MR. JUSTICE PITNEY delivered the opinion of the court.
This case was here on a former occasion (Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Garrett, 231 U.S. 298), when an order
After our decision, appellant filed an amended and supplemental bill bringing in as defendants the parties in whose favor reparation was awarded, stating with more particularity the grounds upon which that order was attacked, and, with respect to the rate order, setting out as an exhibit a transcript of the evidence introduced before the Commission. Upon this amended and supplemental bill appellant again moved for an interlocutory injunction.
The jurisdiction of the Federal court was invoked because of questions raised under the Constitution of the United States, and not because of diversity of citizenship; but it extends, of course, to the determination of all questions presented, irrespective of the disposition that may be made of the Federal questions, or whether it is necessary to decide them at all. Ohio Tax Cases, 232 U.S. 576, 587, and cases cited.
The action of the Commission was based upon Kentucky Statutes (Carroll): § 816, defining what shall be deemed extortion by a railroad corporation in charging toll or compensation for intra-state transportation; § 820a (the "McChord Act"), authorizing the Commission, upon complaint made against a railroad company for charging extortionate freight or passenger rates, to hear the matter and, if it determines that the company has been guilty of extortion, then to establish a just and reasonable rate for services thereafter to be rendered; and § 829, authorizing the Commission to hear and determine complaints under § 816 and to render such award as may be proper.
It appears that for many years prior to March 25, 1910, the railroad company had voluntarily maintained special rates for the transportation of corn, rye, barley, and malt, and empty barrels, boxes, etc., from three points of origin upon the Ohio River — Louisville, Covington, and Newport — to points of destination in the interior of the State; these rates being allowed only to owners of distilleries, when the commodities in question were used as raw materials or supplies. On the date mentioned, the carrier withdrew these special rates and substituted what are
The McChord Act, under which the rate order was made, is set forth in Siler v. Louisville & Nashville R.R., 213 U.S. 175, 178. It provides for notice to the carrier, stating the nature of the complaint or matter to be investigated, and the time and place of hearing it, and requires the Commission to hear such statements, argument, or evidence offered by the parties as the Commission may deem relevant. Section 829 likewise requires notice of the hearing to be given to the company; the evidence is to be reduced to writing together with the award, and they are to be filed in the office of the clerk of a designated court, and a summons is to be issued requiring the company to appear and show cause why the award should not be satisfied. If the parties fail to appear, judgment is rendered by default; but if trial is demanded, the case is to be tried as ordinary cases are, except that no evidence shall be introduced by either party other than that heard by the Commission or such as the court shall be satisfied could not have been produced before the Commission by the exercise of reasonable diligence. The judgment and proceedings thereon are to be the same as in ordinary cases. Since the case was here before, the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, in Illinois Central R.R. v. Paducah
The contentions now made by appellants are reducible to two; first, that the rate order is invalid because not supported by substantial evidence; and, second, that the reparation order is invalid for the same reason, and also because the statute pursuant to which it was made violates the "due process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
To deal first with the rate order. In cases arising under the Interstate Commerce Act, the provisions of which contemplate an investigation or inquiry conducted with some formality, followed by a written report and decision as the basis of the orders, it has been repeatedly held by this court that an administrative order made indisputably contrary to the evidence, or without any evidence, must be deemed to be arbitrary, and therefore subject to be set aside. Int. Com. Comm. v. Union Pacific R.R., 222 U.S. 541, 547; Int. Com. Comm. v. Louis. & Nash. R.R., 227 U.S. 88, 91, 92. It is contended that the "due process" provision of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a like rule of procedure upon the States with respect to their exercise of the legislative power of rate-making.
We find it unnecessary to pass upon this question. The McChord Act, like the Interstate Commerce Act, contemplates that the Commission bases its determination upon the evidence adduced before it; and it may at least be assumed that the rate order must be held invalid unless it was founded upon substantial evidence. But we agree with the court below that there was substantial evidence to support the order. At the hearing, a Mr. Goodwyn was produced by the company, and made a statement of the facts in its behalf — not under oath, but it was received as evidence in behalf of the company — in substance
As to the reparation order, it is further insisted (a) that there was no evidence before the Commission to show that the several parties to whom reparation was awarded had paid freights based upon the rates complained of, or to show the amounts of their payments, or to show that the difference in the freight payments represented damages to which they were entitled; and (b) that so much of the statute (§ 829) as undertakes to provide the procedure for recovering reparation is contrary to the "due process" provision of the Fourteenth Amendment, because in the proceeding before the Commission there is no formal issue and no method of requiring the production of evidence, while in the subsequent trial before the court based upon the Commission's award there is no right to adduce evidence other than such as was presented to the Commission, unless the court shall first be satisfied that the evidence is such as could not have been produced before the Commission with the exercise of reasonable diligence.
From the record, however, it appears that in the petition filed by the distillers and distillery companies before the Commission it was alleged that since March 25, 1910, each of the petitioners had been subjected to extortionate charges collected from them by the railroad company, and for which an award of reparation was prayed; the respective amounts thus claimed being particularly specified. The answer of the company admitted that the rates mentioned had been charged, collected, and received by it, but denied that they were extortionate, unjust, or unreasonable, and upon this ground, and no other, denied liability to make reparation. The transcript of the testimony taken before the Commission shows that the several reparation claims were presented, and the following colloquy occurred respecting them: "Mr. McChord (counsel for petitioners): `Is there any question made as to
We have already seen that there was evidence to support the Commission's affirmative finding upon the latter point. And this leaves no basis, as we think, for appellant's present attack upon § 829 as repugnant to the due process provision of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the proceeding before the Commission there were pleadings sufficiently formal, and appellant was permitted to raise such issues and introduce such evidence as it desired. There is nothing to show that it suffered for lack of compulsory process against witnesses. As to its right to adduce evidence before the court in the action to enforce payment of the award, its complaint in this regard seems to us at least premature. There is nothing to show that it has or could have any defence to the payment of the reparation that it has not already either interposed or waived in the proceeding before the Commission, or to show that it has any evidence to be adduced before the court that it would be prevented from introducing by the
The order of the District Court should be, and it is