SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. UNITED STATES.
222 U.S. 20 (32 S.Ct. 2, 56 L.Ed. 72)
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. UNITED STATES.
Argued: and submitted March 9 and 10, 1911.
Decided: October 30, 1911.
- opinion, Van Devanter [HTML]
Mr. Alfred P. Thom for plaintiff in error.
Assistant Attorney General Fowler and Mr. Henry E. Colton for defendant in error.
Argument of Counsel from pages 21-23 intentionally omitted
Mr. Justice Van Devanter delivered the opinion of the court:
This was a civil action to recover penalties for the violation in specified instances of the safety-appliance acts of Congress. 27 Stat. at L. 531, chap. 196, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3174, 32 Stat. at L. 943, chap. 976, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1909, p. 1143. The government prevailed in the district court, and the defendant sued out this direct writ of error.
Briefly stated, the case is this: The defendant, while operating a railroad which was 'a part of a through highway' over which traffic was continually being moved from one state to another, hauled over a part of its railroad, during the month of February, 1907, five cars, the couplers upon which were defective and inoperative. Two of the cars were used at the time in moving interstate traffic, and the other three in moving intrastate traffic; but it does not appear that the use of the three was in connection with any car or cars used in interstate commerce. The defendant particularly objected to the assessment of any penalty for the hauling of the three cars, and insisted, first, that such a hauling in intrastate commerce although upon a railroad over which traffic was continually being moved from one state to another, was not within the prohibition of the safety appliance acts of Congress; and, second, that, if it was, those acts should be pronounced invalid, as being in excess of the power of Congress under the commerce clause of the Constitution. But the objection was overruled (164 Fed. 347), and error is assigned upon that ruling.
The original act of March 2, 1893 (27 Stat. at L. 531, chap. 196, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3174), imposed upon every common carrier 'engaged in interstate commerce by railroad' the duty of equipping all trains, locomotives, and cars used on its line of railroad in moving interstate traffic, with designated appliances calculated to promote the safety of that traffic and of the employees engaged in its movement; and the 2d section of that act made it unlawful for 'any such common carrier' to haul or permit to be hauled or used on its line of railroad any car 'used in moving interstate traffic,' not equipped with automatic couplers capable of being coupled and uncoupled without the necessity of a man going between the ends of the cars. The act of March 2, 1903 (32 Stat. at L. 943, chap. 976, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1909, p. 1143), amended the earlier one and enlarged its scope by declaring, inter alia, that its provisions and requirements should 'apply to all trains, locomotives, tenders, cars, and similar vehicles used on any railroad engaged in interstate commerce, and in the territories and the District of Columbia, and to all other locomotives, tenders, cars, and similar vehicles used in connection therewith.' Both acts contained some minor exceptions, but they have no bearing here.
The real controversy is over the true significance of the words 'on any railroad engaged' in the first clause of the amendatory provision. But for them the true test of the application of that clause to a locomotive, car, or similar vehicle would be, as it was under the original act, the use of the vehicle in moving interstate traffic. On the other hand, when they are given their natural signification, as presumptively they should be, the scope of the clause is such that the true test of its application is the use of the vehicle on a railroad which is a highway of interstate commerce, and not its use in moving interstate traffic. And so certain is this that we think there would be no contention to the contrary were it not for the presence in the amendatory provision of the third clause,'and to all other locomotives, tenders, cars, and similar vehicles used in connection therewith.' In this there is a suggestion that what precedes does not cover the entire field; but at most it is only a suggestion, and gives no warrant for disregarding the plain words, 'on any railroad engaged' in the first clause. True, if they were rejected, the two clauses, in the instance of a train composed of many cars, some moving interstate traffic and others moving intrastate traffic, would, by their concurrent operation, bring the entire train within the statute. But it is not necessary to reject them to accomplish this result, for the first clause, with those words in it, does even more; that is to say, it embraces every train on a railroad which is a highway of interstate commerce, without regard to the class of traffic which the cars are moving. The two clauses are in no wise antagonistic, but, at most, only redundant; and we perceive no reason for believing that Congress intended that less than full effect should be given to the more comprehensive one, but, on the contrary, good reason for believing otherwise. As between the two opposing views, one rejecting the words 'on any railroad engaged' in the first clause, and the other treating the third clause, as redundant, the latter is to be preferred, first, because it is in accord with the manifest purpose, shown throughout the amendatory act, to enlarge the scope of the earlier one and to make it more effective, and, second, because the words which it would be necessary to reject to give effect to the other view were not originally in the amendatory act, but were inserted in it by way of amendment while it was in process of adoption (Cong. Rec. 57th Cong., 1st Sess., vol. 35, pt. 7, p. 7300; Id, 2d Sess., vol. 36, pt. 3, p. 2268), thus making it certain that without them the act would not express the will of Congress.
For these reasons it must be held that the original act, as enlarged by the amendatory one, is intended to embrace all locomotives, cars, and similar vehicles used on any railroad which is a highway of interstate commerce.
