Source: https://openjurist.org/286/us/352
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:06:19+00:00

Document:
CONTINENTAL BAKING CO. et al.
WOODRING, Governor of Kansas, et al.
Argued and Submitted April 25, 1932.
Messrs. Charles R. Wilke, of Lincoln, Neb., and John C. Grover, of Kansas City, Mo., for appellants.
Mr. Walter T. Griffin, of Topeka, Kan., for appellees.
This is an appeal from a final decree of the District Court, composed of three judges, as required by statute, which dismissed, on motion, the bill of complaint in a suit brought to restrain the enforcement of the Motor Vehicle Act of Kansas. Laws of 1931, c. 236; Continental Baking Company v. Woodring, Governor (D. C.) 55 F.(2d) 347.
Plaintiffs are 'private motor carriers of property,' operating bakeries in Kansas and other states and making deliveries to their customers by their own trucks. They contend that the statute, by reason of the obligations it imposes, and of its classifications, violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, the provision as to the privileges and immunities of citizens (article 4, § 2), and the commerce clause (article 1, § 8, cl. 3), of the Federal Constitution.
It is apparent that Kansas, in framing its legislation to meet these conditions, did not attempt to compel private carriers to become public carriers. The Legislature did not purport to put both classes of carriers upon an identical footing and subject them to the same obligations. See Smith v. Cahoon, 283 U. S. 553, 563, 51 S. Ct. 582, 75 L. Ed. 1264; Michigan Public Utilities Commission v. Duke, 266 U. S. 570, 576-578, 45 S. Ct. 191, 69 L. Ed. 445, 36 A. L. R. 1105; Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Commission, 271 U. S. 583, 592, 46 S. Ct. 605, 70 L. Ed. 1101, 47 A. L. R. 457. It recognized and applied distinctions. 'Public' or common carriers, and not private carriers, are required to obtain certificates of public convenience and necessity. The former, and not the latter, are put under regulations as to fares and charges. While, with respect to certain matters, both are placed under the general authority given to the public service commission to prescribe regulations, it does not appear from the bill of complaint that any regulation has been prescribed, or that the commission has made any order, of which private carriers may properly complain. The statute itself, however, does impose certain obligations upon private motor carriers of property, and the first question is whether these provisions violate the constitutional restrictions invoked.
First. 'Private motor carriers of property' must obtain a license, pay a tax, and file a liability insurance policy. The public service commission has no authority to refuse a license if the described information is given with the application, the liability insurance policy is filed, and there is compliance with the regulations and payment of the license fee. Section 8.14 It is not shown that either regulations or license fees are unreasonable. The tax and the license fees, over the expenses of administration, go to the highway fund of the state for the maintenance and reconstruction of the highways the carrier is licensed to use. The insurance policy is to protect the interests of the public by securing compensation for injuries to persons and property from negligent operations of the carriers. Section 21.15 The District Court approved an earlier decision, also by a District Court of three judges, that this provision was not intended to require 'security for passengers or cargoes carried, but only to protect third persons from injuries to their persons or property.' 55 F.(2d) at page 357; Louis v. Boynton (D. C.) 53 F. (2d) 471, 473. This is an admissible construction, and no different application of the provision appears to have been made by either the state court or the commission.
Requirements of this sort are clearly within the authority of the state which may demand compensation for the special facilities it has provided and regulate the use of its highways to promote the public safety. Reasonable regulations to that end are valid as to intrastate traffic, and, where there is no discrimination against the interstate commerce which may be affected, do not impose an unconstitutional burden upon that commerce. Motor vehicles may properly be treated as a special class, because their movement over the highways, as this Court has said, 'is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the ways themselves.' Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U. S. 610, 622, 35 S. Ct. 140, 142, 59 L. Ed. 385; Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U. S. 160, 167, 37 S. Ct. 30, 61 L. Ed. 222; Michigan Public Utilities Commission v. Duke, supra; Interstate Busses Corporation v. Blodgett, 276 U. S. 245, 250, 251, 48 S. Ct. 230, 72 L. Ed. 551; Sprout v. South Bend, 277 U. S. 163, 169, 170, 48 S. Ct. 502, 72 L. Ed. 833, 62 A. L. R. 45; Hodge Drive-It-Yourself Company v. Cincinnati, 284 U. S. 335, 337, 52 S. Ct. 144, 76 L. Ed. 323.
