Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/154/204/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 02:22:17+00:00

Document:
"The president and directors shall have the rights to fix the rates of toll for passing over said bridge, and to collect the same from all and every person or persons passing thereon, with their goods, carriages, or animals of every description or kind, provided, however, that the said company shall lay before the legislature of this state a correct statement of the costs of said bridge, and an annual statement of the tolls received for passing the same, and also the cost of keeping the said bridge in repair, and of the other expenses of the company, and the said president and directors shall, from time to time, reduce the rates of toll, so that the net profits of the said bridge shall not exceed fifteen percent per annum, after the proper deductions are made for repairs and charges of other descriptions."
writ of error, it is by the whole Court held that the Kentucky Act of March 3, 1890, in its effect upon the Bridge Company, violated the provisions of the Constitution of the United States.
(1) That the traffic across the river was interstate commerce.
(2) That the bridge was an instrument of such commerce.
(3) That the statute was an attempted regulation of such commerce which the state had no constitutional power to make.
(4) That Congress alone possesses the requisite power to enact a uniform scale of charges in such a case, the authority of the state being limited to fixing tolls on such channels of commerce as are exclusively within its territory.
(1) The several states have the power to establish and regulate ferries and bridges, and the rates of toll thereon, whether within one state or between two adjoining states, subject to the paramount authority of Congress over interstate commerce.
(2) By the concurrent acts of the Legislature of Kentucky in 1846 and of the legislature of Ohio in 1849, this bridge company was made a corporation of each state, and authorized to fix rates of toll.
(3) Congress, by the Act of February 17, 1865, c. 39, declared this bridge "to be, when completed in accordance with the laws of the States of Ohio and Kentucky, a lawful structure," but made no provision as to tolls, and thereby manifested the intention of Congress that the rates of toll should be as established by the two states.
(4) The original acts of incorporation constituted a contract between the corporation and both states, which could not be altered by the one state without the consent of the other.
This was an indictment found by the grand jury of Kenton County, Kentucky, against the defendant bridge company for demanding and collecting illegal tolls, refusing to sell tickets at the rates required by law, and for failing to keep an office for the sale of tickets at its bridge in said county.
"The president and directors shall have the right to fix the rates of toll for passing over said bridge, and to collect the same from all and every person or persons passing thereon, with their goods, carriages, or animals of every description or kind, provided however that the said company shall lay before the legislature of this state a correct statement of the cost of said bridge, and an annual statement of the tolls received for passing the same, and also the cost of keeping the said bridge in repair, and of the other expenses of the company, and the said president and directors shall, from time to time, reduce the rates of toll so that the net profits of the said bridge shall not exceed fifteen percent per annum after the proper deductions are made for repairs and charges of other descriptions."
"nothing herein contained shall be construed to take away the jurisdiction of this state to the center of the said bridge nor in anywise to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Kentucky this side of the said center."
"power to enter upon any lands in the City of Cincinnati, from low water mark in the Ohio River northwardly, not exceeding one hundred feet in width, to Front Street, and appropriate the same"
for passageways and abutments, etc.
1. By Act of February 23, 1856, authority was given to increase the capital stock from $300,000 to $700,000, with power in the City of Covington to subscribe for and purchase $100,000.
3. By Act of February 5, 1861, the capital stock was increased to $1,000,000, one-half of such amount in preferred stock, and to pledge the revenues of the company for the payment of dividends upon such preferred stock to the extent of 15 percent per annum.
4. By Act of January 21, 1865, the capital stock was increased to $1,250,000, the additional $250,000 being preferred stock, the holders of which should enjoy all the benefits, privileges, and immunities to which the holders of the existing stock were entitled.
By the sixth section of this act, the legislature reserved the right to change, alter, or amend the original charter, "but not so as to abridge or injure legal or equitable rights acquired thereunder."
5. By Act of February 25, 1865, the above sixth section was repealed.
6, By Act of Congress of February 17, 1865, the bridge was declared to be a lawful structure and post road for the conveyance of the mails of the United States. 13 Stat. 431.
