of all money or other property conveyed, by him hereunder and held by him or by transferred, assigned, delivered, or paid the Treasurer of the United States, if the to the Alien Property Custodian or seized | President shall determine that the owner Hungary, and that the money or other signed, delivered, or paid to the Alien property concerned was not acquired by such Property Custodian, or seized by him herewoman either directly or indirectly from under; or any subject or citizen of Germany or Austria-Hungary; or A (10) [Added by Act March 4, 1923.] (4) A citizen or subject of Germany or rated body of individuals, or corporation, partnership, association, other unincorpoAustria or Hungary or Austria-Hungary and that it is not otherwise entitled to and was, at the time of the severance of the return of its money or other property, diplomatic relations between the United or any part thereof, under this section, and States and such nations, respectively, ac- that such money or other property, or the credited to the United States as a diplomat-proceeds thereof, if the same has been conic or consular officer of any such nation, verted, does not exceed in value the sum or the wife or minor child of such officer, of $10,000, or although exceeding in value and that the money or other property the sum of $10,000, is nevertheless susconcerned was within the territory of the ceptible of division, and the part thereof United States by reason of the service of to be returned hereunder does not exceed such officer in such capacity; or That no insurance partnership, association, in value the sum of $10,000: or corporation, against which any claim Provided, or claims may be filed by any citizen of the United States with the Alien Property Custodian within sixty days after the time this paragraph takes effect, whether such claim appears to be barred by the Statute of Limitations or not, shall be entitled to avail itself of the provisions of this paragraph until such claim or claims are satisfied; or (5) A citizen or subject of Germany or Austria-Hungary, who by virtue of the provisions of §§ 4067, 4068, 4069, and 4070 of the Revised Statutes, Comp. Stat. §§ 76157618, 1 Fed. Stat. Anno. 2d ed. pp. 364, 365, and of the proclamations and regulations thereunder, was transferred, after arrest, into the custody of the War Department of the United States for detention during the war and is at the time of the return of his money or other property hereunder living within the United States; or (6) A partnership, association, or other partnership, association, or other unincor(11) [Added by Act March 4, 1923.] A unincorporated body of individuals outside porated body of individuals, having its the United States, or a corporation incor- principal place of business within any porated within any country other than the country United States, and was entirely owned at Hungary, or Austria-Hungary, or other than Germany, Austria, such time by subjects or citizens of na-poration, organized or incorporated within tions, states, or free cities other than any country other than Germany, Austria, Germany or Austria or Hungary or Aus- Hungary, or Austria-Hungary, and that the tria-Hungary and is so owned at the time control of, or more than 50 per centum of of the return of its money or other prop- the interests or voting power in, any such erty hereunder; or partnership, association, other unincorwas at such time, and is at the time of orporated body of individuals, or corporation, the return of any money or other property, states, or free cities other than Germany, vested in citizens or subjects of nations, Austria, Hungary, or Provided, however, That this subsection Austria-Hungary: zen or subject may have under paragraph shall not affect any rights which any citi(1) of this subsection. (7) The government of Bulgaria Turkey, or any political or municipal subdivision thereof; or or (8) The government of Germany Austria or Hungary or Austria-Hungary, and that the money or other property concerned was the diplomatic or consular property of such government; or a cor. (9) [Added by Act March 4, 1923.] An individual who was at such time a citizen or subject of Germany, Austria, Hungary, Then the President, without any applicaor Austria-Hungary, or who is not a citition being made therefor, may order the zen or subject of any nation, state, or free payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment, city, and that such money or other propor delivery of such money or other property, or the proceeds thereof, if the same erty held by the Alien