of state action at the time it was enacted, the continued exercise
of state authority in the same manner and to the same extent after
its enactment, and the decisions of this court recognizing and up-
holding such authority, this court finds no foundation for the prop-
osition that the Act to Regulate Commerce contemplated inter-
ference with the authority of the State to prescribe reasonable
rates for the exclusively internal traffic throughout the extent of
its territory. Ib.
7. State power as to; effect of Interstate Commerce Act.
The fixing of reasonable rates for intrastate transportation was left by
the act where it had been found, that is, with the States and the
agencies created by the States to deal with that subject. Ib.
8. State power as to; validity of action by Minnesota.
Under the established principles governing state action, Minnesota
did not transcend the limits of its authority in prescribing the
rates here involved, assuming them to be reasonable intrastate
rates. It exercised an authority appropriate to its territorial
jurisdiction and not opposed to any action thus far taken by Con-
gress. Ib.
9. State power as to intrastate traffic; constitutional validity determinative
of.
The question involved is whether, in prescribing a general schedule of
rates involving the profitableness of the intrastate operations of
the carrier, taken as a whole, the State has superseded the con-
stitutional limit by making the rates confiscatory. Ib.
10. State power as to; interference with interstate commerce; validity of
Missouri acts.
These suits were brought to restrain the enforcement of the freight-
rate and passenger-fare acts of the State of Missouri, passed in
1907. The question of interference with interstate commerce is
the same as that presented in the Minnesota Rate Cases, ante,
p. 352, and the decision is the same. Missouri Rate Cases, 474.
11. State power as to; interference with interstate commerce; validity of
Missouri acts.
Minnesota Rate Cases, ante, p. 352, followed to effect that the legis-
lative acts of Missouri establishing maximum rates for trans-
portation wholly intrastate are not unconstitutional as an unwar-
ranted interference with interstate commerce. Ib.
12. State power as to intrastate rates.
Minnesota Rate Cases, ante, p. 352, followed to effect that a state statute
prescribing rates exclusively for intrastate traffic is within the
power of the State to enact. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Con-
ley, 513.
13. State power as to interstate rates.
A state railroad commission has no power to fix interstate rates, and
as in this case the state court has not construed an order of the
state commission as relating to or affecting interstate rates this
court does not so construe it. Oregon R. R. & N. Co. v. Campbell,
14. State power as to; interference with interstate commerce.
Minnesota Rate Cases, ante, p. 352, followed to effect that an order of a
state railroad commission relating wholly to rates on intrastate
shipments is not an unconstitutional interference with interstate
15. State power as to; effect of general charter provision to lay and collect
tolls.
A general charter provision, giving power to charge and collect tolls,
necessarily implies that the charges shall be reasonable, and does
not detract from the power of the State to prescribe reasonable
rates. Southern Pacific Co. v. Campbell, 537.
16. State power as to; validity of exercise under Constitution.
Minnesota Rate Cases, ante, p. 352, followed to effect that an intrastate
rate fixed by State Railroad Commission is not an unconstitutional
interference with interstate commerce. Allen v. St. Louis, I. M.
& S. Ry. Co., 553.
17. Confiscation; right of carrier to contest validity of rates on ground of.
A carrier has the right to contest the validity of rates prescribed by a
body clothed by the legislature with power to establish rates on
the ground they are confiscatory, and this right is not impaired
by putting the rates into effect if they prove to be confiscatory. Ib.
18. Confiscation; effect of insufficiency of showing of.
Minnesota Rate Cases, ante, p. 352, also followed to effect that where
the proofs submitted by a carrier attacking rates as confiscatory are
not sufficient to justify a finding that the rates are confiscatory,
the bill should be dismissed. Ib.
19. Confiscation; sufficiency of showing; enjoining enforcement of rates.
The enforcement of an order of the State Railroad Commission pre-
scribing rates for intrastate transportation will not be restrained
at the instance of a carrier on the ground that the rates are con-
fiscatory where the allegations of the bill are insufficient to show
that the carrier would be deprived of just compensation in the
business of intrastate transportation by virtue of the operation of
the order. Southern Pacific Co. v. Campbell, 537.
20. Confiscation; sufficiency of showing.
Where the constitutional validity of state action is involved general
estimates of division between interstate and intrastate business
cannot be accepted as adequate proof to sustain a charge of con-
fiscation. The Minnesota Rate Cases, 352.
