Court Opinion

ID: 9418847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:41:18.991004+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:11.922457
License: Public Domain

The Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I am unable to concur in the decision of this case. The gravest aspect of the decision is that it does not rest simply upon a condemnation of particular features of the Railroad Retirement Act, but denies to Congress the power to pass any compulsory pension act for railroad *375employees. If the opinion were limited to the particular provisions of the Act, which the majority find to be objectionable and not severable, the Congress would be free to overcome the objections by a new statute. Classes of persons held to be improperly brought within the range of the Act could be eliminated. Criticisms of the basis of payments, of the conditions prescribed for the receipt of benefits, and of the requirements of contributions, could be met. Even in place of a unitary retirement system another sort of plan could be worked out. What was thus found to be inconsistent with the requirements of due process could be excised and other provisions substituted. But after discussing these matters, the majority finally raise a barrier against all legislative action of this nature by declaring that the subject matter itself lies beyond the reach of the congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce. In that view, no matter how suitably limited a pension act for railroad employees might be with respect to the persons to be benefited, or how appropriate the measure of retirement allowances, or how sound actuarially the plan, or how well adjusted the burden, still under this decision Congress would not be at liberty to enact such a measure. That is a conclusion of such serious and far-reaching importance that it overshadows all other questions raised by the Act. Indeed, it makes their discussion superfluous. The final objection goes, as the opinion states, “ to the heart of the law, even if it could survive the loss of the unconstitutional features ” which the opinion perceives. I think that the conclusion thus reached is a departure from sound principles and places an unwarranted limitation upon the commerce clause of the Constitution.
• First. In defining the power vested in Congress to regulate interstate commerce, we invariably refer to the classic statement of Chief Justice Marshall. It is the power “ to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed.” *376The power “ is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution.” Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 196. It is a power to enact “ all appropriate legislation for the protection and advancement ” of interstate commerce. The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557, 564. “ To regulate,” we said in the Second Employers Liability Cases, 223 U. S. 1, 47, “ in the sense intended, is to foster, protect, control and restrain, with appropriate regard for the welfare of those who are immediately concerned and of the public at large.” And the exercise of the power, thus broadly defined, has had the widest range in dealing with railroads, which are engaged as common carriers in interstate transportation. As their service is vital to the nation, nothing which has a real or substantial relation to the suitable maintenance of that service, or to the discharge of the responsibilities which inhere in it, can be regarded as beyond the power of regulation. The Shreveport Case, 234 U. S. 342, 351; Dayton-Goose Creek Ry. Co. v. United States, 263 U. S. 456, 478; Colorado v. United States, 271 U. S. 153, 163, 164; N. Y. Central Securities Corp. v. United States, 287 U. S. 12, 24, 25.
It was inevitable that, with the development of the transportation system of the country, requiring a vast number of employees, there should have been a growing appreciation of the importance of conditions of employment. It could not be denied that the sovereign power to govern interstate carriers extends to the regulation of their relations with their employees who likewise are engaged in interstate commerce. The scope of this sort of regulation has been extensive. There has been not only the paramount consideration of safety, but also the recognition of the fact that fair treatment in other respects aids in conserving the peace and good order which are essential to the maintenance of the service without disastrous interruptions, and in promoting the efficiency which inevi*377tably suffers from a failure to meet the reasonable demands of justice. An absolute duty to furnish safety appliances has been imposed, restrictions of hours of continuous service have been prescribed, standards of a day’s work have been established for work and wages, the liability of carriers for injuries to employees has been regulated by the abrogation of the fellow servant rule and the limitation of defenses as to contributory negligence and assumption of risk, and provisions have been enacted to facilitate the amicable settlement of disputes and to protect employees in their freedom to organize for the purpose of safeguarding their interests. St. Louis I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 210 U. S. 281; Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 221 U. S. 612; Wilson v. New, 243 U. S. 332; Texas & New Orleans R. Co. v. Railway Clerks, 281 U. S. 548.
