# Plantiffs Brief — CHICAGO & C. RY. CO. v. Pub. Utilities Comm. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386003_0246%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Plantiffs Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1917 - **Citation:** 242 U.S. 333 ## Text FiILHD OCT 30 1916 JAMES D. MAHER Cle fe} IN THE Supreme Court of the United States Ocvoper Term, A. D. 1915. No. ha 148 CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, vs. STATE PUBLIC UTILITLES COMMISSION OF ILLINOIS, Defendant wm Error. IN ERROK TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, BRIEF AND ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF IN ERROR. Burron Hanson, O. W. Dynes, Attorneys for Plaintiff in Error. GUNTHORP. WARREN PRINTING COMPANY, CHICAGO, SUBJECT INDEX. Argument . . - ceeeees steerer seeeeeeaee hia Nik selek hele hues he Rew Brief of ATEUMENE . . Leese eee eee eee eect ee teen eee ence eee eeecees 11 Burden of proof... ..---++++- pee wale Nowab Maine wea sinisine oe csrece's 21 Conflict of state authority with interstate authority in regulation of rate in Question . . 2... cee ese e cece cece eee n cece eee eneereneees 22-30 Diagram illustrating rate relationships...........-.-.+e++eeeeeeees 4 Discrimination against interstate commerce..............+-..eee0- 31 Discrimination against persons and localities.................064- 36 Effect of complying with order.............. sc cee cece eee e eee eeee 34 Brrovs relied UPOD.....ccccccecsccsccccccccsccccccces eee 7-10 Failure of proof to justify order of reduction in rate............... 35-36 Interstate Commerce Commission's decision cited and quoted from.. 23 Interstate Commerce Commission passed on record contained in this MELLO OE RE OR COL EEE CC OT ee CO ET ee 4-5 Local and proportional rates involved in the through rate.......... 3 Seiiien CITE GI ik kh nok acca cased dcisnwcese seuns 36 Means of remedy exhausted in state tribunals....................- 20 Northern Pacific versus State of Washington Case a precedent...... 27-28 Order appealed from in contravention of Section 15 of Act to Reg- Be COUIIE os, Lanes HOERN daca hire cee Onceee Kev nwen eben 38 Oiies Carriers mot Giected Me GRU eo. ines ic ccicicdsnes keneedecewicws 2 Preferential advantages to Illinois coal producers.................. 36 Present rate one hundred per cent. higher than rate ordered........ 4 Relationship of intrastate and interstate rates illustrated.......... 4 Section 13 of the Act to Regulate Commerce contravened........... 37 Section 6 of Act to Regulate Commerce contravene! by order........ 39 Peete ENE oi. & conpicdanas cde ese emkwos kucasaNalKaeaems 41 Specification of errors relied upon.............ceceeeeeee peomucek 7-10 State Public Utilities Commission of Illinois, successor of Railroad & Warehouse Commission of the State of Ilinois................ 2 ND RII I a 06h 3 Nag os bh Wace a Sea etaeeh oh: c RRS 1 Violation of Section 3 of Act to Regulate Commerce............... 36 When this court will review findings of facts..................205- 26 Last oF AUTHORITIES CITED. tees Cee ececone ©0960 4.09 bees Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Hefley, 158 U. S., 98, 103, 104 12 nL Ws SOE, Oe I. 05,5 BOO BOB ais. 0'5.0 0 bens codie ovo ¥55.66560% veedeny 19 Houston East & West Texas Ry. Co. v. U. S. and Texas Pacific Ry. Co. v. U. S., 234 U. S., 342, 350, 351, 354, 355, 358..............., SR MieaNse Reh WOE Nb bS OS'S WSs MG Rates 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 29, 30, 38, 39, 41 Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Behrens, 233 U. S., 478..............., lq PE SE SUNG 3 15 5s 69 a das Pee ho Sw she EN Cade he's oko cnS ee lv Interstate Commerce Commission vy. I. C. R. R. Co., 215 U. S., 452.. 26 Interstate Commerce Commission v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 227 U. S., 88, EE Oe NS COL EOE EE EES TY TORE Pe ny ee 20, 35 Kansas City Southern Ry. v. Albers Commission Co., 223 U. S., 573, PC iiacs Shaws ke eA Wa biW OR RaOg Se ecuay eases sebbounabas en ucuaee 19, 26 Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Eubank, 184 U. S., 27.......... 13, 19 pepe @: Sb; RP BOP UW Bi, GAB is ini aviviie secs ccdbecesciacanes 19 Minnesota Rate Cases, 230 U. S., 352, 399, 400, 401.......... 12, 13, 18, 41 Mississippi R. R. Commission v. I. C. R. R. Co., 203 U. S., 385...... 19 ' Mondou v. N. Y. N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 223 U. S., 1, 47, 54, 55........ 2 Northern Pacific Ry. v. North Dakota, 236 U. S., 585, 593.......... 19, 26 Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Washington, 222 U. S., 370, 378...... 11, 12, 27 Poehlmann Bros. Company v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 30 1. 