The bridge was completed and opened for travel January 1, 1867.
for the sale of such tickets, and keep conspicuously posted a schedule of the tolls fixed in pursuance of the act.
1. Whether the act of 1890 was within the constitutional inhibition of laws impairing the obligation of contracts.
2. Whether such acts were in violation of the exclusive power of Congress to regulate commerce among the states.
3. Whether said act was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibiting the taking of private property without due process of law.
Defendant thereupon sued out a writ of error from this Court.
This case involves the power of a state to regulate tolls upon a bridge connecting it with another state without the assent of Congress and without the concurrence of such other state in the proposed tariff.
The right of the Commonwealth of Kentucky to prescribe a schedule of charges in this instance is contested not only upon the ground that such regulation is an interference with interstate commerce, but upon the further ground that it impairs the obligation of the contract contained in the original charter of the company.
The power of Congress over commerce between the states, and the corresponding power of individual states over such commerce, have been the subject of such frequent adjudication in this Court, and the relative powers of Congress and the states with respect thereto are so well defined that each case, as it arises, must be determined upon principles already settled, as falling on one side or the other of the line of demarcation between the powers belonging exclusively to Congress and those in which the action of the state may be concurrent. The adjudications of this Court with respect to the power of the states over the general subject of commerce are divisible into three classes: first, those in which the power of the state is exclusive; second, those in which the states may act in the absence of legislation by Congress; third, those in which the action of Congress is exclusive, and the states cannot interfere at all.
be termed in any just sense an interference. Under this power, the states may authorize the construction of highways, turnpikes, railways, and canals between points in the same state and regulate the tolls for the use of the same, Railroad v. Maryland, 21 Wall. 456, and may authorize the building of bridges over nonnavigable streams and otherwise regulate the navigation of the strictly internal waters of the state -- such as do not, by themselves or by connection with other waters, form a continuous highway over which commerce is or may be carried on with other states or foreign countries, Veazie v. Moor, 14 How. 568; The Montello, 11 Wall. 411, 87 U. S. 20 Wall. 430. This is true notwithstanding the fact that the goods or passengers carried or traveling over such highway between points in the same state may ultimately be destined for other states, and, to a slight extent, the state regulations may be said to interfere with interstate commerce. The states may also exact a bonus, or even a portion of the earnings of such corporation, as a condition to the granting of its charter. Society for Savings v. Coite, 6 Wall. 594; Provident Institution v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. 611; Hamilton Company v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. 632; Railroad Company v. Maryland, 21 Wall. 456; Ashley v. Ryan, 153 U. S. 436.
repugnant to the exclusive power of the state over the same subject."
It was at one time thought that the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States did not extend to contracts of affreightment between ports of the United States, though the voyage were performed upon navigable waters of the United States. Allen v. Newberry, 21 How. 244. But later adjudications have ignored this distinction as applied to those waters. The Belfast, 7 Wall. 624, 74 U. S. 641; The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558, 88 U. S. 587; Lord v. Steamship Co., 102 U. S. 541.
Under this power, the states may also prescribe the form of all commercial contracts, as well as the terms and conditions upon which the internal trade of the state may be carried on. The Trademark Cases, 100 U. S. 82.
Within the second class of cases -- those of what may be termed concurrent jurisdiction -- are embraced laws for the regulation of pilots, Cooley v. Philadelphia Board of Wardens, 12 How. 299; Steamship Company v. Joliffe, 2 Wall. 450; Ex Parte McNeil, 13 Wall. 236; Wilson v. McNamee, 102 U. S. 572; quarantine and inspection laws and the policing of harbors, Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 22 U. S. 203; City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 102; Turner v. Maryland, 107 U. S. 38; Morgan Steamship Co. v. Louisiana, 118 U. S. 455; the improvement of navigable channels, County of Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691; Escanaba Co. v. Chicago, 107 U. S. 678; Huse v. Glover, 119 U. S. 543; the regulation of wharves, piers, and docks, Cannon v. New Orleans, 20 Wall. 577; Packet Company v. Keokuk, 95 U. S. 80; Packet Company v. St. Louis, 100 U. S. 423; Packet Company v. Catlettsburg, 105 U. S. 559; Transportation Company v. Parkersburg, 107 U. S. 691; Ouachita Packet Co. v. Aiken, 121 U. S. 444; the construction of dams and bridges across the navigable waters of a state, Willson v. Blackbird Creek Marsh Co., 2 Pet. 245; Cardwell v. American Bridge Co., 113 U. S. 205; Pound v. Turck, 95 U. S. 459, and the establishment of ferries, Conway v. Taylor, 1 Black 603.