The argument that a pension measure, however sound and reasonable as such, is per se outside the pale of the regulation of interstate carriers, because such a plan could not possibly have a reasonable relation to the ends which Congress is entitled to serve, is largely answered by the practice of the carriers themselves. Following precedents long established in Europe, certain railroad companies in the United States set up voluntary pension systems many years ago. It appears that the first of these was established in 1884, another was adpoted in 1900. By 1910, formal pension plans covered 50 per cent of all railroad employees, and, by 1927, over 82 per cent. In establishing these plans the carriers were not contemplating the payment of a largess unrelated to legitimate transportation ends. Their witnesses say the carriers aimed at loyalty and continuity of service. However limited their motives, they acted upon business principles. Pension plans were not deemed to be essentially foreign to the proper conduct of their enterprises. But if retirement or pension plans are not per se unrelated to the government *378of transportation operations, Congress could consider such, plans, examine their utility, and reach its own conclusions. If the subject matter was open to consideration, Congress was not limited to the particular motives which inspired the plans of the carriers.
The Government stresses the importance of facilitating the retirement of superannuated employees. The argument points to the conclusions of expert students as given in the testimony below, and to the reports of investigating committees and boards of leading business organizations. “Employees’ Retirement Annuities,” Chamber of Commerce of the United States, 1932, pp. 7, 8; “ Elements of Industrial Pension Plan,” National Industrial Conference Board, 1931, pp. 8, 10. Mr. Eastman, the Federal Coordinator of Transportation, in his affidavit on the hearing below, expressed the view that there was excessive superannuation among railroad employees. He says: “ This excessive superannuation is detrimental to railroad service in several ways. Men who have grown old in the service decline in efficiency. The carrier pays in wages an amount out of proportion to the service rendered. These conditions exist upon the railroads at the present time. There is now a large body of superannuated employees in railroad service who, for the good of the service, ought to be retired. Pension systems, of one sort or another, have been in existence in the railroad industry for as long as 50 years. The need for them was recognized by the more progressive carriers at an early date. In late years particularly, with the voluntary systems in danger, the matter of retirement and pensions has been a crucial issue in railroad employment. Withdrawal or extensive curtailment of existing pensions in the railroad industry would impair the morale of railroad employees and play havoc with railroad labor relations. It would, in addition, increase the existing excessive superannuation among railroad employees and block the employment and promotion of younger men.”
*379The carriers deny that there is excessive superannuation. They assert that the removal of older employees has no reasonable relation to either safety or efficiency. The opinion of the Court enters this field of controversy, reviews statistics as to the increase of safety and efficiency in operation during the period of the alleged increasing superannuation, and supports the finding that railroads are now operated more efficiently and safely than at any time in history. But that gratifying fact does not establish that further improvement is not needed or obtainable, or that a sound pension plan would not be of considerable benefit to the carriers’ operations. At best, the question as to the extent of superannuation, and its effect, is a debatable one, and hence one upon which Congress was entitled to form a legislative judgment. As we said in Radice v. New York, 264 U. S. 292, 294: “Where the constitutional validity of a statute depends upon the existence of facts, courts must be cautious about reaching a conclusion respecting them contrary to that reached by the legislature; and if the question of what the facts establish be a fairly debatable one, it is not permissible for the judge to set up his opinion in respect of it against the opinion of the lawmaker.” See Stephenson v. Binford, 287 U. S. 251, 272.
Laying that question on one side, I think that it is clear that the morale of railroad employees has an important bearing upon the efficiency of the transportation service, and that a reasonable pension plan by its assurance of security is an appropriate means to that end. Nor should such a plan be removed from the reach of constitutional power by classing it with a variety of conceivable benefits which have no such close and substantial relation to the terms and conditions of employment. The appropriate relation of the exercise of constitutional power to the legitimate objects of that power is always a subject of judicial scrutiny. With approximately 82 per cent of *380railroad employees, 90 per cent of those employed in cable, telephone and telegraph companies, and about one-half of those in the service of electric railways, light, heat and power companies under formal pension plans,1 with the extensive recognition by national, state and local governments of the benefit of retirement and pension systems for public employees in the interest of both efficiency and economy,2 it is evident that there is a widespread conviction that the assurance of security through a pension plan for retired employees is closely and substantially related to the proper conduct of business enterprises.