0. C, 89, 92. FS ee Pe Te rere eee 5, 11, 12, 21, 22, 23, 27, 29, 30, 35 Railroad Chaatndee of Ohio v. Worthington, 225 U. S., 101....... , xs iii gecond gmployers’ Liability Cases, 223 U. S., 1, 47, 48, 51, 58, 54...18,17 shreveport Case, 234 U. S., $42....- 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 29, 30, 33, 39, 41 th v. Alabama, 124 U. S., 465, ES cuhnvesad cxveseasen seer rene 13 gouther® Pacific Co. V- 1.6. C., 219 U. 8., MBB. cin cccccccsncasonsss® 36 gouthern Ry. Co. v. U. S., 222 VU. &., 20, 26, 2T.--eeeecccrncrerrrre® 17 gouthern Ry. Co. v- Reid, 09D U. S., 424, 486. --eeeeeecrererentr ets 12 southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Company V. Danaher, 238 U. S., cg one” SaaS 18 st. Louis gs, W. Ry. ©. ¥- Arkansas, 217 U. @., IDB... csccccccrerors 18 mexas & N. oO. R. R. v. Sabine Tram Co., 227 U. S., AS acca tenes e% 18 Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. U. 8. 284 U. S., 342, BB1..--+--eeee°"* Teh Fe ok sqanowancnnnks nae tae 15, 16, 17, 18, 29, 30, 33, 39, 41 Wabash Ry. Co. V sien: 4 TH, OOF, WF. «wo s0r esas ere nee” 19 Welton V. Missouri, 91 U. S., BE GOD, snevcnesnseseessesesersene*” 12 Wood v. Chesborough, 228 Ty. B., GIB, CUB. 200000 rscerccersrereee* 19, 26 Yazoo & Miss. Valley R. Co. v. Greenwood Grocery Co., 227 U. S., 2 3 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States Ocroser Term, A. D. 1915. No. 495 CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, vs. STATE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF ILLINOIS, Defendant in Error. IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, BRIEF AND ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF PLAIN- TIFF IN ERROR. STATEMENT OF THE CASE. May IT PLEASE THE CouRT: On complaint of Poehlmann Bros. Company the IIli- nois Railroad and Warehouse Commission, through the 7 2 order complained of, reduced by 50 per cent, a factor of a through rate common to interstate and intrastate traf. fic on a record which was passed upon by the Interstate Commerce Commission and held insufficient to warrant any reduction in that factor. On appeal the Supreme Court of Illinois sustained and affirmed the order of the Illinois Commission. The case is brought to this court on writ of error. The order appealed from relates to transportation charges on coal and on manure consumed in connection with the production of flowers at the plant of Poehlmann Bros. Company, Morton Grove, Illinois. The portion of the order relating to charges on manure does not involve interstate traffic and is not before this court. Several carriers were joined with plaintiff in error as defend- ants in the proceeding before the Railroad and Ware. house Commission ( Trans., 2; Rec., 6), but the order wag entered against the plaintiff in error alone. (Trans., 12; Rec., 35.) Since the order was entered the Railroad and Warehouse Commission of the State of Illinois has been superseded by the State Public Utilities Commission of Illinois. (Trans., 20; Ree., 92.) The rate ordered reduced applies to that portion of through hauls which lies between Chicago, Illinois, and Morton Grove, Illinois, for which transportation the plaintiff in error makes a charge of forty cents per ton on carload shipments of coal which are moved as far as Chicago on proportional rates applicable from points of origin in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and certain other States. The Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company has its eastern terminus at Chicago. It, therefore, does not reach the coal fields to the east and south of that CRIES PETE A pray terminus from which Chicago and its environs obtain coal. Morton Grove is a suburban town northwest of Chicago, where Poehlmann Bros. Company operates ex- tensive greenhouses that are heated by coal. 3 Quite a large number of railroads carry coal from southern points in Illinois and Indiana to Chicago. Also from points farther east, in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Those roads publish two kinds of rates, namely: (a) F THE ORDER APPEALED FROM, IF COMPLIED WITH, WOULD CAUSE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PERSONS AND LOCALITIES IN VIO0- LATION OF SECTION 3 OF THE ACT TO REGULATE COMMERCE, Section 3 of the Act to Regulate Commerce contains the following provision: ‘‘That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particular description of traffic, in any respect whatsoever, or to subject any particu- lar person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particular description of traffic, to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any re spect whatsoever.’’ —— 37 It is obvious that charging twenty cents for hauling the intrastate coal from Chicago to Morton Grove and charg- ing one hundred per cent. more for the same service on interstate coal, would violate the foregoing provision of Section 3, since it would necessarily give substantial ad- vantage to coal producing localities in Illinois over coal producing localities across the state line in Indiana. Moreover, the persons, companies, firms and corporations engaged in the producing and merchandising of coal on the west side of the Illinois-Indiana state line would have an advantage over those on the east side of that line. The tendency of this advantage would be to build up the lo- ealities and industries in Illinois, that have to do with the producing and merchandising of coal, and retard the growth and development of those to the east of the state line. V. THE ORDER APPEALED FROM IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF SEC- TIoN 13 OF THE ACT TO REGULATE COMMERCE. It is, of course, conceded that a State Commission may have the right, and even the duty, to guard state interests where intrastate and interstate commerce are commingled and interdependent, as in the case at bar. That such interests represented by a State Commis- sion may be preserved and complaints involving same may be orderly disposed of without a conflict between State and Federal authority, Congress has provided, in Section 13 of the Act to Regulate Commerce, as follows: ‘‘Said Commission (the Interstate Commerce Commission) shall, in like manner and with the same authority and powers, investigate any com- plaint forwarded by the Railroad Commissioner or Railroad Commission of any state or territory at the request of such Commissioner or Commission.”’ In the case at bar the Illinois Commission did jot | see fit to avail itself of the means thus provided of pro. curing a harmonious adjustment of the questions jp. volving commingled and interdependent state and inter. state commerce. On the contrary, the Illinois Com. mission, disregarding the foregoing provision, and dig. regarding the fact that the Interstate Commerce (Com. mission had already assumed jurisdiction of these queg. tions, entered upon an individual investigation of its own which has resulted in an opinion by that Commis. sion directly in conflict with the opinion of the Inter. state Commerce Commission. We submit this action of the Illinois Commission jg in contravention of Section 13 of the Act to Regulate Commerce. VI. THE ORDER APPEALED FROM IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF SEC- TION 15 OF THE ACT TO REGULATE COMMERCE, Congress, by Section 15 of the Act to Regulate Com. merce, specifically delegated to the Interstate Commerca Commission jurisdiction over joint through rates and authority ‘‘to determine and prescribe what will be the just and reasonable individual or joint rate or rates, charge or charges, to be thereafter observed in such case as the maximum to be charged, and what individual or joint classification, regulation, or practice is just, fair and reasonable to be thereafter followed.”’ The Interstate Commerce Commission, in the case at bar, determined that the practice to be followed in respect of the joint rate in question should be that of regulating the through rate as a whole; that it was not proper to regulate one factor only of this joint rate, 39 and that the charge complained of was not shown to be unreasonable. We submit the Illinois Commission’s opinion and or- der contravene Section 15 of the Act to Regulate Com- merce to the extent that the Illinois Commission has thereby arrogated to itself jurisdiction to regulate a joint through rate which involves commingled and interde- ndent interstate and intrastate shipments. The order of the State Commission does not follow or conform to the finding of the Interstate Commerce Commie*'on but directly conflicts and interferes with that finding. This court, in Houston é Texas Ry. v. U. S., 934 U. S., 342, 354, said: “The power to deal with the relation between two kinds of rates, aS a relation, lies exclusively with Congress. It is manifest that the State cannot the relation of the carrier’s interstate and intra- state charges without directly interfering with the former, unless it simply follows the standard set by Federal authority.”’ VIL. THE ORDER APPEALED FROM IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 6 OF THE ACT TO REGULATE COMMERCE. Section 6 of the Act to Regulate Commerce reads in ‘part as follows: ‘‘Nor shall any carrier charge or demand or col- lect or receive a greater or less or different com- pensation for such transportation of passengers or property or for any service in connection therewith between points named in such tariffs than the rates, fares and charges which are specified in the tariff filed and in effect at the time.’’ The published tariff of plaintiff in error, lawfully in effect, prescribes a rate of forty cents per ton as its charge for transporting coal from Chicago to Morton 40 Grove. The Illinois Commission, by the order appealeg from, requires the plaintiff in error to accept the legg rate of twenty cents per ton for that service whenever the coal originates at points in Illinois. The Interstate Commerce Commission has expressly held that this factor of transportation is an inseparable part of the through haul and has held in substance that on account of its relation to various rates, including, of course, the interstate rates and intrastate rates of which it forms an unvarying factor, the charge should remain relatively constant or unvarying. It may not, under the Interstate Commerce Commission’s rule, be less when in combination with one set of rates than when in combina- tion with another set of rates. It is in this connection that most clearly is revealed the wisdom of giving to the Interstate Commerce Commission exclusive authority over rates that are partly interstate and partly intra- state in their character. The Interstate Commerce Commission, having taken this jurisdiction, the carrier can no longer say that on transportation that originates in Illinois a lower and different rate will be charged than is published in its interstate tariffs to be applied on interstate and com- mingled interstate and intrastate traffic. Plaintiff in er- ror will have to do this, however, if it complies with the order appealed from. We submit the order of the Illinois Commission is thus shown to be in contravention of Section 6 of the Act to Regulate Commerce. SUES RECO LNE RN TONE — — 41 VIIl. THE SHREVEPORT PRINCIPLE. We present to this court a question of unusual gravity and importance that has arisen under the Act to Regu- late Commerce as amended. The question is somewhat analogous to the central questions involved in the Minne- sota Rate Case, 930 U. S., 352, and in the so-called Shreveport Case, T. & P. Ry. Co. v. U. S., 234 U. S., 342. This court is asked to say whether the general prin- ciple of law declared in the Shreveport Case should control in cases involving facts and conditions such as are presented by this record. The amendment to the Act to Regulate Commerce, un- der which the central question here presented has arisen, is relatively new. Sufficient time has not elapsed since its adoption to bring before this court many of the academic questions of broad and general application that must, in the course of time, be finally dealt with here. This court has not yet declared whether a common car- rier, subject to the Act to Regulate Commerce, must sub- mit to having its rates and earnings reduced by state au- thority for a service applicable alike to interstate and intrastate transportation when the Interstate Commerce Commission has already passed on the same state of facts sn the same record and held the facts insufficient to sup- port an order reducing the rates. This court has not yet said whether, under the condi- tions referred to in the preceding paragraph, the carrier ean be forced by the action of a State Commission to re- duce its charges for interstate carriage that the Inter- Bee ee ee 55 OLAS OE OMI RNID Bu TRAIT IA SIR TENAP OM Wea 42 state Commerce Commission has held not to have heen shown unreasonable or to be forced to the alternative of charging 100 per cent. more to the interstate shipper than the State Commission allows it to charge the intrastate shipper for that part of the service that is common to both. This court has not yet said that the action of the Ip. terstate Commerce Commission must be regarded as eon. clusive and preclude contrary action by a State Commis. sion when the former holds that a through rate, one fac. tor of which is common to interstate as well as intrastate traffic, must be regulated as a whole instead of merely by regulating the one factor thereof which is common to in- terstate and intrastate traffic. These are all questions entailing the construction of the Federal Act to Regulate Commerce that can only be finally determined by this court. Plaintiff in error contends that the principle of the so-called Shreveport Case governs and that a just dispo- sition of this case requires the application of that prin- ciple to the state of facts presep#ed by this record. — WwAubmitted Vp a ’ lx ba AL, EL... SY Attorneys for Plainifff in Error. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386003_0246%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.