admitted that the existence of this power in Congress, like the power of taxation, is compatible with the existence of a similar power in the states, then it would be in conformity with the contemporary exposition of the Constitution and with the judicial construction given from time to time by this Court, after the most deliberate consideration, to hold that the mere grant of such a power to Congress did not imply a prohibition on the states to exercise the same power; that it is not the mere existence of such a power, but its exercise by Congress, which may be incompatible with the exercise of the same power by the states, and that the states may legislate in the absence of congressional regulations."
See also Sturgis v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 192, 17 U. S. 193. But even in the matter of building a bridge, if Congress chooses to act, its action necessarily supersedes the action of the state. Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 18 How. 421. As matter of fact, the building of bridges over waters dividing two states is now usually done by congressional sanction. Under this power, the state may also tax the instruments of interstate commerce as it taxes other similar property, provided such tax be not laid upon the commerce itself.
in Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, and has been steadily adhered to since. That such power of regulation as they possess is limited to matters of a strictly local nature, and does not extend to fixing tariffs upon passengers or merchandise carried from one state to another, is also settled by more recent decisions, although it must be admitted that cases upon this point have not always been consistent.
them, even though in so doing it may operate upon commerce outside its immediate jurisdiction."
The principle of this case has been recently affirmed in Budd v. New York, 143 U. S. 517, and reaffirmed in Brass v. North Dakota, 153 U. S. 391, though not without strong opposition from a minority of the Court.
"is carried on there, and its regulation is a matter of domestic concern. It is employed in state as well as interstate commerce, and, until Congress acts, the state must be permitted to adopt such rules and regulations as may be necessary for the promotion of the general welfare of the people within its own jurisdiction, even though in so doing those without may be indirectly affected."
In short, the case was treated as one of internal commerce only.
and carried without. The vital question is not discussed at any length, but it was held that until Congress acted with reference to the relations of this company to interstate commerce, it was within the power of the State of Wisconsin to regulate its affairs so far as they were of a domestic concern. These three cases were cited with approval in Ruggles v. Illinois, 108 U. S. 526, in which the power of a state to limit the amount of charges by a railroad company for fares and freight was recognized.
with the charges of the company for the transportation of persons or property through Mississippi from one state to another. The statute makes no mention of property taken up without the state and delivered within, nor of such as may be taken within and carried without."
The Court studiously avoided committing itself upon the question of the power of the commission over interstate commerce.
which was decided, and which was argued in all those cases, was the right of the state in which the railroad company did business to regulate or limit the amount of any of these traffic charges. The importance of that question overshadowed all others, and the case of Munn v. Illinois was selected by the Court as the most appropriate one in which to give its opinion on that subject, because that case presented the question of a private citizen, or unincorporated partnership, engaged in the warehouse business in Chicago, . . . free from the question of continuous transportation through the several states, . . . and the question how far a charge made for a continuous transportation over several states, which included a state whose laws were in question, may be divided into separate charges for each state, in enforcing the power of the state to regulate the fares of its railroads, was evidently not fully considered."
The substance of the opinion was that if the prior cases were to be considered as laying down the principle that the states might regulate the charges for interstate traffic, they must be considered as overruled. See also Bowman v. Chicago &c. Railway, 125 U. S. 465. In none of the subsequent cases has any disposition been shown to limit or qualify the doctrine laid down in the Wabash case, and to that doctrine we still adhere.
