U.S. Supreme Court AMERICAN TOLL BRIDGE CO. v. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 307 U.S. 486 (1939)

[Page 307 U.S. 486, 492]

annual return becomes more than 15 per cent. See e.g. Paducah v. Paducah Ry., 261 U.S. 267, 275, 43 S.Ct. 335, 338; Banton v. Belt Line Ry., , 417-419, 45 S.Ct. 534, 535, 536; Railroad Commission v. Los Angeles R. Co., 280 U.S. 145, 152, 155 S., 50 S.Ct. 71, 72, 73. The order is not repugnant to the contract clause.

Appellant claims that, in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the commission denied it a full and fair hearing and failed adequately to find the facts. The commission initiated the proceeding, entitled 'In the matter of the investigation upon the commission's own motion, into the rates, charges, contracts, classifications, rules and regulations of American Toll Bridge Company covering its operation of the toll bridge over the Carquinez Straits between the counties of Contra Costa and Solano'; gave appellant notice that the investigation would extend to tolls for use of that bridge; accorded it opportunity to introduce evidence and present is contentions; and received the evidence offered by it, 233 pages of the printed record and numerous exhibits. Appellant submitted the case for decision without making any request for findings and without argument, oral or written. The commission, without formal findings, filed its decision which, sufficiently to meet requirements of due process, indicates the facts on which it made the order.

Then appellant filed petition for rehearing. That document, including eight captions and 12 sub-captions and an exhibit, occupies 39 printed pages of the record. [Footnote 5] It

[Page 307 U.S. 486, 496]

does not tend to show that the rates on automobiles and persons prescribed by the commission's order are too low. Minnesota Rate Cases, supra, Simpson v. Shepard, 230 U.S. pages 452, 453, 33 S.Ct. pages 761, 762, 48 L.R.A.,N.S., 1151, Ann.Cas.1916A, 18; Baltimore & O.R. Co. v. United States, 298 U.S. 349, 372, 378 S., 381, 56 S.Ct. 797, 809, 812, 813. It follows that appellant is not titled to a decree that the order is confiscatory.

More need not be written to dispose of the issues presented in this case. But in view of appellant's earnest contentions, it is not inappropriate to say that the record, considered in the light of its argument, fails to show that the rate reduction will so lessen revenues from the Carquinez bridge that there will remain less than sufficient, under the due process clause to constitute just compensation for its use-a reasonable rate of return on the value of the bridge property.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice BLACK, Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER and Mr. Justice DOUGLAS concur in the result. Footnotes

Footnote 1 Political Code, 2843, 2845, 2846, and 2872 (as amended May 8, 1923, Cal.Stats.1923, p. 272).

Footnote 2 The franchise ordinance fixed these tolls at 75 cents and 15 cents.

Footnote 3 Act of August 27, 1937, Cal.Stats.1937, p. 2473.

Footnote 4 By Act of May 9, 1923, par. 3 was amended to read as follows: 'Fix the rate of tolls which may be collected for crossing the bridge ... which may raise annually an income not exceeding fifteen per cent on the actual cost of the construction or erection of the bridge ... and such additional income as will provide for the annual cost of operation, maintenance, amortization and taxes of the bridge ....' Cal.Stats.1923, p. 288.

Footnote 5 I. Introduction.

II. Exclusion of Antioch Bridge.

Footnote 1 The Facts.

Footnote 2 Inevitable Effect of Decision on Tolls of Carquinez Bridge, Antioch Bridge and Martinez-Benicio Ferry.

Footnote 3 The Decision is Contrary to the Commission's Own Traditions and Policy.

[Footnote 4] The Commission's Action Deprives American Toll Bridge Company of Its Property Without Due Process of Law in Violation of Guarantees of the Federal and the State Constitutions.

III. Failure to Give Fair Return on Fair Value of Carquinez Bridge.

[Footnote 1] Calculations of Commission in Computing Its Rate.

[Footnote 2] Errors in Commission's Computations.

(1) Rate Base.

(2) Money Available for Return on Rate Base (under 50 toll).

[Footnote 3] Return Under Rate Fixed by Commission.

[Footnote 4] In View of the Cost of Money to American Toll Bridge Company, a Return of Only 6.6% Or 6.9% On the Fair Value of the Carquinez Bridge Would be Confiscatory.

[Footnote 5] Summary as to Fair Return, Carquinez Bridge.

IV. Failure to Give Fair Return on Fair Value of Carquinez and Antioch Bridges.

[Footnote 1] Rate Base.

[Footnote 2] Return Under Rate Fixed by Commission.

[Footnote 3] Effect of Commission's Decision Would be to Confiscate Property of American Toll Bridge Company in Both Carquinez and Antioch Bridges.

V. Under Commission's Tolls American Toll Bridge Company Would be Unable to Meet Its Requirements to Its Bondholders and Stockholders.

VI. Impairment of Contract Obligations.

VII. False Analogy With Publicly Owned and Operated San Francisco Bay Bridges.

VIII. Violation of Constitutional and Statutory Rights.