Objection to the tax is made on the score of uncertainty, in view of the exemptions of motor carriers operating wholly within a city or village, and of private motor carriers operating 'within a radius of twenty five miles beyond the corporate limits of such city, or any village.' Section 2.16 This objection is distinct from that of unconstitutional discrimination, shortly to be considered. We perceive no uncertainty by reason of the first exemption which definitely applies to cases of operation exclusively within the limits of a city or village. As to the second exemption, the state authorities assert, and it is not denied, that, in the administration of the act, the public service commission has taken the exemption to mean that 'so long as private carriers operate within a radius of twenty-five miles of their home city or base they are not subject to the payment of the fee. Even though they have made trips outside the twenty-five mile radius, which subjects them to the law and to the payment of tax for such trips, they are still not subject to the payment of a tax for trips made entirely within the twenty-five mile zone.' The District Court expressed the opinion that the provision 'can and should be construed as intending to exempt from the tax those carriers who either have an established place of business or an established delivery point, with trucks domiciled in any city, and that such trucks may operate in that city and within a 25-mile radius free of any tax,' and the court said that it agreed with the construction of the commission that, 'if such a truck goes beyond the 25-mile limit,' 'only the excess is taxable.' 55 F.(2d) at page 356. On this construction, it cannot be said that there is a fatal defect in definition. The tax itself is certain, as in the process of laying the tax it is necessarily made certain before any penalty can be imposed for nonpayment. The tax is to be assessed and collected on the basis of gross ton miles, and this mileage is to be computed in a prescribed manner. When the tax is assessed, the ordinary remedies will be available for contesting it, if the assessment is not in accordance with the law. No impropriety in assessment or in collection as to these appellants, or denial of remedy, is disclosed. Nor is the amount of the tax, which the state could lay in its discretion for the lawful purposes declared, shown to be unreasonable.
The objection to the authority given to the public service commission 'to regulate and supervise the accounts, schedules, service and method of operation,' 'to prescribe a uniform system and classification of accounts,' to require the filing of reports and data, and generally to 'supervise and regulate' all the carriers to which the act applies 'in all matters affecting the relationship' between such carriers and 'the traveling and shipping public (section 5)17 similarly raises no question which can now be considered, as there has been no action or threat of action, so far as appears, by the commission giving ground for the contention that the constitutional rights of the appellants have been or will be invaded. This is not a case like that of Smith v. Cahoon, supra, where the requirements of the statute itself, as distinguished from action of the state commission under it, had such an objectionable generality and vagueness as to the obligations imposed upon private carriers that they provided no standard of conduct that it was possible to know and exposed the persons concerned to criminal prosecution before any suitably definite requirement had been prescribed. In the instant case, the statute itself clearly distinguishes in fundamental matters between the obligations of public and private carriers and places upon the latter certain requirements which the state had power to impose. Whatever uncertainty may exist with respect to possible regulations of the commission will be resolved as regulations are promulgated. If any of these transcend constitutional limits, appellants will have their appropriate remedy. The provision as to keeping records and furnishing reports and information, and as to maintaining uniform methods of accounting, may, in the case of private carriers of property, be assumed, until the contrary appears, to have relation, as the state authorities assert, to the determination of the amount of the tax to which the private carriers are properly liable. The general grant of authority to the public service commission over all the carriers described, including both public and private carriers, in all matters affecting their relationship with the traveling and shipping public, we think should be taken distributively in the light of the context and of the manifest distinctions in the relation of different sorts of carriers to the public. The distinction made by the statute between public and private carriers with respect to the obtaining of certificates of public convenience and necessity, and as to rates and charges, indicates the intention to keep separate the special responsibilities of public carriers from the more limited but still important duties which are owing as well by private carriers, in protecting the public highways from misuse and in insuring safe traffic conditions, and there is no reason to conclude that the authority given to the commission will not be viewed and exercised accordingly. We agree with the District Court that the last clause of section 5, providing that 'all laws relating to the powers, duties, authority and jurisdiction of the public service commission over common carriers are hereby made applicable to all such motor carriers except as herein otherwise specifically provided,' applies to public and not to private carriers.
The duty laid upon the commission (section 22)18 to insist that motor vehicles shall be maintained 'in a safe and sanitary condition,' to prescribe qualifications of operators as to age and hours of service, and to require the reporting of accidents, has manifest reference to considerations of safety. The terms of the statute do not require action by the commission which does not have reasonable relation to that purpose. In this respect, as well as in relation to the other matters above-mentioned, appellants had no right to resort to equity merely because of an anticipation of improper or invalid action in administration. Smith v. Cahoon, supra, at page 562 of 283 U. S., 51 S. Ct. 582, 587; Dalton Adding Machine Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 236 U. S. 699, 700, 701, 35 S. Ct. 480, 59 L. Ed. 797; Champlin Refining Company v. Corporation Commission, 286 U. S. 210, 52 S. Ct. 559, 76 L. Ed. —, decided May 16, 1932.
Second. The challenged exemptions are set forth in section 2.19 The first, which excludes from the application of the act motor carriers who operate wholly within a city or village of the state, has an obviously reasonable basis, as such operations are subject to local regulations. In protecting its highway system, the state was at liberty to leave its local communities unembarrassed, and was not bound either to override their regulations or to impose burdensome additions.