But with respect to the carriers’ plans, we are told that as they were framed in the desire to promote loyalty and continuity of service in the employment of particular carriers, the accruing advantages were due to the fact that the plans were of a voluntary character. In short, that the reaction of the employees would be simply one of gratitude for an act of grace. I find no adequate basis for a conclusion that the advantages of a pension plan can be only such as the carriers contemplated or that the benefit which may accrue to the service from a sense of security on the part of employees should be disregarded. In that aspect, it would be the fact that protection was assured, and not the motive in supplying it, which would produce the desired result. That benefit would not be lost because the sense of security was fostered by a pension plan enforced as an act of justice. Indeed, voluntary plans may have the defect of being voluntary, of being subject to curtailment or withdrawal at will. And the danger of such curtailment or abandonment, with the consequent frustration of the hopes of a vast number of railroad workers and its effect upon labor relations in this enterprise of *381outstanding national importance, might well be considered as an additional reason for the adoption of a compulsory plan. Wilson v. New, supra, pp. 347, 348. There was also testimony (by Mr. Eastman) that “ the experience with the voluntary pension systems has been unsatisfactory,” that “ the depression brought clearly to light their many weaknesses and uncertainties.”
The argument in relation to voluntary plans discloses the fundamental contention on the question of constitutional authority. In substance, it is that the relation of the carriers and their employees is the subject of contract; that the contract prescribes the work and the compensation; and that a compulsory pension plan is an attempt for social ends to impose upon the relation non-contractual incidents in order to insure to employees protection in their old age. And this is said to lie outside the power of Congress in the government of interstate commerce. Congress may, indeed, it seems to be assumed, compel the elimination of aged employees. A retirement act for that purpose might be passed. But not a pension act. The government’s power is conceived to be limited to a requirement that the railroads dismiss their superannuated employees, throwing them out helpless, without any reasonable provision for their protection.
The argument pays insufficient attention to the-responsibilities which inhere in the carriers’ enterprise. Those responsibilities, growing out of their relation to their employees, cannot be regarded as confined to the contractual engagement. The range of existing federal regulation of interstate carriers affords many illustrations of the imposition upon the employer-employee relation of noncontractual incidents for social ends. A close analogy to the provision of a pension plan is suggested by the familiar examples of compensation acts. The power of Congress to pass a compensation act to govern interstate carriers and their employees engaged in interstate *382commerce does not seem to be questioned. The carriers might thus be compelled to provide appropriate compensation for injuries or death of employees, although caused without fault on the carriers’ part. A thorough examination of the question of constitutional authority to adopt such a compulsory measure was made some years ago by a commission constituted under a Joint Resolution of Congress, of which Senator Sutherland (now Mr. Justice Sutherland) was chairman.3 36 Stat. 884. Its elaborate and unanimous report, transmitted to Congress by President Taft with his complete approval, considered the constitutional question in all aspects, upheld the congressional power, and proposed its exercise. Sen. Doc. No. 338, 62d Cong. 2d sess. Among the principles announced was that “If the proposed legislation effectuates any constitutional power, it is not rendered unconstitutional because to a greater or less extent it may accomplish or tend to accomplish some other result which, as a separate and independent matter, would be wholly beyond the power of Congress to deal with.” Id., p. 26. The legislation was deemed to be a regulation of interstate commerce because, among other specified things, of its effect on the state of mind of the employee. On this point the commission said: “By insuring to every employee engaged in interstate commerce definite compensation in case of his injury, and to his widow and children, or other dependents, in case of his death, irrespective of fault, the mind of the employee will, to a great extent, be relieved from anxiety for the future and he will be able to render better and more efficient, and consequently safer, service.” Id., p. 28. The commission explicitly pointed out that the legislation which it recommended was not based *383on any wrong or neglect of the carrier, “but upon the fact of injury resulting from accident in the course of the employment,” that is, that accidents should be regarded “as risks of the industry.” Id., p. 15. The circumstance that such a compensation measure has not been enacted by Congress is readily attributable to questions of policy rather than to any doubt of constitutional power.
The effort to dispose of the analogy serves only to make it the more impressive. Compensation acts are said to be a response to the demands which inhere in the development of industry, requiring new measures for the protection of employees. But pension measures are a similar response. If Congress may supply a uniform rule in the one case, why not hi the other? If affording certainty of protection is deemed to be an aid to efficiency, why should that consideration be ruled out with respect to retirement allowances and be admitted to support compensation allowances for accidents which happen in the absence of fault? Compensation acts do not simply readjust old burdens and benefits. They add new ones, outside and beyond former burdens and benefits, and thus in truth add a new incident to the relation of employer and employee.
