[126] INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE COM-ing the construction of a roadway for vehiPANY, Plff. in Err., cles and a pathway for pedestrians on that part of the bridge within the jurisdiction

V.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. of the state, where there is nothing to show

(See S. C. Reporter's ed. 126-134.)

Constitutional law-impairing contract
amending
obligations
corporate
charter.

that the addition to the structure will not
yield a reasonable return.

[For other cases, see Constitutional Law, IV.
b. 4, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.]
international
Commerce

state control.

bridge

3. Congress, by authorizing, as it did 1. Contract obligations of a bridge com- in the Act of June 30, 1870, the building of pany, specially incorporated by N. Y. Laws a bridge over the Niagara river, under leg1857, chap. 753, to build a railroad bridge islative authority from the state of New over the Niagara river, and later consoli-York, subject to the approval of the Secredated with a similar Canadian corporation, pursuant to New York and Canada statutes, subject to all the duties of each of the consolidated companies, cannot be said to have been impaired unconstitutionally by N. Y Laws 1915, chap. 666, amending the original charter, in the exercise of the state's reserved power to amend, by requiring the construction of a roadway for vehicles and a pathway for pedestrians on that part of the bridge within the jurisdiction of the state, where the Canadian charter, unlike the New York one, made the arrangements for foot passengers and carriages a duty. [For other cases, see

Constitutional

1386-1412, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.]

Law,

tary of War, and by recognizing as a lawful structure, as it did in the Act of June 23, 1874, the bridge as constructed for railroad purposes only, did not assume such control of the bridge as to prevent the state, in the exercise of its reserved right to amend the bridge company's charter, from requiring the addition of a roadway for vehicles and a pathway for pedestrians on that part of the bridge within the jurisdiction of the

state.

[For other cases, see Commerce, II. c. in Di-
gest Sup. Ct. 1908.]
Commerce
state control.

--

international

bridge

4. The conveyance to the United States Constitutional law due process of law for a public purpose not connected with the -bridge company roadway for administration of the government of a part pedestrians and vehicles. of the land under a bridge constructed over the Niagara river, under legislative authority from the state of New York, did not affect the authority of the state to require, in the exercise of its reserved right to amend the bridge company's charter, the addition of a roadway for vehicles and a pathway for pedestrians on that part of the bridge within the jurisdiction of the state. For other cases, see Commerce, II. c, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.]

2. The property of a bridge company, specially incorporated by N. Y. Laws 1857, chap. 753, to build a railroad bridge over the Niagara river, and later consolidated with a similar Canadian corporation, pursuant to New York and Canadian statutes, subject to all the duties of each of the consolidated companies, cannot be said to have been taken without due process of law by N. Y. Laws 1915, chap. 666, amending the original charter, in the exercise of the state's reserved power to amend, by requir

Note.-Generally, as to what laws are void as impairing obligation of contracts-see notes to Franklin County Grammar School v. Bailey, 10 L.R.A. 405; Bullard v. Northern P. R. Co. 11 L.R.A. 246; Henderson v. Soldiers & S. Monument Comrs. 13 L.R.A. 169; and Fletcher v. Peck, 3 L. ed. U. S. 162.

As to reserved power to alter, amend, or repeal corporate charters-see note to Greenwood v. Union Freight R. Co. 26 L. ed. U. S. 961.

[No. 46.]

folk & W. R. Co. v. Com. 13 L.R.A. 107, and Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 29 L. ed. U. S. 158.

V.