The second exemption extends only to certain private motor carriers. Under the construction above stated, the exemption provides immunity from the provisions of the act for carriers of that class who have an established place of business or base of operations within a city or village and operate within a radius of twenty-five miles beyond the municipal limits. The first question is whether the state, in legislation of this sort, may provide for such carriers an exempt zone contiguous to its municipalities. We find no difficulty in concluding that it may. As the District Court pointed out, there is 'a penumbra of town' that is outside municipal limits, and delivery trucks, of those having establishments within the municipalities, in their daily routine repeatedly cross these limits 'in going back and forth into these outlying additions.' The court found that trucks of that class 'use the state improved highways but slightly, for the streets of these outlying additions are not generally a part of the state system.' The District Court also directed attention to the fact that 'the practical difficulty of keeping track of the mileage of such delivery trucks as they cross back and forth is well-nigh insuperable' and that 'the revenue to be gained from such use would be insignificant and the cost of collection large.' We think that the Legislature could properly take these distinctions into account, and that there was a reasonable basis for differentiation with respect to that class of operations. In this view, the question is simply whether the fixing of the radius at twenty-five miles is so entirely arbitrary as to be unconstitutional. It is obvious that the Legislature in setting up such a zone would have to draw the line somewhere, and unquestionably it had a broad discretion as to where the line should be drawn. In exercising that discretion, the Legislature was not bound to resort to close distinctions or to attempt to define the particular differentiations as to traffic conditions in territory bordering on its various municipalities. Ohio Oil Company v. Conway, 281 U. S. 146, 159, 50 S. Ct. 310, 74 L. Ed. 775. This Court has frequently held that the mere selection of a mileage basis in the regulation of railroads cannot be considered a violation of the Federal Constitution. The practical convenience of such a classification is not to be disregarded in the interest of a purely theoretical or scientific uniformity. Columbus & Greenville Ry. Co. v. Miller, 283 U. S. 96, 101, 51 S. Ct. 392, 75 L. Ed. 861; Dow v. Beidelman, 125 U. S. 680, 691, 8 S. Ct. 1028, 31 L. Ed. 841; New York, New Haven & Hartford R. Co. v. New York, 165 U. S. 628, 633, 634, 17 S. Ct. 418, 41 L. Ed. 853; Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Arkansas, 219 U. S. 453, 31 S. Ct. 275, 55 L. Ed. 290; Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Conley, 230 U. S. 513, 522, 33 S. Ct. 985, 57 L. Ed. 1597; St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. Arkansas, 240 U. S. 518, 521, 36 S. Ct. 443, 60 L. Ed. 776; Wilson v. New, 243 U. S. 332, 341, 354, 37 S. Ct. 298, 61 L. Ed. 755, L. R. A. 1917E, 938, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 1024; Clark v. Maxwell, 282 U. S. 811, 51 S. Ct. 211, 75 L. Ed. 726; Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. United States, 284 U. S. 80, 93, 52 S. Ct. 87, 76 L. Ed. 177. No controlling considerations have been presented to overcome the presumption attaching to the legislative action in this case in fixing the radius of the zone for the purpose of establishing an exemption otherwise valid.
The distinction in the instant case is of a different sort. The statute does not attempt to impose an arbitrary discrimination between carriers who transport property for hire, or compensation, with respect to the class of products they carry. The exemption runs only to one who is carrying his own live stock and farm products to market or supplies for his own use in his own motor vehicle. In sustaining the exemption, the District Court referred to the factual basis for the distinction. 'The Legislature knew,' said the court 'that as a matter of fact farm products are transported to town by the farmer, or by a nonexempt 'contract carrier' employed by him. The Legislature knew that as a matter of fact the use of the highways for the transportation of farm products by the owner is casual and infrequent and incidental; farmers use the highways to transport their products to market ordinarily but a few times a year. The Legislature rightly concluded that the use of the highways for carrying home his groceries in his own automobile is adequately compensated by the general tax imposed on all motor vehicles.' 55 F.(2d) at page 352. And the court properly excluded from consideration mere hypothetical and fanciful illustrations of possible discriminations which had no basis in the actual experience to which the statute was addressed. The court found a practical difference between the case of the appellants 'who operate fleets of trucks in the conduct of their business and who use the highways daily in the delivery of their products to their customers,' and that of 'a farmer who hauls his wheat or live stock to town once or twice a year.' The Legislature in making its classification was entitled to consider frequency and character of use and to adapt its regulations to the classes of operations, which by reason of their habitual and constant use of the highways brought about the conditions making regulation imperative and created the necessity for the imposition of a tax for maintainance and reconstruction. As the Court said in Alward v. Johnson, 282 U. S. 509, 513, 514, 51 S. Ct. 273, 274, 75 L. Ed. 496, 75 A. L. R. 9: 'The distinction between property employed in conducting a business which requires constant and unusual use of the highways and property not so employed is plain enough.' See, also, Bekins Van Lines v. Riley, 280 U. S. 80, 82, 50 S. Ct. 64, 74 L. Ed. 178; Carley & Hamilton v. Snook, 281 U. S. 66, 73, 50 S. Ct. 204, 74 L. Ed. 704, 68 A. L. R. 194.
The fourth exemption is 'of transportation of children to and from school.' The distinct public interest in this sort of transportation affords sufficient reason for the classification. The state was not bound to seek revenue for its highways from that source, and, without violating appellants' constitutional rights, could avail itself of other means of assuring safety in that class of cases.
Appellants also refer to the provision of section 21, with respect to liability insurance, that 'no other or additional bonds or licenses' shall be required 'by any city or town or other agency of the state.' The propriety of this avoidance of a duplication of security is apparent.

References: v. 
 § 2
 § 8
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.