The real question involved here is whether this case can be distinguished from the Wabash case. That involved the right of a single state to fix the charge for transportation from the interior of such state to places in other states. This case involves the right of one state to fix charges for the transportation of persons and property over a bridge connecting it with another state, without the assent of Congress or such other state, and thus involving the further inquiries -- first whether such traffic across the river is interstate commerce, and second whether a bridge can be considered an instrument of such commerce.
"therefore can deal with such transportation; its nonaction is a declaration that it shall remain free from burdens imposed by state legislation. Otherwise, there would be no protection against conflicting regulations of different states, each legislating for its own interests and products, and against those of other states."
If, as was intimated in that case, interstate commerce means simply commerce between the states, it must apply to all commerce which crosses the state line, regardless of the distance from which it comes or to which it is bound, before or after crossing such state line -- in other words, if it be commerce to send goods from Cincinnati, in Ohio, to Lexington, in Kentucky, it is equally such to send goods or to travel in person from Cincinnati to Covington. And while the reasons which influenced this Court to hold in the Wabash case that Illinois could not fix rates between Peoria and New York may not impress the mind so strongly when applied to fixing the rates of toll upon a bridge or ferry, the principle is identically the same, and, at least in the absence of mutual or reciprocal legislation between the two states, it is impossible for either to fix a tariff of charges.
commerce as if they were shipping cargoes of merchandise from New York to Liverpool. While the bridge company is not itself a common carrier, it affords a highway for such carriage, and a toll upon such bridge is as much a tax upon commerce as a toll upon a turnpike is a tax upon the traffic of such turnpike, or the charges upon a ferry a tax upon the commerce across a river. A tax laid upon those who do the business of common carriers upon a certain bridge is as much a tax upon the commerce of that bridge as if the owner of the bridge were himself a common carrier.
"the levying of a tax upon vessels or other water craft, or the exaction of a license fee by the state within which the property subject to the exaction has its situs, is not a regulation of commerce within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States."
Obviously the case does not touch the question here involved. Upon the other hand, however, it was held in Moran v. New Orleans, 112 U. S. 69, that a municipal ordinance of New Orleans imposing a license tax upon persons owning and running towboats to and from the Gulf of Mexico was void as a regulation of commerce.
passage, and thus attempt to throw the whole burden upon persons crossing in the opposite direction. It might be an advantage to one state to make the charge for foot passengers very low, and the charge for merchandise very high, and for the other side to adopt a converse system. One scale of charges might be advantageous to Kentucky in this instance, where the larger city is upon the north side of the river, while a wholly different system might be to her advantage at Louisville, where the larger city is upon the south side.
"Freedom from such imposition does not, of course, imply exemption from reasonable charges, as compensation for the carriage of persons, in the way of tolls or fares, or from the ordinary taxation to which other property is subjected, any more than like freedom of transportation on land implies such exemption. Reasonable charges for the use of property, either on water or land, are not an interference with the freedom of transportation between the states secured under the commercial power of Congress."
Nor are we to be understood as passing upon the question whether, in the absence of legislation by Congress, the states may by reciprocal action fix upon a tariff which shall be operative upon both sides of the river.
levies a tax for the benefit of the state upon the same transportation."
The judgment of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky is therefore reversed, and the case remanded to that court for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
The several states have the power to establish and regulate ferries and bridges, and the rates of toll thereon, whether within one state or between two adjoining states, subject to the paramount authority of Congress over interstate commerce.
By the concurrent acts of the Legislature of Kentucky in 1846, and of the Legislature of Ohio in 1849, this bridge company was made a corporation of each state, and authorized to fix rates of toll.
Congress, by the Act of February 17, 1865, c. 39, declared this bridge "to be, when completed in accordance with the laws of the states of Ohio and Kentucky, a lawful structure," but made no provision as to tolls, and thereby manifested the intention of Congress that the rates of toll should be as established by the two states. 13 Stat. 431.
The original acts of incorporation constituted a contract between the corporation and both states, which could not be altered by the one state without the consent of the other.

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