1. Where a statute is susceptible of two constructions, one
raising grave and doubtful constitutional questions and the other
not, it is the duty of the court to adopt the latter. P.
258 U. S.
217.
Page 258 U. S. 205
2. Paragraphs 120 of § 1 of the Act to Regulate Commerce, added
by § 402 of the Transportation Act of 1920, which regulate the
construction and acquisition of new lines of railroad and the
extension and abandonment of old lines, are not to be construed as
clothing the Interstate Commerce Commission with authority over the
discontinuance of the purely intrastate business of a railroad
whose situation and ownership are such that interstate and foreign
commerce will not be affected by that business. P.
258 U.S. 218.
Reversed.
The first of these cases is an appeal from a decree of the
District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissing a suit
removed from a court of that state in which the Texas sought to
enjoin the above-named railroad company and some of its officers
from ceasing to operate its road in intrastate commerce. The other
is an appeal from a decree of the District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas dismissing the bill in a suit brought by the
state and its Attorney General, in that court, against the United
States, the members of the Interstate Commerce Commission, the
United States Attorney General, and the above-named and two other
railroad companies to annul an order and certificate of the
Interstate Commerce Commission purporting to permit the abandonment
of the same railroad line upon certain conditions.
Page 258 U. S. 212
MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER delivered the opinion of the Court.
By § 402 of the Transportation Act of 1920, c. 91, 41 Stat. 456,
477, several new paragraphs were added to § 1 of the Act to
Regulate Commerce, as theretofore amended. Paragraphs 18, 19, and
20 are copied in the margin. [
Footnote 1] By
Page 258 U. S. 213
them, Congress has undertaken to regulate the construction and
acquisition of new or additional lines of railroad and the
extension and abandonment of old lines, and to invest the
Interstate Commerce Commission with important administrative powers
in that connection. Like the act of which they are amendatory,
these paragraphs are expressly restricted to carriers engaged in
transporting persons or property in interstate and foreign
commerce. [
Footnote 2]
Our present concern is with the provisions relating to the
abandonment of existing lines. They declare that:
Page 258 U. S. 214
"no carrier by railroad subject to this act shall abandon all or
any portion of a line of railroad, or the operation thereof, unless
and until there shall first have been obtained from the Commission
a certificate that the present or future public convenience and
necessity permit of such abandonment"
(paragraph 18); that, when application for such a certificate is
received, the Commission shall cause notice thereof to be given to
the governor of the state wherein the line lies and published in
newspapers of general circulation in each county along the line,
and shall accord a hearing to the state and all parties in interest
(paragraph 19); that the Commission may grant or refuse the
certificate in whole or in part and impose such terms and
conditions as in its judgment the public convenience and necessity
require, and that, when the certificate is issued, and not before,
the carrier may, "without securing approval other than such
certificate," comply with the terms and conditions imposed and
proceed with the abandonment covered by the certificate (paragraph
20).
The Eastern Texas Railroad Company, a Texas corporation, owns
and operates in that state a line of railroad 30.3 miles in length.
Approximately three-fourths of the traffic over the road is in
interstate and foreign commerce, and the rest is in intrastate
commerce. The company neither owns nor operates any other line. The
road was constructed in 1902 to serve extensive lumber industries,
but in subsequent years the adjacent timber was removed, and the
mills dismantled. The company claims that, since 1917, the road has
been operated at a loss.
On June 3, 1920, the company filed with the Commission an
application for a certificate authorizing it to abandon and cease
operating its road, full notice of the application being regularly
given. The state declined to appear before the Commission, but
others, who were being served by the road, appeared and opposed the
application. A full hearing was had, and, on December 2, 1920,
the
Page 258 U. S. 215
Commission made and filed a report concluding as follows:
"Upon consideration of the record, we find that the present
public convenience and necessity permit the abandonment of the
applicant's line, and we further find that permission to abandon
the line should be made subject to the right of interested persons
in the community served to purchase the property at a figure not in
excess of $50,000. A certificate and order to that effect will be
issued."
The certificate and order were issued, and the railroad company
indicated its assent to the condition imposed, but, so far as
appears, no one sought to purchase under the condition.
