|
|
Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. North Dakota, 250 U.S. 135 (1919)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. North Dakota, 250 U.S. 135 (1919)
Northern Pacific Railway Company v. North Dakota No. 976 Argued May 5, 1919 Decided June 2, 1919 250 U.S. 135
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
Syllabus
Under the "Federal Control Act" of March 21, 1918, c.25, 40 Stat. 451, railroads taken over and administered under the war power pursuant to the Act of August 29, 1916, c. 418, 39 Stat. 645, and the President’s Proclamation of December 26, 1917, are in the full possession and control of the Federal government, and that government is granted the power through the President and the Interstate Commerce Commission to fix the rates on intrastate traffic, superseding the state power over that subject. P. 148.
The Federal Control Act being an exercise of a complete, exclusive and necessarily paramount federal power (the war power), and its provision for a complete change to federal control being clear and unambiguous, there can be no room for a presumption that state control over intrastate rates was to remain unchanged because it previously existed. P. 149. Reagan v. Mercantile Trust Co., 154 U.S. 413, distinguished.
Under § 10 of the Federal Control Act, the power of the Interstate Commerce Commission to consider rates, like the power of the President to initiate them, relates to both classes -- intrastate and interstate. P. 151.
The declaration of § 15 that nothing in the act shall be construed to amend, repeal, impair, or affect the existing laws or powers of the states in relation to taxation or "the lawful police regulations of the several states," except wherein such laws, powers, or regulations may affect the transportation of troops, etc., or "the issue of stocks and bonds," cannot be interpreted as withholding the power to initiate intrastate rates under § 10. Id.
Where the acts of a federal official are sought to be restrained in a state court as invasions of state power, there is jurisdiction, if the claim be not frivolous, to pass upon their legality, although, if legal, their restraint would affect directly the interest of the United States, which cannot be impleaded, and where the decision is against their legality, this Court, finding it erroneous, has jurisdiction to review the resulting judgment upon the merit. P. 152.
172 N.W. 324 reversed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. North Dakota, 250 U.S. 135 (1919) in 250 U.S. 135 250 U.S. 136–250 U.S. 141. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=99SPRTFE7G71GDI.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. North Dakota, 250 U.S. 135 (1919), in 250 U.S. 135, pp. 250 U.S. 136–250 U.S. 141. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=99SPRTFE7G71GDI.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. North Dakota, 250 U.S. 135 (1919). cited in 1919, 250 U.S. 135, pp.250 U.S. 136–250 U.S. 141. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=99SPRTFE7G71GDI.
|