accepting a public franchise, cannot construct a public highway simply for its own benefit, without regard to the rights of the public. Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466.

A corporation, which accepts a public franchise to perform public services, and those financially interested in its business and affairs, have rights that may not be invaded by legislative enactment in disregard of the fundamental guarantees for the protection of property. Ib.

A railroad corporation is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, declaring that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law. A State, therefore, cannot by statute establish rates of transportation within its borders, which rate will not admit of the carrier earning such compensation, as under all the circumstances is just to it and to the public, and thus deprive it of its property without due process of law, and deny to it the equal protection of the laws.

The State of Nebraska passed a statute (Laws 1893, chap. 24, in effect August 1, 1894), entitled "An act to regulate railroads, to classify freights, to fix reasonable maximum rates to be charged for the transportation of freights upon each of the railroads in the State of Nebraska, and to provide penalties for the violation of this act." The State authorities, under the statute, promulgated a schedule of tariffs and rates to be charged within the State, which the railroads claimed were too low to enable the carriers to receive a fair and reasonable return on the capital invested, and that the statute operated to deprive the carriers of their property without due process of law, and deprived them of the equal protection of the laws. The courts sustained the contention of the carriers and granted an injunction to restrain the enforcement of the Nebraska rates fixed by its officers under the statute, which was affirmed.

Judge HARLAN said, among other things: "That the basis of calculations as to reasonableness of rates by a corporation maintaining a highway under legislative sanction must be the fair value of the property being used by it for the convenience of the public. And in order to ascertain that value, the original cost of construction, amount expended in permanent

REMEDY OF CARRIER AGAINST STATE.

45

improvements, amount and market value of its bonds and stock, the present as compared with the original cost of construction, the probable earning capacity of the property under particular rates prescribed by statute, and the sum required to meet operating expenses, are all matters for consideration, and are to be given such weight as may be just and right in each case." The carrier is entitled to ask a fair return upon the value of its capital; and the public is entitled to demand that no more be exacted from it for the use of a public highway than the services rendered by the carrier are reasonably worth. Ib.

The Union Pacific railroad is incorporated under a Federal statute (Act of July 1, 1862, chap. 120). One provision of this statute (section 18) provides that "Whenever it appears that the net earnings of the entire road and telegraph, including the amount allowed for services rendered for the United States, after deducting all expenditures including repairs, and the furnishing, running and managing of said road, shall exceed ten per centum upon its cost, exclusive of the five per centum to be paid to the United States, Congress may reduce the rates of fare thereon, if unreasonable in amount, and may fix and establish the same by law." Held, that Congress intended thereby to leave the question of the rates for local business, wholly within a State, to the control of the respective States through which the road might pass, with power reserved by Congress to intervene under certain circumstances and fix rates that the corporation could reasonably charge. The fact that the carrier was incorporated under a Federal statute did not preclude the State legislature from prescribing rates within its territory until Congress exercised its power to fix rates as provided by the act. Ib.

Injunction.

Remedy of Carrier against State Commission The remedy of a railroad company against a State Railroad Commission to prevent such commission from enforcing rates established by it on interstate commerce is by injunction. Hanley v. Kansas City S. R. Co., 187 U. S. 617.

A State, through its Railroad Commission, cannot fix rates to be charged by a carrier for transporting persons or property

between points within such State, when it appears that the property carried was billed through to the point of destination, and was carried part of the distance through another State or territory, and subsequently brought to the place of destination within the same State. Ib.

Goods were shipped from Fort Smith, Ark., to Grannis, Ark., over defendant's road, by way of Spiro, in the Indian Territory. The freight charged was in excess of the rate fixed by the Railroad Commission of Arkansas for goods shipped from Fort Smith to Grannis. Held, that as the carrier transported the goods part of the distance through Indian Territory, the transaction, though the shipment was between points in Arkansas, was nevertheless interstate commerce, and was not subject to the rates fixed by the Railroad Commission of Arkansas. Case of Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 145 U. S. 192, relating to taxation on freight distinguished. Ib.

Domestic Commerce Right of State to Prescribe Joint Rates over Independent Lines. A State Railroad Commission, so far as regards domestic commerce, may control and supervise freight rates under joint traffic agreements between two or more independent railroads, as if such rates and charges related to transportation over a single line of road. When the rates prescribed by the State Commission are not unreasonable they can be lawfully enforced. Minneapolis R. Co. v. Minnesota, 186 U. S. 257.