On the power of Congress to regulate commerce-see notes to State ex. rel. Corwin v. Indiana & O. Oil, Gas & Min. Co. 6 L.R.A. 579; Bullard Northern P. R. Co. 11 L.R.A. 246; Re Wilson, 12 L.R.A. 624; Gibbons v. Ogden, 6 L. ed. U. S. 23; Brown v. Maryland, 6 L. ed. U. S. 678; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 29 L. ed. U. S. As to what constitutes due process of 158; Ratterman v. Western U. Teleg. law, generally-see notes to People v. Co. 32 L. ed. U. S. 229; Harmon v. ChiO'Brien, 2 L.R.A. 255; Kuntz v. Sump-cago, 37 L. ed. U. S. 216; and Cleveland, tion, 2 L.R.A. 655; Re Gannon, 5 L.R.A. C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Backus, 38 359; Ulman v. Baltimore, 11 L.R.A. 224: L. ed. U. S. 1041. Gilman v. Tucker, 13 L.R.A. 304; Pearson v. Yewdall, 24 L. ed. U. S. 436; and Wilson v. North Carolina, 42 L. ed. U. S. 865.

On extent and limit of state authority over consolidated interstate corporation-see note to Mackay v. York, N. H. & H. R. Co. 24 L.R.A. (N.S.)

On state regulation of interstate or foreign commerce-see notes to Nor-1769.

New

254 U. S.

1

[126] INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE COM-ing the construction of a roadway for vehiPANY, Plff. in Err., cles and a pathway for pedestrians on that part of the bridge within the jurisdiction

V.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. of the state, where there is nothing to show

(See S. C. Reporter's ed. 126-134.)

Constitutional law-impairing contract obligations amending corporate charter.

1. Contract obligations of a bridge company, specially incorporated by N. Y. Laws 1857, chap. 753, to build a railroad bridge over the Niagara river, and later consoli dated with a similar Canadian corporation, pursuant to New York and Canada statutes, subject to all the duties of each of the consolidated companies, cannot be said to have been impaired unconstitutionally by N. Y. Laws 1915, chap. 666, amending the original charter, in the exercise of the state's reserved power to amend, by requiring the construction of a roadway for vehicles and a pathway for pedestrians on that part of the bridge within the jurisdiction of the state, where the Canadian charter, unlike the New York one, made the arrangements for foot passengers and carriages a duty. [For other cases, see Constitutional 1386-1412, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.]

Law,

Constitutional law due process of law - bridge company roadway for pedestrians and vehicles.

2. The property of a bridge company, specially incorporated by N. Y. Laws 1857, chap. 753, to build a railroad bridge over the Niagara river, and later consolidated with a similar Canadian corporation, pursuant to New York and Canadian statutes, subject to all the duties of each of the consolidated companies, cannot be said to have been taken without due process of law by N. Y. Laws 1915, chap. 666, amending the original charter, in the exercise of the state's reserved power to amend, by requir

Note.-Generally, as to what laws are void as impairing obligation of contracts-see notes to Franklin County Grammar School v. Bailey, 10 L.R.A. 405; Bullard v. Northern P. R. Co. 11 L.R.A. 246; Henderson v. Soldiers & S. Monument Comrs. 13 L.R.A. 169; and Fletcher v. Peck, 3 L. ed. U. S. 162.

As to reserved power to alter, amend, or repeal corporate charters-see note to Greenwood v. Union Freight R. Co. 26 L. ed. U. S. 961.

that the addition to the structure will not
yield a reasonable return.

[For other cases, see Constitutional Law, IV.
b, 4, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.]
Commerce international

state control.

bridge

3. Congress, by authorizing, as it did in the Act of June 30, 1870, the building of islative authority from the state of New a bridge over the Niagara river, under legYork, subject to the approval of the Secretary of War, and by recognizing as a lawful structure, as it did in the Act of June 23, 1874, the bridge as constructed for railroad purposes only, did not assume such control of the bridge as to prevent the state, in the exercise of its reserved right to amend the bridge company's charter, from requiring the addition of a roadway for vehicles and the bridge within the jurisdiction of the a pathway for pedestrians on that part of

state.

[For other cases, see Commerce, II. c. in Di-
gest Sup. Ct. 1908.]
Commerce
state control.

international

bridge

for a public purpose not connected with the 4. The conveyance to the United States administration of the government of a part the Niagara river, under legislative authorof the land under a bridge constructed over ity from the state of New York, did not affect the authority of the state to require, in the exercise of its reserved right to amend the bridge company's charter, the addition of a roadway for vehicles and a bridge within the jurisdiction of the state. pathway for pedestrians on that part of the For other cases, see Commerce, II. c, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.]

