Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/227/456.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 17:20:39+00:00

Document:
This bill was filed for the purpose of enjoining the bringing of actions in the state courts, in the name of the state, to recover penalties declared by the railroad com- [227 U.S. 456, 457] mission of the state for the violation of a statute requiring railroads to furnish cars upon the application of shippers, and forbidding discrimination between shippers in furnishing such cars.
Upon a complaint duly filed, and after a full hearing, the railroad commission of the state found that the railroad company had, during every day between September 20th and September 30th, 1907, inclusive, refused to furnish cars upon statutory notice and request of the operators of several coal companies operating along the line of its railroad in the state of Arkansas, and had also, during the same period, discriminated in favor of a coal company which it controlled, by furnishing it with an adequate supply of cars, although part of the coal so carried was for sale upon the market. The requests for cars so refused were for shipments from the mines within the state to destinations in the same state, and were not for the purpose of interstate transportation.
The bill charged that the railroad commission was about to transmit a transcript of its proceedings to the several state prosecuting attorneys in counties where the railroad was situated, with an order that action should be brought in the name of the state for the enforcement of the penalties, as provided by 11 and 18 of an act of the Arkansas legislature of March 11, 1899, being 6804, Kirby's Digest.
The bill alleges that, although engaged in operating a railroad within the state of Arkansas, the company's lines extended into adjacent states, and that it is therefore an interstate carrier, subject to the act of Congress of February 4, 1887 [24 Stat. at L. 379, chap. 104, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 1284], and its amendments. It charges that by an act of the legislature of the state of Arkansas passed April 19, 1907, the railroad commission of the state is vested with authority to regulate railroads within the state, in respect to the duty of [227 U.S. 456, 458] furnishing cars to shippers, and that it has, under that authority, promulgated order No. 346, which follows in phraseology the provisions of 1 of the act referred to. It is then contended that this act of April 19, 1907, and the order of the commission in pursuance of said 1st section, constitute an exertion of the power of the state over interstate commerce, and as such are invalid. It was averred that if the bringing of the threatened suits was not enjoined, complainant would be subjected to a multitude of actions and to a liability for the excessive penalties imposed by the 18th section of the act of 1899, being a minimum of not less than $500 for each offense, and a maximum of as much as $3,000.
The bill denied any liability under the act, even if valid, and presented various reasons why it had not supplied the cars requested.
Answer was filed and issue taken upon every material defense set up upon the merits. The cause was heard upon bill and answer, there being no evidence upon the matters of defense touching the merits of the case.
The circuit court held the entire act of April 19, 1907 to be null and void as an invalid invasion of the field of interstate commerce, and accordingly enjoined its enforcement and the bringing of the actions which the commission had ordered.
Mr. Hal L. Norwood, Attorney General of Arkansas, and Mr. Morris M. Cohn for appellants.
[227 U.S. 456, 461] Messrs. Lovick P. Miles and Martin L. Clardy for appellee.
The order of the commission directed the bringing of actions against the appellee for the wilful violation of the provisions of 1, set out above, and also for an illegal discrimination under 11 of the act of March 11, 1899, referred to above. That section forbids any discrimination or preference in furnishing cars, and requires equal facilities to all under like circumstances and conditions.
'The court holds that the act is unconstitutional upon two grounds: 1. By the last sentence of 17 it is clearly shown that the intention of the legislature was to apply its provisions to interstate shipments as fully as to intrastate shipments; and there is nothing in the act to indicate that the act would have been passed unless it could thus be made applicable. This is clearly an interference with interstate commerce, and as this provision cannot be disregarded without defeating one of the main objects of the act, it is unconstitutional. 2. The requirement to furnish the cars is absolute, and makes no exceptions for cases of a sudden congestion of traffic, actual inability to furnish cars by reason of their temporary detention in other states or in other places within the same state; none for interference of traffic, occasioned by wrecks, accidents, or strikes. Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Mayes, 201 U.S. 321 , 50 L. ed. 772, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 491, is conclusive.
The attack upon that act turned upon two propositions.
a. That the clause of the 17th section, set out above, manifests an intention that the act shall apply as well to interstate shipments as to intrastate shipments, and that this purpose invalidates the whole act, as there [227 U.S. 456, 465] is nothing to justify the court in saying that the valid parts of the act would have been passed without the invalid parts.
b. That the requirement to furnish cars, found in the 1st section, is absolute, and that no excuse arising from the detention of the company's cars upon other and connecting lines of railroad in and out of the state, nor for delays due to sudden emergencies, unusual congestion of traffic, catastrophes, or other unavoidable and unusual conditions without fault, is a defense against the penalty imposed for failure to supply cars as required.
That clause probably means no more than that there shall be no discrimination against demands for cars for interstate shipments. If, however, it be construed as extending the act so as to regulate the furnishing of cars for interstate shipments, it would be invalid by reason of the provisions of the Hepburn amendment to the act to regulate commerce of June 29, 1906 [34 Stat. at L. 584, chap. 3591, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 1288]. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Hardwick Farmers' Elevator Co. 226 U.S. 426 , 57 L. ed. --, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 174.
The effect of this upon the remainder of the act has not been considered in the briefs of appellee, further than to say that in Oliver v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 89 Ark. 466, 117 S. W. 238, decided pending this appeal, the supreme court of the state has held the act valid as including an elaborate and workable scheme for the regulation of intrastate railroad traffic, irrespective of the invalidity of the clause referred to. We shall therefore assume the remainder of the act to be valid, although the clause in question be regarded as invalid.
Neither is the requirement of the act as to the duty of furnishing cars absolute, as held by the court below. That the act upon its face includes no exceptions or excuses is not conclusive of its meaning and intent. The case of Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Mayes, 201 U.S. 321 , 50 L. ed. 772, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 491, is not [227 U.S. 456, 466] controlling. The dereliction there involved was in the failure to furnish cars for an interstate shipment, under a Texas statute which required the carrier to furnish cars upon six days' notice, with a provision that the law should not 'apply in cases of strikes or other calamity.' This court concluded that the inclusion of a particular exception excluded all others, and that an absolute requirement that a railroad shall furnish a certain number of cars at a specific day, regardless of every other consideration 'except strikes and other public calamities,' amounted to a burden upon interstate commerce. The court added: 'It makes no exception in cases of a sudden congestion of traffic, an actual inability to furnish cars by reason of their temporary and unavoidable detention in other states, or in other places within the same state,' etc.
The cases referred to make it clear that the statutory duty of furnishing cars upon the reasonable notice of a shipper is not absolute, and that the legislature did not intend to impose upon railroad companies the duty of furnishing cars to a particular shipper, regardless of its equal duty to other shippers, state and interstate, or to a situation due to some unusual and unavoidable condition which made it unreasonable that it should be penalized for noncompliance; and also that if, in the administration of the statute, a ruling is made by the state court in respect to an excuse for noncompliance which operates as a restraint upon interstate commerce, a Federal question arises which may be reviewed by this court.
This principle has been applied in many cases, among them: Turpin v. Lemon, 187 U.S. 51, 60 , 47 S. L. ed. 70, 74, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 20; The Winnebago, 205 U.S. 354, 360 , 51 S. L. ed. 836, 839, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 509; Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Kentucky, 217 U.S. 453 , 54 L. ed. 836, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 532; Southern R. Co. v. King, 217 U.S. 524, 534 , 54 S. L. ed. 868, 871, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594; Rosenthal v. New York, 226 U.S. 260, 271 , 57 S. L. ed . --, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 27.
The result is that the decree must be reversed and the case remanded, with direction to dismiss the bill.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.