206 U. S.

Argument for Defendant in Error.

either the Spring Hope or the Plymouth run, and this finding was affirmed by the Supreme Court of North Carolina.

The highest court of the State having therefore decided against the plaintiff in error upon an independent ground, not involving a Federal question, and broad enough to maintain the judgment, the judgment of the Supreme Court of North Carolina should be affirmed or the writ of error dismissed without considering the Federal question, assuming that one is presented in the record. Kennebec & P. R. Co. v. Portland & R. R. Co., 14 Wall. 23; Hammond v. Johnson, 142 U. S. 73; Northern P. R. Co. v. Ellis, 144 U. S. 458; Delaware City &c. v. Reybold, 142 U. S. 636; Walter A. Wood Co. v. Skinner, 139 U. S. 293; Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson, 141 U. S. 679; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 160 U. S. 556; California Powder Works v. Davis, 151 U. S. 389, 393; Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590; McLaughlin v. Fowler, 154 U. S. 663.

The presumption of law is always in favor of the maintenance of the order of a railroad commission, and the same will not be set aside unless flagrantly in violation of the rights of the railroad company. Dow v. Beidleman, 125 U. S. 680; Reagan v. Trust Co., 154 U. S. 362, 395; Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 176 U. S. 167, 173; Brannon on the Fourteenth Amendment, 197.

The public safety, interest and convenience are clearly embraced within the legislative power of the State, and the exercise of this power does not deprive the plaintiff in error of its property without due process of law under the constitution of North Carolina or of the United States. Brass v. North Dakota, 153 U. S. 391; Budd v. New York, 143 U. S. 517; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113; Jacobson v. Railroad Co., 71 Minnesota, 519; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466; Lake Shore &c. Railway Co. v. Smith, 173 U. S. 684; Gladson v. Minnesota, 166 U. S. 427; Railroad Co. v. Gibbes, 142 U. S. 386; Wisconsin &c. Railroad Co. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287; Minn. & St. Louis R. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 193 U. S. 53; Railroad v. Railroad Commission, 109 Louisiana, 247.

The doctrine that if a railroad as an entirety does a business which is compensatory it has no legal right to complain that an order of a railroad commission may deprive it of revenue over a portion of its line, has been affirmed by the highest courts of several States. Among these cases the following are noted: Railway Co. v. Smith, 60 Arkansas, 221; Matter of Auburn & W. R. R. Co., 37 App. Div. 162; S. C. 55 N. Y. Supp. 895; Morgan's L. & T. R. & S. S. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 109 Louisiana, 247; Pensacola &c. R. R. Co. v. State of Florida, 25 Florida, 310; People v. St. L., A. & T. H. R. R. Co., 176 Illinois, 512; Union Traction Co. v. Chicago, 199 Illinois, 579.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the court.

Did the order of the North Carolina Corporation Commission, the enforcement of which was directed by the court below, invade constitutional rights of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, hereafter spoken of as the Coast Line, is the question which arises on this record for decision. A sketch showing the situation of the railway tracks at and relating to the place with which the controversy is concerned was annexed by the court below to its opinion, and that sketch is reproduced to aid in clearness of statement.

For years prior to October, 1903, the Coast Line operated daily an interstate train from Richmond, Virginia, through North Carolina to Florida. This train, known as No. 39, moved over the main track from Richmond to Wilson, North Carolina, thence by the track designated as the cut-off via Selma and Fayetteville to Florida. The train (No. 39) was scheduled to reach Selma at 2:50 in the afternoon and to leave at 2:55. The Southern Railway owned or controlled a road in North Carolina which crossed the Coast Line main track at Goldsboro and the cut-off track at Selma. On this road there was operated daily a train from Goldsboro via Raleigh to Greensboro, North Carolina, at which point connection was made with the main track of the Southern road. This Southern

train, known as No. 135, left Goldsboro at 2:05 in the afternoon and Selma at 3 o'clock. Thus at Selma it connected with No. 39 of the Coast Line. The Coast Line also operated in North Carolina the branch lines shown on the sketch, which radiated easterly, and served a considerable area of territory. These branches connected with the main track at Rocky Mount, a station forty-two miles nearer Richmond than Selma. At Rocky Mount there also was a connection with a Coast Line road running from Pinners Point, near Norfolk, Virginia. Over this road also the Coast Line operated a train, which left Pinners Point in the morning and connected with the Coast Line train No 39 at Rocky Mount. The departure of the train in question from Pinners Point was so arranged as to enable boats timed to arrive at Norfolk during the night or early morning to make, by ferry to Pinners Point, a morning connection with the train. On the third of October, 1903, the Southern Railway notified the North Carolina Corporation Commission of a contemplated change of schedule on its line from Goldsboro via Raleigh to Greensboro. By the change, which was to go into effect on the 11th of October, Southern train No. 135, instead of leaving Goldsboro at 2:05, would leave at 1:35 in the afternoon, and would leave Selma at 2:25 instead of 3. As a result, the connection at Selma between the Coast Line train No 39 and the Southern train would be broken. The North Carolina Corporation Commission, by letter, on the sixth of October, called the attention of the general manager of the Coast Line to the contemplated change of time by the Southern, and requested that line to advance the time of No. 39 to enable that train to reach Selma at 2:25, thus continuing the connection with the Southern. On the twelfth of October the superintendent of transportation of the Coast Line answered. He stated that the schedule of train No. 39 from Richmond to Selma was already so fast that it was very difficult to make the connection at Selma, and that it would be impossible to advance the time of arrival at Selma as requested. It was besides represented that to do so would require a breaking of

the connection made with the Norfolk train at Rocky Mount and would disarrange the running time of the train south of Selma and disturb connections which that train made with other roads south of that point. However, it was pointed out that as train No. 39 did not originate at Richmond, but was a through train made up at New York, carried from thence to Washington by the Pennsylvania and from Washington to Richmond by the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac, that negotiations would be put on foot with those roads with an endeavor to secure an acceleration of the time of the departure of the train from New York and Washington, so as thereby to enable an earlier departure from Richmond. On the eleventh of October the change of time became operative and the connection at Selma was broken.

A complaint having been lodged with the corporation commission because of the inconvenience to the public thereby occasioned, both the Southern and Coast Line were notified that a hearing would be had concerning the subject on the 29th. On that day the railways, through their officials, appeared. The Southern represented that its change in time was because it was absolutely dangerous to operate its train at the speed required by the previous schedule, and indeed that the lengthened schedule was yet faster than desired. The Coast Line reiterated the impossibility of changing the schedule of train No. 39 from Richmond to Selma unless there was a change between New York and Richmond. It stated that there was to be a meeting in Washington on November 6 of the representatives of various roads in the South, and that it hoped, as the result of that meeting, to so arrange that No. 39 would be scheduled for delivery at Richmond at an earlier hour, thus enabling its time to Selma to be advanced. The commission continued the subject for further consideration. On November 9 the superintendent of the Coast Line advised the corporation commission that at the meeting in Washington it had been impossible to obtain an earlier departure of the train from New York and Washington, but that the Pennsyl