While the application was pending before the Commission and
before the certificate was issued, the state brought a suit in one
of its courts against the railroad company and some of its officers
to enjoin them from ceasing to operate the road in intrastate
commerce. The bill was brought on the theory that, under the laws
of the state, the company was obliged to continue the operation of
the road in intrastate commerce; that the provisions of the
Transportation Act were unconstitutional and void if and insofar as
they authorize the abandonment of such a road as respects
intrastate commerce, and that the company in asking the Commission
to sanction such an abandonment was proceeding in disregard of its
obligations to the state. At the instance of the defendants, the
suit was removed to the District Court of the United States for the
Western District of Texas. During the pendency of the suit, the
Commission issued the certificate and the defendants then sought
the benefit of it by a supplemental answer. The court held that the
certificate constituted a compete defense, and without a hearing on
other issues dismissed the suit. The state appealed directly to
this Court. That appeal is No. 298.
After the Commission granted the certificate the state brought a
suit in the District Court of the United States
Page 258 U. S. 216
for the Eastern District of Texas against the United States, the
railroad company and others to set aside and annul the Commission's
order and certificate on the grounds, first, that the provisions of
the Transportation Act, rightly interpreted, did not afford any
basis for granting a certificate sanctioning the abandonment of the
company's road as respects intrastate commerce, and, secondly, if
those provisions purported to authorize such a certificate, they
were to that extent in excess of the power of Congress and an
encroachment on the reserved powers of the state. The defendants
moved to dismiss the bill as ill founded in point of merits, and
the court sustained the motions and entered a decree of dismissal.
The state appealed directly to this Court. That appeal is No.
563.
Counsel attribute to these cases a breadth which they do not
have, and for obvious reasons we shall deal with them as they are,
not as they might be.
Up to the time the Commission made the order granting the
certificate a part of the commerce passing over the road was
interstate and foreign -- that is, was bound to or from other
states and foreign countries. It is not questioned that Congress
could, nor that it did, authorize the Commission to sanction a
discontinuance of this interstate and foreign business. Neither is
it questioned that the Commission's certificate was adequate for
that purpose. The only matters in controversy are whether, by
paragraphs 18, 19, and 20, Congress has assumed to clothe the
Commission with authority to sanction the entire abandonment of a
road such as this, and, if so, whether the power of Congress
extends so far.
The road lies entirely within a single state, is owned and
operated by a corporation of that state, and is not a part of
another line. Its continued operation solely in intrastate commerce
cannot be of more than local concern. Interstate and foreign
commerce will not be burdened or affected by any shortage in the
earnings, nor will
Page 258 U. S. 217
any carrier in such commerce have to bear or make good the
shortage. It is not as if the road were a branch or extension whose
unremunerative operation would, or might burden or cripple the main
line, and thereby affect its utility or service as an artery of
interstate and foreign commerce.
If paragraphs 18, 19, and 20 be construed as authorizing the
Commission to deal with the abandonment of such a road as to
intrastate as well as interstate and foreign commerce, a serious
question of their constitutional validity will be unavoidable. If
they be given a more restricted construction, their validity will
be undoubted. Of such a situation this Court has said,
"where a statute is susceptible of two constructions, by one of
which grave and doubtful constitutional questions arise and by the
other of which such questions are avoided, our duty is to adopt the
latter."
United States v. Delaware & Hudson Co.,
213 U. S. 366,
213 U. S.
407-408.
Although found in the Transportation Act, these paragraphs are
amendments of the Interstate Commerce Act, and are so styled. They
contain some broad language, but do not plainly or certainly show
that they are intended to provide for the complete abandonment of a
road like the one we have described. Only by putting a liberal
interpretation on general terms can they be said to go so far.
Being amendments of the Interstate Commerce Act, they are to be
read in connection with it and with other amendments of it. As a
whole, these acts show that what is intended is to regulate
interstate and foreign commerce and to affect intrastate commerce
only as that may be incidental to the effective regulation and
protection of commerce of the other class. They contain many
manifestations of a continuing purpose to refrain from any
regulation of intrastate commerce save such as is involved in the
rightful exertion of the power of Congress over interstate and
foreign commerce.
