Amicus Curiae Brief — Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission of State of California Los Angeles & S. L. R. Co. v. Same. Southern Pac. Co. v. Same

Supreme Court brief1931

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

’

. .

a ete eae ce

4 .

Ve gear en!

. ~

—-

Tae ATCHISON, TOPEKA. AND: ‘Sanna i Bauwar. Coury),

8 corporation, : Shee ( a & ;

pe A ‘Appellant, Nene

Py i aig No. 470

‘ “Rimzow Se THE ‘Seana or. Caos, et a \- \ ’

* we Ps Ree paisa My “ \

poe > Sa

Les ‘avoid & Sant axe Raxno49: Goneas,

18 +, Papeete i i 5

coo eae Ne Sn Se “depart,

yi Ve ‘ yi e : # rg ad j ¥ I: ¢. “

e _ Rain oui sf So Se)

beet G8 fe AM:

“SourtiEen Panna Site Rage, eoxpéation, aa Bs"

- SOUTHERN - Pacunig BaTLROAD cise a _gorporation, ey

ons Ps 2 er toe Appeliante,” CA

\ v8. : ; : ew fom . 2S 2, < ‘ mes ~ cc

—_

asi Cao emo Oe ws

ine Se - Appettees. J

<n . - _

a7 w ’ " . = i 7 ~ 4 & * a7

“— =~

~ fe

. te

eee

BRIEF oF. Amor CURIAE IN" BEALE OF

ee ie OF LOS. ¢ ANGELES: o,

oes

City: ‘aiiideay>

x City “ot Tos Angelos, SR Oe

- City - -Hall,, 5 es Angeles, %

Pe o

3 » aiuxoN Bruix, A >

* “Assistant: City. ‘Attorney, °

City of: Los~ Arigeles, vat

"City: ally’ Los’ deg Re

“ ~~

s ADT 7 “y091-”

® ,

7 : .

| ,

° .

CURIAE peal 1

| _BRIEF OF -AMICI. CURIAE..... 3

| D | OL Inmmopverioy, eS ay ae

a | A. Order of catitbenia | Railroad Commission. 4"

. B. Decision of ‘Supreme Court of California. ee

Il. STATEMENT OF THE Cask. Licence Pines | IBA?

A. Physical Facts. ic cee 10

1, Existing Passenger Depote: ee pte eS

a. Salt Lake -Passenger Depot. ae

ye b. Santa Fe Depot... — st 14

ce. Southern Pacific Depot. ae

ue 2. Alameda Street Situation... oa eee SE

és F B.. Historical Facts pRB lh 19,

1 "4, California Railroad Commission ‘s First Deeision ~ 19

. 2. California Supreme. Court’ s First Decision... 19 -

tae 8. Complaint of City of Ios Angeles before In- .. |

Begs, terstate Commerce, Commission. 7 bg

Ss: 4 United States Supreme Court's First Decision 20 |

5. I Interstate Cee Commission's First Deci-

= eee California Railroad Commission's | Secon De-

: _ \. . ¢ision . 22

ae - . \W. Intersta Commeree, Co on’s Second De-

Ja : \; cision " ami 23

; 8. ions of Supreme Court and ile - Ap-

e of District of Columbia... ment

: 9, Unite ‘States Supreme Court's Second. Desi

| ee = sion . . ) 25

eS 0 Onli Supreme Court’s Seaeiil Cecelia 25

xy ‘- Note: iading of es od Cerin,

me * Volume and Direction of P eager Traffic.” 26 |

2. Volume of ‘Union Depot Traffic. a cciiesinel 28

D. Financial Facts renee \ | 29

1. Gross and Net. Costs of Proposed ton Pas-

senger ‘Station

2. Interstate Commerce Commission’s ‘Finding as

to Financial Ability of Carriers ‘ 30

5 ¢@ ‘

E. Careers: Statement: of the .Case 31

“TL. Suwacany oF ARGUMENT seidlineensniietlan= \> 85

A. California Railroad ‘Commission had Jurisdiction \ ex

_ to make the Order-. ies: ‘38

1. Prior to Transportation Act, 1920, California \

'. Railroad Commission ae! had the jurisdic. —

<« _ tion ‘ 38

2. In enacting the Sestanialien At, 1920, Con-

_ gress did not infend to deprive and did not de-

. prive the states of jurisdiction to require the ep

construction and operation of union passenger

stations and the _ pecehanty’ ineidents; on new —

sites rennet 43

: a. Géneral TOE enioninkitctingy ; 43.

b. Intention of Congréss as to ‘union’ passenger

stations eee

3. The Railroad Coainaticion' 8 ondet does not con-

_” travene the Commerce Clause of the ‘Federal

Constitution or any provision of the Interstate

Commerce Act . 51

-a, Analysis of Railroad Commission’s order... 52.

- b.'Ths: California Railroad Commission has —

.- not invaded a field occupied by Congress... eee

qa) ‘Union. station 53. .

@) Essential incidents of a union a tiation SS A

x ; Rey ta ~

‘ 2. The certificates are valid.

to the Federal itution.

—

: &. _ This is not # ease of one commission’ giving

*’ effect to the orders of another commission -

or of divided authority in the same juris-

diction : :

Interstate’ Commerce Commission’ s Certificates

are Vea

1. The certificates. Aacribed ee

3. The validity of the certificates can not be at-

tacked collaterally

does not deprive any Carrier

‘e

2 £28

, California ‘ Railroad Cosamission’ 8 Order is Just

of any Right under the Fourteenth Amendment:

1. Under the. police wer public euthority may

“been conferred and, on\ the facts, wack order

would be reasonable

a. Union passenger station decisions’ ‘of state

courts

-b. Decisions of Supreme Court of United

- States _ &

2. The authorities on which the carriers: rely” are

not in point. ‘ah

3. The ‘sarriars are in error-in urging that the

ie a

: Railroad Commission’s order requires the joint |

use of any. of their property without compen-

sation - first paid saat

4. There is no foundation for the contention ~

the carriers that the Railroad Commission act-

107.

ed under the guise of exercising power over

-pailroad grade crossings.

ea The contentions of the carriers (a) that the

Southern Pacific is being directed to take ac-

~~’

—— ee 7

110

=... INDEX ne

“t

tion for the purpose of providing the Santa Fe

and the Salt Lake with adequate passenger

‘depots and (b) that the Santa Fe and the Salt

Lake are being directed. to take action for the —

purpose of eliminating the Southern Pacifie’s © + _

grade crossings on Alameda Street are contrary

to the facts and without any merit... 114

a. Santa Fe ... inion 117 aS

bd, Salt Lake’ .. mons SEE

Southern Pacific : : . 119.

( fe Sharing ‘the cost... Fs wenn 128

‘V. Conchusion - aa. | 124.

APPENDIX

No. 1. Citations of the Various Los Angeles Union Station sag

Decisions be

No. 2. Findings of Fact of Califdknia Railroad Commission'and = __

No. 3. Certificates cant by Inte te-Commerce Commission vii.

No. 4. shea 36, Public Utilities Act of California_____. ix

Table of Authorities

Bones =e

« . Pages

Alabama é Vicksburg. Railway Company v. Jackson & Bast.

ern Railway Company, 271 U. S. 244... > es

Allen v. Huntington, 2 Aik. (Vt:) 249, 16 Am. Dee. 702: --

Application of Southern Pacific Company—for permission to.

tear down and rebuild Arcade. Depot, 3 C. a: Oe 3

| eae |X 120

Application of Southern Pacific and Los Angeles & Salt -

Lake Railroad Co.—in re temporary use ‘of Arcade Depot,

$5 C. RB. C, 281, 25 a ee

- Application of Southern Pacific Company, Finance Docket

‘ 3556, I..C. C.: 68

Application of Southern. Pacifie FO i Finance Docket

9569: I. C..Cx.— ne ee

Asbell v. Kansas, 209 U. S. 251, 52 L. Ed. 178... rane 45

Atchison, ‘Topeka and Santa Fe Ry..Co. v. Railroad Com- .

mission of California, 173 Cal. 577, 582, 585, 586.102, 104, 105

" Atchison, Topeka and Sanja Fe Ry. Co. v. Railroad Com-

mission of Cabifareig. ( Decision), 190 Cal. 214, ©

228 ..... 19, 21, 53, 105

Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Railroad Com-

mission of California (Second Decision), 209 Cal. 460, 79

Cal. Dec. 457, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466. aaa

4,.41, 51,-56, 67, 74, 76, 95, 111, 114, 122, 123.

“Atlantic Coast Line v. Nerth Carolina ee: Com-

mission, 206 U. S. 1 , 113

Broad River Power Co. v..South Cordtiné 282 U.S. 187, 189 100

- Chicago and Alton R. R\v. Tranbarger, 238 U. S.-67, 77... 98

Chicago & North Western ‘Bafoay | Co..v. Lindell, 281. U. Bo:

i 46

Chicago, B.& Q. Railroad. v. ies 166 U. S.: 206, 251... 98 aS

Chicago, B. & Q. Railroad v. Drainage Commissi@ners, so

U. S. 561, 5944. ahs 98

Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Wisconsin, 2 238 U. S. 491, 501. 85

Chicago — Case, 2 264 U. S. 258, 264... ug ee

oN.

_ ‘PABLE OF AUTHORITIES

- Chicago, M. ¢ St. P..R. Co. v. - Solan, 169 U. 8. 133, 42 os

L. ed. 688. 44 —

- Chicago, R. I. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. State, 90 .Okl. 173, Seas:

Pie, TET ote 92, 98, 94

City of Los Angeles. v. incihers, Pacific Co. et al., Docket |

14,778, I. C. C.-- 20, 21, 22,23, 34,8.

‘Colorado v. United States, 271 U.S: 153, 161 - 73

Congressional Record, 66th Congress, Ist Session, -Vol. 58,

pp. 8578-9, 8582. . “41, 48

Constitution of California— : Dy tase re. -

Ast. 2. Oe. Sh ee SSS "38, 41| ;

- Art. XII, See. 23... secon OES

Constitution of United States—- im oe

Commerce Clause ....... cai nnrnnnn 1, 52,:98, 99

Fourteenth Amendment ee we Ue

* Carporation Commission, v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 161 -

N..C2 270, 76.8. E. 555.2 hatcemoraca ante: Ye

‘Cromwell v.. Hull, 97 N. Y. 209 P isle 70

Crossman v. Lurman; 192 U. 8, 189, 48 Li. ed, 401 » 45

Cummings v. Ohicago, 188 U.'S. 410, 430, 431, 47 L. ed. 525, .

* ; Beers ; noe 46, 61

Dewey ' v. Atlantic Coast Line, 142 N. ©. 392, 55 S. E. 292,

294, 295. . es : 86, 92,93

‘Doty. v. Haile. 168 TH. 50, 47 N. E. 768. ee

“Esch-Cummins Bul, MeClintic Amendment ,

| ~Freeman on Judgments (5th ed. y, 675-6, 619. 80

Griffin v. Southern Ry. Co., 150 N. C. 312, 64 S. E 16..............94, 96

Gulf, 8. F. Ry. Co. v. State, 167°S. W. 192... ian OO

Hollywood. Chamber of Consmerce v. Railroad: Cor <a

ee es California, 192 Cal. sich : rinagen: 108

* [Minois' Central RB. R. Co. v. State Public Utilities Commis-

sion; 245 U, 8.493, 510 43, 45,46

International Shoe Company v. Pinkus, 278 U. S. 261, 265 46

Katerstate Commerce Act— .. (

Sec. 4, Par. tel SH Vee ORCS He 49, 50

‘See. 1, Pars. 18-21 i 21, 54,-55, 66, 67:

“Bee. 4 f- ; a

_- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Pages

| tedavstela Deaiumetin’ hate enable. 1042, Note C8 61

Interstate Commérce Commission v. United States ex rel.-

City of Los Angeles (see also Los Angeles Union Station

- Second pate a00.U, s. 52," 53, 61, 66-7, 69_____—

; : 1, 2, 39, 43, 49,°53, 55

Lehigh Valley R. Co.. wv. ‘Public Utilities Commission, 278

U. S.- 24, 35

Los Angeles Passenger Terminal Chee "(Birst. Case), aoe

I. C. C..421, 425-6, 430, 432, 435-6, 441-2, 453-4, 456-7, ©

459, 460, 461 teers ry

29, 30, 32, 34, 50, 63, 94, 95, 117, 122.

Los Anyelex Pasevger Terminal Cases (Second Case), 142 —

E-C. C. 489, 494, 496. 7, 11, 22, 23, 24, 26, 30, 35

ae “Los Angeles Union Station Case (First Case), 264 U. S.

331, 340, 341, 346, 347, 348 7, 30, 32, 52, 54, 65, 98, 108

‘Los Angeles Union Station Case (Second Case), 280 U. 8.

52, 53, 61, 66-7, 69 | Ty 39, 49, 58766

Mayor and Aldermen of mavens” w. Norwich & Worcester

‘Railroad Co., 109 Mass. 103, 113. - 84, 88, 92, 93, 96.

McNeill »v. Southern Railway Company, 202 U, S. 543. 100

Merchants’ Exchange v. Missouri, 248 U. S. 365... 46

Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. Haber, 169 U. 8.613, €23_.43, 44, 45: _

Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. Harris, 234 U. S. 412, 419 43, 46

Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v- State, 38 Okl. 401, 133 Pace. ee

_ Missouri, 0. & G. Ry. is v. State, 29 Okt. 640, 119 Pac. .

HW: : ~ 87, 92, 9B

Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. “Larrabee Flour Mills’ Co., ail

U. 8.612 : a

Montgomery v. Portland, 190 U. 8. 89, 106, 47 L. ed... 965,

970... 61

Municipal League v. Southern Posi Company. et Jal. (First

Gase), 20 C. R. C. 937, 942, 944... 11 12, 14,19, 117

Municipal. League v. Southern Pacific Company et al.- (See.

: ond Case), 30 C. R. C, 151, 157-8, 159, 161...

ie 4, 11, 18, 18, 22 26, 29, 18

New ‘Orta Public section, 3 Inc. v. City of New Orleans,

-281.U. S. 682, 686, 687 Rote 75, 9%

North Carolina Corporation Commission v. Southern Rail-

way Co, (Selma Station - Ones); 3 185 N.-C. 485, 459, 117

8. E. 568 ———————--— weer. 50, 94, 96

viii Shee ‘TABLE OF AUTHORIMIES: SL ae

ms oe sthe ia

Northern Pacific Ry. Co.'-v. North Daitota, 236 U. ‘B. 585,

"595 : ; .'- 100 .-

- Northern Pacific Ry. Co.” v. Washington, 222 U. 8. 370, .378,

879 eae 44, 45 e

Oregoy, R. & N. Co. v. Fairchild; 224 U. g, 510, (ee ss 100

Oregon-Washington R. & N. Co: v. United. States (U. s. -

District Court, Oregon) 2 “408

Oro Electric Corporation v. Railroad Commission of Cali- EN

- fornia, 169 Cal. 466, 475. ; ‘ 5

Pacific Telephone aa Telegraph Company v. Eshleman, 166 aoe

Cal. 640, 677, 688-9... 4171038

Pennsylvania Coal. Co. v. Mahon, 260 U. Se, 416... . 100.

~~” Pennsylvania R.. Co. v. Hughés, 191 U. S. 477, 48 L. ed. 268. 45. i

People ex rel. Delaware & Hudson Co. v. Stevens, 197 N. Y.

.. 1,90 N. E. 60 ... 106

People ‘ex rel,, Siepkonpion Light, Hu P. Co. v. Stevens, eS

203 N. Y. 7, 96 N. E. 114: : TOG

Piedmont & Northern - _— Co. v.. United States, 280

- ~U. S. 469, 478. : 72

‘Procter & Gamble Co. v. United States, 225 U. 8. 282...’ 7 =

Public Utilities Act of California (St. 1915, p. 115) ay 8, 38,41

Sees.. 13(b), 22(a),. 30, 31, 36, als oul 38; 42 °

See. 36 .. ils 39,40, 112,123

Railroad Commission of Akin v. Alcdous Great, South- ci

ern Ry. Co., 185 Ala. 354, 362, 64 So.°13, 16, 18... oa

: 81, 91, 92, 93, “96

Railroad Commission of Alabama v,. Northern Alabama Ry.

: Co., 182 Ala. 357, 62 So. 749, 752. “Biwi 80, 91,92, 93, 96

Railroad Commission of California v. Southern Pacific Com- |

pany. (see also Los Angeles Union Station Case, First

Case), 264 U. S. 391, 344, 346, 347, 348.............7, 21, 26, 30, 32

Reed v. Reed, 107 N. Y. 545, 14 N. E. 442 i Oe

Reid v. Colorado, 187 U. 8. 137, 148, 47 L. ed. 108, 114.......45, 46

12 R. C.-L. 864-5. : | ce 70°

‘Santiago 0. Noguerae, 214 U.S. 260, 267... . LL / oe

Savage v. Jones, 225 U. S. 501, 533 ecient AE

” anak <. Sinceauek 63 U. S, in: How.). 227, ee

- Bligh v. Kirkwood, 287 U. 8. 52. 43-

Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v, Town of: Calhoun, 237.

‘. Fed. 381 105

_” Southern Ry. Co. v. Reid, 222 U. S. 424, 436, i ue

State v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 67 Fla. 441, 68 So. 729.94,96

. State v. Jacksonville Terminal Ce, 71 Fla. 295, 331, 71 So. ©

474, 484 : eae

Staté ex rel. Barton uals v. Kansas City, Ft. 8. & G. By.

Co., 32 Fed. 722 So pada. E 94, 96

State v. St. Louts. Southwestern Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ.. App.) | ae

es 165 S. W. 491, 498, 199 S.. W. 829, 830 89, 92, 98, 96 AS

State of Wisconsin v. State of. Illinois, 278 U..S. 367, 412... 61---

oe Superior Water etc. Co, v. Superior, 263 U. 8, 125... 85°

Tones 0: Rastovk Vises BB. Oe. 958 U! S$. 204: Saat 72

‘Texas & Pacific R. Co: v. Abilene Cotton Ou Oey 204 U.S.

"426, 51 L. ed. 553 | | a

Tronsportation Act, 1920, 41 St. 476 .

3 8, 20, 35, 98, 42, 43, 47, 60, 58, 56, 94

See. 402... : in 2, 54, 55,66

United States ex rel. City of Los Angeles v. Interstate om eee

~- merce Commission, 34 Fed. (2d) B98 oo ees

Uiiite States v. Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad Company, Lhe

“213 U.S. 299, 309-10... ana 10,73

Ao BUCA, Secs. 45, 450, 46, 47... __-—NI0

Wisconsin, ‘Minnesota bad Pacific. wigs v. ‘Seep, 179 U. s.

— 287, 302 hace ci et 88, 96

Page —

script’ Number

of - of

Record Exhibit

221 1

295 5%

a7.

27 «OB

or C6

228-30 3.

230-1. 18

231.2 14

235-6 19

. é : ” or

238-9 22

249-4 24°

‘Exhibits in ‘thé Record

- California Railroad

Commission.

City of Los Angeles,

' ‘mission in Los Angeles Passenger Ter-

Commission. .

Comntission

_ Atchison, Topeka

and Santa Fe Rail-

California eh

way Company.

California Railroad

Commission.

California Railroad

‘Commission.

California Railroad

Commission. :

3 California Railroad’ “

Commission.

California Railroad

Commission. -

Jalifornia Railroad

ommission.

ira

_ Subject Spa rage

‘Bahibit

| Railroad Commission Grade Crossing }

and Terminal. investigation ee

Los Angeles.