When we go to the heart of the subject, we find that compensation and pension measures for employees rest upon similar basic considerations. In the case of compensation acts, the carrier has performed its contract with the employee, has paid the agreed wages, has done its best to protect the employee from injury, is guilty of no neglect, but yet is made liable for compensation for injury or for death which ends the possibility of future service, because in the development of modern enterprises, in which accidents are inevitable, it has come to be recognized that the industry itself should bear its attendant risks. New York Central R. Co. v. White, 243 U. S. 188; Mountain Timber Co. v. Washington, 243 U. S. 219. An *384attempted distinction as to pension measures for employees retired by reason of age, because old age is not in itself a consequence of employment, is but superficial. The common judgment taires note of the fact that the retirement of workers by reason of incapacity due to advancing years is an incident of employment and that a fair consideration of their plight justifies retirement allowances as a feature of the service to which they have long been devoted. This is recognized as especially fitting in the case of large industrial enterprises, and of municipal undertakings such as police and fire protection, where there are stable conditions of employment in which workers normally continue so long as they are able to give service and should be retired when efficiency is impaired by age. What sound distinction, from a constitutional standpoint, is there between compelling reasonable compensation for those injured without any fault of the employer, and requiring a fair allowance for those who practically give their lives to the service and are incapacitated by the wear and tear of time, the attrition of the years? I perceive no constitutional ground upon which the one can be upheld and the other condemned.
The fundamental consideration which supports this type of legislation is that industry should take care of its human wastage, whether that is due to accident or age. That view cannot be dismissed as arbitrary or capricious. It is a reasoned conviction based upon abundant experience. The expression of that conviction in law is regulation. When expressed in the government of interstate carriers, with respect to their employees likewise engaged in interstate commerce, it is a regulation of that commerce. As such, so far as the subject matter is concerned, the commerce clause should be held applicable.
Second. With this opinion as to the validity of a pension measure if it is reasonably conceived, we are brought to the question of due process, — whether the particular pro*385visions of the retirement act now before us violate the requirement of due process which, under the Fifth Amendment, limits the exercise of the commerce power.
The most serious of the objections, sustained by the Court on this score, relates to the establishment of a unitary or pooling system for all railroads. It is said that in this respect the plan disregards the private and separate ownership of the respective carriers, treating them as a single employer, and illustrations are given to show that unequal burdens are thus imposed.
The objection encounters previous decisions of this Court. We have sustained a unitary or group system under state compensation acts against the argument under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mountain Timber Co. v. Washington, supra. The Washington compensation act established a state fund for the compensation of workmen injured in hazardous employment, and the fund was maintained by compulsory contributions from employers in such industries. While classes of industries were established, each class was made liable for the accidents occurring in that class. The Court described the law as so operating that “ the enforced contributions of the employer are to be made whether injuries have befallen his own employees or not, so that however prudently one may manage his business, even to the point of immunity to his employees from accidental injury or death, he nevertheless is required to make periodical contributions to a fund for making compensation to the injured employees of his perhaps negligent competitors.” Id., pp. 236, 237. The statute was sustained in the view that its provisions did not rest upon the wrong or neglect of employers, but upon the responsibility which was deemed to attach to those who conducted such industries. The Court concluded “ that the State acted within its power in declaring that no employer should conduct such an industry without making *386stated and fairly apportioned contributions adequate to maintain a public fund for indemnifying injured employees and the dependents of those killed, irrespective of the particular plant in which the accident might happen to occur.” Id., p. 244. We followed the reasoning which had led to the upholding of state laws imposing assessments on state banks generally in order to create a guaranty fund to make good the losses of deposits in insolvent banks. Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U. S. 104. See Abie State Bank v. Bryan, 282 U. S. 765.
