# 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 > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386008_0030%3A08 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1931 - **Citation:** 283 U.S. 380 ## Text Be . ~ ’ ° ’ . . . s* . a ete eae ce es 4 . : . . . . rd =; . Ve gear en! on . ~ . . . —- . ° . . = - 9 os 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, x City “ot Tos Angelos, SR Oe - City - -Hall,, 5 es Angeles, % Pe o ne 3 » aiuxoN Bruix, A > * “Assistant: City. ‘Attorney, ° City of: Los~ Arigeles, vat "City: ally’ Los’ deg Re “ ~~ s ADT 7 “y091-” ® , 7 : . ¢ | , ° . © MoTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AS. AMICT | kak 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, ty 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. — 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 e 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. Ro _ ‘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 "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 el is 3 . » e. ra \ : 8 4 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 oe a 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 te , “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 . —_ s 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 4 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 © 2 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- ee 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 14 : Orders of Baitvoaa- Commission of, California, pp. 151, 157-8; R..119, 128). J -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 | > ® 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 cM “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, 24 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 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 46 ‘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) : y “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 ec 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 * \- be "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 50 ; 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 “ 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 69 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 s | 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 B. ‘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 64 _ 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 and termina’ whieh- they” may construct in the © ‘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” 65 __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. ATTACKED COLLATERALLY. © | 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."": 9 | 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 | po ‘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 | ” was merely permissive in character. This Court held © ~ 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 _. 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- ea 17 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 railroad which the carriers would bé required to, © 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 78 > 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 ge oe 19 -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 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 upon it in. the above-quoted section 5545 of Code © 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 — 86 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- ration’s property without. compensation. © No one dis- " putes this proposition but it is inapplicable here. , . In Dewey v. Atlantic Coast’ ‘Line, et -al., 142 N. ©. 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- ' sion, and we submit that a decision on’ that issue is. © . 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 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; 92 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. pe Civ. aes W. 491, 498, 199 S. W. © 93 oO — (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 Griffin v. Southern Ry: C0., 150.N. ©. 312, 64 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. ¢. ©. 421, 425, the Enterstate Commerce Commission, 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 2p , ' 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 et : 5 . " 96 . ° . im . o- ‘tees of the United States and of the State of Cali-. a ‘* fornia. That contention is not a new one, but © 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). 98 Bares : At page 687, this Court said: “Tt is elementary that, cntomseeat of uncom- - pensated obedience toa regulation passed in‘ the legitimate exertion of the police power is not a taking of property without due process of law. Chicago, B. & Q. Railroad v. Chicago, 166 'U. 8. 