We come, then, to the question whether these acts are within the power of Congress under the commerce clause of the Constitution, considering that they are not confined to vehicles used in moving interstate traffic, but embrace vehicles used in moving intrastate traffic. The answer to this question depends upon another, which is, Is there a real or substantial relation or connection between what is required by these acts in respect of vehicles used in moving intrastate traffic, and the object which the acts obviously are designed to attain; namely, the safety of interstate commerce and of those who are employed in its movement? Or, stating it in another way, Is there such a close or direct relation or connection between the two classes of traffic, when moving over the same railroad, as to make it certain that the safety of the interstate traffic and of those who are employed in its movement will be promoted in a real or substantial sense by applying the requirements of these acts to vehicles used in moving the traffic which is intrastate as well as to those used in moving that which is interstate? If the answer to this question, as doubly stated, be in the affirmative, then the principal question must be answered in the same way. And this is so, not because Congress possesses any power to regulate intrastate commerce as such, but because its power to regulate interstate commerce is plenary, and competently may be exerted to secure the safety of the persons and property transported therein and of those who are employed in such transportation, no matter what may be the source of the dangers which threaten it. That is to say, it is no objection to such an exertion of this power that the dangers intended to be avoided arise, in whole or in part, out of matters connected with intrastate commerce.
Speaking only of railroads which are highways of both interstate and intrastate commerce, these things are of common knowledge: Both classes of traffic are at times carried in the same car, and when this is not the case, the cars in which they are carried are frequently commingled in the same train and in the switching and other movements at terminals. Cars are seldom set apart for exclusive use in moving either class of traffic, but generally are used interchangeably in moving both; and the situation is much the same with trainmen, switchmen, and like employees, for they usually, if not necessarily, have to do with both classes of traffic. Besides, the several trains on the same railroad are not independent in point of movement and safety, but are interdependent; for whatever brings delay or disaster to one, or results in disabling one of its operatives, is calculated to impede the progress and imperil the safety of other trains. And so the absence of appropriate safety appliances from any part of any train is a menace not only to that train, but to others.
These practical considerations make it plain, as we think, that the questions before stated must be answered in the affirmative.
CC∅ | Transformed by Public.Resource.Org
- UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. Alfonso LOPEZ, Jr.
- WESTFALL v. UNITED STATES.
- RAILROAD COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN et al. v. CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO.
- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORPORATION.
- BRADY v. TERMINAL R. ASS'N OF ST. LOUIS.
- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. FAINBLATT et al.
- UNITED STATES et al. v. LOWDEN et al.
- APEX HOSIERY CO. v. LEADER et al.
- UNITED STATES v. DARBY.
- ILLINOIS NATURAL GAS CO. v. CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUBLIC SERVICE CO. et al.
- UNITED STATES v. WRIGHTWOOD DAIRY CO. WRIGHTWOOD DAIRY CO. v. UNITED STATES.
- WICKARD, Secretary of Agriculture, et al. v. FILBURN.
- TIPTON v. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO.
- UNITED STATES v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
- A.L.A. SCHECHTER POULTRY CORPORATION et al. v. UNITED STATES. UNITED STATES v. A.L.A. SCHECHTER POULTRY CORPORATION et al.
- GILVARY v. CUYAHOGA VALLEY RY. CO.
- MOORE v. CHESAPEAKE & O. RY. CO.
- GEORGE T. SIMPSON et al., Appts., v. DAVID C. SHEPARD. NO 291. GEORGE T. SIMPSON et al., Appts., v. EMMA B. KENNEDY et al. NO 292. GEORGE T. SIMPSON et al., Appts., v. WILLIAM SHILLABER.
- ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY v. JOSEPH BEHRENS, Administrator, etc.
- HOUSTON, EAST & WEST TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY and Houston & Shreveport Railroad Company et al., Appts., v. UNITED STATES, the Interstate Commerce Commission et al.
- SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. D. E. CROCKETT.
- SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF INDIANA.
- MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL, & SAULT STE. MARIE RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. MICHAEL A. POPPLAR, as Administrator of the Estate of Richard S. Popplar, Deceased.
- STATE OF COLORADO v. UNITED STATES et al.
- NAPIER, Atty. Gen., v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. CHICAGO & N. W. R. CO. v. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. v. SAME.
- CHICAGO JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. WILLIAM R. KING.
- NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. STATE OF WASHINGTON EX REL. JOHN D. ATKINSON, Attorney General.
- HENRY BRINKMEIER, Plff. in Err., v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY.
- TEXAS & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. A. R. RIGSBY.
- SPOKANE & INLAND EMPIRE RAILROAD COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. UNITED STATES.
- SAN ANTONIO & ARANSAS PASS RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. WILLIAM WAGNER.
- JACOB RUPPERT v. CAFFEY, U. S. Atty., et al.
- Bernard SHAPIRO, Commissioner of Welfare of the State of Connecticut, Appellant, v. Vivian THOMPSON. Walter E. WASHINGTON et al., Appellants, v. Clay Mae LEGRANT et al. Roger A. REYNOLDS et al., Appellants, v. Juanita SMITH et al.
- DAVIS, Designated Agent, v. WOLFE.
- FRANCIS M. WILSON, United States Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, Appt., v. ALEXANDER NEW and Henry C. Ferris, as Receivers of the Missouri, Oklahoma, & Gulf Railway Company.
- LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY and Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, Lessees of Georgia Railroad & Banking Company, et al., Plffs. in Err., v. O. Y. LAYTON.
- STAFFORD et al. v. WALLACE, Secretary of Agriculture, et al. BURTON et al. v. CLYNE, U. S. Atty.
- HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL, INC., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES et al.
- PHILADELPHIA & R. RY. CO. v. POLK.