21. Confiscation; sufficiency of showing.
In the cases of the Northern Pacific and Great Northern companies
on the examination of estimates of value, and methods of appor-
tionment, held that the proof is insufficient to justify a finding
that the rates were confiscatory; and in each of those cases the
decrees are reversed with instructions to dismiss the bill without
prejudice. Ib.
22. Confiscation; sufficiency of showing.
In the case of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad Company, held,
in view of the special facts appearing, that the margin of error in
the estimates and calculations was not sufficient to affect the re-
sult. The decree in that case, adjudging the rates to be confisca-
tory, is therefore affirmed with the modification that the State
may apply to the court by bill or otherwise, as advised, for a fur-
ther 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 this company reasonable compen-
sation for the services rendered. Ib.
23. Confiscation; sufficiency of showing.
Legislative acts of a State establishing maximum freight and passenger
rates for wholly intrastate commerce will not be declared uncon-
stitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment as confiscatory in the
absence of clear and convincing proof as to the value of the prop-
erty 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 ap-
portionment of expenses between interstate and intrastate busi-
ness. Missouri Rate Cases, 474,
24. Classification of railroads; constitutionality.
Classification in a rate-making statute of railroads less than fifty miles
in length is not unreasonable and does not render the statute uncon-
stitutional as violating the equal protection provision of the Four-
teenth Amendment. (Dow v. Beidelman, 125 U. S. 680.) Chesa-
peake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Conley, 513.
25. Classification of railroads; constitutionality.
As construed by the state court the statute of West Virginia of 1907 is
not unconstitutional because the classification of railroads under
fifty miles in length only applies to such roads as are not under the
control, management or operation of other railroads. Ib.
26. Classification of railroads; constitutionality.
A classification excepting electric lines and street railways from a rail-
road rate statute is reasonable and proper and does not offend the
equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Omaha
& Council Bluffs Railway Co. v. Int. Com. Comm., ante, p. 324.)
Ib.
27. Legislative discretion in.
The rate-making power is a legislative power and necessarily implies
a range of legislative discretion. The Minnesota Rate Cases, 352.
28. Judicial determination of sufficiency of rates; right of carrier to.
A state statute which does not permit a carrier to have the question of
sufficiency of rates determined by a court of competent jurisdic-
tion, and which imposes such conditions upon the appeal for judi-
cial relief as works an abandonment of the right rather than face
those conditions, is unconstitutional as depriving the carrier of its
property without due process of law. (Ex parte Young, 209 U. S.
123, 147.) Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Tucker, 340.
29. Judicial interference with; when justified.
The court should only override the decision of the body which has been
given legislative authority to establish rates of transportation
where the action of such body is of such an arbitrary character as
to constitute an abuse of powers. Southern Pacific Co. v. Camp
bell, 537.
30. Judicial interference with; separableness of penal and other provisions.
Penal provisions of a state statute regulating railroad rates which are
separable furnish no ground for the courts denying effect to the
rates if the statute is otherwise valid. Ib.
31. Carriers' rights against legislative caprice; constitutional protection.
While the property of railroad corporations has been devoted to a
public use, the State has not seen fit to undertake the service itself
and the private property embarked in it is not placed at the mercy
of legislative caprice, but rests secure under the constitutional pro-
tection which extends not merely to the title, but to the right to re-
ceive just compensation for the services given to the public. The
Minnesota Rate Cases, 352.
32. Suits to enjoin enforcement of rates; when some sustained and others
dismissed.
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, al-
though dismissed as to other carriers which fail to offer clear and
convincing proof to that effect. Missouri Rate Cases, 474.
33. Estoppel of carrier to attack constitutionality of penal provisions of
statute suspended during litigation.
Where the state court has held that the carrier is exempted from the
operation of the penalty clause of a rate-making statute during
prosecution by it in good faith of a suit to determine the constitu-
tionality of such statute, the carrier cannot attack the validity of
the statute on the ground of its penal provisions. Chesapeake &
Ohio Ry. Co. v. Conley, 513.
34. Reasonableness of intrastate rates; determination where carrièr does
both interstate and intrastate business.
Where a carrier does both interstate and intrastate business, to deter-
mine whether a scheme of maximum intrastate rates affords a fair
return the value of the property employed in intrastate business
and the rates prescribed must be considered separately, and profits
and losses on interstate business cannot be offset. The Minnesota
Rate Cases, 352.
35. Valuation; basis of calculation in fixing rates.
For fixing rates the basis of calculation of value is the fair value of the
property of the carrier used for the convenience of the public.
(Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466.) Ib.
36. Valuation; basis of calculation in fixing rates.
There is no formula for the ascertainment of the fair value of property
|