226, 251; C., B. d Q. Ry. v. Drainage Commis- sioners, 200 U. S. 561, 594; Chicago & Alton R. ; R: v. Tranbarger, 2 238° U. 8. 67, 77.” . . Continuing, the Court said (p. 687) : “The sacrifice of the old structure and the cost of the new crossings,-involve a large amount of money. But the evidence fails to show that, hav- - ing regard to the circumstances, it is solarge that the \Pegulation must be held to pass the limits of. : reasonable judgment and amount to an infringe- - ment of the right of ownership. " : Finally, i the First Los ‘Ange les Union Station : Case (264 U. . 331), the carriers made in full ‘detail. precisely .the same arguments with reference to the - violation of the ourteenth Amendment which ‘they now again urge. If, by reason of any provision of — _. the Federal Constitution, no public authority has any. = power to order the construction of a union passenger — station in; Los . Angeles, we..believe that this Court would have said so, whereupon the case would have been ended. However, this Court acted upon the as- sumption that the appropriate public authority does have the power, under. the circumstances here shown, _ to order the construction of a union passenger station : ss : “ i" and, sscpntingiy: pcselaliod to eoiaik oli with peer : care and in considerable detail, the findings to be made | and the certificate to be issued by the Interstate Com- * | _.. merce Commission before such order could be made. ; We »elieve that we are justified, under the circum- _ - stances, in adding the decision of this Court in the = First Los Angeles Union Station Case to the long line -of union passenger station cases holding that where : the power has been conferred and, on the facts, the - order would be reasonable, a state may require the eonstruction and ‘operation of a union passenger sta- tion without! violating any ‘right of the carriers under the sharisecertah ————. to the Federal reseed ~ tution. ud 2. _ THE AUTHORITIES ou WHICH THE CARRIERS RELY ARE NOT In POINT. | At: pages 73-82 and 90-93 of their brief, “ carriers Ae cite a number of decisions in support’ of their. conten- tion that the California Railroad. Commission’s. order deprives them of rights under the Fourteenth Amend- ment to the- Federal Constitution: 3 a nn 4 salysis, it will be. found that these decisions ” 8 er-establish general principles which-no one denies: or are cases in which a public authority undertook to — require a public utility to extend its service into a.-— new territory which ‘it had never held itself out as CAs willing, to serve. These latter cases are, of course, in- . applicable to the facts of the present. case. : | & ? f 100. Referring first to general principles, no one, as far as we know, denies that a carrier can not have imposed upon it “burdens that are not incident to its engage- ment’? (Northern Pacific v. North Dakota, 236 U. 8. 585, 595); or that ‘‘a state may not require property - devoted to one public use to be applied to a. different ‘public use” (Broad River Power Co. v. South Caro- lina, 282 U. S. 187, 189) ; or that carriers can not reas- onably be required ‘‘to make connections at every _ point where their tracks. come close together .* * * . regardless of the amount of business to be done, or the : ‘number of persons who may utilize the connection if - built”? (Oregon, R. & N. Co. v. Fairchild, 224 U. 8. * 510, 528) ; or that a carrier can not be required: “to ' deliver cars and freight received from one state to. = another at a particular place and in a. particular man- z : ner” (M cNeill v. Southern Railway Company, 202 .U. S. 543) ; or that property ‘‘shall not be taken for such” (public) use. without compensation”’ . (Pennsylvania ; Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U. S: 393, 415). | ‘Turning now to ‘requirements that. extensions be- ae made. ‘into new territory which the ‘public utility or _ earrier has never held itself ‘out as ready or willing to serve, a very brief consideration of the facts of the present case will show that these ‘decisions are not at all applicable here. » _’/ The map of the Railroad and Industrial District of _ Los Angeles which is Exh. 5 of the California Rail- road Commission and’ which appears opposite page § 226 of the Record, and the Plan for Union Passenger. } 101 Terminal at the Plaza which is Oalifornia Railroad — Commission’ 's Exh.. 4B and which appears opposite page 266 of the Record, show the site of the proposed - union passenger station in relation to the existing ' tracks and passenger depots of the carriers. As appears from the map first. referred to, the Southern Pacific’s main line from the north, the Santa Fe’s main line from the north and the Salt Lake’s é branch line to Pasadena all run under a single bridge - or viaduct over the Los Angeles River, kriown: as the North Broadway Viaduct, at