State v. Public Service Commission of Missouri

• Decision Date: 24 March 1917
• Docket Number: No. 19643.,19643.
• Citation: 198 S.W. 872,270 Mo. 429
• Parties: STATE ex rel. UNITED RYS. CO. OF ST. LOUIS v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MISSOURI.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

198 S.W. 872

270 Mo. 429

STATE ex rel. UNITED RYS. CO. OF ST. LOUIS v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MISSOURI.

No. 19643.

Supreme Court of Missouri. In Banc.

March 24, 1917.

Concurring opinion. For majority opinion, see 192 S. W. 958.

WOODSON, J.

I fully concur in the opinion filed in this case, except as to that part of it which I understand holds that section 49 of the Public Service Commission Act (page 588, Laws 1913) empowers the commission to order the company to construct and operate new and additional main lines of street railroads, as distinguished from what are generally designated as switches, side tracks, cross-overs, and terminals, which are used in conjunction with main lines, to assist and facilitate the transportation of passengers over main lines the company has voluntarily constructed. Such side tracks, etc., are purely incidental to the operation of the main lines, and the commission has and should have full and ample power to compel their construction; but I do not believe the Legislature intended or has the constitutional authority to compel the company, in the absence of an agreement by charter, or otherwise, to go into new territory and construct new main lines and operate cars over them for the transportation of passengers. That would compel the company, against its will, to invest its means in the construction of lines and conduct a transportation business, perhaps at a dead loss from start to finish. I can conceive nothing which would be more hazardous to capital than that, or which would more completely deprive a person of his property without his consent or without due process of law.

I might be perfectly willing to construct a railroad from Jefferson City to Columbia, and operate cars over the same for the transportation of freight and passengers, but that is no reason why I should be compelled to extend the road north and west to the Iowa line for the same purposes; the former might be a good and paying investment, while the latter might be a bad investment and a dismal failure.

I know of no law or morals which require any one to invest his means in a new business enterprise; but where he owns a public franchise, of course he should be required to so use it as to yield the greatest good to the public, consistent with earning a reasonable remuneration on the investment.

For the reasons stated, I concur in the result.