1. A judgment of a state supreme court sustaining an order of a
state commission which fixed intrastate railroad rates, and
overruling the railroad's claim that the rates were confiscatory
and based on arbitrary findings of fact unsupported by evidence,
held reviewable by writ of error. P.
268 U. S.
42.
2. An administrative order fixing railroad rates upon a finding
without evidence or made upon evidence that clearly does not
support it, is an arbitrary act against which courts will afford
relief. P.
268 U. S.
44.
3. In a hearing to determine rates for several carriers on
intrastate transportation of logs in carload lots, the average haul
of which by each carrier was 32 miles, the carriers introduced
persuasive evidence that existing rates did not yield any return on
the property employed nor defray the operating costs of the traffic
and its proportionate taxes; but the state administrative body,
without attacking the proof or attempting to show by reasonably
specific and direct evidence what the actual operating costs of the
particular traffic were to the several carriers, lowered the rates
on the basis of a composite figure, created largely from data in
the carriers' reports and their exhibits in the case, representing
the weighted average operating cost per thousand gross ton miles of
all revenue freight carried on the carriers' railroad systems,
including main line and branch line freight, interstate and
intrastate, carload
Page 268 U. S. 40
and less than carload, indiscriminately.
Held that this
was a fundamental error and a denial of due process of law. P.
268 U. S.
42.
4. The invalidity of an order arbitrarily lowering rates which
the . evidence shows are confiscatory is not avoided by making it
for an experimental period. P.
268 U. S. 45.
125 Wash. 584 reversed.
Error to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington affirming
an order of the Department of Public Works in a suit brought by the
above-named and three other railroads to set the order aside.
MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The intrastate transportation of sawlogs in carload lots
constitutes a large part of all of the intrastate freight traffic
in Washington on each of the four transcontinental railroad systems
by which much of that service is performed. [
Footnote 1] Prior to federal control, the rates
had, with
Page 268 U. S. 41
few exceptions, been initiated from time to time by individual
tariffs of the several carriers. In 1918, the Director General of
Railroads made a horizontal increase of 25 percent. In 1920, after
the decision in Ex parte 74, Increased Rates, 1920, 58 I.C.C. 220,
a further increase of 25 percent was authorized by the Public
Service Commission of the state. Complaint was made that some of
the rates as so raised were excessive and discriminatory, and that
the rate structure lacked uniformity.
On December 28, 1920, the Public Service Commission instituted a
proceeding before itself for the purpose of investigating the log
rates and making such order thereon as the facts found should
warrant. Hearings were duly had in which shippers and the four
transcontinental carriers participated. Much evidence was
introduced. The carriers insisted that the existing rates were
unremunerative. They also filed, during the hearings, a joint
tariff embodying the higher rates which they deemed reasonable. A
suspension order issued, and the two proceedings were consolidated.
On February 1, 1922, the Department of Public Works (by which the
functions of the commission had come to be exercised) made a report
in which it found that the existing rates were highly remunerative.
Thereupon it entered an order which, among other things, abrogated
all the intrastate log tariffs then in force, cancelled the
suspended joint tariff filed by the carriers, and established a
uniform distance tariff applicable to these railroads, to remain in
effect during an experimental period of 12 months, or until further
order of the department. The tariff so prescribed reduced greatly
the rates theretofore prevailing. It was estimated that the
revenues of the several carriers from this traffic would be
lessened from 15 to 37 percent, and that additional losses in
revenue would result from changes prescribed concerning minimum
loadings.
This suit was brought by the carriers against the department in
the Superior Court of Thurston County to
Page 268 U. S. 42
set aside the order on the ground, among others, that it
deprived them of property in violation of the due process clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment. The findings of fact upon which the order
proceeded were attacked as arbitrary and unsupported by the
evidence. The prescribed rates were assailed as confiscatory.
Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. North Dakota, 236 U.
S. 585. Upon the giving of bonds, the court superseded
and suspended the order except insofar as it cancelled the joint
tariff of higher rates filed by the carriers. [
Footnote 2] After full hearing, the court entered
a final decree denying the relief sought. T his was affirmed by the
supreme court of the state, three judges dissenting. 125 Wash. 584.
The case is here under § 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended.
A motion to dismiss on the ground that the judgment is not
reviewable on writ of error was postponed to the hearing on merits.
The motion is denied.
Bluefield Water Works & Improvement
Co. v. Public Service Commission, 262 U.
S. 679,
262 U. S. 683.
As to the merits, many errors are assigned. It will be sufficient
to consider one. [
Footnote
3]
The log traffic is limited substantially to the section of the
state lying west of the Cascade Mountains. The average length of
its haul on each of these roads is not more than 32 miles. The
three principal carriers presented
Page 268 U. S. 43
evidence tending to show that their existing rates were so low
as not to yield any return upon the property employed in the
business, and that the rates did not defray fully the operating
costs of the traffic and its proportion of the taxes payable. This
evidence was in character persuasive. It was fairly specific,
direct, and comprehensive. If the facts warranted, the shippers and
the public officials might, of course, have shown by evidence of
similar character that the carriers' evidence was inherently
untrustworthy, or it might have been overcome by more persuasive
evidence to the contrary. Little attempt was made to show that any
testimony introduced by the carriers was inherently untrustworthy.