Minnesota Rate
Case, 230
Page 258 U. S. 218
U.S. 352,
230 U. S. 418;
Railroad Commission of Wisconsin v. Chicago, Burlington &
Quincy R. Co., 257 U. S. 563. And
had there been a purpose here to depart from the accustomed path
and to deal with intrastate commerce as such independently of any
effect on interstate and foreign commerce, it is but reasonable to
believe that that purpose would have been very plainly declared.
This was not done.
These considerations persuade us that the paragraphs in question
should be interpreted and read as not clothing the Commission with
any authority over the discontinuance of the purely intrastate
business of a road whose situation and ownership, as here, are such
that interstate and foreign commerce will not be burdened or
affected by a continuance of that business.
Whether, apart from the Commission's certificate, the railroad
company is entitled to abandon its intrastate business is not
before us, so we have no occasion for considering to what extent
the decisions in
Brooks-Scanlon Co. v. Railroad Commission of
Louisiana, 251 U. S. 396, and
Bullock v. Railroad Commission of Florida, 254 U.
S. 513, may be applicable to this road.
As the district courts both accorded to the Commission's
certificate a wider operation and effect than can be given to it
consistently with the provisions of paragraphs 18, 19, and 20 as we
interpret them, the decrees must be reversed and the causes
remanded for further proceedings in conformity to this opinion.
Decrees reversed.
[
Footnote 1]
"(18) After ninety days after this paragraph takes effect, no
carrier by railroad subject to this Act shall undertake the
extension of its line of railroad, or the construction of a new
line of railroad, or shall acquire or operate any line of railroad,
or extension thereof, or shall engage in transportation under this
act over or by means of such additional or extended line of
railroad unless and until there shall first have been obtained from
the Commission a certificate that the present or future public
convenience and necessity require or will require the construction,
or operation, or construction and operation, of such additional or
extended line of railroad, and no carrier by railroad subject to
this act shall abandon all or any portion of a line of railroad or
the operation thereof unless and until there shall first have been
obtained from the Commission a certificate that the present or
future public convenience and necessity permit of such
abandonment."
"(19) The application for and issuance of any such certificate
shall be under such rules and regulations as to hearings and other
matters as the Commission may from time to time prescribe, and the
provisions of this act shall apply to all such proceedings. Upon
receipt of any application for such certificate, the Commission
shall cause notice thereof to be given to and a copy filed with the
governor of each state in which such additional or extended line of
railroad is proposed to be constructed or operated, or all or any
portion of a line of railroad, or the operation thereof, is
proposed to be abandoned, with the right to be heard as hereinafter
provided with respect to the hearing of complaints or the issuance
of securities, and said notice shall also be published for three
consecutive weeks in some newspaper of general circulation in each
county in or through which said line of railroad is constructed or
operates."
"(20) The Commission shall have power to issue such certificate
as prayed for, or to refuse to issue it, or to issue it for a
portion or portions of a line of railroad or extension thereof
described in the application, or for the partial exercise only of
such right or privilege, and may attach to the issuance of the
certificate such terms and conditions as in its judgment the public
convenience and necessity may require. From and after issuance of
such certificate, and not before, the carrier by railroad may,
without securing approval other than such certificate, comply with
the terms and conditions contained in or attached to the issuance
of such certificate and proceed with the construction, operation,
or abandonment covered thereby. Any construction, operation, or
abandonment contrary to the provisions of this paragraph or of
paragraph (18) or (19) of this section may be enjoined by any court
of competent jurisdiction at the suit of the United States, the
Commission, any commission or regulating body of the state or
states affected, or any party in interest, and any carrier which,
or any director, officer, receiver, operating trustee, lessee,
agent, or person, acting for or employed by such carrier who
knowingly authorizes, consents to, or permits any violation of the
provisions of this paragraph or of paragraph (18) of this section
shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a find of not more
than $5,000 or by imprisonment for not more than three years, or
both."
[
Footnote 2]
See amended paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Act to
Regulate Commerce as set forth in § 400 of the Transportation Act
of 1920.