Decision of. Interstate Commerce. Com-

minal Cases, 100 I. C. €. 421, decided

aay June 6, 1925.

California Railroad

Commission.

California Railroad

Plan for Union Passenger ‘Terminal )

at Plaza, June, 1924.

‘Map—Railroad and Industrial Die

triet, Los Angeles. °°

Key Map of the ‘Comminflin’s 8 Plaza

Plan.

Estimated cost of Proposed ‘Depot; ;

etc., for Exclusive Use of Santa Fe,

Los. Angeles.

‘Sidiewad Cost, Passenger Facilities, ce

Plaza Plan.

Summary Vehicular pattie Across.

Alameda Street. .

Automobile: Registration Statistioe— oe

Growth in Automobile Registration. Se

Delays to Traffic at Alameda Street

. Crossings, 1918 and 1923.

CSaparison of Scheduled ak Actual

Through Passenger Train Movements |

in and out of Los Angeles. Y

: Nore>"Indicates an exhibit certified separately and transmitted ‘as an original exhibit.

New Money Required for Plaza Plan, |

251

958-4

9545

Number

of — Offe

Exhibit: Exhibit |

25°. California Railroad —

f Commission.

& 26 a California Railroad

| Commission.

27. _ California Railroad

Commission. - x

28. California Railroad

Commission.

80. California Railroad

Commission. | _

81 Californiia Railroad —

. . Commission,

32 California Railro

~ | Commission.

88 California Railroad

Commission. et

49% California Railfoad

: Commission. =

4B California Railroad

' , Commission.

52 . California Railroad

ccmnamnores

13*

: Ree Exhibit A

Passengers Handled by Steam \ Rail-

roads in and out of Los — mab

Typical Week, 1906. ;

Comparison of Passengers Handled by &

Steam Railroads in and out of Los

Angeles for Typical Week in Years

1918, 1923 and 1926. ..

_ Comparison of Annual Ticket Sales i in

~ Los Angeles, :

‘Statement Showing Normal and Maxi-

- mum Number of Passengers ‘Handled

‘in ‘and out of Los Angeles for a Period

of Sixty Minutes, J anuary, 1926.

Ocenpancy . of Station Trackage at. .

Central. Station. af

Chart—Occupancy of Station Track- 3

. age at Central Station. i

-- Proportions of Use of Various

_ Methods of Transportation to and

"from Steam Railroad Stations.

Comparison of Population in Zones

Closer by Travel: Time to the — |

tive Station Sites.

Map—Lands i in Plaza Plan,

Plan for a Union Peamagee Terminal

: at the Plaza.

Estimated .Areas of ti Sanaa

- §$tation facilities, Plaza,Plan of

March, 1926.

iyo of Los Angeles. ' Map—Major Traffic Street Plan,

Los 6 Angeles.

- ae

is 3 . » e.

ra \

: 8 4 < ;

- "geript Number . ‘Subject Matter

PY Bae = ) of

“Record Exhibit : _ Bahibit

$70. ° 14° Sarge of This Angeles. Map—Existing Major Thotouighfared

' §erving Administrative Center Site.

270 ~=«215* City of Los Angeles. - Map—Administrative Center District

; : and Adjoining Areas Showing Cer-

tain Land Ownerships.

271 16* city of t Los Angeles. Map—Metropolitan Mésaie, Greater

ag i i "Los Angeles. ~* .

| 914 ~«° «86 Carriers . Proposed Train Movements in and out:

pa ‘eee of Station; Joint Terminal Los An-

- geles & Salt i casaccomieeceiiate

: ) as ern Pacifi

980-5. 87 Carriers _ Deed —Weiskill: to Southern. Pacific”

Cheers rah _. Railroad Company, _ |

236.- 90° Carriers . i Los Angeles: Union Passenger Ter-

minal Proposed’ by California Rail

ie ‘ | road Commission in Los Angeles.

osT . 98% Carriers” - -Bgtimate Los Angeles and. Salt Lake

. hig a Eee Railway Company and Southern Pa

‘ cific pany Joint Passenger Ter-

mica, 5 minal ilities. |

987-91 90 .. Carriers ae ~ Comparison of Estimates of Commis. :

Steams : ‘sion’s Plaza Plan as m e by Com”

mission’s Bngineess an “ Carriers’

We Engineers...

293-4 101 Carriers Statement showing Normal ind Maxi-

| Mele _ mum Number of Passengets handled

3. jn and out of Los Angeles for a Period

be bias hcp" ‘of Sixty Minutes, Js anuary, 1926.

905-6 106 Carriers 8s Comparative Financial Statement—

301-2 56° California Railroad - Chart—Showing Increase of Popula-

, ; Commission. tion and Trend of Passenger Traffic

Rea, Pheer NE reer on Ren ieee AT

he ou i the Supreme Court

Buited 8 States

a, ree OCTOBER ea. 1930. | }

Tue ATCHISON, TOPEKA ANDeSANTA Fe Ratuway ComPany, Bene i

, & éorporation, | :

see ‘ Appellant,

"vB. irs ! No. 470

* BAILRoaD CoMMISSION OF THE STATE OF Catrrorwia, et al.,:

of fEe eS tee ep Appellees.

Los ANGELES rs Sarg LAKE Basunoan ‘Company,

ee. — _ Appelt

. VS. . ) No. 471 _

’ ‘ a7

RamzoaD COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF Cartroant, ot “al, ORAL sae a:

: _ Appellees. ;

Sournern Pactric Commas, s corporation, and ERAS Sat, 4 f.

SOUTHERN PAciFio SAnoed COMPANY, a corporation, .

ekg » Appellants, yt

va. aie a No. 472 -

RAILROAD COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF oceania, tac ah

aaeer

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AS

AMICI CURIAE

May It Pisais the Court:

he: undersigned, as counsel for the City of oe

| Angeles, — of California, respectfully move thig

: ‘Monieete Court for leaves to file the. accompanying

brief in this, case as amet curvae.

_ERWIN Werver,

Muon Bryan, ~

«Max THELEN, |.

Jess E: StepHens,

Epwin (©. BLANCHARD,

Counsel for City of Los. Angeles,

as Amici Curiae. —

oe Uy . ‘S A\\ Vealeald

¢ Supreme Court

-Buited States |

~ OcrosrrR Temas 1930

THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND Santa Fx Ranwar Odiapany,

a corporation, pi aR yews :

Ps = . | ~ Agpeliant,

vs.’ wie’: nt.

RAILROAD COMMISSION OF THE STATE oF CALIFORNIA, et al,

Los ANoruts & Sant Lax Rattnoan Courany,

a corporation,

bis eer

vs. :

RAILROAD ‘Commission OF THE Stare OF CaLiroRnta, et al,

" ae

SourHerN Pacirio Company, a ‘corporation, and

_ SOUTHERN PAcIFIO RAILROAD ComPanr, a corporation,

; ‘ Appsllants,

BRANLB04D Comission OF Tm Stare OP CALirORNtA, et al,

? Appellees.

vs.

" BRIEF OF AMICL CURIAE IN. BEHALF OF.

. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

I. “Introduction. :

_ This brief is filed by permission of this Court wy

amici curiae who are counsel for ba City of Los

BaP. hrs aga

; 4 Ne

/ >

Angeles, which city’ is vitally interested in the out-

come of this proceeding. * _-___ are

' This is an appeal by railway companies from the

decision of the Supreme Court of California filed on

May 27,1930, in The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe

Railway Company v. Railroad Commission of. the

| State of California and two similar cases consolidated.

therewith in which Los Angeles. & Salt Lake Railroad

Company, and Southern Pacific Company and South-~

ern: Pacific Railroad Company, respectively, were the’ |

petitioners (209 Cal. 460, 79 Cal.: Dee. 457, R. 184-198), :

': In said decision, the Supreme Court of sues wall

: affirmed-an-order-of the Railroad Commission of Cali-—

fornia, filed on July 8, 1927,-in Municipal League v.

Southern Pacific Company, Atchison, Topeka & Santa

Fe Railway Company and San Pedro, Los Angeles &

| Salt Lake. Railroad Company, and seven.other pro-

‘ceedings consolidated therewith. Volume 30, Opinions

and Orders of the Railréad Commission of California, “4

—p. 151 Cw 119-134). Rrra

A. |

_ ORDER OF CALIFORNIA RAILROAD comMrsaroN.

The: order of the Railroad Commission directed the’

Southern Pacific Company’ (hereinafter at times re- |

ferred to as the Southern Pacific), The Atchison, To- ©

peka & Santa Fe Railway Company (hereinafter at / |

.. times referred to as the Santa Fe) and the Los An-

- eles and Salt I ake Railroad Pits tet (hereiniatter

at times. referred to as'the Salt Lake or the Union Pat

cific) to construct and thereafter operate a‘union ~-

“passenger station within a specified atea’ within the |

City of Los Angeles in the vicinity of the: Plaza, to-

gether with such "tracks and other physical structures

as may be reasonably necessary and incidental ‘to the .

use of ‘said union passenger station, at a cost of.ap-

proximately ten million (#10, 000,000.00) dollars, .in .

| ‘. substantial compliance with the ‘“‘Plan for a Union

‘ Passenger Terminal at the Plaza”’ which is marked

as Railroad’ Commission’s Ey hibit 4B (R. 133). Ex-

: nibit a is inserted opposite page 266 of the Record.

a a ee ee PT ee ae i

_ The carriers were. directed to start work upgp the —

4 oe construction of the. union passenger station within ;

ninety (90) days: and to. complete the same within

three (3) years, (R. 133).

_ Upon and after the construction of the’ union pass-'

enger _ station, -the- Southern—Pacific-was directed to

: ‘discontinue the operation of freight and passenger .

train service, éxcepting only industrial freight switch-

- ing service ‘during ‘hours to be thereafter: specified,’

over that portion of its railroad which | lies on ana

along Alameda Street between College Street and East

‘Fifteenth Street, inclusive, in the City of “Los An-.

geles (R. 133-4).

’ The order then continued as ; follows (R. 134);

“This above order shall be and become effective’ ;

from and after the promulgation by the Inter-

state Sommerce Commission’ of an or der, ne

and granting proper and sufficient certificates or .

other appropriate order or orders covering’ and

authorizing the construction, extensions and aban-

donments herein authorized or directed, it being

the intent of this Commission that the issuance

of such certificates or other order or orders on the

part..of the ,Interstate Commerce . Commission

shall be and constitute a condition precedent to —

the e: Tectiveness of the said order of this Com-

mission.”’ | :

‘The Railroad Commission’s aiibhay was. directed i

: to file with. the Interstate Commerce Commission a

copy, of said order, with‘a petition that the latter

} Commission issue such, certificates or other appro- '

priate order or orders as might be requisite or proper 4

in erder to render said order effective (R. 134).

The, Railroad Commission reserved ‘‘the right to

——make “such further order or orders in these proceed-

_ ings relating to the construction, operation, modifica-

tion and abandonment of facilities, to costs and di-

-vision of costg, and to all other matters relating there- ©

‘Sto, as may be determined by the Commission: to be just’

and reasonable and as publie- safety, convenience and

necessity may require’’ (R. 134). bse ;

‘Finally, the Railroad Commission dismissed Appli-

. eation No. 3346, which was an application hy the -

_ Southern Pacific and the Salt Lake for approval of ..

an agreement under which these carriers would have _

“made effective their p n for handling the terminal

situation in Los Angeles. This’ plan was disapproved

by. the Rated -Onemabn (RR. 134),\ following its.

__prior disapiproval-by-the-Inieratate “Commerce Gom-—

mission in Finance Docket No. .3569 (Los Angeles |

Passenger Terminal Cases, 100 I. C. ©. 421, 459, 460,

Exh. 5 of City of Los “— separately certified

and forwarded, R. 7). ;

, Upon. petitions sipbeabale. filed by “the Railroad

Cceilsistieating: and by the City of Los ‘Angeles, the Inter-

state Commerce Commission thereupon reaffirmed the

. findings and issued the certificates 3 specified by this

-; Court in the First Los Angeles ‘Union Station Case,

Railroad Commission ‘of California v. Southern. Pa-

cific Company, 264 U. 8, 331 (Los Angeles Passenger:

__ Terminal. Cases, 142 I. C: C. veh R. an igs

153-4, 154-6). Sse /

~ Certified copy of said decision. of the Interstate 3

_ Commerce Commission was thereupon formally. filed.

by the Railroatl Commission in‘ the proceedings then

pending before it, the petitions of the carriers for re-

_ hearing were denied and the carriers filed with the /

Supreme Court of California petitions for the issuan

of writs of review, which writs were issued: © /—

* »Y

oui Naas

pacision OF SUPREME COURT OF,, cccivhnnza.

Thereafter, following the decision of this Court in .

. the Second Los Angeles Union Station Case, Inter-

state Commerce Commission v. United States ex rel.

City of Los Angeles, 280 U. 8. 52, the Supreme Court .

1 Ea OEE Ry ALS SEIT, Pe. Ses bees es

, “ont .*

ie California filed the “decision which is the cubject of

» the present appeal (R. 184-198).

“The Supreme Court of California held:

1, . That, inthe light of this Court’s. decisions |

in the First and the Second Los Angeles Union.

Station Cases,’ it is clear that the Transportation

~. Act, 1920, did not transfer to the Interstate Com-

merce Commission, the power to make.the order

here involved (R. 185-192) ; . .

' 2... That the argument of the carriers that Con- :

gress had at, least ‘‘entered the field’”’ to an extent

sufficient to terminate the state’s authority to deal

with the subject is shown. fo be. without-merit by.

. this Court’s . decision atin fra Los Angeles

Union Station Case ‘ta the effect that an order

~ is to be made’by the state commission, conditioned

only upon the _ proper findings and certificates of:

the Interstate ‘Commerce Commission”’ (R. 192) ; ;

3. That under the Constitution and the’ Public

Utilities Act of California there can be no ques- |

tion that the Railroad Commission possesses

' powers ‘sufficiently broad to include the.’ ones

sought to. be exercised by the Commission e

192-3) ; : .

| - 4, That there is no merit, in the cobain: of .

_, the carriers that the Railroad Commission’s order °

violates ‘‘the law of the case’? (R. 193-4) ;

- 5. That the Railroad: Commission’s order does

not violgte any rights of the. carriers under the .

_ @

Fourteenth Amendment to the’ Federal Constitu-

: tion, as appears from an analysis of the facts of —

the ‘present, case and the principles uniformly

established i in many union passerger station, cases

x (BR. 195); »

‘6. That the argunient of the ‘Southern Pacific

- . based on the necessity, under the order, of aban-

_ doning the present Areade Depot is without merit,

' that the. tecord shows the operation of the South-

ern Pacific’s passenger trains along Alameda

‘Street to and from the Arcade Depot to be “‘se

‘unsafe, impracticable and unreasonable * * *

.: as to require elimination,” that this conclusion

has‘ been conceded by the Southern Pacific, which

_ submitted a.plan of its own, and that the findings

of the Railroad ‘Commission upon the subject were |

made ‘‘after. full consideration and upon ample

evidence”’ (R. 196) ;

ek Pol the contention of the Santa Fe and the

Salt Lake that they were being required to join

in the construction of a union passenger station

by-teason of the Southern Pacific’s necessity for

a change, is unsound for the reason that ‘‘each

of company . is ordered to’ join in the erection of the

union station because of its own inadequacies in

terminal passenger facilities” and that ‘‘each car-

_ rier will be required to pay because of and in an

amount proportionate to the evils in its system

‘sought to be remedied ‘by. tine new a. &.

uy 196-7) ;

8, That an Pee of tiie record shows "

_, that “‘there is nothing unreasonable or arbitrary ~

in the findings and order made’? (R.. 197); |

9. That. the order is: ‘not void ri uncertainty

(R. 197-8) ; :

10. ‘That the soutention of + thks carriers that

the certificates issued by the Interstate Commerce

Commission are not’ proper and sufficient certifi-

cates ‘is not properly raised here,” that. “the

certificates on their face are proper and sufficient

and comply with the decision of the Supreme

- Court’ of the United States” and that both the In-

terstate Commerce Commission and the Railroad ©

‘ Commission ‘so considered them (R. 198) ; and

11. That the details of. construction of the

union passenger station are sufficiently specified

(R. es

—_

II, Statement of the Case. )

| A.

' PHYSICAL FACTS. .

The physical facts with reference to the location of

‘the existing lines of railroad of the Southern Pacific,

the Santa Fe and the Salt Lake in the City of Los °

Angeles, the existing passenger depot facilities, ae,

the area in the. Plaza district in the City of Los An-

geles specified in the Railroad Commission’s order as

the location for the pence union passenger. ‘station

RAEI oh betel te ms! yes fasten ad eeke Sl

. ; htt :

and the other physical facts bearing on ‘the present ...

issue are set forth in the following decisions of the ~

Interstate Commerce Ce and of the Railroad

- Conimission: ~ - 4

1. . Los Angeles Pamsehoer Terminal Cases. (Pitt

Decision),°100 I. 0. ©. 421; Exh. 5 of City of

‘Los © Angeles, ‘separately certified . and | for-

’ warded AR. 7)5 .

is i Los Angeles Passenger Terminal Cases (Sec-

--ond Decision), 142 I. C. C. 489 (R. 135-156) ;.

3. Municipal League v. Southern Pacific Com-

pany, et al., and ‘consolidated cases (First

Case), Volume 20, Opinions and. Orders of

' Railroad Commission of California, p. 987 (R.

84-96)’; and

4. Municipal’ League v. Sonthorn Pacific Com-

pany, et al., and. consolidated eases (Second

Case), Volume 30, Opinions and Orders of

Railroad Commission of ean p.' 151: (Re

119-134). !

The tracks, existing passenger station facilities ae)

area for thé proposed union’ passenger station are

shown on the map which is Railroad Commission’s .

- Exh, 5, entitled ‘Railroad and Industrial Distriet—*

Los Angeles,”” which appears opponite P page 226 of the —

Record herein. - © |

- The plan for the proposed union passenger terminal |

at the Plaza in Los Angeles is shown on the “Plan

for a Union Passenger Ter 1 at the Plaza” which ©

is riuiked C. R. C. Exhibit 4B nad appears pei

page 266.of the Record herein, :

Under the head of ‘*Physical Facets,” we shall ee

3 herein, very briefly, only to “Existing: Passenger De-"

pots” and to. “Alameda Street Situation.” a

> .

§ es

SEE

. ‘cc EXISTING PASSENGER DEPOTS.

. @ Salt Lake Passenger Depot... tage ek

The Salt: Lake (part of ‘the Voion Pacific aber)”

_ does not now own any peeenser depot i inthe City of -

> . Los Angeles.

- This: carrier forinerty owned and operated 4 pass-" a

_ enger station onthe east. bank of the. Los Angelés

River, north of First Street. The \passenger station

building at said location was a two-story frame build- -

. ing which was erected in 1891 at a cost of approxi- —

: mately $10, 000.00. This. structure was inadequate to

serve the needs of the traveling public: and its loca- ‘

-. tion was inconvenient and its. access dangerous to the.

- public. (Los Angeles Passenger Terminal Cases (First

-- Decision) 100 I. ©. ©. 421, 432, 454; Municipal League

v. Southern Pacific et al, (First Casé), Volume

20, Opinions and Orders. of Railroad Commission of.

( California, pp. 987, 942, R. 84, 88; Exh. 1 of Califo ae

' Railroad Commission (Sachse Report), p PP. 244-5, —

be arately certified and forwarded, R. 7 ).