[No. 46.]

folk & W. R. Co. v. Com. 13 L.R.A. 107, and Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 29 L. ed. U. S. 158.

V.

late commerce-see notes to State ex. On the power of Congress to regurel. Corwin v. Indiana & O. Oil, Gas & Min. Co. 6 L.R.A. 579; Bullard Northern P. R. Co. 11 L.R.A. 246; Re Wilson, 12 L.R.A. 624; Gibbons v. Ogden, 6 L. ed. U. S. 23; Brown v. Maryland, 6 L. ed. U. S. 678; Gloucester FerAs to what constitutes due process of 158; Ratterman v. Western U. Teleg. ry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 29 L. ed. U. S. law, generally-see notes to People v. Co. 32 L. ed. U. S. 229; Harmon v. ChiO'Brien, 2 L.R.A. 255; Kuntz v. Sump-cago, 37 L. ed. U. S. 216; and Cleveland, tion, 2 L.R.A. 655; Re Gannon, 5 L.R.A. C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Backus, 38 359; Ulman v. Baltimore, 11 L.R.A. 224; L. ed. U. S. 1041. Gilman v. Tucker, 13 L.R.A. 304; Pear

son v. Yewdall, 24 L. ed. U. S. 436; and On extent and limit of state authorWilson v. North Carolina, 42 L. ed. U.ity over consolidated interstate corpoS. 865. ration-see note to Mackay v. New On state regulation of interstate or York, N. H. & H. R. Co. 24 L.R.A. (N.S.) foreign commerce-see notes to Nor-1769.

176

Argued December 16, 1919. Restored to docket for reargument January 26, 1920. Reargued October 11 and 12, 1920. De

F

cided November 22, 1920.

IN ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of New York in and for the County of Albany, entered pursuant to the mandate of the Court of Appeals of that state, which affirmed a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Third Department, affirming a judgment of the Trial Term for the recovery of penalties from a bridge company for failure to construct a roadway for vehicles and a pathway for pedestrians. Affirmed.

See same case below in supreme court, 179 App. Div. 950, 165 N. Y. Supp. 1104; in court of appeals, 223 N. Y. 137, 119

N. E. 351.

The facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. Adelbert Moot argued the cause on original argument, and, with Messrs. Henry W. Sprague, William L. Marcy, and Mrs. Helen Z. M. Rodgers, filed a brief for plaintiff in error:

This court will determine for itself the validity, nature, and extent of the contracts between the plaintiff in error and the state of New York and Dominion of Canada, respectively.

Stearns v. Minnesota, 179 U. S. 223, 232, 233, 45 L. ed. 162, 169, 170, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 73; Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. South Bend, 227 U. S. 544, 57 L. ed. 633, 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 405, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 303; Douglas v. Kentucky, 168 U. Kentucky, 168 U. S. 488, 502, 42 L. ed. 553, 557, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 199; Northern P. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 208 U. S. 583, 590, 52 L. ed. 630, 633, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 341; Russell v. Sebastian, 233 U. S. 195, 202, 58 L. ed. 912, 920, L.R.A.1918E, 882, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 517, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 1282; Detroit United R. Co. v. Michigan, 242 U. S. 238, 249, 61 L. ed. 268, 273, P.U.R. 1917B, 1010, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 87.

The highest court in the province of Ontario has held that the Canadian charter, as well as the New York charter, is only permissive, and has refused to require the Bridge Company to construct a bridge for foot passengers and vehicles.

Atty. Gen. v. International Bridge Co. 6 Ont. App. Rep. 537.

The construction placed upon a foreign act by the courts of its own jurisdiction is conclusive upon our courts, and is, in effect, a part of the foreign law.