But, aside from these analogies, this Court has directly sustained the grouping of railroads for the purpose of regulation in enforcing a common policy deemed to be essential to an adequate national system of transportation, even though it resulted in taking earnings of a strong road to' help a weak one. This was the effect of the recapture clause of Transportation Act, 1920, which required carriers to contribute their earnings in excess of a certain amount in order to provide a fund to be used by the Interstate Commerce Commission in making loans to other carriers. Dayton-Goose Creek Ry. Co. v. United States, 263 U. S. 456. A distinction is sought to be made because the carriers, which were required to contribute, were permitted to retain a reasonable return upon their property. But what the strong roads were compelled to contribute were their own earnings resulting from just and reasonable rates, — earnings which they were as clearly entitled to retain for their own benefit as the moneys which in the present instance are to be devoted to retirement allowances. The fact that the recapture provisions failed of their purpose and have, been abandoned does not disturb the decision as to constitutional power. The principle that was applied had been made clear in the New England Divisions Case, 261 U. S. 184. Transportation Act, 1920, had introduced into the federal legislation a new railroad policy. To attain its purpose, “ new rights, *387new obligations, new machinery, were created.” “ To preserve for the nation substantially the whole transportation system was deemed important.” “ The existence of the varying needs of the several lines and of their widely varying earning power was fully realized.” To attain the object “ two new devices were adopted: the group system of rate making and the division of joint rates in the public interest. Through the former, weak railroads were to be helped by recapture from prosperous competitors of surplus revenues. Through the latter, the weak were to be helped by preventing needed revenue from passing to prosperous connections. Thus, by marshaling the revenues, partly through capital account, it was planned to distribute augmented earnings, largely in proportion to the carriers’ needs.” Id., pp. 189-191.
This object of adequately maintaining the whole transportation system may be served in more than these two ways. The underlying principle is that Congress has the power to treat the transportation system of the country as a unit for the purpose of regulation in the public interest, so long as particular railroad properties are not subjected to confiscation. In the light of that principle, and of applications which have been held valid, I am unable to see that the establishment of a unitary system of retirement allowances for employees is beyond constitutional authority. Congress was entitled to weigh the advantages of such a system, as against inequalities which it would inevitably produce, and reach a conclusion as to the policy best suited to the needs of the country. See Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Riverside Mills, 219 U. S. 186, 203; Railroad Commission v. Southern Pacific Co.. 264 U. S. 331, 343, 344.
■ Third. Questions are raised as to the classes of persons to - be benefited. -In considering these objections' we should have regard to the explicit provision of the Act as to severability. It states that if “any provision,” “or the *388application thereof to any person or circumstances,” is held invalid, “ the remainder of the Act or application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected.” This, of course, does not permit us to rewrite the statute but it does allow the excision of invalid provisions, or inclusions, which can be severed without destroying its structure.
(1) The court below held the Act to be invalid in the view that its provisions were extended to persons not engaged in interstate commerce. In the special findings, classes of persons were listed, numbering 211,107, which were thought to fall within that description. It is manifest that the list was prepared under a misapprehension of the extent of the authority of Congress with respect to employees of interstate carriers and of the application of the decision in the first Employers’ Liability Cases, 207 U. S. 463. Large numbers of employees were thus deemed to be improperly included whose work, while not immediately connected with the movement of traffic, did have such relation to the activities of the carriers in interstate commerce as to bring them within the range of congressional power. Thus the list embraced general officers and their staffs who were not in the operating departments connected with transportation, employees who dealt with the receipt and disbursement of moneys, some 86,493 employees in the maintenance-of-equipment departments, who were engaged in the reconstruction or major repair of equipment, withdrawn for that purpose from service, such as locomotives, cars, platform trucks, frogs, switches, etc., as distinguished from light or running repairs, and 36,996 employees whose duties lay in auditing, accounting, and bookkeeping. It should be observed that the decisions under the Second Employers* Liability Act of 1908, with respect to the necessity of the employee being engaged at the time of his injury in interstate transportation or in work so. closely related to transportation as to *389be a part of it, are based upon the limitations of that statute and do not define the scope of constitutional authority as to employees of interstate carriers. Illinois Central R. Co. v. Behrens, 233 U. S. 473, 477; Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co. v. Bolle, 284 U. S. 74, 78.
Interstate carriers cannot conduct their interstate operations without general officers and their staffs, without departments for major repairs and those for administering finances and keeping accounts. General management is as important to the interstate commerce of the carriers as is the immediate supervision of traffic, and the proper maintenance of equipment and the handling of moneys and the keeping of books are as necessary as the loading and moving of cars. In the administration of the Act there would be ample opportunity to make all necessary distinctions between employees engaged in' interstate commerce and any others who might be found to be otherwise exclusively employed, so as to exclude the latter from its benefits without impairing the general operation of the Act.