- In 1924, ‘a fire did some damage to the second story

of the ee wisecipon | ~ ‘Salt Lake ‘was author-

go? ’

ized by. the Railroad Cominhianieni to run. its. passenger . §

_ trains into the Arcade .depot of the Southern Pacific.

- as a temporary matter. In its order, the Railroad Com- |

“mission expressly provided that the Salt Lake and the

‘Southern Pacific should not use the granting of the

- application either by way of defense or. argument on

the ground of capital expenditures | or on any other

7 ground against any order, or in any proceeding then |

_ or thereafter pending before said Commission or any —

other Commission, court or public tribunal. providing

f for or looking toward railroad or terminal unification —

in the City of Los Angeles (A pplication of Southern |

Pacific Company,and Los Angeles and Salt Lake

- Railroad Company,, ‘Volume 25, Opinions and Orders

of Railroad Commission of California, BP. 281, 285).

The Gylt Lake thereupon accepted said order of the

Railroad Commission, began its operations. into the

Arcade. Depot on or about November 1, 1924, and has

continuously subsequent thereto operated its passenger

‘trains into and out of the Arcade Depot. In order to

reach the Arcade Depot, the Salt Lake. operates ‘all its. —

‘passenger trains at-grade on and along Alameda Street.

‘from Butte Street on: the south to the: Arcade Depot ve

on the-north, across many important public streets.

_ Thercdy the inconvenience and. danger to traffic, both |.

' vehicular aid pedestrian, . across this portion of Ala-

_ meda Street has. been greatly accentuated (Mott, R. ;

- 249, Municipal League. v. Southern Pacific Company

et al. — os Volume 30, — and

: Orders of Baitvoaa- Commission of, California, pp. 151,

157-8; R..119, 128).

-b. Santa Fe Depot.

. The Santa Fe’s passenger station i in ‘the City of Los

Angeles is located along the west bank of the ‘Los ©

Angeles River, south. of First Street, in a small brick

Sl ‘building which was erected in 1893. The structure is .

inadequate and does not meet’ the reasonable require-

ments of the traveling public (Los Angeles Passenger

Terminal Cases, (First Decision), 100 I. ‘C.-C. 421, .

432, 454; Municipal League v. Southern Pacific Com-"

oe pany, et. al. (First Case), Volume 20, Opinions 3

_and Orders of Railroad Commission of California, PP. 28

937, 944, R. 84, 88; Exh. 1 of California Railroad som

Commission ( Sachse Report), pp. 90, 242-3;-separately

; “certified and forwarded, R43 ‘Sachse, R. 260).

_. Substantially all members ‘of the public who sete ‘

, * oceasion to use the Santa Fe’s passenger depot can ©

do so only by ‘crossing Alameda Street and the mair - i |

_ tracks of the Southern Pacific located thereon. The.

Santd Fe’s present passenger depot is located on a

_. gite which is inconvenient and difficult of access and /

: dangerous to the public desiring to use the passenger -

depot (Exh. 5 of California Railroad Commissi¢ ay Op-

"posite p: 226 of Record).. |

.. The Santa Fe concedes the inadequacy of thes jres-

ent structure’and has plans for rebuilding the same at

- a eost of oie gecaa — R. 228 ; ‘Exh. 3 of ‘Santa

sige R. cause |

> ®

< Southem Paciflo Depot, fo

The Southern Pacifie’s Aeodiie passenger depot in

the City of Los Angeles was constructed in. 1914 at a

cost of $462,043.00 (Jaekle, R. 297).

The depot was built under’. authority of an‘ order

‘of the Railroad Commission made on | petition of the

-earrier. As the result of public protests on the. round

A be |

that the elimination of the Southern Pacific’ sr ad ;

grade crossings on Alameda Street would be delayed —

or prevented by-the construction of a passenger sta- e .

tion at said point, the Railroad Commission’ S order

_ authorizing the demolition of the lold Arcade passen-

ger depot at this point and the erection of the present |

d depot, and the erection of said new depot, and

— the taking up, relocating and’ placing of new

trackage in connection with: said new’ depot, or

: depot contained an express provision sia

: “+thét the tearing down and abandonment of ead

the approval: of this Commission therefor, shall ©”

never be used as a defense against the separation

of grade crossings in the State of California.’’

(Applicatién of Southern Pacific Company, Vol-

ume 3, Opinions and Orders of Railroad Commis-

sion of California, pp. 927, 930; Exh. 1 of Cali-. :

fornia Railroad Commission (Sachse Report) pp.

90, 233-5, ee oe and forwarded, R.

| The re interest and ‘public safety urgentiy. re-

quire ‘the elimination. from Alameda Street of all -

ae ‘Passenger —— This As. conceded by all —

<==

‘including: the Southern Pacific, This will- require

either getting into the Arcade site by means of an

overhead viaduct’ one mile long from across the Los _

. Angeles River (the plan proposed by ‘the Southern

Pacific and found by both the’ Interstate Commerce

Commission and the California Commission to be.

against the public interest) ‘or the’ removal of the a ae

Southern Pacific passenger depot toa location north -

_ of Alameda Street in conjunction with the other steam

carriers, whereupon it will become -

__- the passetiger trains o run along..Alameda Street and”

“that problem will thereupon be automatically solved ©

(the plan approved by both the > Federal and the State

Commissions). : 3

The carriers rely on the. Raiiviad Conesniiieien's .

said order of 1913 ‘and on comments made by the

* Commission’ . engineers in 1919 to show that the. Ar-

cade station building i is at this time adequate, but the

enormous inerease .in the . population | and « passenger -

traffic of Los Angeles since those years has been ‘such .

. that the building is rapidly becoming inadequate. -An '

inspection any day of the year. during peak hours.

_ shows that the building has actually reached its ca-_

pacity or > will do so, shortly (Sachse, R. 260). ‘There

‘Is a ite _tendeney now toward. overcrowding

the waiting room. be een the hours of 7 and 8 P. M. .

_ prior to the departure of\such important trains as the _

Padre, Lark and. Sunset Li ised mets ies een

aes

: ° ’ went

: e

. ° 3 i ’

. ’ . . Yaar,

’ » : z

° . . ° : . > :

Ra alle "

. ° - \

. i . P ; Phe ‘t : :

* * . . . > ie

f 2 5 A . > : F f

4 . ‘ ' oP j -

‘ ’ {

: 0) ‘ '

17 .

"2% ALAMEDA STREET SITUATION. )

Alameda Street is the principal north and south ae 3

| street through the industrial-section of Los Angeles.

The passenger trains of the Southern Pacific, in

traveling along Alameda Street to and from the Ar-

cade Depot, cross at grade every important: east and

_ » west street in the City of Los/ ‘Angeles’ from froin Co Y

- . Street on the north to East-Fifteenth Stree Street: on the

south, a. ‘distance of ‘three miles. This is a double

track and is the 6.6 miles of main line of: rail-

:* road referred: to on page 29 of the J oint Brief ssa ©

Appellants.

Mr. FL. Burckhalter, the. First ‘Asistant Geseedi -

Manager. of the Southern Pacific Company, testified

_. that there are 43 steam line railroad grade. crossings

‘on Alameda Street.oyer which there are 4000 train.

‘movements daily. Daily, the tracks\of the Southern ee

‘ Pacific on and along Alameda Street are: crossed by

125,000 vehicles and 4,000 street cars, containing ap-

proximately 330,000: people (R. 299-300).

: (Worm: aus would be 120, 450,000 People. yearly.)

The Southern Pacific has Seanad again and again, a

that. the Alameda Street situation. must be remedied. -

. The. Interstate Commerce. Commission found that

the existing ‘situation on and sone ‘Alameda Street is

: : agreed by all parties | to be -

“a constant danger to life abd timb’and a serious _

| ineonvenience ae an extremely Reavy, a. and L west :

urban n traftic,”” (Eos Aigetes Paisnges’ Terminal

__ Cases (First Decision), 100 I. C. ©. 421, 430; Exh.

5 of City of Los Angeles, separately certified. and

forwarded, R. th :) Nes

Subsequently, the Railroad: Commission tote that

_ the conditions at the Alameda Street crossings ‘Care ad-

‘mittedly | becoming worse day by day”’ and that the

situation has become ‘aggravated by the interjection

of .certain Salt Lake trains using a portion of that .

street as a means of temporary access to the Arcade

_ Station.” (Municipal League v. “Southern. Pacific .

Company, et al., Volume 30, Opinions and Orders of

_ Railroad Commission of wigs asa PP. 151, 157-8 ; R.

. . 119, 128). | 3

pee passenger business: not merely of the-Sorithern.

2 Pacific but also of the Santa Fe and the Salt Lake |

eo affected by this Alameda Street, situation. ae

All persons coming to or. going from the Santa Fe... @

depot from or to points west of Alameda Street must

cross the Southern Pacific tracks located . and operated, . ff

_ thereon: The Santa Fe has its passenger depot so-

‘ located that its passengers are obliged to go’ through

said scene of danger in order to reach it (Exh. 5 of

oe California Railroad Commission, : R. opposite p. 226).

The same situation would be equally applicable to:

the Salt Lake if that carrier should return to. its

“passenger grounds ‘on: the east bank of the Los ‘An-

_geles River. At the present time, by running its

‘passenger trains into and out-of the Southern ‘Pa-

19 4

cific’s Arcade Station, along Alameda Street sduth

of the Arcade Station, the Salt Lake has aggrava

and is aggravating the situation along that part’ of

sarsiie Street.

ae | y

HISTORICAL FACTS. J :

The historical facts may be very briefly r suimmariaed a6

as follows: 3 |

1. CALIFORNIA RAILROAD COMMISSION'S FIRST DECISION.

ae On December 6, 1921, after an. exhaustive investiga--

tion and voluminous testimony since, 1916, the Rail-

" poad Commission of , California rendered a- decision ae

ordering the Southern. Pacific, the Santa Fe ‘and. the a,

Salt Lake to procure sufficient land within a specified a

-area in the Plaza district in Los: Angeles for a union

passenger station, to. prepare and submit plans for

such union station, passenger terminal and necessary

facilities, and upon: approval of the plans by the _ |

Commission, to proceed with the construction of such

station and’ terminal (Volume 20, Opinions and Or- >

ders of Railroad. Commission of aeuyrovisse p. 937; i a

sheik

2. ‘CALIFORNIA SUPREME couRT’s FIRST prorarox®

The carriers thereupon, took the Railroad Commis- es:

sion’s decision and order to the Supreme Court of ;

California by bse pas mt review: In The ar To-

peka and Santa Fe Railway Company v. Butlroad

Commission of California, 190 Cal. 214, the Supreme

Court of California, on December 19, 1922, annulled’

the Railroad Commission’s order on the ground that w

jurisdiction: over the union “passenger terminal situa-. -

~ tion in Los Angeles had, by the Transportation Act of *

1920, ‘become vested solely: and exclusively : in the Te

~._ terstate Commerce Commission. =

- COMPLAINT OF cITy OF LOS ANGELES BEFORE :

‘INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISION. :

The City of Los Angeles, thereupon, in March, 1923,

filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission its

formal complaint in Docket No. 14 178, asking the -

- Interstate Commerce Commission to make its order ~

a directing said | carriers, among ‘other matters, to con-— :

‘struct and thereafter operate and use a union passen- .

| ger depot and appurtenances on the site in the Plaza

~~ distri i ct in Los Angeles theretofore specified by the

. Railroad Commission of California. .The Commission

-_ was also.asked to make appropriate findings and issue

appropriate certificates necessary and. incidental to

the construction and operation. of said union passen-

ger depot. : aan

4 UNITED STATES SUPREME, COURT'S FIRST DECISION. |

- ‘Thereafter, on April 7. 1924, this Court made its

decision in _ Railroad Commission of California v.

» 21

iti Pacific Oviindas, 264 U. S. 331, being a

‘petition by the Railroad Commission of California for

a review of said adverse decision of. the: Supreme —

‘Court of California (190 Cal. 214). This Court af-

firmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Cali-

fornia. and held that’ it. would ‘be necessary for the

Interstaté Commerce Commission * to make certain

- findings and issue eertain certificates ‘as a condition

. precedent to the validity of any action ‘by the carriers

or of any order by the State Commission”’ (p. 346).

_ (Emphasis supplied). . This Court expressed its oe.

clusion as follows (p. 348) : :

‘Until the Interstate Commerce . Commission

_ Shall have acted under paragraphs 18 to 21 of |

Section 402 of the Transportation Act, the’ re-

spondent railways can not be required to provide

a new interstate union station and to extend their .

“main tracks thereto.as ordered by the State Rail- |

: road Commission.’ - ’ CEaphasis supplied. y*

_ 5. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION'S FIRST DECISION.

Thereafter, after taking further evidence in, said

_ Docket No. 14,778, the Interstate Commerce Commis-

sion, on J uly 6, 1925, rendered its first decision in

said. docket- (Los Angeles: Passenger Terminal. Cases,

_ 100 I, C. C..421). The Commission made the findings

' of fact which had. been requested by the City of Los

Angeles but. held that it did not have jurisdiction to

make the final order requested by the. City requiring

the construction of a union ‘Passenger depot.

)

. 22 ,

The Commission held: that under the existing cir-

. Cumstances it would issue no certificates or further

orders at the time, but would retain jurisdiction of

said Docket No. 14,778, pending further possible

~ action. by the Railroad Commission of California, °-

- = (Nore: For the 6 findings of fact made by the

Interstate Commerce Commission in this first deci-

sion, see the Note at the end of this section of this

Bison ou bras so cactvys 2.) :

6. CALIFORNI£ RAILROAD COMMISSION'S SEGOND DECISION.

“Fhe Railroad Commission, of California ‘thereupon a

reopened the. matters pending before it for further

consideration and after receiving voluminous addi-

tional testimony rendered a further decision on J ily *:

8, 1927 ( Volume 39, Opinions and Orders of Railroad -

Commission of California, p. 151; R. 119-134), The .

- Railroad Commission ‘made findings of fact substan- -

tially: identical with the 6 findings of fact theretofore * 1"

‘made by the Interstate Commerce Commission and

added 4 further findings. J

‘This is the decision now at issue herein. Sufficient

_ referente has: hereinbefore been made to ‘the Com-

mission’ s order. 7

(Norm: For the 4 additonal ndings of fact mad

' + gion, see the Note at the end of one Pe

- brief and ‘Appendix No. 2. “The In

TRA ts inhalants: asandon, Mood ths

_ these ‘additional findings of fact. of the California —

Railroad Commission ‘‘find sufficient support in the

: So

RSs | j

“The City of Los, Angeles thecelaices filed ‘with the im

Interstate Commerce. Commission in ‘said formal com-

" plaint Docket No. 14,778 its petition advising the Com- _

_ Mission, among other matters, of the most recent action

takén by the Railroad Commission of California and

asking’ the Interstate Commerce Commission now to

_. issue its certificates in accordance with its findings in its Ayes

oe said decision of July 6, 1925 (100 I. C.°C. 421), and also

to make its order requiring the Southern Pacific, the .

Santa Fe and the-Salt Lake ‘to construct and there-.

. after maintain a union passenger station and appurte- ~

_ natices within that portion, of the Plaza district in thé

City of Los Angeles which had. been specified by the’

California Railroad Commission and to acquire such

land, if any, as night be necessary for. said purpose, at

a total cost of approximately $10,000,000.00 in substan-

tial compliance with the plan identified as California,

- Railroad Commission’s Exhibit No: 4B. ?

The Railroad Commission also filed a petition \pray-

_ing for the issue of such certificates as might be .requi-

site or proper to make its order of J i &, 1927, ai

| fective. ¢

- After further brie 8 and are FELAE SEO the ‘faba |

“dered its second’ decision) in said’ Docket: ‘No. 14,778

(1421.6. 0. 489; R. 135-153). The Commission ad-_

- hered to the findings of fact made by it. in its said

' .«, first decision, declared: that the: additional findings of

» the California Railroad Commission sh sesncits 7 to 10,

inclusive, hereinbefore referred to; found sufficient: |

: support in the record and issued its. certificates as re-

quested by the City of Los Angeles and the California

Railroad Commission. In its. Majority opinion, how- —

“ever, the. Commission again refused. to take the final

step & ordering the carriers to construct and operate |

a union passenger depot as prayed for by the City of”

Los. Angeles and to consider the evidence bearing on

the propriety of making said order. The Commission -

again based its refusal to make such order or consider .

' ‘the evidence bearing thereon on its view that, as.a -

‘matter of law, it does not have the jurisdiction to ~

make such order. | ee

(Nort: For the. cortificates ‘catia sie the Inter-

_State' Commerce Commission in. this decision, see the

Note at the end of this ‘section of this brief and

— No. 3.) |

_ & “DECISIONS OF SUPREME COURT AND COURT oF APPEALS

ne OF pisTRICT OF COLUMBIA. oe fe

‘Thereafter, the City of Los Asigelen filed in the ae

Supreme Court of the District of Columbia its peti; c

tion for a writ of mandamus compelling the Interstate

Commerce Commission to consider the, evidence, in the .

Los Angeles Passenger Terminal Cases, 100 I.-C. C.

421 and 142 I. C. C. 489, for the purpose of determin- =

ing whether the Commission. should order the*carriers |

_. to build ’a union passenger station in the City of:

Los Angeles and, after consideration of the evidence, —

- . to make such order therein as the facts. and the merits

ee autght justify . or require. | ae

25 4

The Supreme Court se the District dismissed the

“petition. =. :

The Court. of Appeals reversed the judanlies toa .

-remarided the case for further proceedings (United . ;

States ex rel. City of Los Angeles v. Interstate Com-

merce Commission, 34 Fed. (2d) re

9. UNITED. STATES SUPREME COURTS SECOND DECISION.

~Phis Court thereupon granted a writ of certiorari.

and. thereafter, on November 25, 1929, made its, de-

_ cision reversing. the Court of Appeals, on‘the ground

that Congress has not conferred upon the. Interstate

Commerce Commission’ authority to require the con- :

struction of -union passenger depots. on sites not al-

ready, devoted to passenger station service a nterstate

. Commerce Commission v. ‘United States ex rel. City :

of Los: gatas 280 U. S.- 52).

10. CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT'S SECOND ‘DECISION.

Thereupon, the’ Supréme Court of California, which ;

- had deferred decision. in the céase pending before it —

until this Court should have. rendered its decision in

- the mandamus proceeding, authorized the filing of sup-

- plemental briefs and gn’ May 27, 1930, made and filed

the decision now on appeal before this Court. - 2

* (Nore: Findings of Fact and Certificates: .

‘The 6 findings of fact made by the Interstate Com- oe

‘merce Commission in its first decision and later reaf- YS ;

‘

‘firmed in its fecond decision’ may be found in 100.

I, ©. C.. 421,: '459-60 and also in the margin in 142

I. C. C. 489, 491-2). See also R. 185, 138-40.

4 The. 4 additional: findings of fact which were made

_| -, by the Railroad Commission of California and as to

_ Which the Interstate Commerce Commission, in its

r nd decision, said that ‘‘they find. sufficient sup-

‘port in the record,’’ may be found in Volume 30,

Opinions and Orders of . Railroad: Commission of

California, pages 151, 161. See also R. 119, 131-3,

‘The certificates issued by the Interstate Commerce

‘ Commission in its second decision of May 8, 1928,

_ in, accordance with the decision of this Court. in

Railroad Commission of California v. Southern Pa-

cific Company, 264 U.. S. 331, wiped be found in

R. 153-4. . ;

The Court is further ‘referred to the fo owing

Appendices to this brief: ; |

Appendix No. 2—Findings of Fact of Cal fornia

Railroad Commission and Interstate Commer Com- —

mission.