Elmendorf v. Taylor, 10 Wheat. 152,

65 L. ed.

159, 6 L. ed. 289, 292; McDonald v. Hovey, 110 U. S. 619, 628, 28 L. ed. 269, 271, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 142; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 145 U. S. 263, 284, 36 L. ed. 699, 706, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 92, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 844; 2 Wharton, Confl. L. § 654-A, p. 1409; Ritchie v. McMullen, 159 U. S. 235, 40 L. ed. 133, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 171; Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U. S. 113, 40 L. ed. 95, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 139. A provision in the Canadian act, though unlimited in its terms, could and did only operate on that portion of the bridge within Canadian territory.

Delaware R. Tax, 18 Wall. 206, 227, 228, 21 L. ed. 888, 895; Central R. & Bkg. Co. v. Georgia, 92 U. S. 675, 676, 23 L. ed. 761, 762; Chicago & N. W. R Co. v. Auditor General, 53 Mich. 91, 18 N. W. 586.

The New York Act of 1915 impairs the franchises of the Bridge Company by drastically reducing the tolls authorized by the New York and Canadian acts of incorporation.

Covington & C. Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U. S. 204, 38 L. ed. 962, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 649, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1087; Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312, 37 L. ed. 463, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 622; Southampton v. Jessup, 162 N. Y. 126, 56 N. E. 538; Ives v. South Buffalo R. Co. 201 N., Y. 318, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 162, 94 N. E. 431, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 156, 1 N. C. C. A. 517.

The reserved power to alter, suspend, or repeal corporate charters does not extend to revoking or impairing special franchises acquired by a corporation. This is true, though such franchises be embodied in a special act of incorporation.

2

People v. O'Brien, 111 N. Y. 1, L.R.A. 255, 7 Am. St. Rep. 684, 18 N. E. 692; Suburban Rapid Transit Co. v. 520, 28 N. E. New York, 128 N. Y. 525; Coney Island, Ft. H. & B. R. Co. v. Kennedy. 15 App. Div. 588. 44 N. Y. Supp. 825: People ex rel. Reynolds v. Buffalo, 140 N. Y. 307, 37 Am. St. Rep. 563, 35 N. E. 485; New York v. Bryan, 196 N. Y. 165, 89 N. E. 467; People ex rel. Third Ave. R. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 203 N. Y. 308, 96 N. E. 1011; Re Long Sault Development Co. 212 N. Y. 1, 105 N. E. 849, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 56, 242 U. S. 272, 276, 61 L. ed. 294, 299, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 79; Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co. 212 U. S. 19, 44, 53 L. ed. 382, 396, 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1134, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 192, 15 Ann. Cas. 1034; Owensboro v. Cumber

12

177

Wisconsin v. Duluth, 96 U. S. 379, 387, 24 L. ed. 668, 671; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Hardwick Farmers Elevator Co. 226 U. S. 426, 435, 57 L. ed. 284, 287, 46 L.R.A.(N.S.) 203, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 174.

land Teleph. & Teleg. Co. 230 U. S., might have over the subject could only 58, 66, 72, 57 L. ed. 1389, 1393, 1396. exist by reason of silence and inaction 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 988; Memphis & L. on the part of Congress. The power R. Co. v. Railroad Comrs. (Memphis of the state, if it existed at all, was not & L. R. Co. v. Berry) 112 U. S. 609, inherent, but permissive; and ceased to 616, 28 L. ed. 837, 840, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. exist the moment that Congress entered 299; Re Long Acre Electric Light & the field and exerted its dominant and P. Co. 188 N. Y. 368, 80 N. E. 1101; all-embracing authority in the matter. Southampton v. Jessup, 162 N. Y. 122, 56 N. E. 538; New York v. Second Ave. R. Co. 32 N. Y. 272; Washington Bridge Co. v. State, 18 Conn. 54; Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. South Bend, 227 U. S. 544, 57 L. ed. 633, 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 405, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 303; Boisé Artesian Hot & Cold Water Co. v. Boisé City, 230 U. S. 84, 57 L. ed. 1400, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 997; Russell v. Sebastian, 233 U. S. 195, 58 L. ed. 912, L.R.A. 1918E, 882, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 517, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 1282; Detroit United R. Co. v. Michigan, 242 U. S. 238, 61 L. ed. 268, P.U.R.1917B, 1010, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 87.