Property Custodian or by the Treasurer of the United States, President shall determine such person enor of the interest therein to which the titled, either to the said owner or to the person by whom said property was conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, or paid over to the Alien Property Custodian: has been converted, does not exceed in value the sum of $10,000, or although exceeding in value the sum of $10,000 is nevertheless susceptible of division, and the part thereof to be returned hereunder does not exceed in value the sum of $10,000: Provided, That an individual shall not be entitled, under this paragraph, to the re- except as herein provided no such action Provided further, however, That turn of any money or other property owned by the President shall bar any person from by a partnership, association, unincorporat- the prosecution of any suit at law or in ed body of individuals, or corporation at equity to establish any right, title, or inthe time it was conveyed, transferred, as-terest which he may have therein. 386 was: thereof at the time such money or other place of business within any country property was required to be so con- other than Germany, Austria, Hungary, veyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, or Austria-Hungary, or a corporation, or paid to the Alien Property Custodian organized or incorporated within any or at the time when it was voluntarily country other than Germany, Austria, delivered to him or was seized by him Hungary, or Austria-Hungary, and that the control of, or more than 50 per [471] centum of the interests or voting power in, any such partnership, association, other unincorporated body of individuals, or corporation, was at such time, and is at the time of the return of any money or other property, vested in citizens or subjects of nations, states, or free cities other than Germany, Austria, Hungary, or Austria-Hungary; Pro shall not affect any rights which any citizen or subject may have under paragraph (1) of this subsection." "Par. (6). A partnership, association, or other unincorporated body of individuals outside the United States, [468] or a corporation incorporated within any country other than the United States, and was entirely owned at such time by subjects or citizens of nations, states, or free cities other than Germany or Austria or Hungary or AustriaHungary and is so owned at the time vided, however, That this subsection of the return of its money or other property hereunder; . . Then the President, without any application being made therefor, may order the payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment, or delivery of such money or other property held by the Alien Property Custodian or by the Treasurer of the United States, or of the interest therein to which the President shall determine such person [469] entitled, either to the said owner or to the person by whom said property was conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, or paid over to the Alien Property Custodian. "Subsection (c). Any person whose property the President is authorized to return under the provisions of subsection (b) hereof may file notice of claim for the return of such property, as provided in subsection (a) hereof, and thereafter may make application to the President for allowance of such claim and/or may institute suit in equity to recover such property, as provided in said subsection, and with like effect. The President [470] or the court, as the case may be, may make the same determinations with respect to citizenship and other relevant facts that the President is authorized to make under the provisions of subsection (b) hereof." Section 9 was further amended by the Act of March 4, 1923, chap. 285, 42 Stat. at L. 1511-1513, Fed. Stat. Anno. Supp. 1923, p. 118, by adding to subsection (b) three new paragraphs -9, 10, and 11. Each of these empowers certain persons to recover property or funds held by the Alien Property Custodian, and is broad enough to inelude some always within the general definition of "enemy." Paragraph 11 follows: Appellant maintains that it was never an enemy or ally of enemy within the statutory definitions; that only property of persons so described was properly subject to seizure; and, as it was neither enemy nor ally of enemy, the provisions of § 9, subsec. (a) (always part of the act), in plain terms, permit it to recover unlawfully seized property or the proceeds. On the other side the insistence is that subsec. (c) of § 7 permitted seizure of appellant's property because held "on account