; Appendix No. ‘3-Certificates insued “ Inte : te :

Commerce a)

ees C.

"°° ERAFFIC FACTS.

L VOLUME AND DIRECTION oF PASSENGER TRAFFIC.

The Southern Pacific, Santa Fe and Salt Lake ee,

rt into and out of the City of Los” Angeles. |

eee antienatty in excess.of 2,245,000 passengers (Exh. 26.

of. California Railroad Commission, R. 246). pe

In transporting these passengers, the carriers oper: °

ate into and out of the city annually in excess of

: 12, 000 arriving and an equivalent number of depart- ?

ing passenger trains. Senge 24 of California Railroad :

Commission, R. 243-4). ative oo

<The Southern Pacific’ 8 main line from the nctth, ie

_ the Santa Fe’ s main line from. the north and the Salt 2

_ Lake’s ‘branch line to. Pasadena all run under _ the

North Broadway Viaduct at the entrance to the city.

~ from the north, the two former lines being located ©

under the viaduct along the west bank of the river and ee

the latter line not a stone’s throw away along the east

bank. The point at which thesé tracks run under

the North Broadway Viaduct is located only approxi-

‘mately three-fourths of a mile distant northerly from Lu)

the so-called. Plaza area as described in the decisions

. of the California Railroad Commission and the Inter-'

7 state Commerce Commission (Exh. 5 of California

Railroad: Commission, opposite R. 226)..

oe predominating passenger traffic of the carriers’

in Los Angeles’ is to and from the north and east. .

7 Sixty-nine (69) per cent of all scheduled main line —

~ passenger trains enter Los Angeles by routes north of

the Plaza area. Forty-two (42) out of the -seventy-— a

eight ( 78) main line scheduled passenger trains daily

ae pass under the- North. Broadway Viaduct and twelve —

(12) run along Alhambra Avenue. Only. twenty-four

(24) ‘trains, being less than one-third (1-3), enter Los

Angeles from. ‘the south: Seventy-four: (74) per cent,

being nearly . three-fourths, of all passengers, use .

routes north of the Plaza area (Bill, 2 232). :

Ene carriers have at sinh inrged that the ‘icenhes es

of passengers transferring between the passenger : ‘sta-

_ tions of the steam carriers in Los Angeles is a small —

number—less than 2 per cent—and that this number. ~~

does not justify the erection of a union pAMBenEtE.

station.

‘This ‘contention has not been repeated 4 in ‘thelr brief - °

- herein. For that reason, we deem it sufficient merely

to refer to the Interstate Conimerce Commission’s —

” comment that the carriers’ figures do not include (a)

persons stopping over in Los Angeles or (b). persons _

transferring at Los Angeles but traveling on separate

tickets to and from that point, or (c) persons trans-

_ ferring to and from the Pacifie Electric. The Com-

mission referred with approval to the estimates of the

‘California Commission’s engineers that “probably 10 © -

per cent of the passenger's carried by the steam lines

- normally transfer from one road to another’’ and

pointed out that. this figure ‘does not include ‘passen- |

‘gers transferring to or from the: Pacific Electric” _

- (Log Angeles Passenger: Terminal Cases, 100 I. C. a 3

421, 441-2), : |

_. The recordin this proceeding” sustains the Inter-

‘state Commerce Commission’s findings (Exh. 1 of

California Railroad Commission, (Sachse Report) :

248, 258, separately certified and forwarded, R:-7 ds as

_— ~ 262; J. — R. _— e

-°

| - FINANCIAL FACTS.

™ ? “GROSS Aun NET costs OF PROPOSED. UNION PASSENGER :

: STATION. —

The California Railroad Commission found that

-. the gross cost of compliance by the carriers with its ,

order would be $10,000,000.. Such’ compliance would Ee

release. from ‘railroad. passenger. uses. valuable lands —

oo belonging . to the Southern Pacific and the Santa Fe, --

_ which ‘lands could then be sold for. at least. $4,500, 000,

~—thus resulting in n a net cost of $5,500, 000 for the pro- _

‘ject (Municipal Le League v. . Southern Pacific, et al, Vol. es

__ume 30, Opinions and Orders of Railroad GC |

*. of California, pp. 151,-159; RR. 119, 130).

These findings are supported by voluminous and

ue overwhelming: evidence. a

The Interstate Commerce Coniénisision Hee that -

the total investment of the carriers in passenger facil-

"ities under. the Plaza plan—would be approximately

” $9,500,000 and, that this sum would be reduced by —

. the market value of. salvaged lands to approximately

$5,500 ,000. . The. Commission found that the total in- |

‘vestment under the plan- proposed : ‘by the Southern ..

Pacifie-and the Salt Lake would have been $11,000,-

000 (Los Angeles Passenger Terminal Cases Or |

Decision), 100 I. C. J. 421, 456-7): : |

+ he ‘investment tinder the Plaza plan would “ very +

es moderate for a city of the size of - “—. “‘anch |

, ee than for similar facilities: i in any y city of the 2 same S

’. size’? (Sachse, Re 266).

The carriers have not, in their brief esi ques- ,

tioned the: accuracy of the findings as to the cost of

the project, either gross or net, nor have they urged

that the amount is unreasonable, nor have they urged

that the amount of the cost, either gross or net, is such

as to deprive them of any right claimed by them.

Hence, we shall not pursue this subject further.

2. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION'S FINDING AS TO

FINANCIAL ABILITY OF CARRIERS. . es Bt

In the First Los Angeles Union Station Case, Rail- ;

| road Commission. of California vs. Southern Pacific

Company, 264 U. 8. 331, the Court said (p. 347):

“We think it clear that in such an extension

“4

of main. lines with their terminals the Interstate’. .

Commerce Commission is required by the Act to

' make a finding that the expense involved will .

-not impair the ability of the carriers eoncerned

_ to perform their duty to the public, 4

“The Interstate Commerce Commission » thereupori ae

made such finding based on evidence submitted to:it

(Eos. Angeles Passenger Terminal Cases, 100 I. 0. C.

_ 421, 453-4, 460) and subsequently reaffirmed it (Los -, .

_ Angeles Passenger Terminal essai 142 rT. C.. C. 489, Bees

496; fae ‘135, 139, 1.

io ~~

31.

Bs ta _.

3 | i a

ae We do not ‘iinet that the ‘oouraey “of this

_ finding has ever been challenged and,\ for that reason, —

Shall not develop the subject further.

‘CARRIERS’ STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

- We shall now refer very briefly “to

matters in the “Statement of the. Case’” a pearing in

the ‘Joint Brief for Appellants’’ on file erein (pp.

4-15), which matters we believe call for comment. :

At page 4, the carriers say that at the commence- —

ment of the proceedings which culminated in the order

-ander review, the earriers-had separate passenger sta-—

- tions.in the City of Los Angeles ‘‘none of which is in

the'vicinity of the others.’’ We believe that a glance a

at the map which is Exh. 5.of the California Railroad -

Commission, reproduced opposite ‘page 226 of the

- Record, will show the i inaccuracy of this statement: As

appears from this map, the old Salt Lake passenger _

“depot was located directly across the river from the ©

Santa Fe depot, less than ¥, mile away, while the —

Santa Fe depot is located only between 14 mile and oe

%4 mile from the Southern Pacific’s depot. As will

be further noted. from said map, these locations, as

well as the Plaza site, are all within the. general “‘Rail-

toad and Industrial District” of Los. Angeles,

_ At page 6, the reference to the. proceedings insti-

tuted before the Railroad Commission | should be

wee

EN amplified by stating that request was pie made for ©

the construction of a unioh passenger station ° (Gee

; complaint of Central Hevelapmens pesociation,, a

amended, R. 19-21).

At page 8, ‘the reference to the first decision ren-

dered by the Interstate Commerce Commission in the Pook

Los Angeles Passenger Terminal Cases, 100 I. 0. 0, :

' 421, is inaccurate. . The Commission issued. no certifi-

cates in that decision. It made 6 findings but deferred

_ the issue of certificates to await such further action, if

any, as the California. Railroad Commission ‘might

‘take (pp. .459-461).. In its - ‘second decision, the =

Commission, ‘after re-affirming its findings, went ‘a —

_ step further and issued ‘the certificates which: this

Court -had specified in the First Los Angeles Union —

Station Case, Railroad Commission of California v.

|. Southern Pacific Company, 264 U.S. 331; 344, 348, |

_ The certificates appear on pages 153-4 of the Record

herein and in appendix No. 3 to ‘this brief. Gites

At page 11, appears a reference’ a joint -use Of ee.

lands and other properties valued at 050,691 and =”

to an ultimate capital expenditure: for all recom- |

mendations of from $25,000,000 to $45, 000,

to avoid possible confusion, we desire to

that these figures relaté to a so-called ‘“ultimate.plan” —

‘worked out by engineers : of. the. California Rai ‘oad.

i Comniission, covering a large number of various px o-"

3 jects i in Los Angeles County, of which the union pass

_. enger station project then recommended by. the engi- \

' ‘neers, was to cost less than one-third of the’ total

——

ae,

(Exh. ‘1 of California Railroad ‘Commission, ‘p. 15, .

_ separately certified and forwarded; R. 7). The plan

_. was‘never adopted by the California, Railroad Com-

mission. As already pointed out, the construction or-

dered by the California Commission, will cost gross -|

- $10, 50 and net not.to exceed $5,500,000,

“exception of the reduced estimated cost ‘and the re-

quirement of the elimination ;

“the State Commission’s order under’ review is prac-

tically identical with its original orders.” As already

pointed out, the Railroad Commission ‘never made an

. order calling for the expenditure of $28,050,691 or any

sum in excess of $10,000,000 gross. Furthermore, the

California Railroad Commission’s order now here on

! apigeal differs from the first order, among other mat-

_ ters, in the vital respect that it is expressly declared

_ that it is to become effective only ‘‘from and after ‘the

- promulgation-by the Interstate Commerce Commis-

sion of an order issuing and granting proper and suf-

. ficient certificates or other appropriate order or orders

eoveting and authorizing the construction, exten-

~ sions and abandonments herein authorized or' directed

FOO AH, AB4): .. Again, this order refers to

a definite plan shown on Exhibit 4B and specifies a-

definite _ gross cost of $10,000 ,000, whereas the first’

order did neither. There are other significant differ-

ences, but we consider it — to. pene the

7 subject nurther. :

f grade crossings Over |

the Salt Lake and Santa Fe tr ¢ks onthe river banks, —

‘ an i 4 Rant « ; +s

¥ 3° Ly : : | ite . . 7 46®

f, : . .

; a eta . mci dey

’

At page 11, the carriers also say that with the. .

At page 12, the carriers say that the California.

Commission’s order *finvolves the acquisition of new

_ / land, about forty acres, a portion of which is owned

by some of the railroads * * *.” The facts are that

the land. included within the Plaza area shown:on Exh,

4B of the Railroad Commission amounts to 37 acres . |

and that the carriers, at the time the ‘evidence herein

- was submitted, already owned 26.87 acres within this .

a area. In other. words, the carriers already owned

more: than 70 per cent of the total area (Exh. 49 of

‘California Railroad Commission, separately | certified

' .and forwarded, R. 8). Reference to said map and a

comparison with Exh. 4B will show that with slight

. exceptions the land necessary for the entire physical

structures in connettion with. the union station plan

is already owned by the carriers and that the remain-

__ ing property necessary to be acquired is\a minor quan-. .

', tity of land adjacent to the lands already owned and-

_ “Mecessary merely to “round out’? the site.

., At page 13, the carriers state that the petition which

‘the City of Los Angeles filed with the Interstate Com- -

merce Commission in said Docket N 0, 14,778, follow-

_ ing the California Railroad Commission’s seeond de-

- cision, asked merely for an order requiring the con-.. 7 .

_ struction of a union passenger station. As a matter

of fact, the City of Los Angeles asked also for the

issuance of certificates in accordance with the findings

in 100 I. ©. ©. 459-460 and for such additional find-

ings, certificates and orders as might be just and |

equitable and in the public interest (Los Angeles‘

Passenger Terminal Cosee, 12 ‘A C. & 489, 494; .

‘R. 135, 142). :

| i held... The Supreme

Court did not hold 1 State ‘Commission’ 8 order

did not violate the. constitutional ‘rights of the car- 3

riers ‘‘in requiring, them to abandon adequate ‘facili- .

ties.” As a matter of fact, the record before the State

Commission, as hereinbefore pointed out, showed that

the existing facilities of the carriers arp not adequate .

or proper. The Supreme Court did not hold that. the

carriers could be required to extend their main lines

of railroad ‘“‘to rea new ter rritory not theretofore _

served by them.” e Co ion’s order does hot -

provide for any extension into new territory not

theretofore served. by them. Finally, the Supreme

_ Court did not hold ‘that the Railroad Commission’s

order required any railroad to permit another rail-

‘Toad to use its .main line tracks or facilities without .

compensation. The Railroad Commission’s order con-

tained no such requirement and the sini: wear

said nena to the er .

: III, Summary of Argument. —

A. California Railroad Commission had Jurisdiction

to make the order.

1. Prior to Transportation “a 1920, Califoriia f

Railroad Commission. clearly’ had the ge ez ‘

tion. ;

2. In enacting the Transportation Act, 1920, Con-

gress: ‘did not iritend to deprives and did not

» deprive the states of jurisdiction to: ‘require. the :

| OMe Nes and operation of union passenger on

stations and the necessary incidents, on new.

a. ‘General ae hoes

b. Tntentiop- of en as to union paasen- 7 :

ger stations. © :

3. The Railroad Commission’ 's order does not con-

travene the Commerce Clausé of the Federal

| _ Constitution ‘ or any provision of the Interstate a

Commerce Act: - ,

a. Analysis of the Railroad: ‘Commission’ 2

_ order..

b. The California Railroad Chchentesliats ‘has

hot invaded _a field occupied ud Congress.

- (1) Union station.

(2) Essential incidents of a unior station.

« This is npt-a case of on¢ ommission giving

. @ffeet to the orders 6f another commission -

-- or of divided snority in ees same cial

i 3 diction. eee 7 ie

B. Interstate. Commerce Commission’ s Certificate |

- Are Valid.

~~ 1. The certificates’ described. "

2. The certificates are valid. = : |

3. The validity of the certificates can: ‘not. be —

attacked ere ? a

x ** ~’ : . a 4 : 2 oo

Ly California Railroad inital Order is. Just Pe

and Reasonable and Does Not Deprive any Car- _-

' rier of Any Right’ Under the Fourteenth Amend-:

ment to the Federal Constitution, | |

1.’ Under the police powér, public authority n may

require the construction and operation of union ~

passenger stations whenever the power has.

‘been. conferred and, on the facts, such order ;

‘would be reasonable.

a. Union passenger station decisions of state

courts. ; ,

b. Decisions of Supreme Court of United -

States. ; :

2. The authorities on which the ¢ carriers rely are

* ” not in point..

3. The carriers are in error in urging that the

_ Railroad Commission’s order requires the joint

~ use of any of their property. = compen- _

| sation first paid. .

‘4, There is no foundation for the contention of ©

the. earriers that the Railroad Commission

acted under the guise of exercising power over 34

., Yailroad grade crossings. | ees |

_. 5, The contentions of the earriers (a) that the

| ‘Southern Pacific is being directed to take ac-

tion for the purpose of providing the Santa

_ Fe and the Salt Lake with adequate passenger —

. depots and (b) that the Santa Fe and the ~

Salt Lake are being directed to take action for .

_the purpose of eliminating the Southern Pa- —

-- @Y

38 .

‘cifie’s grade crossings on Alameda. Street are

_.. contrary to the facts and without ~~ merit.

a. Santa Fe.

_ b. Salt Lake. -

-¢@. Southern Pacific.

d. Sharing of cost.

ibe Argument. an

Se Sy

CALIFORNIA RAILROAD COMMISSION HAD JURISDICTION TO

MAKE THE ORDER.. oe <

1. PRIOR TO TRANSPORTATION ACT, 1920, CALIFORNIA

RAILROAD COMMISSION CLEARLY HAD THE JORIS.

DICTION. :

_ Prior to the ‘enactment of the Transportation Act;

1926, the Railroad Commission of California: had full .

_power and authority to make. an order for ‘the con-

struction, maintenance and operation by the Southern

‘Pacific, the Santa Fe and. the Salt Lake of a union”

passenger station in the Plaza Area in Los Angeles.

Constitution. of California, Article XII, Sec- —

tion 22; :

Constitution of California, Article xi, Sec-

tion 23;

Public Utilities ‘Act of. Coaliforsia. (Stats. 1915, —

Pp. 115), Section 13(b); Section 22(a); Sec:

tion 30, Section ees Section 36 ese Section 41,

Pa oe

These constitutional oe siatiaeen provisions are’

set forth in the Appendix to the Joint Brief for :

“Appellants on file herein. “We shall not extend this —

brief by repeating these. citations, but by reason af

its importance in these proceedings ‘we are. reprint-

ing Section 36 of the Publie Utilities Act i in je =

No. 4. , . oe

As the Court will note from. a study’ of sad, Sec-.

tion 36, the section covers the case of joint construc-

tion by two or more public utilities. It gives the Rail-

road Commission specific authority to fix the site of 2

_. any new structure. It sets up the. necessary machinery

for determining the portion of the cost of the new

-.structure to be borne by each of the ‘participating

- public utilities. In this respect, the statute completely

meets the test prescribed by this Court in its decision .

in the Sécond Los Angeles Union Station Case, Inters -

‘state Commerce Commission v. United States ex rel.

. City of Los. Angeles, 280 U. 8. 52, 69, in the matter

- of the establishment of “tribunals to apportion the .

_ expenditures and cost as between the carriers:”” .

It seems quite clear from the language of the sec. -

. tion that it was drafted to cover the precise situation _

of union passenger stations to be erected: on possible

‘new sites by ‘joint action of several railroads. .

ae Prior to 1920, the carriers: who are the appellants .

- herein uniformly took the position that the California _

Railroad Commission had ample authority, under ~

eaeeen 36 of the Public Utilities Act and related stat- |

utes, to ‘compel the. singh Picton and operation of

union passenger stations.

Mr. Durbrow, attorney for the Southern Pacific 2

Company, said (R. 218-19) :

_“T shall contend that, so far as.the establish. :

ment of a union depot is concerned, that: this

Commission has been vested with the sole and.

exclusive power to determine that question under

the provisions of section 36 of thé Public Utilities

Act, and if there is any power in any tribunal in

the State of California, court, commission or mu-

nicipal council, that power must be vested in this

a under the laws as they now exist. ped.

; \

\ At R. 219:

a | = eaniastaalotaane THELEN: You say that if there

: \ - is power in any tribunal, it is in the Railroad _

| Commission. Are you prepared to say whether,.in

your opinion, that power has been vested in the 2

\ Railroad Commission ? .

\ “Mr. Dursrow: To be frank, ‘in my Solgmenk

4 the provisions of section 36 that power has

Pec vested ih the Commission. " ;

“At R. 219:

| (Mr, DuRBRow: My. cuiiception of the law is |

- that that power (to compel construction of. union —

_ passenger depots) has been conferred upon com-

. missions, not only of this state but of other states, —

ES ' * Jature of the moi power of the state.’’.

and that it is held to be a delegation by the’ ‘legis- Ss : :

Cotitinning | ey

‘Mr: Dursrow: I want to say now, I didn’t ae

; -. say it, I tried to, that I believe that where a legis-

lature of a state delegates the power to ‘a com-

.-mission to compel the establishment of a union _

depot, that the commission may. exercise that -

power subject, of course, always to constitutional —

safeguards, and it is presumed that the Commis-

sion will exercise its power in conformity with

hone, oft (Emphasis supplied. )

The representatives of the other carriers coneurred ee:

in the views of Mr. Durbrow (R. 219).