the entrance to the city ; - from the north. The-two former lines are located un-— der said viaduct along the west bank of the river and: = C - the latter line along the east bank. The point at which said ‘tracks of said carriers run under the North Broadway Viaduct is, located only approximately oe . three-fourths of a mile distant northerly from the site io . of the proposed union passenger terminal. “ As also appears from said map and plan, the ‘Banta fae Fe’s"main line tracks run directly across the site of | : the proposed union passenger terminal near the west . bank of the river, the Southern Pacific’s ‘main litie- tracks run across the ‘site along Alameda Street and — the ‘Salt Lake’s. branch. line © track lies along the east bank of the: river, directly across the river * from 4 the site. _ kee : oe A Said map also shows that the present passenger sta-- ee tions of all three railroads are located within the same . _ section or portion, of the industrial district of the city as the site of the proposed union passenger terminal, 102 _ the Southern Pacific passenger depot being withizi ap- — proximately one milewf the proposed site, the Santa » Fe’s depot within less than a mile and the’ Salt Lake’s”. former depot (now burned) within only about halfa ._ mile. CM A RIS cil nlaaicee : ‘What the California Railroad Comiission’s order requires is merely a regulation in the public interest, — under the police power, of the passenger service which these carriers have for many years been performing - by méans of their tracks, trains and depots in this ' * identical railroad and industrial district eae the City: of Los Angeles. . | The ‘inapplicablity of the dichitiie cited y, the: ' ¢arriers will now be readily apparent. | In Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe:Ry. Co. %. - Rail road Commission of California, 173 Cal. 577, the Su- preme Court. of (alifornia annulled an order. of. the Railroad . Commission of California. directing © _ the Santa Fe to construct and operate a line of © railroad between Oceanside in ‘San Diego county - ‘and Temecula in Riverside county, California. The — _ order could have been complied with either by con- structing twelve miles of new railroad ‘between Fall- brook and Temecula or by an. alternative line ‘of thirty-three miles of new construction between San — J Luis Rey and Temecula. The Court held that the _ California Commission’s order, contemplating the’ eonstruction of a new line of railroad. number. of ' miles:in length into-territory not theretofore served oy so the railroad, would — the dedication of the eat N phd ~~ . ee ie ls alt property to a new se] ce (p. 582), and hence annulled the order. While eoneeding that a railroad | company “‘may be compelled to ‘furnish proper sta- tions. for the reception and discharge of passengers 3 "and freight”’ (p. 585), the court held that what was required by the California Commission’s order was that the Santa Fe “‘build a new line nahiewr to tap or supply a territory which has not. theretofore had «the benefit of direct railroad service’’ (p. 586) \ facts, are, of course, entirely different from thie. -pres- ent situation in which it appears that-for many years. . \the carriers have held themselves out as serving City of Les Angeles with adequate passenger service “and where what is directed is merely a relocation \ within the same general section of the same-city of - passenger depot ‘facilities, for the purpose of ren-. dering more adequately’ and satisfactorily, the very service which the carriers haye for many years under- : taken to give to the public. sone In Pacific Telephone and Telegraph ( Co. v. Eshle- 2 man, 166 Cal.. 640, the Supreme Court of California — annulled: an order of the Railroad Commission of Cali- _/fornia directing the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph ° _, Company to construct a physical connection between . its lines and those of two independent telephone com-— " ’ panies and to transmit telephone ‘messages thereover. — - “The court held that. the Pacific Company had never : dedicated its property to such use by rival telephone companies and that for this reason the California — 2 Commission’ s order went beyond the Police Lata! ang 3 These 104 constituted a taki of property. No such questions arise here. The caffiers have dedicated their property to an adequate passenger service in the City of Los Angeles and hence are subject to-regulation of that service’in the public interest under the police power, If any existing railroad property will be jointly used, compensation will, of. course, ‘first be paid. : As the facts show that the rendition of adequate = passenger service and the construction of convenient - passenger facilities within Los Angeles are clearly “within the