of, or on behalf of, or for the benefit of," stockholders, the majority of whom were enemy subjects of Germany. Further, that although appellant's property may have been taken originally without authority, return of it is now impliedly prohibited by subsec. (b) of 9, as amended (Acts of 1920 and 1923), since this subsection applies in terms to "all money or other property conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, or paid to the Alien Property Custodian or seized by him hereunder and held by him or by the Treasurer of the United States," whether taken lawfully or no. Paragraphs 6 and 11 are specially relied upon, and it is said that they specify the only classes of corporations now permitted to recover, and do not include appellant. We think subsec. (a) of § 9 gives now, as the same words gave from the first, the right of recovery to any person never "an enemy or ally of enemy," within the statutory definitions. Stoehr v. Wallace, 255 U. S. 239, 244, 245, 65 L. ed. 604, 611, 612, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 293. The [472] contrary view, urged "Subsection b, ¶ (11). A partnership, by appellees, would greatly qualify, perassociation, or other unincorporated haps delete, this subsection, and would body of individuals, having its principal place the United States in the unenviable position of positively refusing, after hostilities had ended, to give up property which had been taken contrary to their own laws. It would require very clear words to convince us that Congress intended any such thing. Subsection (b) adds to those allowed to recover from the first a considerable number always within the definition of "enemy," and affords to them the measure of relief which Congress deemed proper long after peace had been actually restored. And this accords with the spirit of the provision in § 12: "After the end of the war any claim of any enemy or of an ally of enemy to any money or other property received and held by the Alien Property Custodian or deposited in the United States Treasury shall be settled as Congress shall direct." (See S. C. Reporter's ed. 473, 474.) This case is governed by the decision in Behn, Meyer, & Co. v. Miller, ante, 374. [No. 412.] 1924. Decided January 5, 1925. Before its passage the original Trading with the Enemy Act was considered in the light of difficulties certain to fol- Argued November 25, low disregard of corporate identity and efforts to fix the status of corporations as enemy or not, according to the nationality of stockholders. These had been plainly indicated by the diverse opinions in Daimler Co. v. Continental Tyre & Rubber Co. [1916] 2 A. C. 307, 6 B. R. C. 269, 85 L. J. K. B. N. S. 1333, 114 L. T. N. S. 1049, 32 Times L. R. 624, 60 Sol. Jo. 602, 22 Com. Cas. 32, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 170 H. L., decided June 30, 1916. APPEAL by complainant from a de cree of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, affirming a decree of the Supreme Court, dismissing a petition filed to recover property in possession of the Alien Property Custodian. Reversed. The facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. Challen B. Ellis argued the cause, and, with Messrs. Wade H. Ellis and Henry Escher, filed a brief for appel lant. Special Assistant to the Attorney General Merrill E. Otis argued the cause, and, with Solicitor General Beck, filed a brief for appellees. Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court: Section 7, subsection (c), was never intended, we think, to empower the President to seize corporate property merely because of enemy stockholders' interests therein. Corporations are brought within the carefully framed definitions (§ 2) of "enemy" and "ally of enemy" by the words: "Any corThe court below decided this cause poration incorporated within such territory of any nation with which the upon authority of its opinion in Behn, M. & Co. v. Miller, 54 App. D. C. 255, United States is at war [or any nation 296 Fed. 1002, which, upon appeal, bewhich is an ally of such nation] or incame No. 343 on our docket [266 U. S. corporated within any country other 457, ante, 374, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 165.] than the United States and doing busi- The decree therein has been reversed for ness within such territory." And [473] reasons stated in the opinion just anwe find no adequate support for the sug-nounced. The two causes present the gestion that Congress authorized the taking of property of other corporations because one or more stockholders were enemies. Logically carried out, this view would have permitted the seizure of all property of companies incorporated by any associated power, e. g., Great Britain, solely because some German held one share of the many thousand. The result indicates that the premise is bad. What the President same issues. Consequently the challenged decree herein also must be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity with our conclusions. Note. As to claims under Trading with the Enemy Act on account of seizure by Alien Property Custodian-see note to Behn, M. & Co. v. Miller, ante, 374. 