230 U.S. Opinion of the Court. be affirmed. In the desire, however, to prevent the possibility that the decree may operate injuriously in the future, we shall modify it by providing that the members of the Railroad and Warehouse Commission, and the Attorney-General of the State, may apply at any time to the court by bill or otherwise, as they may be advised, for a further order or decree, whenever it shall appear that, by reason of a change in circumstances, the rates fixed by the State's acts and orders are sufficient to yield to the company reasonable compensation for the services rendered. The decrees in Numbers 291 and 292 are reversed and the cases remanded with directions to dismiss the bills respectively without prejudice. The decree in Number 293 is modified as stated in the opinion and, as modified, is affirmed. MR. JUSTICE MCKENNA Concurs in the result. Syllabus. 230 U.S. MISSOURI RATE CASES.1 APPEALS AND CROSS APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. Nos. 9, 12, argued October 12, 13, 1910; Ordered for reargument April 10, 1911; Reargued April 1, 2, 3, 1912. Nos. 339, 340, 341, 342, 345, 346, 349, 350, 351, 352, 357, 358, 365, 366, 367, 368, argued April 1, 2, 3, 1912. -Decided June 16, 1913. These suits were brought to restrain the enforcement of the freightrate and passenger-fare acts of the State of Missouri, passed in 1907. The question of interference with interstate commerce is the same 1 Docket titles of these cases are as follows: No. 9. Knott et al., Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners, v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. No. 12. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. v. Knott &c. No. 358. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. r. Knott. No. 365. Knott v. Kansas City, Clinton & Springfield Railway Co. No. 366. Kansas City, Clinton & Springfield Railway Co. r. Knott. No. 367. Knott v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. No. 368. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. v. Knott. There were altogether thirty-six Missouri Rate Cases of which eighteen were disposed of by this opinion. In eight of the last mentioned suits, it was stipulated in the court below that they should abide by the decision reached in other cases. Of the remaining ten, two were consolidated into one for purposes of trial, see p. 512, post, leaving nine as that presented in the Minnesota Rate Cases, ante, p. 352, and the decision is the same. Where an act fixing rates and imposing penalties for violation is repealed by a subsequent act which saves the penalties and simply substitutes other rates, the essential features of a controversy involving the constitutionality of the statute are the same; and, under the circumstances of this case, a supplemental bill may be filed setting up the new and additional legislation and praying relief in regard thereto. Where the ends of justice are advanced and no substantial rights of suits which were submitted to the court below upon the proofs. The court below enjoined the rates as being confiscatory. On the appeals in these nine suits (there being an appeal and crossappeal in each case) this court sustains the rates as to six companies, to wit: the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy, the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe, the Kansas City Southern, the Missouri, Kansas & Texas, the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific (including the St. Louis, Kansas City & Colorado), and the St. Louis & San Francisco. In the cases of these companies, the decrees are reversed and the cases remanded with instructions to dismiss the bills, respectively, without prejudice. The court holds the rates to be confiscatory in three of the nine cases whose appeals were heard, to wit: the St. Louis & Hannibal, the Kansas City, Clinton & Springfield and the Chicago Great Western. In these three cases, the decrees are affirmed, with the modification that the Railroad Commissioners and the Attorney-General of the State, may apply to the court whenever it shall appear that by reason of a change in circumstances the rates fixed by the State's acts are sufficient to yield reasonable compensation. Under the stipulations made in the court below, the decision sustaining the rates as to the six companies above-mentioned will also apply to six other companies, to wit: the St. Louis Southwestern, the Missouri Pacific, the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern, the Wabash, the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul, and the Chicago & Alton, see p. 509, post. The decision in the case of the Chicago Great Western Company, holding the rates to be confiscatory, will also apply by virtue of the stipulations made below to the Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City Railroad Company and the St. Joseph & Grand Island Railway Company. For other cases involving Missouri rates, see pp. 509, 512, post. Statement of the Case. 230 U.S. the objectors are violated, this court will not interfere with the reasonable discretion of the trial judge in a matter of practice. Where the Federal court already has jurisdiction of an action to determine the constitutionality of a state statute fixing rates, that jurisdiction is not ousted by a substitution of rates by the legislature, because the State files a bill to enforce the new rates; the Federal court retains jurisdiction under a supplemental bill. Minnesota Rate Cases, ante, p. 352, followed to effect that the legislative acts of Missouri establishing maximum rates for transportation wholly intrastate are not unconstitutional as an unwarranted interference with interstate commerce. Legislative acts of a State establishing maximum freight and passenger rates for wholly intrastate commerce will not be declared unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment as confiscatory in the absence of clear and convincing proof as to the value of the property used by the carrier and on which returns are based. General evidence as to assessed valuations without showing the method of appraisement are insufficient, either as to value of property or apportionment of expenses between interstate and intrastate business. Minnesota Rate Cases, ante, p. 352, followed, disapproving the establishment of values of property used in interstate and intrastate business by apportionment based on the gross revenue received from cach class of business. Where a number of different carriers bring separate suits to enjoin the enforcement of railway rates established by a state statute on the ground that the rates are unconstitutional as confiscatory, the bills can be sustained as to those carriers which actually prove that the rates are confiscatory as not yielding a return on their property, although dismissed as to other carriers which fail to offer clear and convincing proof to that effect. Where a statute is valid on its face, each person attacking it as depriving him of his property without due process of law must show it does so deprive him; he cannot rely on the fact that it deprives others of their property without due process of law. 168 Fed. Rep. 317, affirmed in certain cases and reversed in others. APPEALS and cross-appeals from decrees of the Circuit Court entered March 8, 1909, as amended April 17, 1909, adjudging the maximum freight rate acts passed by the legislature of the State of Missouri, April 15, 1905, Laws, p. 102, and March 19, 1907, Laws, p. 171, and the maxi 230 U.S. Statement of the Case. mum passenger fare act passed February 27, 1907, Laws, p. 170, to be confiscatory, and enjoining their enforcement. 168 Fed. Rep. 317. Eighteen suits, brought by as many railroad companies, were begun in June, 1905, assailing the act of April 15, 1905 (effective June 16, 1905), which prescribed maximum rates for intrastate transportation of certain commodities in carload lots. The members of the Board of Railroad Commissioners, the Attorney-General of the State, and representative shippers, were made defendants. Preliminary injunction was granted in each case, demurrers to the bills were overruled, answers were filed and in March, 1906, the cases were referred to a master to take evidence and report. The Master proceeded, by agreement, to take testimony in three of the cases. While this reference was pending, the legislature in 1907, passed the following acts: (1) That of February 27, 1907, fixing a maximum passenger fare within the State of two cents a mile, for railroads over forty-five miles in length. (2) That of March 19, 1907, repealing the act of April 15, 1905, and prescribing new maximum intrastate rates for specified commodities in carload lots, the rates being higher in certain instances than those of the former act. It also repealed an act passed April 15, 1905 (not mentioned in the original bills) relating to rates on stone, sand and brick, and made new rates therefor. It was provided that the repeal should not relieve any railroad company from liabilities and penalties previously incurred. (3) That of March 19, 1907 (Laws 1907, p. 187), fixing maximum rates for fruit in carload lots. (4) That of April 4, 1907 (Laws 1907, p. 176), requiring carriers of live stock in carload lots to carry the shipper or his agent free of charge. (This statute was held unconstitutional by the state court and needs no further notice. McCully v. Railroad Co., 212 Missouri, 1.) |