Interstate Commerce Live Stock When State Statute as to Will be Upheld. The transportation of live stock from State to State is interstate commerce, and any specific rule or regulation with respect to such transportation which Congress may lawfully prescribe or authorize, and which may properly be deemed a regulation of such commerce, is paramount throughout the Union. When the transportation of live stock from one State to another is taken under direct national supervision and a system devised by which diseased stock may be excluded from interstate commerce, all local or State regulations in respect to such matters and covering the same ground will cease to have any force, whether formally abrogated or not, and such rules or regulations as Congress may lawfully prescribe or

DOMESTIC AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE.

authorize will alone control.

47

Reid v. Colorado, 187 U. S. 137,

citing Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1; Morgan v. Louisiana, 118 U. S. 455; Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U. S. 299; New York, New Haven R. Co. v. New York, 165 U. S. 628; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Haber, 169 U. S. 613; Ramussen v. Idaho, 181 U. S. 198.

The power which the State might thus exercise in this way, with respect to the treatment and inspection of live stock, may be superseded until national control is abandoned and the subject be thereby left under the police power of the States. Ib.

Congress, by the passage of the Animal Industry Act (Act May 29, 1884, 23 Stat. L., chap. 60), did not cover the entire subject of the transportation or shipment of diseased live-stock. known to be affected with any contagious, infectious, or communicable disease from one State to another. Ib.

Accordingly held that a statute of Colorado (Approved March 21, 1885), which prescribes methods to protect domestic animals of Colorado from coming in contact with live stock coming into its territory within certain dates, and authorizing the exercise of its police power to protect the property of its people from injury or disease, and which does not forbid the introduction into the State of all live stock, if not unreasonable, and is not shown to be in conflict with any law of Congress, is not necessarily void. Ib.

Plaintiff in error was indicted, under the Colorado statute, for failure to procure a certificate from the Colorado authorities. On the trial he put in evidence a certificate obtained from Arthur C. Hart, assistant inspector Bureau of Animal Industry, certifying that he had carefully inspected the cattle in question at Hereford, Tex., and found them "free from Texas or splenetic fever infection (Boophilis bovis), or any other infectious or contagious disease, and that no Texas fever infection is known to exist where they have been kept, or on the trail over which they have passed. The certificate at bottom contained these words: "Animals which have been inspected and certified by the inspector of the U. S. Bureau of Animal Industry, and are free from disease, have the right to go into any State, and be sold for any purpose, without

66

further inspection or the exaction of fees." On the trial one of defendant's witnesses testified that the cattle had been inspected by a Colorado inspector against his will, and the reason he did not get a certificate from the State Board of Colorado was because he would not pay the expense of such inspection, and because he had opposed such inspection as unnecessary and without any warrant of law." There was no evidence given to show the amount of these fees, or the unreasonableness of the Colorado statute in its operation. Held, that in the absence of evidence bearing upon the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the particular methods adopted by the State of Colorado to protect its domestic animals, and it appearing that the Colorado statute was not, on its face, in conflict in any wise with the act of Congress (the Animal Industry Act), the statute of Colorado must be upheld and the conviction under it affirmed. Ib.

Public Rates not Affected by State Regulations.-A State cannot legislate upon subjects relating to interstate commerce, concerning which Congress has legislated. A statute of a State imposing a penalty on the carrier for failure to deliver goods on tender of the rate named in the bill of lading has no application to goods shipped from another State, and if the State statute conflicts with the act of Congress the latter alone is operative. Gulf Railway v. Hefley, 158 U. S. 98.

The Legislature of Texas passed a law (approved March 6, 1882) making it unlawful for a carrier to charge more for freight than the amount designated in the bill of lading, and directing the carrier to deliver freight upon payment of the rate so designated, and for refusal to do so upon tender, making the carrier liable in damages in a sum equal to the amount of the freight for each day's detention.

The Interstate Commerce Act (section 6) provides that carriers shall print, publish, and post at each station schedules of fares and rates and joint rates between connecting carriers. There was shipped to plaintiff at Cameron, Tex., from St. Louis, Mo., a carload of furniture, billed at sixty-nine cents per hundred. The printed tariff sheets of the carrier at Cameron designated the rate at eighty-four cents per hundred. Before the