# Appellants Brief — Robertson v. Railroad Labor Bd. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386006_0289%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appellants Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1925 - **Citation:** 268 U.S. 619 ## Text CONTENTS. PAGE tenet OF Tacha. 656655 ciciion sy ee conte ehe da% 1 Questions of Jurisdiction Certified by the District MG Chel iareds Scie ware bag OS 2 Argument: PART ONE. The District Court Erred in Denying Appellant’s Motion to Quash the Service of Summons. I. Under common law principles the District Court had no authority to send its process out- side the Northern District of Illinois; the Ju- dicial Code, Section 51, prohibits it from enter- taining jurisdiction of a civil suit against an inhabitant of the Northern-District of Ohio... 4 Summary of opposing contentions........ , 5 The jurisdiction of a court is available only within the territorial limitations of the dis- trict for which it is created.............. 7 II. Congress, by Section 310 of the Transporta- tion Act, did not exercise its admitted power of granting extra-territorial authority to the Dis- SE CE akin co a0, pane ance cgraneeennees 17 Admittedly, Congress has the power to ex- tend the process of the District Courts be- yond their territorial boundaries.......... 17 ii PAGE This Court has never lightly imputed to Congress an intention of discarding com- mon law principles or a long established statutory policy. It has always demanded that the statute relied upon demonstrate such an intention in unmistakable and ex- plicit language .............22ceeseeeeeee 18 To sustain appellee’s interpretation of the statutory language here in issue it is neces- sary to make judicial amendments to a num- ee S| SR enn eine aer ar 21 This court has decided that ‘‘any court”’ used in a statute necessarily means ‘‘any court of competent jurisdiction’’.......... 25 Other courts have reached the same conclu- sion as to the statutory meaning of ‘‘any ee iia we ata’ 32 III. The fundamental principles of statutory con- struction are opposed to the interpretation of Section 310 urged by the appellee............ 38 The words ‘‘any court’? having been ju- dicially defined to mean ‘‘any court of com- petent jurisdiction,’’ Congress used them in that sense in Section 310.............. 39 The authority of the Railroad Labor Board can be made effective without the extraordi- nary interpretation contended for by the | ORE eer gee aE nee Er were a 41 The Labor Board’s interpretation of Sec- tion 310 would result in unjustifiable incon- venience and expense to defendants. Such an interpretation will never be sustained whenever as here, the statutory language is susceptible of another equally obvious, but more reasonable interpretation ...... coven. ae iii PAGE When Congress has intended to extend the authority of a District Court outside its dis- trict or to alter the general venue provis- ions, it has always done so in explicit terms ; this is demonstrated by an examination of numerous Acts of Congress.............+-- 48 This court will avoid appellee’s construc- tion because of its effect on other Federal Cs Pere rere rl rere re eee eae 66 Summary and Conclusion of Part One............ 66 PART TWO. The District Court Erred in Denying Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition of the Railroad Labor Board. I. The Petition Prays for an Order to Compel Re- spondent (Appellant) to Appear and Testify before the Railroad Labor Board, which would Deprive Him of Liberty and Property Without Due Process of Law in Violation of the Fifth dena: bij. a). os oes ia sewers bee me oi ane es i 71 To compel testimony is to deprive the wit- ness of liberty and property. Such depri- vation to be constitutional must be justified by a corresponding public benefit......... 