If there was ever a doubt in the matter, it was con-

_ : elusively- set at rest by the’ Supreme Court of Cali-

fornia in the decision now before this Court. In Atehi- ©

son, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company v. Rail-

road Commission of the State of California, 209 Cal. -

460, 79 Cal. Dee. 457, 463, R. 184, 192-3, the Court thus .

passed upon the force and effect of the appropriate’

_ provisions of the Constitution of California and of the

_ Publie Utilities Act of that state:

“ . “The Constitution of this state expressly pro-

. - Vides that the authority of the legislature to con-

-fer powers.upon the Railroad Commission is —

plenary and unlimited by any provision of the :

Constitution (Constitution of Calif., Art. XI,

Sees. 22 and 23; Pacific Tel. = Tel. Co,v. Eshle- |

man, et al., 166 Cal. 640.) -

7 “There can be no. aes that the leginleluin

.. * by the Public Utilities Act —_ 1915, ~~

. f

Ore

91, p. 115), secs. 13b, 22a, 30, 31 and, particularly,

by section 36 thereof, has conferred upon the Rail-

road Commission powers broad enough to include

the ones sought. to be exercised by said Commis.

ston: herein.” (Emphasis supplied. )

Hence, at least up to the enactment of the Transpor-

tation Act, 1920, the California Railroad Commission |

had ample jurisdiction to make an order requiring the ”

- railroad companies ‘who are the appellants. herein to

construct atid operate a union _ passenger ‘station in

_ ian Beg ee roe

Tt follows that on the question.of the California —

~ Railroad Commission’s jurisdiction the only remain-

ing question is whether there is anything in the Trans-

portation Act, 1920, which deprives.the Railroad Com- —

mission. of its jurisdiction, bearing in mind the fact

that the Interstate Commerce Commission has already

made all necessary findings and issued all necessary

certificates. ee Ve | se

_ This is a question. of the. purpose and intention of

Congress when’ it enacted the Transportation Act, -

& pi 25

9, IN ENACTING THE TRANSPORTATION ACT, 1920, CON-

GRESS DID NOT INTEND TO DEPRIVE AND DID NOT

_DEPRIVE THE STATES OF JURISDICTION TO REQUIRE

[HE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNION PAS.

| SENGER STATIONS AND THE NECESSARY INCIDENTS, on

5 See”

The general rule on a rubles was cece stated

by counsel for the Interstate Commerce Commission

in his ‘brief filed with this Court in. Interstate Com~

. merce Commission v. United States ex rel. City: vid Los |

Angeles, 280 U. 8S. 52, as follows:

Tt j is well settled that, while the federal author-_

-- ity under the commerce clause is paramount even

- . though trenching upon the reserved power of a

State, yet where Congress’ occupation of a field is

only partial a State is left free to act as to matters

not covered by or repugnant to the Federal. a

lation. - Savage v. Jones, 225-U. 8. 501, 533, and

_ eases therein cited. Sligh v. Kirkwood, 237 U. 8. .

/—~62; M. K. & T. Ry. v. Harris, 234 U. S. 412;

| Missouri Pac. Ry. v. Larrabee Flour Mills Gan. :

‘211 U.S. 612. It is also settléd that federal legis- .

lation so trenching upon the power of a state will

_ be strictly construed, that is, that it will be taken

to supersede State authority only to the extent

~~ nece to avoid defeating express provisions

of the Acts of Congress, M. K. & T. Ry. v. Haber,

169 U. S. 613, 623; Savage v. Jones, supra, 533;

MN. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Pub. Utilities Comm., 245

U.S. 493, 510; Lehigh Valley R. -Co. v. Pub.

_.. Utility Comm., 278 U. 8. 24, cael (Emphasis

supplied: ) , ee:

In the leading case of : Seilige v. Tous, 225 Uv. 8:

501, 533, the present Chief J ustice stated the seer

rule as follows: | , [a

| “Ts, then, a denial to the ists of the exercise

of. its power for the purposes in question neces- _

sarily implied in the Federal statute? For when

| ip question is. whether a Federal act. overrides

_ . a state law, the entire scheme of the statute must, --

‘of course, be considered, and that which needs -

must - be implied is of no less force than that

_°. which is expressed. If the purpose of the act can- | z

not otherwise. be acconmiplished—if its operation .\” »

within its chosen field else must be frustrated and.”

its provisions be refused their natural effect—the 2

state law must yield : to the regulation of Congress

: within the sphere of its delegated power. Texas

éP. R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204° U. 8.

426, 51 L. ed. 553, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 350, 9 ‘Ann.

Cas 1075; Northern P. R..Co. v." Washington,

222: U. 8. $70, 378, ante, 237, 239, 32 Sup. Ct. 8

_- . 160; Southern R: ‘Co. v. Reid, 222 U.. S. 424, 436)

ante, 257, 260, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 140. _

_ “But the intent to supersede the exercise by th

.. state of its police power as to matters not erik

by the ‘Federal legislation is not’ to be intorrod:

from the mere fact that Congress has seen fit to 3

fa eribe its regulation and to. occu upy a Him-

_ ited field. In other words, such intent is to be =

implied unless the act of Congress, faitly inter- -

: ae isin actual conflict with the. ear of the.

state. /This principle has ‘had abundant illustra:

> tion. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v: Solan, 169

/ . » U. 8/183, 42 L. ed. 688,-18 Sup. Cb.-Rep. 289;

sa yee & &T. R. Co. v. ee 169 U.S S. 613, a

lon

.. ° ado, 187 U.S. 13 , 47 L, ed. 108, 23 Sup. Ct: Rep.

42 L. ed. 878, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 488; Reid v. Colo-

92, 12 Am. Orim. Rep. 506; Pénnsylvania R. Co.

vy, Hughes, 191 U..8)477,. 48 L. ed. 268, 24 Sup. .

Ct. Rep. 132; Crossman v. Lurman, 192 U. 8. 189,

48 L, ed. 401, 24 Sup. \Ct. Rep. 234; Asbell vu.

ee Kansas, 209 U. S; 251, 52\L. ed: 778, 98 Sup. Ct.

Rep. 489, 14 Ann. Cas. 1101; Northern P. R: Co.

_v. Washington, 222 U. 8. 370379, anté, 237, 240,

32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 160; Southern R. Co. v. Reid, - |

222 U. 8. 424, 442, ante, 257, :

‘Rep. 140.” |

¢ In Missouri, Kansas aad Ponce ‘Eek ae |

v. Haber, 169 VU. 8/ 613, ‘Mr. ‘Justice seone said

(Pp. 623): hy | seams re

| “May not these statutory provisions ites with:

‘ out obstructing or embarrassing the execution-of-

_ the act of Congress? This question must of course

be determined’ with reference to the settled rule.

that a statute enacted in execution of a reserved ©

power of the State is not to be regarded as in- ~~

consistent with an act of Congress passed in the’

_ execution of a clear power under the Constitution,

unless the repugnance or conflict is so direct and _

_ positive that the two acts cannot be reconciled or.

‘stand together. ‘Stnnot v. Davenport, 22 How.

: 227, 243. eh OSE 3 . |

ae TWinoie Ceitval Railroad £ Smiemay v. State Pub-

lie Utilities Commission of Minois, 245 U. 8. 493, Mr.

Justice Van Devanter stated the role - follows -

©. 510) :

“In coustruing Federal statutes cansted under _

_-the power conferred by the commerce clause: Pay

‘typ Constitution the rule is that it should ied

be‘held that Congress intends to supersede or sus-

pend the exercise of the reserved powers of a

_ state, even where. that. may be done, unless, and ~~

-* . exeept so far as, its purpose to do so is clearly. |

--- manifested. Reid v. Colorado, 187 U. 8. 137, 148,

47 L, ed. 108, T14, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 92,12 Am. oe

_ Crim. Rep. 506; Cummings v. Chicago, 188 U. S.

410, 430, 47 L. ed, 525, 531, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 472;

Savage v. Jones, 225 U. S. 501, 56 L. ed. 1182, 32 ui

Sup. Ct. Rep. 715; Missouri, K. & T. BR: Co. v.: «

Harris, 234 U. 8.. 412; 419, 58 L. ed. 1377, 1382, -

L. R.A. 1915E, 942, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 790. ‘This

. being true of an act of Congress, it. is obvious ~

_° that an order of a subordinate agency, such ag ° ~

the Commission, should not be given precedence

over a state rate statute otherwise valid, unless, .

and except so far a8, it conforms to a ” stan-.

_ dard of certainty.’ PO

he International Shoe ‘Cothbisby v, Pinks, 278 en

_ U.S. 261, Mr. Justice Butler said (/p. 265) :

_— he general Yule is that an inte tion wholly 3

- to exclude state action will not be plied unless,

“when. fairly interpreted, an Act of Congress’ is

plainly .in conflict with state regulation Of! the

» same subject. Savage v. Jones, 225 U.S. 501, 533;

Minois Central R: R. Co. v. Public Utilities Com- rae

mission, 245 U. S. 493, 510; Merchants Seen 4

v. Missouri, 248 U. 8, 865.” cae oe

Finally, i in Chicago v. North Western Railway Som: ae

pany v. Lindell, 281 o RS 14, Mr, Justice Butler said. iS

(p. 18): ase ey Ne A ee vie e 3

Ce ee

“The Act: (Interstate Commerce Act) ought

‘not to be construed to put aside state laws and:

i _ long established practice in respect to pleading :

ore unless. the intention: of Congress so to do ode .

5 plain. “sn (Emphasis supplied).

. b.- nih nisl ha “els Vesa

« on the subject of union. passenger ‘stations, reference

may be had both to the proceedings of iesrealy

during the, consideration by it of the Transportation

Act, 1920, and to the language of. the Act itself.

‘Referring first to the proceedings before Congress,

- it is well known ‘that while the Esch-Cummins bill .

was being debated on the floor of the Hose of Repre-

- sentatives, Congressman. McClintice of Oklahoma of-

fered the. following amendment ( Congressional | Rec-

ord, November 15, 1919, 66th ‘eae tims Ist: oo, :

“Vol. 58, ‘p. 8578) :

“Provided further, ee the Commission is.

hereby given authority to require a earrier to

depots, upon such terms as ‘Shall be found by the

Commission to be just and reasonable. -No carrier

in connection with another carrier until proper

‘ Sens ee has been made to the =

purpose of this simendanené,

n McClintic (pages 8578-9). was to give

In determining the purpose and intent of ‘Connie |

ge ‘

3 “maintain his present arrangement or to make ~

, New arrangements relative ,to the joint use of —

\, : shall be allowed + discontinue the use of a depot

explained by- | |

terstate Commerce Commission jurisdiction, .

over union passenger dépots. Cnciiisats Esch opposed _

the adoption of » e amendment. on-the-ground that

jurisdiction over matters had always been vested .

_ in the various states ‘and should continue to be exer-

cised' by them. Chai Esch said (Congressional

Record, November 15, aa p. 8579) : | oS ae

“Mr. Chairman, t matter which the gentle-

man from Oklahoma S to reach by his'amend- ©

.-ment. lies almost wholly \ within the police power - =

of the. several states. There have-been amend-

ments offered to this bill seeking to preserve such

police powers. The committee in framing the bill

- has sought not to encroa upon such powers, -

. The matters of depots and joint use of depots is —

| practically in the jurisdiction of the state com-

missions, -and all but one of .fhe states have such

commissions. In such small matters the detail

\. should be’ left within the jurisdiction of the state

~ authorities, who know’ the situation, know the’

conditions, and know how best to meet the needs.

There is, however, a provision in this bill provid-

ing for the Joint use: of terminals. ‘e

Mr. McClintic. thereupon offered to. witaike the 2

amendment, but another member insisted on having |

a vote thereon. ‘Thereafter his amendment, which

would have conferred upon the Interstate Commerce

~ Commission. jurisdiction over union passenger depots,

Was. rejected (Congressional en November 15,

.~ 1919p. 8582).

This would seem to indicate that the Cuneta saw.

oan fit to leave the. federal commission without mandatory _. A

"jurisdietion “where passenger stations are i me erected 7

on new sites, understanding that the matter of union

stations world continue within. the jurisdiction of the

state cominissions, subject only to certain findings to -

be made and certain certificates to be issued bid the ‘-

Interstate Commerce Commission.

Schein aa to the ome of the Act itself, this

Court pointed out in the Second Los Angeles Union _

Station Case, Interstate Commerce Commission v. —

United States ex rel. City of Los Angeles, 280 U. 8.

52, that the Interstate Commerce. Act nowhere refers

specifically to union passenger stations.

2s . Nowhere in the Act has Congress conferred on the’

Interstate Commerce Commission the power to require

_- .the construction of a union passenger station~en a

mew site or of any of the essential incidents of such

station. . = ; _

On. the contrary, the Act coprwsiiy reserves to the

"states the right to require just and reasonable freight —

and passenger service for intrastate business, exceptw.

in so far as such requirement is inconsistent wi ae

lawful order of the Interstate Commerce: Commissi &

made. under the provisions of the Interstate Com-

- merce Act. This proviso is a part of paragraph 17

of Section 1-of the Interstate Commerce Act and

reads as follows: © fi

‘Provided, however, That iothing in this oe 3

shall impair or affect the right of a State, in the

‘exercise of its police power, to require just and -

reasonable — and passenger service for

~ ee

; intrastate business, except in 80 far as ‘euch. .

requirement is inconsistent with any lawful order

of the Commission made under the provisions of

this Act,’* ;

On the subject of ‘this proviso, the Supreme Court

of North Carolina, in a passage quoted with approval 3 |

by the Interstate Commerce Commission (100 I. 0. 0.

421, 428-9) said (North Carolina Corporation Com-

mission v. Southern wavicted Co., 185 N. C. 435, 459,

i 117 8. E. 563) : |

**We have examined the act of 1920 ects:

and we do: not find any provision” therein which

grants to the Interstate Commerce . Commission,

either expressly or by clear implication, the power,: -

or which makes it its duty, to. require the erection

of passenger stations. It is not claimed in this _

ease that such an order ‘las been made by the In-

te Commerce Commission. The right of the

state, then, to act in this particular is expressly

to it by Transportation Act of 1920,

as follows: ‘Provided, however, That nothing in |

this act shall i impair or affect the right of a state,

_ in the exercise of its: police power, to. require just ©

and reasonable freight and passenger service for

- - intrastate business, except in so far as such re- -

quirement is inconsistent with ° any lawful order

of the commission made under the provisions of

this act.’ ”” | sige Bee ae

In the light. of the proceedings before licen:

_——— of the Act itself, and the decisions of this -

ers

» ‘Subsec. \17: (41 Stat. at Large, p. 477) -.

_ while the Transportation Act was being enacted, the __

Court in the First ‘and the Second Los Ange

* Station Cases (to which more detailed referei |

- hereinafter be made) we believe that it is clear that

: . the jurisdiction of the states to make orders requiring ie

the construction of uhion’ passenger stations on new.

sites was not taken away by the mere fact that before

such orders may be effective, it is necessary for the

Interstate Commerce Commission to ‘have. made the

findings and issued the certificates: which this Court

specified in its décision i in 1 the First Los Angeles Umion .

Station Case. . |

' As the California Supreme Chet said in “< to.

. the argument of the carriers (Atchison, Topeka and

_ Santa Fe Railway Company v. Railroad Commission

of the State of California, 209. Cal. 460, big — Dee.

457, 462, R. 184, 192):

x “The most decisive answer to ‘this wiidlint is

that the language of the decision of the Supreme

_ Court of the United’ States, in the first Los An- —

geles Terminal case, is ‘to the effect that an ofder ~

is. to be made by the state. commission, condi- —

tioned ohly upon the proper findings and cer-

- tificates of the Interstate Commerce Commission,”

8 THE RAILROAD COMMISSION'S ORDER DOES NOT CON-

‘TRAVENE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL

‘CONSTITUTION O08 ANY PROVISION OF ‘THE INTERSTATE |

COMMERCE ACT. af 3

: On pages 27 to 61 of their brief, the carriers urge

‘that the Railroad Commission’ 8 order contravenes the

Commerte Cliatas of the. Federal Constitution “and .

certain provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act.

_ We submit that the California Supreme Court ruled i

correctly when it decided that there is: no mer in

: these contentions.

a, Analysis of Railroad Commission’s order.

The carriers first: seek to make it appear that the |

Railroad Commission’s order requires them to per-

‘ form 7 different, distinct, separate and co-ordinate

’ ‘elasses of acts (J. oint Brief of Appellants, PP. 27-9).

‘Such i is, of course, not the fact.

eae

The order requires just one. vitttioto aet, namely, _

the construction of a union passenger station. .In 89

far as the other acts are to be performed at all, they -

are merely what this Court has aptly called the “‘essen-

tial incidents” of such station (First Los Angeles

Union Station Case, 264 U. S. 331, (341). :

‘The: California: ‘Bailroad Commission itself referred _

to these other matters as being merely ‘‘necessary and

‘ incidental”’ to - use of prt oes a station ~ 139,

~ 133). oe

It may ang be said that these other acts are merely

“the tail” hich Boes with the hide”’. :

eo Bs ies Baad Gonminion Dnt vd +

occupied by Congress.

_' The carriers then seek to make it appear that fhe

” Califo Railroad Commission’s order invaded a

field cya by —— ee ;

We submit that this is ai the fact, either: as-to the ae

; union station itself or as to. its “essential incidents 19

(1) Unlen Station. :

In Interstate . Comaerce Commission . “Unites”

States ex rel. City of Los Angeles, 280 U. 8S. 52, this

Court decided that Congress has not conferred upon

the Interstate Commerce Commission. the authority to iS

_Tequire carriers to construct a union passenger: station

upon a new site. :

| ‘The carriers now urge that in some way or other

' Congress has, nevertheless, so ‘‘oceupied the. field” as a

to preclude further action by the states.

If this argument 18 sound, the result will be that

no public authority, -either State or Federal, any

longer has the authority, heretofore clearly possessed

_ by the states, of requiring the construction of wnion

passenger stations on’ new sites, however urgently the —

public convenience: and neeny may _—— — !

| construction.

, We submit that this startling proposition i is not es =

law and that the authorities cited “by the carriers fos |

‘not sustain their position.

Tt is true that in Atchison, Tonika and .Santa Fe =

Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission of the State of Cali- .

fornia (First. Decision), 190 Cal, 214, the Supreme | -

Court of. California: held that by reason of the enact-

ment of the Transportation Act, 1920, the power and *

authority of the California Railroad Commission to

= make an } order _— the Southern Patifie the

i fiends Fe ia the Salt Lake to einakeint and operate

_ a union passenger station i in the City of Los Angéles — ;

‘had been “‘divested’” and had become “vested” in the —

_” Interstate Commerce Commission: However, follow-

ing this Court’s decisions in the First and the Second

Los Angeles Union Station Cases, the Supreme Court

of California felt obligated to reverse and did reverse -

itself in the decision now before this. Court on appeal,

, The carriers also refer to the decisions of this Court =

in the First and the Second. Los Angeles Union Sta-

tion Cases, but we. submit that those decisions: are os

_ directly contrary to their contentions.