Little conflict with the evidence of the carriers was developed by
the evidence as to specific facts introduced for the shippers and
the public. Apparently, necessary inferences from specific facts
established by the carriers were not explained away. The
department's findings concerning operating costs rested largely
upon deductions from data found in published reports of the
carriers and in their exhibits filed in this case. Instead of
attempting to show by evidence, reasonably specific and direct,
what the actual operating cost of this traffic was to the several
carriers, the department created a composite figure representing
the weighted average operating cost per 1,000 gross ton miles of
all revenue freight carried on the four systems, and made that
figure a basis for estimating the operating cost of the log traffic
in Washington. [
Footnote 4]
This was clearly erroneous.
A precise issue was the cost on each railroad of transporting
logs in carload lots in Western Washington, the average haul on
each system being not more than 32
Page 268 U. S. 44
miles. In using the above composite figure in the determination
of this issue, the department necessarily ignored, in the first
place, the differences in the average unit cost on the several
systems, and then the differences on each in the cost incident to
the different classes of traffic and articles of merchandise, and
to the widely varying conditions under which the transportation is
conducted. In this unit cost figure, no account is taken of the
differences in unit cost dependent, among other things, upon
differences in the length of haul, [
Footnote 5] in the character of the commodity, in the
configuration of the country, in the density of the traffic, in the
daily loaded car movement, in the extent of the empty car movement,
in the nature of the equipment employed, in the extent to which the
equipment is used, and in the expenditures required for its
maintenance. Main line and branch line freight, interstate and
intrastate, carload and less than carload, are counted alike. The
department's error was fundamental in its nature. The use of this
factor in computing the operating costs of the log traffic vitiated
the whole process of reasoning by which the department reached its
conclusion.
The mere admission by an administrative tribunal of matter
which, under the rules of evidence applicable to judicial
proceedings, would be deemed incompetent,
United States v.
Abilene & Southern Ry. Co., 265 U.
S. 274,
265 U. S. 288,
or mere error in reasoning upon evidence introduced, does not
invalidate an order. But where rates found by a regulatory body to
be compensatory are attacked as being confiscatory, courts may
inquire into the method by which its conclusion was reached. An
order based
Page 268 U. S. 45
upon a finding made without evidence,
The Chicago Junction
Case, 264 U. S. 258,
264 U. S. 263,
or upon a finding made upon evidence which clearly does not support
it,
Interstate Commerce Commission v. Union Pacific R.
Co., 222 U. S. 541,
222 U. S. 547,
is an arbitrary act against which courts afford relief. The error
under discussion was of this character. It was a denial of due
process.
Compare New York & Queens Gas Co. v. McCall,
245 U. S. 345,
245 U. S. 348.
The invalidity was not avoided by making the order, in terms, for
an experimental period. The rates as to which the evidence was
primarily directed were those in force before and during the
hearings. If even the existing rates were confiscatory, as the
carriers' evidence embodying the results of ample experience tended
to show, there could be no reason for awaiting the test of the much
lower rates which were prescribed. The cases which applied the
principle of awaiting the result of an experimental period for
untried rates have no application here.
Willcox v. Consolidated
Gas Co., 212 U. S. 19;
Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. North Dakota, 216 U.
S. 579;
Cedar Rapids Gas Light Co. v. Cedar
Rapids, 223 U. S. 655;
Louisville v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co.,
225 U. S. 430,
225 U. S. 436;
Brush Electric Co. v. Galveston, 262 U.
S. 443.
Reversed.
[
Footnote 1]
These are the Northern Pacific, the Great Northern, the Chicago,
Milwaukee & St. Paul, and the Oregon-Washington of the Union
Pacific System.
[
Footnote 2]
On May 16, 1922, the Interstate Commerce Commission entered an
order reducing Washington interstate rates. Reduced Rates, 1922, 68
I.C.C. 676. Thereupon the Department of Public Works made, on June
22, 1922, a corresponding reduction in the intrastate log rates,
but it provided specifically that, in view of the pending
litigation, this order should not apply to the carriers here
involved. Second Annual Report of the Department of Public Works,
p. 70, appendix G.
[
Footnote 3]
The character of the proceeding in the state court and the
provisions of law applicable thereto are set forth in
Oregon R.
Co. & Navigation Co. v. Fairchild, 224 U.
S. 510. It was conceded, as was there held, that the
legal proceeding prescribed by the state affords an adequate
opportunity for testing by judicial review the lawfulness of the
order complained of.
[
Footnote 4]
The figure taken for the Oregon-Washington was the average cost
per 1,000 gross ton miles of that company, not of the whole Union
Pacific system. The lines of the Oregon-Washington are located in
three states, with an aggregate of 2,218 miles of road.
[
Footnote 5]
On the Northern Pacific, the average length of haul of all its
intrastate traffic in Washington was 99 miles; of all its traffic
in Washington, interstate and intrastate, 142 miles; of all its
traffic on the whole system, 334 miles.
Compare Shepard v.
Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 184 F. 765, 781-782.