use. to which the property. (of. the cary | riers). has been ‘dedicated’’ (166 Cal. 640, 677), the ee _ present procéedings eome clearly within the rile _ established in the Telephone Case, which hence. be- ‘- eomes authority for the Railroad Commission and not ~~: ‘for the carriers. In ollywood Chamber. of Gamikerce.: v. Railroad | ission of California, 192 Cal. 307, another case ited by the carriers, the petitioner sought by writ of mandate to compel the Railroad\Commission of Cali- | fornia to hear and determine a complaint in whigh - the California Commission was ‘asked to direct the a - Los Angeles Railway Corporation to constructten and . one-half: miles of double track into Hollywood—a ter- -ritory which the railway corporation had never under-. - - :e taken to serve. Under well established principles, the = - Court, of course, denied the writ. The case is on all, _ ' fours with the case of Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe — . 2 Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission of California, 178 © age 517, and, like it, has no 2, ia tion to the facts “4 ss S be: the a ee eS 3 es 105 A a - The carriers also rely on a separate, concurring — opinion of Chief Justice Shaw in Atchison, Topeka & » Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Railroad Commission of Cali- fornia, 190 Cal. 214, 228, but this was an individual _ opinion which was not. concurred in by: any other tember of the court, which has never been the law, and, which was properly disregarded by the Supreme — . Court of. California in the decision now before . this ines Court. ! eo ‘In the proceeding before the California ‘aii are :* ‘Court from which the present appeal has-been taken, ee: the carriers relied upon the foregoing California deci- = Bons, but the court found that they. were inapplicable. so vob At pages 76 and 77 of their brief, the. carriers. cite — two Federal decisions in cases of orders requiring ex- — tensions into new territory, but these decisions do not: fit the facts of the present case. In- Southern Bell . “Telephone & Telegraph. Co.-v. Town of Calhown, 287 . Fed. 381, the General Assembly of South Carolina ~ ,. had enacted a joint resolution requiring a telephone s company to establish and maintain a telephone ex- change for the convenience of. “other communities’? os 3 aie “were not served’’ by the company. In the re-. : cent pase of Oregon-Washington | Railroad_& Naviga-: - . ‘tion Company v. United Stat ; decided by the Dis- trict Court of the United Stat for the District of as Oregon on January 29, 1931, the court held that ‘the ad SS s provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act may/hot be. 80 construed as to authorize the Commissio to re- Me quire carriers to o construct a line of railroad a distance * 7 106 - of 185 miles from ar . west more than half-way across the State of Oregon ‘through territory whieh—— the carriers have never, held th elves: out as willing to serve. -. We need not pause to point sng utter inapplic- ability of such cases to the facts of he present case, lis At pages 81 and 82, the carriers -a number of . decisions ef state courts. With the exception of the. | - last two decisions, those cases do no more\ than to re- iterate the well: established rule that’ natural gas, _- eleetric power, telephone and street railway companies -“imay not be required~ by’ public authority extend* | their. systems to serye cities and. towns and eommuni- oa ties which they have never held ‘thgmselves | out.as) willing to serve. These. cases add nothing to the pree- ent appeals. \. ate eke _ The last two eases, People ex, rel. Deiwdrs & Hud- “son Co: v. Stevens, 197.N. Y. 1; 90 N. E. 60 and Peo- — ple ex ret. Binghampton Light, Heat & Power Co. v. a N. Y. 7, 96 N. E. 114, are not even’ cases of extensions of public utility systems. They are cases SF security issues in which it was held that under the _Publie Service Commission Law of New York, as it was then worded, the Public Service Commission of - the Second District. was-not empowered to” disapprove. _ a proposed issue of railroad. securities, if the securities were to be are Ser one of the purposes authorized: : by the Statute. . aS We ‘invite attention to the fact that the carriers : have been ‘unable to find a single union. passenger sta- - * “ i ‘ ° Jae gs es hE eke 7 @¢ ee : tion case in n support of their position. Their cases are all either, cases of general principles ‘which no one _- disputes or of situations so far removed on their facts from the present ease as not to be helpful here. ‘None. of these decisions in any way: detract from the effect - of the long lite of wnion passenger station cases which are directly in point here and which, without a single dissent, support the order of the California