As we read those decisions, ‘and as: the Supreme -

‘Court of California read them, they hold that the

‘jurisdiction of the California Railroad Commission :

* continued and may ‘be exercised and that its orders

‘may become effective when the Interstate Commerce

. _ Commission has made the findings and ‘issued the cer-

tificates: specified by this Court in the First Los. An oc

geles Union Station Case. | , a

- Thus, in the First Los Angeles Tnion Station Case, :

this Court said io U.. S. 331, a Pat the situation

ieee comes

“within p ragraphs 18 to 21 of Settion 402, aid

' Fequires a certificate of the Interstate ‘Commerce

Commission ‘as a condition precedent to the’ valid-

ity of. any action of the carriers or of any order

by the saoea ys se aachonei - ae xa supplied.). = |

- Again, at Pp ge 348, in the same case, » this Court

said: ea

“Until. the Interstate Commerce Coimttanton”

shall have acted under paragraphs 18 to 21 of |

~ Section 402 of the Transportation Act, the re-

spondent railways can not be required to provide

- a new interstate union-station:and to extend their.

main tracks thereto as ordered by the State Rail- -

road Commission.’ ck (Emphasis supplied.) : -

“In this Seoond Los Angeles Union Station Case, this

Court explained its first decision as: declaring that the

necessary certificates. must. first: be secured from the ;

Interstate Commerce Coimission._. om

‘as a condition ' precedent to the validity of any

~ action by the carriers or of any order by the State

Railroad Commission, and that until. the Inter-

state Commerce Commission - had acted under :

those paragraphs, the carriers could not be re-.

_ \ quired .to provide a. new union: station or to ex-:

tend their main tracks thereto as ordered by .the °

State Railroad Commission.” (Emphasis sup- -

plied). (Interstate. Commerce Commission v. |

Umted States ex rel. City Bing A 2800 =:

_ U.S. 52, 53). : e

in these: references to an ‘onder of the | State Rail” e

road: Commission, to be. effective upon the making ‘of ©

_ the necessary findings and the issuance of the -neces-

sary certificates by the Interstate Commerce Commis- -

sion, we believe that there is manifest a conviction on

: ” the part of this Court that Congress did not. intend to

take from the ‘states the power to make such an‘order. :

_, Otherwise, we do not believe. that this Court’ would |

have referred several tines, in each of its two de-

— ee

es cisions, tothe authority of the Stata Railroad Com-.

2 mission as alr eating and continuing jurisdiction. . es

“In the li light of | of these two decisions, we believe

"that there i is now no longer any reasonable doubt that

Congress, in enacting the Transportation Act, 1920,

did not take from the State of California the juris-

* diction to make the mandatory order which the Cali-

' fornia Railroad Commission actually made, to be —

: effective - ‘upon findings to be made and certificates

_ to be issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission. ag

: This was the opinion of the California Supreme |

‘Court Sd Cal. Dee. 457, 462, R. 184, 192):

is settled, therefore, by the. highest judicial es

aniibetes in the land, that dpe Transportation \

' Act has not transferred ‘to te Interstate Com-. -

merce Commission the power to make the order =;

involved here. hia

“*Tt is urged, however, by petitioners: that even

though it be true that the Interstate Commerce.

7 ‘Commission has no. power to enter the order for

the erection and. maintenance of a union station,., ;

-. the fact that it has some powers given. it over |.

the general subject matter indicates that Congress

- *has entered the ‘field’ of. regulation respecting os

._. the establisliment of union stations to such an ~

_ extent as to automatically. terminate the state’s

- power to deal“with that subject, Thé most decisive

answer to this position i is that the. language of the §_

decision of the Supreme Court of ‘the United 1

- States in tke first “Los Angeles ay: case, is

to*the effect that an order is to be made by the ~_

a state commission, * conditioned | only > the oo

)

S psx | 7 \ | .

“proper 6 idence. and covlihobi in the Interstate :

Rarer Commission.’ eo, | :

@ Essential Incidents of a iiton lene

The carriérs next urge ‘that -whatever ‘may be said.

as to the union station itself, Congress has, neverthe-

Jess, occupied the field with respect to certain matters

which, in the California Railroad Commission’s order, °

_ are merely incidental tothe construction of the union’

pessenger station. "These are. matters such as exten-

‘sions, improvements and changes, in so. far as these .

eplenn are necessarily involved in the union ‘station

2 project (Joint: ‘Brief for Appellants, pp. 35-41)...

In other words, the carriers now hope, as a last

[e resort,. to prevail i in their opposition to public author-

ity by reliance on a fancied purpose or intention of

Din ae to occupy the field’’ as | ‘to the “essential -

of the union passenger station, even though

bdlenriy that as to the station itself the mele:

as not een thus: occupied. - | .

In reply,. we invite the Court’ . attention to the.

plowing matters ; San © :

Ee (1) The carriers have failed to point to any

_ Idnguage in the Interstate Commerce Act granting. to

~ the Commission, in the/matter of the construction of

uhion passenger stations on new: sites, the power to

“require the performance of. any of said incidental acts.

- -\whiie: the: Interstate Commerce Act contains, in |

- various portions thereof, general language referring

to the. construction of facilities; the extensions and =

abandonments of lines id the Het use of sadlen this

~ Court very definitely held in the Second Los Angeles

Union Station Case, in commenting on labama, ae

ae Vicksburg Railway Company. v. Jackson Eastern’ =

Railway Company, 271 U. 8. 244, that such language a

_is too general to be properly construed as referring |

_. to’ union. passenger stations (Second Los Angeles”

| Union Station Case, 280 U. 8. 52, 66-7). :

(2)- To us, it seems clearly ‘untenable to urge that.

while the states have retained the power to require: -

the construction’ of union passénger stations, under

proper circumstances, Mongress has made. this power

‘ nugatory by entering The field with reference to the

‘essential incidents’? of such stations. There is no -

authority whatsoever in support of such contention

and iti impresses us as most illogical and unreagonable.

The. carriers next squote authorities . in support of

the proposition ’ that#when Congress has occupied the

field, a state statu | ‘superseded eyen ‘though. the

Federal statute does not cover the subject-as fully and. -

completely as the state law (J ointy Brief for Appel-

ants, pp. 42-54). We do not: quarrel with those

authorities. We believe that the only . appropriate

‘comment is that they: are inapplicable for’: the reason,

already shown,- that. Congress has not. entered the field

of mandatory construction of union passenger stations — ae

and essential incidents on new sites. All that _Con-

gress has done is to. provide, quite wisely, that before

. the exercise of the ane of the states shall be J oase

a tive, the Latent Commeree Comtuiaain shall have ae

_ found-the facts with reference to (a) the publie con-

| venience and necessity and (b) the financial _— of.

i carriers. 4 undertake ‘the isis |

a é wks ie ak. & ms of ok eee eee a”

ia artes a soon, eeecintes of. GN SPO e

same jurisdiction. hie: aa

Finally, the carriers argue that this is a case of

one commission giving effect. +o the orders of another

~ commission, or of divided: authority i in the same juris- i

diction.

ie Such is ‘hot the fact.

The authority of the Interstate Commerce : Oona: ;

sion is purely factual and permissive. It finds and .

certifies to important facts in connection with the pro-

posed union station construction.’ The function of the

California Railroad Comniission, .on. therother hand, -

_ is-mandatory in character. The Commission requires _

_that the union passenger station be constructed.

_ There is nothing unlawful or even unusual in the

performance by these two governmental agencies of

. these distinct and separate functions. ;

This is simply one of many ices in which two

publie authorities, each acting lawfully within its own.

. Jurisdiction, must take favorable action before a cer- |

tain result may be effected. a

In the present instance, we have a- perme.

statesmanlike. co-ordination of distinct and separate -

— 60

Piaitieee a as between the Federal. and the State author.

» ities, .

A number of years ago, a somewhat similér situa Ba '

‘tion involving action by both state. and municipal

- authorities, came before the Supreme Court of Cali-: -

. fornia. In Oro Electric: ‘Corporation v. Railroad Com-

; mission, 169 Cal: 466, the Court. drew attention to’ the of

_ fact that before a new electrical utility. could do busi-

“ness within the City of Stockton, California, it would

be necessary for it to secure both a certificate\of ‘public

convenience and necessity from the Railroad Commis-

‘sion authorizing it to engage-in business -within the —

city and a franchise from the City of Stockton author-

- izing the use of ‘its nineties - At page’ 475; the court

aid: a3 EE operate Be

“The granting or withholding of the-certificate .

is an exercise of the,power of the state to deter- —

mine whether the rights and interests of the gen-

eral public. will be’ advanced by the prosecution

of the enterprise which it is proposed to carry

on for the service of the public. This is an en- . |

tirely different. question from that ‘of the local

. control of the streets, and ‘power over the two

subjects may well.be vested at the same time in

different governmental bodies, without the one in

any way clashing with or interfering with the

other, The Railroad Commission might,-.grant a

—~ certificate authorizing a samen utility to engage )

the right to so use them had been given by the .

* authority vested with Boao power to grant such

Tight.” Sah | |

orize the use of the streets, unless .

er ae

Another ‘somewhat similar ‘situation involving con- |

- eurrent action by the Federal government and by a

‘State government came before this* Court in Cum- - io

> mings v. Chicago, 188 U. a 410. In a case, Mr. .

Justice Harlan said (p. 431) :- ee

“The effect of that act (River and Harbor ‘Act

- of Mareh 3, 1899), reasonably interpreted, is to:

make the erection of a struéture ‘in a navigable

river, within the limits ofa state;. depend upon

the concurrent or joint-assent of both the national .

government and the state government. ‘The- Sec-

yetary of War, acting under the authority con-

- ferred by Congress, may assent to the erection by .

private parties of such a structure. Without such

assent the structure cannot. be erected by them.

But under existing legislation they must; before

- Hroceeding under such‘ authority, obtain also the .

assent of the state acting by its Pec tise tee agen-

cies. " (Emphasis ieee ;

To the same effect, see also ,

_ Montgomery v. Portland, 190 U. 8. 89, 106; 7

State of Wisconsin v. State nike Minow, 278 U. 8:

367, 412.

At page 55 of their brief, the carriers say that. no’

_ power has .been vested‘in the Interstate Commerce

Commission which will permit it “‘to delegate ‘ny. :

power which it may possess to a State Commission.’

‘There’ is, of .course, no ‘such delegation here. Each

‘commission acts within its own jurisdiction and

neither has attempted to delegate cm ie of its juris-

diction to the other. es

| ie ee

aaa t-te the caren tat- that

. Congress did not: intend to vest ‘the Interstate Com- .

merce Commission “with power to, issue certificates :

for the purpose of giving validity to orders of State

Commissions.”” We agree with this statement and sub- :

mit that there is ‘nothing to show any such intention :

on the part of Congress. or any such’ action on the part

of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The latter

Conimission simply acts in proper cases on the evi- |

- dence submitted to it. What action a state commis-

‘sion may thereafter take is a matter as to-Wwhich the

Interstate Commerce Commission can have no-knowl- , _

__ edge and which has nothing to do with the exercise -

of: the latter’s jurisdiction. a c

We believe that we have now replied to every point -

of any significance ‘made by the carriers in this por- —

tion of their brief and submit that there is nothing in

the Railroad :-Commission’s order ‘which in any way

contraveries the Commerce Clause-of the Federal Con- .

stitution or any provision of the Interstate Commerce ~~

~ Act. me | ey

‘INTERSTATE COMMERCE Gomursstow’s CERTIFICATES

; ss ARE VALID. |

The carriers next. present an argument to the -

effect that ‘the certificates issued by the Interstate ~

- Commerce Commission are -void (Joint Brief for ’

es. Appellants, pp. en). :

~ We -shall- first invite attention: to th "findings and =

: certificates which were actually issued.» We shall .

then show that they are valid: and that, in any event,

‘the contention as to their invalidity can not be raised

oe as’ here seseaasparee eae es

1, THE CERTIFICATES DESCRIBED.

The Interstate Commerce Commission first iad its ‘

_ findings, ‘including the finding specified by: this Court

in the. First Los Angeles Union. Station Case, to the

effect that ‘‘the expense involved therein will not im-

' pair the .ability of the defendants to perform their

at respective duties to the publie”.Certificates were not

_ at that time issued, but the Commission retained juris- —

diction ‘for the purpose of making stich further find- -

ings and orders’ and issuing such certificates as the

record warrants’? (Los ‘Angeles Passenger Terminal

Cases, 100 I. C. C. 421,'460-1).

. . Thereafter, in its second decision, the Interstate

‘Commerce . Commission reaffirmed its findings. and

issued its certificates, including the certificate specified _

by. this Court in the First Los Angeles Union Station

Case, to the effect tha ‘public convenience and neces-" -

sity, present or future”’ require the extensions and

abandonments incidental to the construetion of the

"union passenger station,

\/ Thus the. Interstate Commerce Commission com-

/\plied completely with the requirements as ‘to. findings

‘and Serene: theretofore lea oat by this vase

_ The deseription of the certifiéates issued _by the:

Commission, as such description is given by the

' earriers in their brief (p. 63) is inaccurate and in-

adequate.

Thus, as to extensions, the carriers refer only to

“extension of maini lines of railroad” (p. 62). They

omit the words which -follow immediately in the same

clause and which show that these extensions are only

such as are necessary —

“to reach and serve a,union passenger station

‘Plaza district. wire e (B. me) 3

As to “buhdonments, the carriers (p. 62) PRICEY out

“ most of the Commission’s carefully worded certificate

referring to such abandonments —

‘‘as may be necessary to provide for the rear-

“ rangement Of passenger and freight routes inci-

dental to the convenient and proper operation of |

such union passenger station and rina ” (KR.

—*154.)

' In otter that this Court may have before it a true: .

and accurate statement of the Commission’s findings °

.. and certificates, we show the findings in Appendix 2 |

‘and the certificates in Appendix 3 to this brief. See

_» also R. 188-141, 145, . 154-6, 153-4. :

2. THE CERTIFICATES aan VALID.

’ In various forms, the carriers urge that the Inter- c

| stake’ Commerce Commission had no jurisdiction to”

__issue_the-certifieates_éxeept-uponapplieation—of- the ——

“earriers* (J oint Brief for Appellants, 63-71).

A necessary corollary: of this proposition is that in

* union passenger station cases before state commis- —

sions, the carriers can always defeat the public author-

ities by the simple device of failing to make. applica-.

ae tion to the Interstate. Commerce Commission ‘for fhe °

necessary certificates.

The conclusive answer to this contention is tha

” the First Los Angeles Union Station: Case, 264 VU. S.

331, this Couit, clearly understanding that the City

of Los Angeles was before the Interstate Commerce

* Commission in an adversary proceeding, pointed out

with much care and detail the authority of the Inter-

state Cormmerce Commission to issue the. certificates. |

We helieve that this Court would not have taken the —

"pains to make its careful review of the subject if, in

fact, the Interstate. Commerce Commission has no’

‘such power’ in an adversary proceeding. That the.

Court fully understood the situation, appears from.

. the last two. paragraphs of its decision, ears as

es follows (264 U. 8S. 331, 347-8) : PHL e /

“We were advised by statements at tlie bar that

_ after the California Supreme Court handed down

its: decision in this case, the City of Los Angeles

filed..a petition with the Interstate Commerce ~

«® ~ Commission asking for an order to provide, main-

tain and use a union siation, that a hearing fol-

‘lowed and that, pending the decision in'this Court,

_ the matter is-held under consideration. 3

Sees

: eee Ac. aa y

. “For the reasons given, we think the: course

oak ~~ taken by the City of Los Angeles was the correct |

‘+ one. Until the Interstate Commerce Commission

shall. have acted under paragraphs 18 to 21 of

ey |

section 402 of the Transportation Act, the re-

spondent railways can not be required to .pro-

vide a new interstate union station and to. extend

- their main tracks thereto as ordered by the State

_ Railroad: Commissicn.”’

‘In the Second Los Angeles Union Station. Dinisi 280

- JU. §. 52, this Court had before it a record very clearly,

showing the adversary nature of the proceeding which

the City of Los Angetes had brought before the Inter-..

_ State Commerce Commission, After a second. reyiew ~.

of the situation, this Court held’ that its fi ecision

decides that To

“until the Interstate ‘Conticneres Commniisaton. had - »

acted under’ those paragraphs, the carriers could

not. be required to provide a-new union station or

to extend their main tracks thereto as ordered by

‘the State Railroad Commission.”’ (280 U. S. 52,

61.) CRerhaits eappiies)\ \ :

We do not believe that. this Court would have so ore

_ expressed. itself if -the Interstate Commerce Com- ~

mission did not, in fact, have the authority in the:

proceedings then pending: before it, to issue such.

; “certificates. See ;

' That the ‘Interstate Codteiies Clenteialonion ‘elit:

_, ered the certificates to be valid appears not merely -

_ | from the fact that the Commission issued them but . §

eaN

. 67:

ov @lso from the following note in ‘the Digest entitled —

~—"# Interstate Commerce Acts Annotated’’, recently pub- .

‘lished by the Commission under direction of Congress: |

“The Commission has authorized certificates of

‘ convenience and necessity under this paragraph

(See. 1, Par. 19 of the Act) and Pars. (18), (20)

and (21) in complaint proceedings, brought under

. the provisions of the Act, without application by -

‘the carriers and, in fact, against their objec-

- tions.’? (Page 1042, Note 12—‘Tssuance of Cer

tificate without application by carrier itself’’. i

‘The California Railroad Coiieaiseiais considered the

certificates to be valid and upon the filing of the same

ft) Ce ‘denied the petitions of the carriers. for re-

hearing.

The Supreme Court of California held that the cer-

tificates are valid and said (Atchison, Topeka and '

Santa Fe Railway Company v. Railroad Commission °

., of the State of California, 209 Cal, 460, 79 Cal. Dec.

«457, 466, R. 184,198): +

ee “The certificates on their face are proper and

' gufficient and comply with ‘the decision of the’

, Supreme Court of the. United States; the Railroad

* Commission is , 80 considering them, as did sa

» Interstate Commeree ‘Commission. Pa ee

. “th the matter of findings and oartificsite, the Inter-

- state Commerce Commission ‘acted in-exact. accord with

the decision of this Court - in the First Los Angeles

Union Station Case, and we submit that it is clear.

aia

beyond reasonable doubt that’ these findings and cer-

tificates, thus made. and issued, are valid. —

8. THE VALIDITY | OF THE CERTIFICATES CAN NOT BE.

These findings and certificates: were made and, tena

_- by the Interstate Commercé Commission -in.a p Loseed.

ing known as Docket No. 14,778, City of Los Anheles _

' v, Los Angeles and Salt Lake Railroad Company, —

Pacific Electric Railway Conipany, Southern Pacific

Company, Southern Pacific Railroad Company, The.

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad tte de and

Union Pacific Railroad Company.

The defendant carriers all appeared and filed formal

answers. Throughout the entire proceedings from the

filing of the complairit in ‘said Docket, in March, 1923,

until the Commission’s second decisiori on May 8, 1928,

- each of the carriers who is an appellant herein was a

. party to said Docket, with full opportunity to Appear

and be heard. Each of said carriers, in fact, partici-

pated actively throughout the proceedings.

‘With said Docket No. 14,778, the following applica-

tions of certain of said carriers were consolidated for ’

hearing and decision:

1). Finance Docket No. 3556—being an appli-

- eation of Southern Pacific, Company-and Southern

-_, Pacifie Railroad Company fora certificate of

_" «public convenience and necessity authorizing the — .

..* | gbandonment of:lines and the abandonment of. *

: 69

| ee certain main line freight and passenger service =:

) ‘Los Angeles, ‘California ; and

_ (2) - Finance Docket No. 3569--being an appli- |

\ . @gtion- of Southern Pacific Company, Southern

- Pacific Railroad Company, and Los: Angeles &..