(2) A more serious objection relates to the eligibility for allowances of all those who were in the service within one year prior to the enactment, although they may never be reemployed. Such persons may have been discharged for cause; in any event, for one reason or another, they had left the service and may not return.
I agree with the conclusion that the requirement that the carriers shall pay retiring allowances to such persons is arbitrary and beyond the power of Congress. But I think it clear that the provision for their benefit is within the clause as to severability. That application of the Act may be condemned and such persons may be excluded from benefits without destroying the measure as a whole.
Fourth. Other questions relate to the details of the pension plan — principally with respect to the basis of the retirement allowances and the method of their computation.
*390With the excision of those whose employment was terminated before the Act was passed, the plan would cover those in carrier service at that time and those subsequently employed. Retirement is compulsory at the age of 65, but the service may be extended by agreement for successive periods of one year each until the age of 70. An employee may retire upon completing 30 years of service, but in such case provision is made for reducing the annuity by one-fifteenth for each year below the age of 65. Annuities are calculated by applying graduated percentages of the employee’s average monthly compensation (excluding all over $300) to the number of years of his service, not exceeding 30. The maximum annuity thus payable would be $1440,. and to receive that amount, it would be necessary for the employee to have been in service 30 years and to have attained the age of 65, and to have been paid an average monthly compensation of $300. Contributions to the pension fund are to be made' by employees of a certain percentage of their compensation and the contribution of each carrier is to be twice that of its employees.
An examination of pension plans in operation reveals a variety of possible methods, and Congress was entitled to make its choice. As a basis for the allowance, Congress could select either age or length of service or both. In the selection of any age, or any period of service, anomalies would inevitably occur in particular applications. Extreme illustrations can always be given of the application of regulations which require the drawing of a line with respect to age, time, distances, weights, sizes, etc. To deny the right to select such criteria, or to make scientific precision a criterion of constitutional authority, would be to make impossible the practical exercise of power. Compare Sproles v. Binford, 286 U. S. 374, 388, 389; Stanley v. Public Utilities Commission of Maine, ante, p. 76. Whatever may be said of the capacity of many men after they have attained 65 years, the fixing *391of that age or a period of 30 years’ service, or a combination of both, for general application, cannot be regarded as an arbitrary choice for railroad employees.
The principal criticism is the bringing into the reckoning of past periods of service — antedating the passage of the Act. The objection is strongly put with respect to those, who were in the employment of the carriers when the Act was passed, and it is even more earnestly urged as to those who had left the service and later are reemployed. It is said that the reckoning of their prior periods of employment compels payment for services fully completed and paid for before the enactment. But it seems to be assumed that Congress could compel the dismissal of aged employees, and if it has that power and also has power to establish a pension system, I can find no ground for erecting a constitutional limitation which would make it impossible to provide for employees who were thus severed from the service. The question simply is — What is a fair basis for computing a retirement allowance? Is the plan adopted by Congress destitute of rational support? , Congress could have provided for a retirement allowance in a flat sum, or could have based it upon the amount of compensation which the employee was receiving at the time of retirement, or upon the amount he had received for the preceding year or his average compensation of a longer time. Selecting a period not to exceed 30 years, or the period of service prior to age 65, merely gives a measure for the computation of the retirement allowance. It is in no proper sense a payment for the prior service, any more than would be the fixing of the allowance at a flat figure or on the basis of the last compensation received. The result in dollars and cents might not vary to any great extent whatever method of calculation was chosen.
The power committed to Congress to govern interstate commerce does not require that its government should be wise, much less that it should be perfect. The power *392implies a broad discretion and thus permits a wide range even of mistakes. Expert discussion of pension plans reveals different views of the manner in which they should be set up and a close study of advisable methods is in progress. It is not our province to enter that field, and I am not persuaded that Congress in entering it for the purpose of regulating interstate carriers, has transcended the limits of the authority which the Constitution confers.
I think the decree should be reversed.
I am authorized to state that Me. Justice Brandéis, Mr. Justice Stone, and Mr. Justice Cardozo join in this opinion.

 “ Public Service Retirement Systems,” Bureau of Labor Statistics (U. S.) Bulletin No. 477, 1929.

 The members of the commission were Senators George Sutherland and George E. Chamberlain, Representatives William G. Brantley and Reuben O. Moon, William C. Brown, president of the New York Central lines, and D. L. Cease, the editor of The Railroad Trainman.