Railroad © Commission’ and the ‘decision of the Supreme Court - of California here on appeal, on the issue of the _ Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. \ petro 3. ‘THE CARRIERS ARE | ‘ERROR IN URGING THAT THE ~ RAILROAD COMMISSION’S \ORDER REQUIRES THE JOINT USE OF ANY OF THEIR PERTY WITHOUT COMPEN- SATION FIRST PAID. \ At pages 94 to 103 of their brief, the’ carriers state : that the Railroad Commission’s order requires the _ joint uge by one or more carriers of existing tracks ~ and other properties: of other" carriers. They then ‘ claim that the order is: unlawful because it does not. _specify the compensation to be paid to a carrier whose property is to be thus jointly used. As is so frequently the case ughout their brief, “Es the carriers make general statements or claims with- out referring to the Record fo ascertain what the facts really are. . ‘As a matter of fact, the Railroad: Conitiekaiben’ 8 Or- | * der does not direct or require ame jem use of a, 7 108 existing carrier property. H ence this contention of the = carriers is seen to be without any merit ‘whatever. .The directory or mandatory portions of the Rail- road Commission’s order appear on pages 133 and — : 134 of the Record. The order requires the carriers to construct and thereafter operate a union suse station ‘within a designated area | as er with such tracks, PRES and all other terminal facilities and additions, extensions, a rovements and changes in the existing rail- road. facilities of said Companies as may be rea- sonably . necessary. and incidental to the use-of said union passenger station, .at a cost of approxi- mately ten million. dollars ($10,000,000), in sub-. stantial. compliance with the plan outlined in Com-. ' mission’s Exhibit 4-b herein.” 3 | The order contains oO requirement ‘whatever for. the joint use of any exi ting property. -It is true that among'the findings of the Railroad — Commission is one (6) on the subject of such joint use. of existing carrier- properties “as may be incidental, and necessary or convenient, to the proper operation | of any such union passenger station * #9” (R/132) but whether any existing tracks or property: of any | _- earrier will be jointly used: in connection with this 2 ot ‘project is as yet highly problematic. | | There is always the alternative of separate nels . tracks-leading to the site of the union station grounds, which will obviate the necessity of any joint use. The situation was understood and tersely stated by this Court in the First Los Angeles Union Station - ee 109 ise; 264 U. 8. 331, 340, as appears from the follow- ing statement : 2 pace “The changes to be recto v odes the order will require, in the abandonment of the Southern. Pacific main track on Alameda,Street for three miles, a.joint use by the Southern. Pacific of main —_ tracks on the river bank with either the Salt Lake» or the Santa Fe, or the construction of its own ain tracks on one side or the other along the river bank.” ig (Emphasis supplied.) ” Which alternative will ‘i adeuind does’ not as yet ’ appear, for the reason that the carriers have not as -yet prepared their plans... aes : “yee if these plans hereafter provide for the coieakieiethai by each carrier er of its own main. tracks, Caan question | _ will not arise. If the. plans provide for the joint. use of any exist- ing tracks or other property and the carriers agree on such use and the compensation to be paid, the ques-. 3 _ tion will not arise. a ¢ Unless ‘the Railroad Cothiiission hereafter directs a joint use, the question will not arise. “Whetlier the Railroad Commission will hereafter make such erase, ’ is at this time entirely uncertain. This particular bridge can be erossed when, if ever, it. is reached and it. will be ‘assumed that: if the bridge. is ever reached it will be erossed by the Railroad Com- “Mission with due regard to the constitutional rights AS of the carriers. : : e 110 In the meantime, we respectfully request the Court | to bear in mind that the Railroad Commission’ 8 order s : ~ has not ordered or required any joint use, of any exist- ing property of any carrier. . In view of\the iitatatls of fact made by the carriers © in assuming, contrary to. the fact, that the Railroad ae Commission’s order: directs or requires the joint use of any existing carrier property, we believe it unneces- . sary to comment on the cases cited by them: further a ‘than to say that they are not soe to the facts ..- as shown by: the Record: herein. a ~ os 4. THERE Is, NO FOUNDATION FOR THE CONTENTION OF: THE CARRIERS THAT THE RAILROAD. COMMISSION ACTED _ UNDER THE GUISE OF EXERCISING POWER. OVER. RAIL-_ ROAD GRADE CROSSINGS. Sout : At pages. 