+ Salt Lake Railroad Company for a certificate of

public convenience ‘and necessity for the construc- .

‘ / tion of new limes and extension of. linés of railroad

rey Los: Angeles, California.

‘In these applications, said carriers asked.the Inter-

state Commerce Commission to issue certificates of

public jconyenience and necessity to. enable. them to

make extensions and abandonments in connection with.

their plan for solving the Los ‘Angeles passenger { ter-

y minal situation, which plan both the Interstate Com-

‘merce Commission and the California Railroad Com-

mission found to be not in the public interest.

That the Interstate Commerce Commission. -had

‘ jurisdiction over the carriers in these proceedings can

not be doubted. Likewise, not even the carriers-would,

deny that the Commission had jurisdiction over the.

subject matter of ‘the findings: and certificates specified ;

by this Court in the Kirat Los Angeles Umion Station yt

Case.

ve Under the ‘circumstances, it would seem to be ele-

‘mental that the decision of the Interstate Commerce

Bow ‘Commission can'not be attacked collaterally.

Santiago v. Nogueraz, 214 U. 8. 260, 267;

ae Pee sr E. 768;

ae Gene

Cromwell v. Hull, OTN. y. 2093 ;

: Reed v. Reed, 107 N. Y. 545, 14 N. E. 449.

_. Allen v. Huntington, by Aik. cVe): 249, 16 Am.

- . Dee. 702;

Freeman on ee (6th et), 675-6

AO eee pt ES.

"49 RC. L "864-5.

- The carriers seek to justify their coll strat attack :

by the following. Sontentan: Voit Brief for cae

-. lants, p. 63):

“ Appellants could not by: ‘pede or other-

wise correct the: Commission’s action because it

4. yas not mandatory (emphasis supplied): United -

oe States v.L. A. & S. L. B. Co, 213 U. 8. 299."":

| In other words, the carriers habe ‘their claim that 2

they can attack the Interstate Commerce Commission’s

ceNificates collaterally, on the proposition that they

e Commission’ s action. ;

A no remedy, by in junction or, otherwise, to correct —

: : Asa matter of fact, the carriers could have filed in

the appropriate District Court of the United States

_a bill for an: order to set aside the Commission’ scer-

tificates (28:U.-S. C. A., secs. 45, 45a, 46, 47). Hence oe

_is shown to be without any merit whatsoever.

3 ‘The test ‘of the right to resort to the- appropriate : E

United States District. Court is not iene the Inter-

state Commerce Commission’ s action was “mandatory”

: but whether it was | “gifirematine” in sscaes nasa

| the entire foundation on which they base their claimed oe

. -, right to make a collateral attack falls,.and their claim |

‘This Court has declared the rule-in.a number ‘of _

- * recent decisions in eases in which the Interstate Com-

Faseitg

~ merce Commission “had issued certificates’ declaring

that public convenience and necessity required an

- abandonment, acquisition of control or similar action. |

Thus, in The Chicago Junction Case, 264 U. 8. 358,

the Interstate“Commerce Commission. had‘ granted —

- authority:to the New York Central Railroad to acquire

control of certain terminal railroads in Chieago. Cer-

- tain objecting railroads filed a bill in the United States .

District Court against the United States, the Inter-

state Commerce. Commission, the New York Central

Railroad and the terminal railroads to have. the. order

ae of. authorization set aside and for an injunction. The

defendants contended that the Commission’ 3 order was _

. not subject to judigia al review for the reason that it |

that the fact that the order was merely permissive

_ did not preclude review and referred 1 to orders under

the fourth section of. the Interstate Commerce. Act

(ong and short haul clause) as to which it has uni-

ey . formly been held that a suit = lie to _< aside the

order (pp. 263-4). .

Referring to Procter & Gamble Co. v. United States, :

295 U. S. 282 and. similar cases, in which it was held

- that an order of the Corfimission, which demed affirma- .

_™tive relief was not. subject. to review, Mr. J ustice

Brandeis said (p. 264):

Ber: The Court declined. to interfere, ‘becene to

do so would have involved exercise by it of | the ice

eit Le

‘administrative function of: granting the. relief

which the Commission, in the exercise of its juris-

diction, had denied. Here the order complained

of.is an affirmative one. That is, it grants’ the

relief sought.” (Emphasis supplied.) —

In Colorddo v. Umted States, 271 U.S. 153, the In-

terstate Commerce Commission had issued. a certificate

authorizing the abandonment ‘of a branch line of rail-

road-in Colorado. The State of Colorado brought suit

in the United States District Court to enjoin and set

- aside the order. At page 161, Mr. Justice Brandeis e

said: 3

a “The ‘remedy pursued 1s the appropriate one, -

(Emphasis supplied.). See Texas v. Eastern Teaas

_ R.R. Co., 258 U. 8. 204.” | :

--In the very. recent .case of Piedmont &. naa :

Railway Co. v. Unitéd States, 280 U, S. 469; decided ~

on February 24, 1930, the Interstate Commerce Com-

_ mission had dismissed, on¢the merits, an application —

_of Piedmont & Northern Railway Company for a cer- ~ |

__-tifieate.declaring that public convenience and necessity

. required the construction of proposed extensions. The a

Railway Company then filed in the United States

_. Distriet Court a suit for an injunction and an order : 2 ,

- to set aside the Commission’ s order of: dismissal.

This Court pointed out that the Commission’ S ac-

_ tion was entirely. negative and. that, accordingly, the - a

case was: not one in which the United States: District —

Courts could issue an injunction. Mr. Justice Brandeis ~

distinguished the case from those i in which it has been’

73,

held that, on the granting of certificates, bills for in-:

. junction might be filed in the United States ® District

Court and said (p. 478):

been erroneously granted, as in The Chicago Junc-

tion Case, 264 U.S. 258 and Colorado v. United

7 States, 271 U.S. 153. ‘here a judicial review is

provided in order to protect a legal right| of the

plaintiff alleged to have, been’ infringed) by an

order which authorizes affirmative action. ’? (En-

phasis supplied: ) Bs Se Be eee

| The case of United States ¥v. Los Angeles & Salt.

. Lake. Railroad Company, 273 U. S. 299, the only. case

relied on by the carriers. in this connection,. does not |

_ help them. This Court there held that.a ‘‘final value” —

” of the property of a railroad company by the Inter- o

state Cornmerce Commission is merely the. statement:

-_ of the result of an investigation and is not ‘an ‘‘order’”’ :

which may be reviewed. This Court-expressly pointed —

out that the Commission’s order is one ‘which does _

-. not grant or withhold any authority, privilege - or ~

license ; which does not extend or abridge any power:

- or facility’; and hence is not an affirmative act which .

may be tested by. injunction (pp. 309-10). The- Court

__ thus reaffirmed the rule established in its prior. deci-. ‘ |

sions in cases of. certificates of public convenience

| and necessity and added another case. to those estab-° —

lishing the unsoundness: ‘of the ean taken ~ _

carriers. : ; :

. | Our case is one in which the Commission did grant .

an “‘authority, privilege or license’. The carriers,

accordingly, had the right to test the Commission’s

} _ decision by a proceeding in the United States District

Court. This they chose not to do. They can not now

raise .collaterally the issue wkich should: have been .’

raised, if at all, in a direct proceeding in the APPT: |

“priate United States District .Court.

This was the view of the Supreme Court of Cali-

_, fornia when, in oe to this same claim of the _

earriers, it said: peas

_ “We think this anes is not properly raised :

here.’’. (Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway

Company v. Railroad Commission of the State of

- California, : -209: Cal. 460, ~ oe Dee. 451, 466, oe

RB. 184, 198.)

“While” we -reapendhiny insist on the point that ‘the

earriers can not raise this issue collaterally, as they

are seeking to do, we believe that the Court will ‘not

find it necessary to pass on the poirit for the reason’

that the findings and certificates issued by the Inter-

, state Commerce ‘Commission are lawful and valid.

ees : aN &

| 3 C. 7

"CALIFORNIA RAILROAD COMMISSION'S ORDER. Is. JUST AND

es REASONABLE AND DOES NOT DEPRIVE ANY CARRIER ce

. OF ANY RIGHT UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT os

‘0 THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. :

—.- Whe carriers devote the remaining portion. oftheir ca

eee brief (Points III and IV, PP. 72-117 y to resort es

that: in ‘various ‘etal’ the California Railroad Com-

mission’s order violates rights’ secured to them by the

i _. Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.

_ These contentions are summarized on page, "2 of

- the: brief. . Although the carriers make numerous —

- . ¢laims ‘as’ to matters of fact, we are amazed to find

..’ that, with the exception of a few references 6n pages _

110 and 111, the 45 pages of. their brief devoted to

. these claims -contain no no references whatsoever to =.

>. evidence in the Record herein.

The carriers merely: make omnibus claims as to ques-

= tions of fact, unsupported by any reference to the

facts of the case as shown by the Record before > this at

+. Court.

‘Tf the: carriers dietne to show that in any matter of

fact their rights are being prejudiced, it is their duty - |

to draw this Court’s attention the portions of the

Record which they » claim support their claims. a |

_ The burden of showing the ord der, on its facts, to be :

oe unreasonable and arbitrary is upon the appellant car-

riers (New Orleans Public Service, Incorporated, yee

e City of New Orleans; 281 U. 8. 682, 686).

After the most painstaking’ and thorough investiga-

. tions, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the |.

. California Railroad Commission have each twice. :

‘found ‘that these. elaims are without merit. |

eae The Supreme Court of California, after’ its careful se

. examination of the Record, found:

- “Extensive hearings. were had. ‘upon. this. gen-" :

eral problem and - expensive investigations were

me.

- made by engineers and other ‘etaaibe and the

. findings ofthe Railroad Commission tvere made -

| _+—after full consideration and upon ample evidence”

(Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Com-

_ pany v. Railroad Commission of the State of Cali-

fornia, 209 Cal. 460, 79 Cal. Dec. 457, 465, R. 184,

196).

- Continuing, the oes Court said (79 Cal: Dee.

457, 466, R, 184, 197) : |

“There. is nothing unreasonable and arbitrary ° :

in the findings and order made.”” _ :

In view of the failure of the appellant carriers: to

‘cite evidence in the Recordin support of their claims, .

_we believe that we are justified in: insisting (what is

_ the fact), that on controverted issues of fact the Record“

is in each Instance against the contentions of the: -

3 carriers.

"Before turning to questions of lave: we desire to sub- °

‘mit. the following comments, which are sustained by

the findings and certificates of the Interstate Com- |

merce Commission, the findings and order of the Cali- -:

* fornia. Railroad Commission, the decision of the Cali-._

»fornia Supreme Court and the Record before, this

‘Court, with reference to the’ general claims of the

_ carriers appearing on page 72 of their brief: __

| (1) The ‘statement of the carriers that their

present terminal stations are adequate is not in

-- -acecordance with the facts. The Salt Lake, no

longer has a.station of its'‘own. ‘The Santa Fe’s |

_ station is antiquated, wholly inadequate arid lo-

eated in'a scene of danger and the Santa Fe’s offi-

cials have conceded that it must be rebuilt ata cost.

of $1,182,317. The Southern Pacifie’s Arcade sta-.

tion is overcrowded ‘now during evening hours

whengimportant passenger trains leave, is rapidly —

becoming inadequate and is so located that all the '

passenger trains of the Southern Pacific Company

must move through a scene of danger on and along ~

Alameda Street in order to reach. the depot. .

Even if no. union ‘passenger. station were con- -

structed, the carriers would be under the necessity

of expending millions of dollars in order to make

their passenger facilities, in Los fre safe and

oe adequate. : :

(2) The only portions of their ‘main lines ga

abandon would be a small mileage in connection

with track rearrangements in the Los Angeles ter- _

minal, necessary and incidental in connection with /

the construction and operation of the union pas-.

senger ‘station. The trackage of the Southern .,

. Pacific on Alameda Street would be retained for |

industrial freight switching at night, although

. every Southern Pacific official who has testified

in this proceeding has agreed that the operation of

\ passenger and main line freight trains on and —

f. along Alameda Street must be discontinued.

wo MSY Although it. will be necessary for. the car-

_ riers to acquire some additional lands and right

of way, they already own 70 per cent of the 37

> aer seadived for the Plaza site and the remain-

‘ing lands are merely such parcels as are neces-

ry to ‘‘round out’’ the site.

_f- (4) ‘The claim of the carriers that they will

/ be required ‘to extend their main lines of rail-.

road to reach territory which they have not here-

tofore undertaken to serve’’ is directly contrary

to the facts. As will appear: from the map which

is Exh. 5 of’ the Railroad Commission of Cali-

fornia (R. cpposite. p. 226), and as will herein-

after he ‘explained. in more detail, the pres-

ent passenger stations of the cartiers are‘ located # : :

within tle same section or portion of the City of -

‘Los Angeles’ as the site of the proposed union

passenger terminal. The new union passenger sta-

tion is to be built in the identical railroad and.

industrial district .of the City of Los Angeles.

- which the carriers have for years been serving by

‘means‘of their tracks, trains and depots. There

| will be ho extension into new: tesritory. .

(5) Th carriers are in error in saying that

the Railroad Commission’s order requires the o

“joint use by’ ‘one or more of the railroads of. ..

-” facilities owned by the others.” A reading of the.

_. Railroad. Commission’ ’s order will show that it

contains no requirement~whatever for the joint

use of any arte railroad facilities (R. He, a

133).

‘will be ss vsnrmeengt for. the carriers: to secure evil

(6). The’ only beicklosa or ‘perinits sit it” ae

-be such as may be necessary to cross a few streets

in the vicinity of the site of the proposed union

station, so as to bring about the necessary track

arrangements and the City of Los Angeles, by

formal resolution of its City Council, now in full

force and: effect, stands ready to grant all such

franchises and permits and to enact such ordin-

“ances for the opening or closing of all such ‘public

’ street areas as may be necessary to make the Rail-

road Conimission’s: order fully effective. ' These

franchises or permits are merely a small detail :

incidéntal to the improvement.

(7) | While the improvements ordered. by the

- Railroad Commission will, of course, cost money, -

the total investment. in passenger facilities under. §

the Railroad Commission’s decision will be less.

than it would have been under the carriers’ own

plan, which both the Federal and the State Com-—

. mission found to be not in the public interest. The —

carriers miust expend several millions of dollars,

in any -event, to make their passenger facilities

safe and adequate. They are ‘being directed to

‘expend substantially the same amount. of money

‘so as ‘to ‘eliminate duplication and secure the

‘greater economy =o from a =~ unified . |

_ passenger terminal. . , : ;

Whevevie it may, seem apeweisints ‘we oe ios:

_ inafter make specific references to the Record in con-

~ Restion with the ) abowe olaing < of the carriers. We be-

- 80

lieve the above statement sufficient for present pur-

poses.* oe

We shall now address ourselves to the fundamental —

principles of constitutional law relating to orders of

' public authority requiring the construction of union

passenger stations and shall then reply directly to

each proposition of law advanced by the: carriers in

- Parts III and Iv of their: brief. .

1. UNDER THE POLICE POWER, PUBLIC AUTHORITY MAY |

REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNION

PASSENGER STATIONS WHENEVER THE POWER HAS

| BEEN .CONFERRED AND, ON THE FACTS, SUCH ORDER

- WOULD BE REASONABLE. ,

ax’ Union passenger station decisions of state courts. .

- We shall now*refer to quite a number of wnidn :

passenger. station cases which ‘establish the above . ae

_ Proposition, without a slugle decision to the contrary.

- ‘The carriers seek, on pages 62-89 of their brief, to

"distinguish or explain away these decisions but ‘we are.

not convinced that their efforts have in any case been:

successful. _ : ( ¥

in. Bolicoed Csiomdcoion. cf Alaboms;v Rorthers fe

‘ Alabama Railway Co., 182 Ala. 357, 62 So: 749, the \ ~

- Railroad Commission of Alabama ordered ‘three rail- 2

fon co ance callie pagan

tion u site selected by the Commission. The rail- . .\

road anies were ordered to, acquire said site by |

a, /*purchase or‘ condemnation. Complainant alleged that ..

it had its own depot and had already arranged to con-

struct a new and larger*depot upon its own siie. . It

averred that the Commission’s order was unreasonable

and arbitrary and deprived complainant of its prop-

erty. without due process of law in. violation of the

Constitutions of Alabama and the United States. The .

- Court held. that. the Railroad Commission’s order,

- made in the exercise of the state’s police power, did

i : not violate any provision; of the: State or Federal Con-

stitutions, “‘notwithstanding the railroad may lose the

.- use of the old building or the-use of the lot as a loca-'

tion for .its ori depot.” On’ this _— the

Court said (p. 752) = r

“It acquired the lot. and: erected: the ‘building 7

with a full knowledge of and are to the. police

power of the mene.” 7

The decision shows ‘that the Commission directed

the railroads to acquire a new site not then’ owned

_ by any of the garriers and directed that, if it should

become necessary, one of the three railroads, naméd’

in the order, should acquire the land either by /pur-

chase or by condemnation. |

In Railroad Commission of Fipamad. Alabama’

|. Great ‘Southern R. Co., 185 Ale. 354, 64 So. 13, the

Railroad Commission of Alabama oydered 5 railroads.

tory in the City of Bessemer. and to erect a union |.

paneer depot thereon. ‘The railroads having failed

82°

to submit ‘plans for.the site of the passenger - depot

‘ or to agree on the apportionment of the expense, the

- Commission isstied a supplemental order fixing: thé

and directing the railroads to acquire the site by pur-

chase or condenmation. The Railroad Commission’ s.

orders were held valid. 7 : ee Ue

On page 16 of the Reporter, the court said:.

‘Unless the contrary. is clearly shown, we ‘will

‘presume not only that the place prescribed is suit-

- able, but that sufficient ground can be obtained,

either by private purchase ‘or by condemnation :

proceedings, at reasonable: figures, for such sta-: °

tion. : Through the power of eminent domain

_ which‘ the law has conferred upon the railroad

. companies, they possess all the power which is

necessary to acquire the needed lands at their

fair value, and under the present state of the

"record, we must presume that the Railroad Com-

‘mission has placed no unreasonable burden upon - .:

the railroad companies-in $0 far as the acquisition fee

of the needed ground for the station is con-

-_ cerned. 99°. : ee oe : as ise

Me page 18 of the Reporter,: Pe eourt continued :

2 would, however, create a strange anomaly _

for the eourts to hold that a state has the.author-

_ ity to ‘require all. railroad companies operating

. pailroads within a: city, whenever the reasonable >

needs of: the traveling public are such as to de- *

mand a‘ union passenger station at that point, to

use a union passenger station in said city, and at

the same time deny to the state the power to're- .

e | 83.

riodg

: quire such. companies to jointly acquire by pur-

chase or by condemnation proceedings, sufficient

~ land.upon which to maintain the building-and to .

jointly construct the necessary building. The two

positions are inconsistent and cannot éo-exist. If

the state has the power to which we have referred, *

and that power seems to be conceded, then it has

the corresponding —— ws ‘put oe power 5

' into exercise.’