The tolls fixed by the New York Act of 1915 for the use of the roadway and pathway between Buffalo and Squaw island are confiscatory, and deprive the Bridge Company of its property without due process of law.

Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co. 212 U. S. 19, 53 L. ed. 382, 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1134, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 192, 15 Ann. Cas. 1034; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Nebraska, 217 U. S. 196, 54 L. ed. 727, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 461, 18 Ann. Cas. 989; San Diego Land & Town Co. v. National City, 174 U. S. 739, 757, 43 L. ed. 1154, 1161, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 804; San Diego Land & Town Co. v. Jasper, 189 U. S 439, 442, 47 L. ed. 892, 894, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 571.

The exertion by Congress of a power which is granted in express terms must supersede all legislation over the same subject by the states.

United States v. Utah Power & Light Co. 126 C. C. A. 376, 209 Fed. 554; Michigan C. R. Co. v. Vreeland, 227 U. S. 59, 66, 57 L. ed. 417, 419, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 192, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 176; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Hesterly, 228 U. S. 702, 57 L. ed. 1031, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 703; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Hefley, 158 U. S. 98, 104, 39 L. ed. 910, 912, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 802; Wisconsin v. Duluth, 96 U. S. 379, 24 L. ed. 668; Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U. S. 605, 56 L. ed. 570, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 340; Greenleaf Johnson Lumber Co. v. Garrison, 237 U. S. 251, 59 L. ed. 939, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 551; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Rigsby, 241 U. S. 33, 60 L. ed. 874, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 482; New York C. R. Co. v. Winfield, 244 U. S. 147, 61 L. ed. 1045, L.R.A.1918C, 439, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 546, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 1139, 14 N. C. C. A 680; Erie R. Co. v. Winfield, 244 U. S. 170, 61 L. ed. 1057, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 556, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 662, 14 N. C. C. A. 957; New Orleans & N. E. R. Co. v. Harris, 247 U. S. 367, 62 L. ed. 1167, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 535; Southern P. Co. v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 205, 61 L. ed. 1086, L.R.A.1918C, 451, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 524, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 900, 14 N. C. C. A. 597; Taylor v. Taylor, 232 U. S. 363, 58 L. ed. 638, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 350, 6 N. C. C. A. 436; Kiefer v. Grand Trunk R. Co. 12 App. Div. 28, 42 N. Y. Supp. 171, affirmed in 153 N. Y. 688, 48 N. E. 1105; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 207, 6 L. ed. 23, 72; Wilson v. McNamee, 102 U. S. 572, 574, 575, 26 L. ed. 234, 235; New York C. & H. R. R. Co. v. Tonsellito, 244 U. S. 360, 61 L. ed. 1194, 37 It has always been within the power Sup. Ct. Rep. 620, 14 N. C. C. A. 1072; of Congress to exercise exclusive control New York C. & H. R. R. Co. v. Hudson over bridges across the Niagara river, County, 227 U. S. 248, 57 L. ed. 499, 33 both as obstructions to navigation and Sup. Ct. Rep. 269; Hubbard v. Fort, 188 as instruments of foreign commerce. Fed. 997; Hagerla v. Mississippi River Any power which the state of New York | Power Co. 202 Fed. 776.

The rates fixed by the statute must stand by themselves, and cannot be justified upon the ground that the defendant is making money upon its interstate and foreign commerce.

Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 541, 42 L. ed. 819, 847, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 418; Minnesota Rate Cases (Simpson V. Shepard) 230 U. S. 352, 435, 57 L. ed. 1511, 1556, 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1151, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 729, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 18; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Tompkins. 176 U. S. 167, 44 L. ed. 417, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 336; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Florida, 203 U. S. 261, 51 L. ed. 175, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 109.