103 to 112 of their brief, the carriers jeike "some observations, based principally on earlier deci- — ~ sions of the California Railroad Commission, ‘to the effect that the Railroad Commission acted in pursu- _ ance of its authority to eliminate unsafe railroad pats : . crossings. == = * The only order of the Railroad Comimtigion: now” ~ before this Court is*the order of July 8, 1927 (R. 119- . _ . 134). This is a complete order and ‘stands on its own : feet. J& important respects, this order differs from cS | : earlier orders. “The order of ¢ July § 8,. 1927, directa the carriers to = construct a union passenger station and appurtenances. — _ It was made’in pursuance of the Commission’s author-" -ity over railroad passenger equipment and service a the safety of railroad passenger operations. It is true that a safe, adequate and satisfactory valle: 3 — road passenger service requires more than an adequate puilding on a sufficiently large tract of land. The — Supreme Court of California pointed~qut (Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company v. Railroad. _-— Commission of the State of California, 209 Cal. 460, 79 Cal. Dec. 457, 465, R. 184,196) that x “an adequate building alone will not constitute © adequate passenger terminal facilities, but: that - a satisfactory passenger terminal contemplates also that passenger trams may aided be directed to said terminal. " 3 The Railroad Commission’ s order does not require. dhe separation of grades along Alameda Street or any _ other action usually taken for the elimination of grade " crossings. While the order provides. (R. -- 133-4) that after the construction of the union’ passenger | ation the operation by the Southern Pacific of its: = ae trains on and along Alameda Street, except certain in- — ~ dustrial freight: switching service, ‘shall cease, this * : is a situation which, at least as far as the passenger | ‘trains are concerned, will f sewed : automatically from the construction: of the union passenger station north . of the present — on 1 Alameda’ Street, making — J Ms . : ° - x ee in —~it unnecessary for. the passenger. = any: longer to in sponte on and along Alameda ‘Street. | The point which we desire to scaiheatae is that the - order now under review by: this Court was made in the ' *exercise of the Railroad Commission’s authority over Passenger train servi¢e, equipment and safety and not by reason. of its authority over railroad grade : crossings. That the result of the exercise of that power — . will be to solve also the highly difficult and dangerous : Alameda Street situation, to the great benefit of the - carriers and the eity alike, is a most fortunate circum- stance but, as stated, it is a result which will follow - from the action taken by the Railroad Conimission’'i in the exercise ‘of its authority over railroad passenger orien, equipment and safety. . 7 ~.The Southern Pacific also urges (Joint Brief for’ ' Segeteos pp. 105- 6) that the Railroad Commission should have made an express finding that the existing “passenger station facilities: of said company are in-. adequate. In reply. to this contention, we.invite the ff _ Court’s attention tothe following matters: ee @ The existing. passenger terminal facilities are, in fact, inadequate, as is shown by the Record ~ '. in this case and, in effect, was found by the Rail- “road Commission in its findings Nos. 7 and 10. | (Re 119-132-3), : | Looe sh ae finding required by Becton 36 of ° the _ Public. Utilities Act is not that the existing struc- ture is’ “inadequate” but: that the ‘additions, ex- 3 tensions, Pepe or improvements to, or changes a 113°. in, the existing plant, equipment, apparatus, facil- ities or other physical property’ * * * ought " reasonably to be made, or that’a new structure or structures should ‘be erected to promote the security or convenience of its employees or the public, or in any other way to secure adequate — ~ service or facilities * * #99 The Commission. - 7 ‘made these findings Ses 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10) OF 119, 2. S).- In closing their discussion on this point, the carriers’ "refer to Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. North. Carolina - Corporation Commission, 206'U. S.° 1. In this case, - the Corporation Commission of North Carolina had/ made an order: directing two railroad companies to ' go. rearrange their passenger train schedules as to re- store a schedule connection at Selma. The testimony _ showed that compliance with the Commission’s order | would require the- operation of an additional passen- He ger train by one of the carriers, with a daily. oper- : ating loss... This Court sustained the order of the Cor- poration Commission on the ground, amorip~ others, that it. is the duty of earri [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386008_0030%3A08. Public record. Not legal advice.