- The carriers seek ie ‘mieienine ‘the effect of the de- —

cision -(J oint Brief for Appellants, p. 83) by saying

"that “the power of the state to compel all railroads

entering a: given. ‘city to use a union station was con-. ~

- eeded.’’- However, the decision shows that the court.

made the following decisions in overruling contentions

of the carriers to ‘the contra: PRE

(1) That publie authority. may require several

‘ railroad companies to acquire, either by. purchase 7

‘ or by condemnation’ proceedings, new land fora ——

union. passenger station. (64 So. 13, 15-16) ;s 5

(2) That an order for. the construction and |

operation of a union passenger: station is not void —

because it directs the railroads to abandon: their:

_ . presently occupied and used separate. depots and —

2 depot facilities (64 So. 13, 16) ; ;and Eee

fee (3) That the several railroads may be jointly

directed to purchase or condémn the new land for’ -

the union passenger station (64 So. 13, 18). ‘or

On the general question of the constitutional power, =

_ of the legislature to authorize a state railroad commis-—

sion to require the construction of a union passenger

station and fo select the site thereof, the court con-

_ eluded (64 So. 13, 18) :. 3 ;

a sexms to us, therefore, that the Loninlatite”

had the SUIT aap ap power to vest in the Rail-

' road Commission the authority which it conferred

of 1907 * * * and that-no part of said section

‘is violative of any. clause of the state or federal

Constitution. on | .

In Mager and ‘Aldermen of wie et al, v,

Norwich and Worcester Railroad Company, et al., 109

Mass. 103, a statute of Massachusetts provided that 5

railroad companies should unite in a union passenger |

. station i in Worcester; that commissioners should select

the site as between two sites named in the statute; that

one of the- railroads should erect the station with

power. to condemn, the other railroads’ paying rent;

that after the completion of. the station two specified

railroads ‘shall. respectively discontinue the present

__ locations of their railroads in portions of the city of

Worcester”’; that: all the railroad companiey may and ~

shall unite in. the location and construction of one or

- more raNroad tracks for their joint use; and that the . | |

z ret ch purchase or take such Jands as

= might be ry for their purposes. Ree.

The objecting railroads urged, among other matters, :

that to extend their railroads to the union station

_ “would require the taking of much land from private _

: ne for the location of the extensions, . through |

: 85 rf | . ae

. densely settled portions of a populous city’; ; that the ~~

construction of the tracks would involve gront ex-

penditures; that one track extension would. have a

; length of over one mile; that some of the railroads J

would be required to discontinue without. compensa- : :

tion valuable portions of their present lovations; and =~

that public convenience and necessity would. not be

served by the changes ordered by the. statute.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held

that the statute was a reasonable exercise of the right . -

to alter, amend or repeal corporate charters, reserved

to the Legislature, and at page 113 said:

_* “Tt is no valid objection to such alterations

that they. require ‘corporations tq extend their

tracks, and to exercise the right of eminent do-

main for this purpose, and to incur. additional -

-- expense.. The power to” extend their tracks is

often granted at their own request, ‘and is granted

_ with no less, propriety when the interests of: the

. ; ne requis . : es

: The carriers seek to avoid the effect of this decision

by a reference to Superior Water, etc., Co. v. Super-. -

tor, 263. U. 8.125 and Chicago, etc. 2 R. Co. v. Wis-

consin, 238 U. 8. 491, 501.- The former decision does —

not have the effect ascribed to it by the carriers and

itis not in point for them. The decision merely holds

that a state legislature — can not substitute an inde- =

terminate permit provision for an existing contract."

between a city and a waterworks company. ~The police :

power was in no way involved. The latter decision —

as merely holds that the—reserved power to -alter a u

amend the charter of a corporation does not confer

arbitrary power, or authorize the taking of the corpo-

" putes this proposition but it is inapplicable here. ,

392 55 §. E. 292, a number of citizens of Goldsboro, :

—N.C., brought an‘action against 3 railroad companies

to prevent. obedience: by them to an order of the Cor- —

poration Commission. of North Carolina requiring ee

: ‘the railroad companies to construct a union passenger .

depot on a specified site somewhat removed from the _

- ite of the existing depots. In upholding the statute _

under which the Corporation Commission. acted and

also the: Commission’ s order, the court, at page 294

“of the Reporter, said that the power of the Legisla-

ture to enact such | statutes has’ been established by 7

_. numerous well-considered cases. The court.also-drew —__

attention to the fact that the railroads might use the

power of éminent domain to acquire such new proper-

‘ties as might be necessary to enable them to carry =

out the Commission's order (p. 295).

The carriers (Si oint Brief for Appellants,. ‘pp. -g3 4 -

Hes seek to overcome the effect of this decision:by drawing

: attention to. the fact that the action arose at the. suit

of third parties, namely, property owners, to enjoin

the railroad companies from carrying out the Com- .

mission’s order. . However, the petitioning third par-

ties raised the whole question of the authority of the | on

Legislature ~ enact a. statute: conferring such union

passenger sition powers on the Origionation Commis-

just as effective and significant in an action by these

parties as it would have been in an action by the ‘ail-

road companies or the — Commission. The |

~ court held: . 3

(1) ‘That the power of the Legtlaiacs 3 ts en-

act such statute has been established by numerous.

wéll-considered. cases (55 S. E. 292, 294) + and’

sues (2): That the power of the State to act is not ;

'/ limited ‘to a case in which. the railroads already —

own the site and the Tight of way-leading thereto.

If additional property is necessary, it can. be ac-_ |

quired by the railroads under the power of emi-

nent domain (55 S. E. 292, 295). ;

In Missouri, 0. & G. Railway Co. v. State, 29 Okla. 3

'. 640, 119 Pac. 117, it appeared that the Corporation .

Commission of Oklahorha had made an order’ direct-

ing Missouri, 0. & G ‘Railway Company / ‘and. two

other railroad companies to erect and maintain a.

union passenger depot in Durant, Oklahoma, at a

designated site.. Appellant urged thai’ the Commis-

sion’s order would: egmpel it -to abandon: a right ‘of -

way and station grounds theretoforé acquired by it;

- that it would lose a-bonus-of $10,000 which citizens of

Durant had subscribed for the erection of a passenger

station on said station grounds; ; that the Commission’s ok

_order would require appellant to acquire a new right

of way through private property ; that it would neces-

| sitate an expenditure by appellant of not less than”

88°

- $50,000; and that the order violated appellant's rights,

‘under the Constitution of the United States. In rul-

ing against these contentions, the court at page 121

of the Reporter, held that the. Commission’s order |

might be sustained either under the reserved power

to amend, alter or-repeal the charters of corporations .

‘for on the ground, as stated by Judge Brewer in State -

wv, Kansas City, etc., Ry. Co., 32. Fed. 722, that the -

\same is a valid exercise of the police power of the

eee

The carriers (J dint Brief for Appellants, p. 87)

seek to distinguish the case on the ground that “that

ease was decided upon the authority of the Massachu- | _

setts case of Mayor v. Norwich, etc., supra, which, as

| _ We have shown,. is contrary to the decisions of the’

Supreme Court of California and of this Court.’ To

this contention we make two responses as follows:

(1) The carriers. have’ not shown that the

Massachusetts decision is contrary to the decisions

‘either of the Supreme Court of California or of

this Court. In-fact, this Court expressly cited the |

'. Massachusetts case with approval in Wisconsin,

Minnesota <. Pacific Railroad v. lek 179 oe

US 287, 302.

er | 2) .The decision in the Oklahoma case was.

: rested not only upon the Massachusetts case but

also, in express words — | ree

“on the ground, as stated by Judge Brewer

"in State v. Kansas City, etc., Ry. Co., 32 Fed.

; 728, that the same is a valid exercise hs the

‘ ae bee

a wollie power. ie the state. oe (Emphasis ane :

plied). 7 one

Whatever other inasiae of. sapetl ea exist, it

' ° is, of course, settled law that in all cases the valid .

_ exercise by public. authority of the power to require |

the construction: and operation of union passenger —

stations springs fundamentally from the police power.

. In State v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co., et:

al., (Tex. Civ. App. y, 165 8. W. 491, the State of

Texas asked that a writ of mandamus issue to enforce

an order of the Railroad Commission of Texas di-

reeting the 3 defendant railroad companies to erect:

"and maintain a union depot at Hillsboro, Texas. Judg-

ment for the defendants was reversed and the case

remanded for a new trial on issues of fact. At page

498 of the Reporter, the court said:

- We have no doubt as: to the constitutionality

‘ of. the law requiring railreads to build union de-

pots at such places and of such character as the |

Railroad Commission shall find necessary for the .

accommodation of the public, when ‘it shall also

: have found the other facts required by the statute,

.-. @ but, if any doubt existed on the subject, it would

» be our duty to resolve it'in favor of the statute.’

| Replying to the argument that the statute did not

a ~ authorize the Railroad Commission to select the ‘site

of the proposed union depot, the court said (p. 498) :

“The statute explicitly grants the’ Commission

the power to require railroads to build union de-.

| pots: and Dial’ carries sith it, by necessary impli-

cation, every power necessary to the accomplish-

«ment. of such object. Courts ought not to resort. |

to technicalities to override the clear import of | a

statute.” Ne

Answering the argument that the order of the Rail-

ro Commission was void because it directed the con-*

: ction of a union depot on. a site owned by one of...

the railrpads which refused to. let in the others, the

court: said (p. 498) : .

“But this is immaterial, as said 4 Sppalinis have ‘ i.

-. the right to acquire, by condemnation proceedings,

such interest:in said land as‘is necessary for their |

depot senate under the order of the Voreniias Rs

sion. ”

‘The carriers (Ji oint. Brief for Appellants, YD. 84),

merely refer to this decision by saying that —

_ “the question of the power of the stateto compel —

a railroad to extend its lines in order td. enter a.

_Taised.’ ge Ag '

‘This contention of the carriers is obviously in errd

as appears from the above quoted language from the’ ‘

: decision.

‘The principal. suatenhine of the carriers in support aN

) of their claims under the Federal Constitution may be

oye summarized: —

1, : The carriers can not lawfully o coauipsd to : P|

| eoke any of their existing passenger facilities ; hes

Se da

2. The carriers ean not lawfully be required to

' aequire additional land by the exercise of the

power of emigent domain ; fae

8. The carriers can not lawfully be soisueliod :

to grant the use of any portion of their property

: to a. ss railroad; even though compensation be

4, “pabtie authority ‘can. bw compel

carriers - to go toa new site within the city .

and there erect a union passenger depot.. |

Each of these points has been decided, on’ nanan i

. “occasions, against the contentions of ‘the carriers.

Without wearying the Court by further quotations

-from union depot:cases, we shall merely cite the union

- depot decisions on each of these four points:

| (1) poe ae of. enisting passenger stations and

other facilities, — |

The following decisions hold that an pero for the:

% construction of a union passenger depot, otherwise

valid, does not-lose its validity because it contemplates

‘the abandonment by one or more railroads of their

existing» passenger “stations and other passenger facil-

ities. Practically every order for-the construction of a

union .passenger depot involves the .abandonment of _:

. one or more existing passenger depots adequate for

\ > that railroad alone.

Railroad. Commission. of ‘Alabama v. Northern fa

aN _ Alabama Ry. Co., 182 Ala. 357, 62 So. 749; >. ~

_\- Railroad Commission of Alabama v. Alabama |

\ Great Southern aa Co., 185 Ala. 354, 362, 64

So. 13, 16;

State v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 71 Fla. 295,

331,.71 So. 474, 484; |

_ > Mayor & ‘Aldermen of Worcester v. Norwich

| amd Worcester R. R. Co., 109 Mass.103;

Missouri, O. & G. Ry. Co. v. State, 29 Okl. 640,

119 Pac. 117;

Chicago, R. I. & Pac. Ry. 00. v. State, 0 Okl. |

- 178, 217 Pac. 147;

State v. St. Louis ‘Southwestern Ry. Co. (Tex.

- Civ. App.), 165 8. W. 491, 199 8. W. 829, 830.

(2) Acquisition of additional land by ‘eminent do-

ss main proceedings. |

‘The following decisions hold that the fact that com-

-pliance with an order for the construction of a union

passenger depot will require a railroad to acquire ad-

ditional property by the exercise of the power of

eminent domain does not militate against the bapeee.

of the order.

Railroad Commission of Alabama v. Northern

‘Alabama Ry. Co., 182 Ala. 357, 62 So. 749;

Railroad’ Commission of Alabama v.. Alabama

Great Southern Ry. Go., 185 Ala. 354, 361,

- 64 So. 13, 15,16; ~ —

Mayor and. Aldermen of. Worcester v. Norwich E

‘and Worcester Railroad Co., 109 Mass. 103;

Dewey v. Atlantic Coast Line, 142 N. C. 392, 55 .

5 as BRR 2: sb

rf State v. St. Lowis Reitiedeers Ry. Co. (Tex.

— (3) Use of property of rival ‘railroad. SM ee Ja

The fact that eompliance | withan order for the Vea

_ eonstruction of a union passenger depot wi

7 a railroad to acquire the right to use thespiroperty of.

. a rival railroad will not make such ordéf |

+ public authorities may, under their police power, :

make such orders. ° | : i

: Mayor &. Aldermen “of Woreester v. Norwich

& Worcester R. R: Co., 109 Mass. 103; :

Missouri, O. & G. Ry. Co: v. peer, Okl. 640,

-. 119 Pae: 117; : i

Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. "State, 90 Ox.

173, 217 Pac. 147;

State v, St. Louis 8. W. Ry. Co Tex. Civ.

_ App.), 165 8. W. 491, 498, 199 8. W. 829, 830.

ve 4) Selection of new site,

. The fact that the public authority selects for the

‘union passenger depot a new site on lands of third

_ parties does not make the order invalid. Public

- authority has just as much power to select as a site

the lands of third parties as lands ey een

ownership. seat’ ,

__ . Railroad Commission of Alabama v. Northern

. : Alabama 3 Railway Co., 182 Ala. 357, 62 So.

’ 749;

Railroad Cnsiisidles of -Alabame v. Alabama —

Great Southern R. Co., emreecpumbrgn anne ect

13;

Dewey . Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 142 'N. 0.

892, 55 8. EB. 292. | |

(5): Additional euthoritics: ee | 2 |

‘In the following additioual cases, the right of the |

} ‘public authorities to order the construction and oper-

. ation of union passenger. stations, where the facts

showed such order to be reasonable, was upheld. :

State ex rel. Barton County v. Kansas City, Ft.

S. & G. R. Co., $2 Wed. 722;° : :

war ex rel. Railro _ Commissioners v. At- ;

- lantic ee Line $ C6. 67 clay 441, 63 So.

Fe bo ee

8B. 1635

Corporation Commission v. Seaboard ‘Air bis

Ry. Co~ 161 N. C. 270, 76 8. E. 555; .

North Carolina Corporation Deuminicn v.

Southern Ry. Co., 185 N. OC. 435, 117 8. E.

5635.

Missouri, K. d T. Ry. Co. v. State, 38 Okl. 401,

_ ' ~133 Pae. 35; :

- Chicago, R. I. & P. ‘Ry. Co. v. State, 90 Okl. é

173, 217 Pac. {7 >=

In Los Angeles Passenger Terminal Cases, 100 I.

speaking of the effect properly to be given to. the

union passenger depot decisions. of - state courts _

“on which we rely, said: ;

“AW parties concede that if we have the: power

to require the construction of a union station, .it

“has come in the Transportation Act, 1920. Prior aR

_ to vee enactment such power was ceeriy in: the

' States. In numerous instances States had by con- See

= 95

stitution or statute delegated power to their rail-

road commissions to require the construction and —

ii operation. of union ‘stations. In such eases, where -

_ the facts reasonably come within the legislative

| ‘enabling act, the State courts have upheld orders’

of the State commissions. The State courts have

held the order could not be defeated (1) by show-.

-. ing that compliance. would require a railroad to

acquire additional property by the exercise of the .

power of eminent domain, (2) or because. it °

contemplated the abandonment by some railroads

of their existing passenger stations and other —

“passenger facilities, (3) or becaise compliance |

would require a railroad to acquire the right to

use the property of a rival railroad.”

(Nore: There follows, in a footnote, the citation

of the decisions of the state courts on which we rely —

on the question of deprivation of\ rights guaranteed

by the Federal Constitution. 100 I. C. C. 421, 426.)

The Supreme Court ‘of California, ‘ in the decision

now

‘at issue herein, reached :the same conclusion

(Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company v.

Railroad Commission of the State of California, 209

> thal.

460, 79 Cal. Dec. 457, 464, R. 184, 195): 3

“Tt is also contended that the order, requiring

- as it does, the’ acquisition and dedication to public

use of new property necessary.for the’ construc- %

tion of a.union station and the abandonment of

adequate facilities, deprives the petitioners.- of

‘their property without due process of law and

takes their property for public use ‘without com-

.pensation, — to the constitutional ear ree

: 5 .

" 96

. ° . im . o-

‘tees of the United States and of the State of Cali-. a

has been passed upon by numerous state tribunals,. _

‘contrary to the contention of the railroads herein, =

_ noticeably in the cases of State ex rel. Railroad —

- Commissioners v. Atlantic. Coast Line R. Co.,

‘et al., 67 Fla. 441; Griffin Comte. Ry. Co.,.

150 N. C.:312; State ex rel. C

sion v. Seaboard Air Line, et al., 161 N. C. 270;

State ex rel. Corporation Comm. v. Southern Ry.

Go., et al., 185 N. C. 485; Gulf, S. F. Ry.-Co. -v.

State, 167 S. W. 192; Railroad Commission v.

Northern Alabama Ry. Co., 182 Ala. 357; Rail-

road Commission v. Alabama Gréat Southern R.

r poration Commis-. S

‘R. Co., 185 Ala. 354; Mayor, etc. 0. N. & W: BR.

R. Co., 109 Mass. 103; State v. St. L. S. Ry. Co.,

165 S. W. 491;.W. M. & P. Co. v. Jacobson, 179

U. S. 287.

“The foregoing decisions a answer the con-.

- tention of petitioners that the erection of a union

station is a matter of business policy and manage-

ment and not a proper subject for control under’

the police power a the state. @

b. Decisions of Supreme Court of United States.

With a few exceptions, the forégoing cases have

all been union panvenete station. — of state

- decisions of this Court.

In Wisconsin; M imnesota ‘and Pacific Railroad v.

Ag A

at.)

We desire now to refer to a tumber of iiaportant

Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287, the Railroad and Warehouse

Rane a

e 97 -

: Commission of 1 Minsioitlt had caalia an order dined: |

~ ing two railroad companies to make track connections. *’

"(The carriers objected on the ground, among others, .

* that in order to construct.a connecting ‘track it would -

be: necessary for the company ‘‘to go outside ‘of sa ,

right of way and to condemn land for that purpose”

(p. 291). This Court affirmed the order. The carriers —

here say (Joint Brief for Appellants, p. 86), that the

case is not in point. We rely on the case to. meet the.

contention of the carriers that they. can not be com-

’ pelled to acquire new land, not now owned. by them, —

for the purpose of. erecting a union. passenger station

thereon. In holding a similar contention to be un-

_ sound, this. Court in the Jacobson case, held’ that the

‘order of the Minnesota Commission was valid ‘‘al-

though to carry out the judgment may ‘require the '

- exercise by the plaintiff in error of the power of emi- —

nent: domain” (179 U. S. 287, 302). o3

: In the very recent case of New vines Public: Serv- :

_ tee, Incorporated v. City of New Orleans, 281- U. S. :

682, decided on June 2, 1930, this Court held that a

- city ordinance requiring a street. railway company to -

- tear down and abandon a viaduct and to construct

- and operate its tracks at grade across 8 tracks of ‘the

Southern Railway Company did not violate any right

of the carrier under the Fourteenth Amendment Ge: |

- 686). The Court held that.the ordinance came prop- _

S érly within the —_ of the olive power (p. 686).

Bares

: At page 687, this Court said:

“Tt is elementary that, cntomseeat of uncom- -

pensated obedience

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.