall. 657, 20 L. Ed. 235; Henrietta Mining, etc., Co. v. Gardner, 173 U. S. 123, 19 Sup. Ct. 327, 43 L. Ed. 637; Winsor Coal Co. v. C. & A. R. Co. (C. C.) 52 Fed. 716; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Jones, 149 Ill. 361, 37 N. E. 247, 24 L. R. A. 141, 41 Am. St. Rep. 278; Railroad Com. of Alabama et al. v. Central of Ga. R. R. Co., 170 Fed. 225, 95 C. C. A. 117; Gregg et al. v. Laird et al., 121 Md. 1, 87 Atl. 1111; Railroad Commission Cases, 116 U. S. 307, 331, 6 Sup. Ct. 334, 388, 1191, 29 L. Ed. 636; Dow v. Beidelman, 125 U. S. 680, 689, 8 Sup. Ct. 1028, 31 L. Ed. 841; Chicago, M. & St. Paul R. Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418, 458, 10 Sup. Ct. 462, 702, 33 L. Ed. 970; Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 154 U. S. 362, 399, 14 Sup. Ct. 1047, 38 L. Ed. 1014; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 18 Sup. Ct. 418, 42 L. Ed. 819; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Alabama (D. C.) 196 Fed. 800; Trustees of Saratoga Springs v. Saratoga Gas, E. L. & P. Co., 191 N. Y. 123, 83 N. E. 693, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 713; State ex rel. v. Mason, 153 Mo. 23, 54 S. W. 524; Kenefick v. City of St. Louis, 127 Mo. 1, 29 S. W. 838; People v. Bradley, 207 N. Y. 592, 101 N. E. 766; U. S. v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U. S. 366, 29 Sup. Ct. 527, 53 L. Ed. 836; Home Savings Bank v. Des Moines, 205 U. S. 511, 27 Sup. Ct. 571, 51 L. Ed. 901; In the Matter of the Complaint of the Business Men's Association of Ticonderoga against the Delaware & Hudson Co., Public Service Commission Reports, Second District of New York, vol. 2, p. 78; Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Smith, 128 U. S. 174, 179, 9 Sup. Ct. 47, 32 L. Ed. 377.

Counsel for respondent cited the following authorities: Laws of Missouri 1911, p. 162; Lewis' Sutherland Statutory Construction (2d Ed.) vol. 1, p. 465; McGrew v. Railroad, 177 Mo. loc. cit. 542, 76 S. W. 995; State ex rel. v. Walbridge, 119 Mo. 389, 24 S. W. 457, 41 Am. St. Rep. 663; Manker v. Faulhaber, 94 Mo. loc. cit. 439, 6 S. W. 372; Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Railroad Commission of Alabama (C. C.) 161 Fed. loc. cit. 985, 986; Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 12 Sup. Ct. 495, 36 L. Ed. 294; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Goodrich Transit Co., 224 U. S. 194, 32 Sup. Ct. 436, 56 L. Ed. 729; St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Co. v. Gill, 156 U. S. 663, 15 Sup. Ct. 484, 39 L. Ed. 567; Reagan v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 154 U. S. 362, 14 Sup. Ct. 1047, 38 L. Ed. 1014; In the Matter of the Complaint of the Business Men's Association of Ticonderoga v. Delaware &amp Hudson Co., P. S. C. N. Y. Rep., Second District, vol. 2, p. 78; In the Matter of the Complaint of the Mayor of the City of Schenectady v. Schenectady Railway Co., vol. 2, N. Y. P. S. C. Report, Second District, p. 673; State ex rel. Missouri & North Arkansas Railway Co. v. Johnston, 234 Mo. loc. cit. 350, 137 S. W. 595; People v. Leedy, 53 Colo. 109, 123 Pac. loc. cit. 825.

J. B. Daniel, of Piedmont (E. A. Rozier, of Farmington, O. L. Cravens, of Neosho, R. A. Hope, Thomas R. Morrow, of Kansas City, S. H. West, of St. Louis, S. W. Moore, of Kansas City, O. M. Spencer, of St. Joseph, J. M. Bryson, J. W. Jamison, W. F. Evans, and J. L. Minnis, all of St. Louis, R. A. Brown, of St. Joseph, and Lon O. Hocker, Martin L. Clardy, and T. L. Philips, all of St. Louis, of counsel), for petitioner. Thomas R. Morrow, of Kansas City, amicus curiæ. E. J. Bean, of Jefferson City, for respondent.

LAMM, C. J.

Relator is a domestic corporation owning and operating, as a common carrier of freight and passengers, a railroad of 54 miles in this state, beginning at the town of Leeper, in Wayne county, and running thence northwestwardly through parts of Wayne and Reynolds, ending at the town of Bunker, in the latter.

In July, 1913, relator, as petitioner, made to and filed a complaint with the Public Service Commission. That complaint was under the public utilities act. Laws 1913, pp. 557-651, inclusive. In substance, it set forth relator's domestic incorporation as a railroad company, its ownership and operation of a railroad wholly within the state and more than 45 miles in length; that it was engaged in the business of transporting freight and passengers as a common carrier for hire; that under authorized rates prior to 1905 its earnings for such service produced a sum barely sufficient to meet the cost and expenses of the service, thereby resulting in an inability to create any reserve therefrom for surplus or contingencies, and an impossibility of making a reasonable return on the value of the property actually used in the service; that the rates designated by the act of 1907 for freight and the maximum of two cents per mile for passengers would be insufficient to yield any compensation therefor, and would be unreasonable, unjust, and confiscatory; that it was entitled by law to a reasonable average return on the value of the property actually used in its public service, and further entitled to a reservation from its income of a sum sufficient to keep its property in a fair state of repair, and also sufficient for surplus and contingencies; that its road lies in a rough country, has sharp curves and heavy grades, and that the population served by it is limited and scattered; that...