266 U. S. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al.,, United States for the Northern District Appts., V. of Ohio, annulling orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission raising in VILLAGE OF HUBBARD, OHIO. (No. trastate interurban passenger fares as 25.) an unjust discrimination against interstate commerce. Reversed. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., 754; No. 26, 278 Fed. 769. See same case below, No. 25, 278 Fed. Appts., V. CITY OF WELLSVILLE, OHIO. (No. 26.) (See S. C. Reporter's ed. 474-481.) Interstate Commerce Commission jurisdiction over interurban electric roads. The facts are stated in the opinion. Assistant to the Solicitor General Blackburn Esterline argued the cause on original argument and filed a brief for the United States: The district court erred in holding Under the provisions of the Act of that the Pennsylvania-Ohio Power & Congress of 1887 to Regulate Commerce, Light Company and the Steubenville, that it shall apply to any common carrier East Liverpool, & Beaver Valley Tracengaged in the transportation of passen- tion Company were not subject to the gers or property by railroad, the Inter state Commerce Commission has jurisdic- Interstate Commerce Acts, and that the tion to prevent unjust discrimination by Commission was without jurisdiction to interurban electric railroads against inter-enter the order. state commerce, although such railroads Shreveport Case (Houston, E. & W. are not engaged in general transportation T. R. Co. v. United States) 234 U. S. of freight in addition to their passenger 342, 351, 58 L. ed. 1341, 1348, 34 Sup. and express business; especially in view of later congressional legislation dealing with Ct. Rep. 833; American Exp. Co. v. the jurisdiction of the Commission over South Dakota, 244 U. S. 617, 624, 61 L. such rates. ed. 1352, 1357, P.U.R.1917F, 45, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 656; Railroad Commission v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 257 U. S. 563, 66 L. ed. 371, 22 A.L.R. 1086, 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 232; New York v. United States, 257 U. S. 591, 66 L. ed. 385, 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 239; Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Pub [Nos. 25 and 26.] Argued April 22, 1924. Restored to docket for reargument June 9, 1924. Reargued December 3, 1924. Decided January 5, 1925. APPEALS by defendants from de- lic Service Commission, 272 Fed. 758; crees of the District Court of the Note. On jurisdiction and power of Interstate Commerce Commission-see note to United States v. Tozer, 2 L.R.A. 446. On the power of Congress to regulate commerce-see notes to State ex rel. Corwin v. Indiana & O. Oil, Gas & Min. P. R. Co. 11 L.R.A. 246; Re Wilson, 12 On power of Federal government over intrastate rates-see notes to Public Service Commission v. New York C. R. Co. 14 A.L.R. 454; and Railroad Commission v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 22 A.L.R. 1100. Generally, on legislative regulation of tolls, rates, and prices-see note to Winchester & L. Turnp. Road Co. v. Croxton, 33 L.R.A. 177. New York v. United States, 272 Fed. V. (N.S.) 385, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 890; Re 33 Inters. Com. Rep. 539; Hubbard v. Jurisdiction over Urban Electric Lines, & Bkg. Co. v. Smith, 128 U. S. 174, 181, United States, 278 Fed. 765; Georgia R. 32 L. ed. 377, 381, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 47; Chesapeake & P. Teleph. Co. v. Manning, 186 U. S. 238, 242, 243, 46 L. ed. 1144, 1146, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 881; White V. United States, 191 U. S. 545, 551, 48 L. ed. 295, 297, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 171; Interstate Commerce Commission Baird, 194 U. S. 25, 36, 48 L. ed. 860, 865, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 563; United States v. Whitridge, 197 U. S. 135, 143, 49 L. ed. 696, 698, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 406; United States v. Falk, 204 U. S. 143, 149, 51 L. ed. 411, 414, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 191; Holden v. Stratton, 198 U. S. 202, 213, 49 L. ed. 1018, 1023, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 656; East Liverpool v. Steubenville, E. L. & B. Valley Traction Co. 51 Inters. Com. Rep. 563; Beall v. Wheeling Traction Co. 60 Inters. Com. Rep. 600; Tan Line Cases, 234 U. S. 1, 24, 58 L. ed. Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. 20 Inters. 1185, 1194, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 741. Com. Rep. 486; Somerset v. Washington Interurban electric railways have R. & Electric Co. 22 Inters. Com. Rep. been regulated by the Interstate Com- 187; Silvester v. City & Suburban R. Co. merce Commission almost from the time 22 Inters. Com. Rep. 201; Bitzer v. of its creation; and Congress had Washington-Virginia R. Co. 24 Inters. knowledge of that regulation when re- Com. Rep. 255; Ford v. Washingtonpeatedly enacting new legislation. Virginia R. Co. 24 Inters. Com. Rep. 632; St. Louis, S. & P. R. Co. v. Peoria & P. U. R. Co. 26 Inters. Com. Rep. 226; Louisville Bd. of Trade v. Indianapolis Traction Co. 27 Inters. Com. Rep. 499; Re Jurisdiction over Urban Electric Lines, 33 Inters. Com. Rep. 536; Chicago, O. & P. R. Co. v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 33 Inters. Com. Rep. 573; Steubenville v. Tri-State R. & Electric Co. 38 Inters. Com. Rep. 281; Knapp Supply Co. v. Ohio Electric R. Co. 38 Inters. Com. Rep. 627; Re St. Louis, Mo.-Illinois Passenger Fares, 41 Inters. Com. Rep. 584; Lourie Mfg. Co. v. Cincinnati Northern R. Co. 42 Inters. Com. Rep. 448, affirming 49 Inters. Com. Rep. 64; Re Gasoline from Coffeyville, Kans. 43 Inters. Com. Rep. 98; Michigan R. Co. v. Michigan C. R. Co. 49 Inters. Com. Rep. 255; Aurora, E. & C. R. Co. v. Indiana Harbor Belt R. Co. 51 Inters. Re Intrastate Rates within Illinois, 66 Inters. Com. Rep. 350; Southern California Sugar Co. v. San Pedro R. Co. 19 Inters. Com. Rep. 6; Boyle v. Great Falls & O. D. R. Co. 20 Inters. Com. Rep. 232; Virginia Highlands Citizens Asso. v. Washington-Virginia R. Co. 30 Inters. Com. Rep. 593; Milwaukee Produce & Fruit Exch. v. Crosby Transp. Co. 30 Inters. Com. Rep. 653; Damon v. Crosby Transp. Co. 33 Inters. Com. Rep. 448; Lourie Mfg. Co. v. Cincinnati Northern R. Co. 42 Inters. Com. Rep. 448; Re Hartford & N. Y. Transp. Co. 43 Inters. Com. Rep. 417; Union Traction Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 52 Inters. Com. Rep. 281. For other cases, see brief of counsel for appellant Pennsylvania-Ohio Power & Light Company, infra. Mr. P. J. Farrell argued the cause on both original and rearguments and filed a brief for the Interstate Commerce Commission: Com. Rep. 331; East Liverpool v. Louis Electric Terminal R. Co. v. Cleve The Commission has jurisdiction over the appellants, Pennsylvania-Ohio Power & Light Company and the Steubenville, East Liverpool, & Beaver Valley Traction Company, and over the sub- land, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. 55 Inters. Com. Rep. 52, 58 Inters. Com. Rep. 597; ject-matter covered by the orders of November 7, Re Newspapers on Passenger Cars, 57 1921. Omaha & C. B. Street R. Co. v. Inter-Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 58 Inters. Com. Rep. 743; Badger Lumber state Commerce Commission, 230 U. S. Inters. Com. Rep. 97; Chicago, L. S. & 324, 57 L. ed. 1501, 46 L.R.A.(N.S.) S. B. R. Co. v. Director Gen. 58 Inters. 385, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 890; East Liver- Com. Rep. 135; Ex parte 74, 58 Inters. pool v. Steubenville, E. L. & B. Valley Com. Rep. 220; Re Local Fares of HudTraction Co. 51 Inters. Com. Rep. 563; Houston, E. & W. T. R. Co. v. United son & M. R. Co. 58 Inters. Com. Rep. States, 234 U. S. 342, 58 L. ed. 1341, Com. Rep. 455; Re Chicago, L. S. & S. B. 270; Re Electric R. Mail Pay, 58 Inters. 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 833. Messrs. Douglass D. Storey and U. C. De Ford filed a brief for appellant Pennsylvania-Ohio Power & Light Com pany: Interurban electric railroads are within the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Willson v. Rock Creek R. Co. 7 Inters. Com. Rep. 83; Chicago & M. E. R. Co. v. Illinois C. R. Co. 13 Inters. Com. Rep. 20; Cedar Rapids & I. C. R. & Light Co. v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 13 Inters. Com. Rep. 250; Beal v. Washington, A. & Mt. V. R. Co. 20 Inters. Com. Rep. 406; Cincinnati & C. Traction Co. v. R. Co. v. Director Gen. 58 Inters. Com. |