71 Because of the social interest in the admin- istration of justice, the compulsion of testi- mony in the determination or enforcement of legal rights involves no unconstitutional deprivation .......... 6 cece cece eee eee eee 72 This principle determines the limits of the duty to testify in the courts...........+..+-- 73 PAGE The duty to testify before legislative bodies is limited in accordance with similar prin- The Supreme Court has decided that admin- istrative bodies cannot compel testimony unless thereby legal rights are determined or enforced The Brimson Case so holds The Harriman Case so holds Federal Trade Commission Cases dis- Applying the foregoing principles and precedents, it is evident that for a court to compel the giving of testimony before the Railroad Labor Board would be unconsti- tutional Il. The Petition of the Railroad Labor Board Did not Invoke ‘‘Judicial Power’’ to Determine a ‘‘Case’’ or ‘‘Controversy’’ Within the Limita- tions of Article III of the Constitution The judicial power does not extend to pro- ceedings such as those before the Railroad Labor Board, in which no legal rights can be determined Congress cannot extend the judicial power to matters which are not subject to judicial Interstate Commerce Commission prece- dents have no application to the Railroad PAGE Ill. The Petition Calls upon the Court to Partici- pate in the Formulation of a Public Policy, Con- trary to Ancient Principles.................. 135 The function of the Railroad Labor Board is to formulate public opinion............ 135 The courts, from time immemorial, have re- fused to participate in any way in the politi- cal function of formulating public opinion.. 138 Ce, Br ao, Tes oe da vane os 6 oso baked ae 143 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. os Abbotsford v. Johnson, 98 U.S. 440............... 39 Acts of Congress: Act of September 24, 1789, c. 20,1 Stat. 79 (Ju- - GREE IED oa 6s ocen a bxKs 8, 10, 13, 18, 19, 34, 40 Act of March 2, 1793, c. 22, 1 Stat. 335; BR. S. 918 (Rule-making power of courts).......... 30 Act of March 2, 1793, ¢. 22, 1 Stat. 335; RB. S. 876 (Subpoenas for witnesses)............. 52 Act of March 3, 1797, ec. 20, 1 Stat. 515; RB. S. 986 (Writs of execution)...............06- 16, 53 Act of February 19, 1799, Secs. 1 and 2, 1 Stat. OF ASSET ee Rie es beta senda Cevtats 61n Act of March 3, 1799, Sec. 17, 1 Stat. 743, 748.. 61n Act of May 20, 1826, c. 124, 4 Stat. 184; R. S. 985 (Writs of Execution).................. Act of August 23, 1842; R. S. 917.............. 30 Act of March 3, 1849, 9 Stat. 410.............. 61n Act of March 3, 1851, ec. 43, 9 Stat. L. 635; R. S. 4283, 4284 (Limitation of Vessel-Owner Lia- MR DY. we ncbndabiend a Uwekwkes 20, 25, 27, 31, 39 Act of January 24, 1857, c. 19, 11 Stat. 155; R. 8. DOS. vas wbd beads cod bad GUAUL Geel budnkcewes 86 Act of May 4, 1858, Sees. 1 and 2, 11 Stat. 272.. 61n Act of June 30, 1864, c. 173, 13 Stat. 238; R. S. BEET cc chs anise oda cen bie Veeeaehess 20 Act of July 8, 1870, c. 230, 16 Stat. 204; R. S. SG rai Ss BA Pee ie a i as ass 56 Act of May 21, 1872, c. 177, 17 Stat. 136; RB. S. ES Paes ANW Ss Voie cu ke dass eek 32, 34, 35 Act of June 1, 1872, c. 255, 17 Stat. 198; R. S. Be Shit ricki bathe keguen cca bnecacus $ou% 37 Act of March 3, 1873, 17 Stat. 508............ 54 Act of June 4, 1880, Sec. 2, 21 Stat. 155........ 62n Act of June 14, 1880, 21 Stat. 198............. 62n Act of June 26, 1884, c. 121, Sec. 18, 23 Stat. 57. 20 viii PAGE Act of August 2, 1886, c. 840, 24 Stat. 209 (Oleo- margarine Tax) .........-ssecessscsceeess Act of February 4, 1887, c. 104; 24 Stat. 379, as amended (Interstate Commerce Act) : Bevtion 13..0..5.065'.. 42, 62, 63, 64-91, 92, 94, 101 Daria WE isis ei RO 89 Act of March 3, 1887, Sec. 2, 24 Stat. 488....... 106 Act of March 3, 1887, c. 373, Sec. 1, 24 Stat. 552 CPOE 8s oats che RG 14, 31, 34 Ba a. uly 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209 (Sherman TF PRS PTR re ag A rg Be 49 NE Dace a