# United States Ex Rel. Attorney General of the United States v. Delaware & Hudson Co.

> Supreme Court of the United States · May 3, 1909 · 213 U.S. 366

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9418152

## Case

- **Full name:** The UNITED STATES Ex Rel. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES v. DELAWARE AND HUDSON COMPANY; SAME v. ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY; SAME v. CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY; SAME v. DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA AND WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY; SAME v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY; SAME v. LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY; THE UNITED STATES, APPELLANT, v. DELAWARE AND HUDSON COMPANY; SAME v. ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY; SAME v. CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY; SAME v. DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA AND WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY; SAME v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY; SAME v. LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** May 3, 1909
- **Citations:** 213 U.S. 366; 29 S. Ct. 527; 53 L. Ed. 836; 1909 U.S. LEXIS 1882
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Harlan
- **Judges:** White, Harlan
- **Cited by:** 478 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9418152

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that when "a statute is susceptible of two construc- tions, by one of which grave and doubtful constitutional questions arise and by the other of which such questions are avoided, our duty is to adopt the latter"
- holding that when “a statute is susceptible of two constructions, by one of which grave and doubtful constitutional questions arise and by the other of which such questions are avoided, our duty is to adopt the latter”
- explaining that constitutional avoidance canon applies only if “grave and doubtful constitutional questions arise” from a particular statutory construction
- stating that court should interpret statutes so as to avoid constitutional questions

## Opinion text

Mb. J üstíce Harlan,
dissenting.
As these cases have been determined wholly on the construction of those parts of the Hepburn Act which are here in ques *419 tion, and as Congress, if it sees fit, may meet that construction by additional legislation, I deem it unnecessary to enter upon an extended discussion of the various questions arising upon the record, and will content myself simply with an expression of my non-concurrence in the view taken by the court as to the meaning and scope of certain provisions of the act. In my judgment the act, reasonably and properly construed, according to its language, includes within its prohibitions a railroad company transporting coal, if, at the time, it is the owner, legally or equitably, of stock — certainly, if it owns a majority or all the stock — in the company which mined, manufactured or produced, and then owns, the coal which is being transported by such railroad company. Any other view of the act will enable the transporting railroad company, by one device or another, to defeat , altogether the purpose which Congress had in view, which was to divorce, in a real, substantial sense, production and transportation, and thereby to prevent the transporting company from doing injustice to other owners of coal.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9418152. Public record. Not legal advice.