Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. City of Omaha, 235 U.S. 121 (1914)

In support of these contentions see In re Anderson, 69 Nebraska, 686, 689; Bonnett v. Vallier, 136 Wisconsin, 193; Briden v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. Co., 27 R. I. 569, 65 Atl. Rep. 315; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Nebraska, YJ Nebraska, 549; >8. C., 170 U. S. 57; Chicago v. Rogers Park Water Co., 214 Illinois, 212; Carolina Cent. R. R. Co. v. Wilmington Ry. Co., 120 Nor. Car. 520; Conshohocken R. R. Co. v. Pa. R. Co., 15 Pa. Co. Ct. 445; Calder v. Bull, 3 p. 123235 ü. S. Counsel for Appellee.

The Nebraska legislature had delegated to the governing authorities of the City of Omaha ample power and authority to require appellant to construct at its own cost the viaduct in question, of sufficient strength, width, capacity p. 125and grades to carry and safeguard all travel and traffic on Dodge Street at the intersecting point, including that carried by The Omaha & Council Bluffs Street Railway Company. State v. Redmon, 134 Wisconsin, 89; Detroit &c. Ry. Co. v. Osborn, 189 U. S. 383; C., B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Nebraska, 170 U. S. 57; Chicago v. Chicago Elev. Ry. Co., 95 N. E. Rep. 456; Louis. & Nash. R. R. Co. v. Hopkins County, 156 S. W. Rep. 379; Omaha v. Un. Pac. R. R. Co., 143 N. W. Rep. 918; Water Co. v. Fergus, 178 Illinois, 751; 5. C., 180 U. S. 624; Chicago v. Rogers Park Water Co., 214 Illinois, 212; Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Omaha, 179 Fed. Rep. 516; C., B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Illinois, 200 U. ,S. 561; Phoenix Life Ins. Co. v. Lincoln, 91 Nebraska, 150; Olney v. Omaha &c. Railway Co., 78 Nebraska, 767; Briden v. Railway Co., 27 R. I. 569; People v. Adams, 88 Hun, 122; Carolina Central R. R. Co. v. Wilmington St. Ry. Co., 120 Nor. Car. 520.

v. Drainage Commissioners, supra; McLean v. Arkansas, 211 U. S. 539; Atlantic Coast Line v. Goldsboro, 232 U. S. 548. That the City of Omaha had power to pass an ordinance of this character in execution of the authority conferred upon it by the legislature of the State, has been determined by the highest court of the State of Nebraska, considering Chapter 12-a, § 128, Compiled Statutes of Nebraska, 1911.1 State v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 143 N. W. Rep. 918. In that case the state Supreme Court declares (p. 919) the “ power to require railway companies to construct above their tracks at street p. 129crossings such viaducts ‘as may be deemed and declared by the mayor and council necessary for the safety and protection of the public’ is in direct terms conferred by the legislature upon the City of Omaha.” As this is a question of state law (Atlantic Coast Line v. Goldsboro, 232 U. S. 548), we need not dwell upon it further. Indeed, such authority seems to be admitted in the brief of appellant, and the argument is addressed to an alleged abuse of the power conferred. To maintain this position, it is first insisted that the construction of the viaduct in such manner as to carry the tracks of the street railway company will entail additional expense of about $50,000, over the cost of a viaduct providing only for the transportation of other kinds of traffic. It may be that it would be more fair and equitable to require the street railway company to share in the expense of the viaduct, and if the municipality had been authorized so to do by competent authority, it would have been a constitutional exercise of the police power to have made such division of expenses. Detroit &c. Railway v. Osborn, 189 U. S. 383, 389. But there is nothing in the statute requiring the municipality to divide the expense of such improvement among those responsible for the dangerous condition of the street crossing. Where a number of railroads have contributed to the condition which necessitates such improvement in the interest of public safety, it is not an unconstitutional exercise of authority, as this court has held, to require one of the companies interested to perform such work at its own expense. Chicago &c. Railroad Company v. Nebraska, 170 U. S. 57, 76. The broad authority to require any railroad company to make such improvement, in the interest of public safety, is conferred by the legislature upon the city. The safety of the travelling public is the primary consideration, and this is accomplished by the construction of the viaduct which is used by many people who travel across the viaduct every day. The public when being vo l . ccxxxv—9 p. 130transported by the street railway company was exposed to the dangers of a grade crossing, which it was within the authority of the State to authorize the municipality to discontinue. Under competent legislation the city has undertaken to do this. In placing the expense entirely upon the railroad company, whose locomotives and trains are principally responsible for the resulting danger to the public, we do not find such abuse of the recognized authority of the State as has justified the courts in some cases in enjoining the enforcement of state and municipal legislation. Examples of such arbitrary and oppressive action with which the courts may interfere are found in such cases as Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, and Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U. S. 223.

It is next urged that there is an abuse of authority shown which should justify an injunction against the enforcement of this ordinance, because a viaduct about 600 feet long would be sufficient to carry the traffic of Dodge Street over the railroad crossing, including the traffic of the street railway company, yet by this ordinance it is sought to compel the railroad company to construct a viaduct 810 feet long, the extension being made p. 131necessary it is said for the purpose of carrying the Dodge Street traffic, including that of the street railway company, over a proposed boulevard, which the city might thereafter decide to lay out and establish across Dodge Street, which boulevard is alleged to be about 350 feet east of, and parallel to the line of the railroad. But there is testimony in the record tending to show that this extension of the original plan of the viaduct was for the purpose of making better grades in crossing thereon, and both courts below have rejected the contention of the railroad company that it was intended thereby to make a crossing for a proposed boulevard thereafter to be laid out. We are not prepared to disturb this conclusion of two courts upon the facts.

Affirmed. p. 133235 U. S. Syllabus.

Under the provisions of § 6846, the defendant may be prosecuted, not for any debt he owes his surety, for none exists, but as a punishment for a violation of the contract p. 137which has been approved by the court and in which his labor for his surety has been substituted for hard labor for the State or county. Ward v. State, 88 Alabama, 202; Smith v. State, 82 Alabama, 40; Code, § 6846; Shepherd v. State, 110 Alabama, 104.

These' cases were argued and considered together, and may be disposed of in a single opinion. They come here under the Criminal Appeals Act of March 2, 1907, c. 2564, 34 Stat. 1246, as involving the construction of the statutes of the United States which have for their object the prohibition and punishment of peonage. Case No. 478, United States v. Reynolds, was decided upon demurrer and objections to a plea filed to the indictment. The case p. 139against Broughton, No. 479, was decided upon demurrer to the indictment. In both cases the District Court held that no offense was charged. 213 Fed. Rep. 345, 352. Both indictments for holding certain persons in a state of peonage were found under § 1990 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, as follows:

The facts to be gathered from the indictments and pleas, upon which the court below decided the cases and determined that no offense was charged against the statutes of the United States as above set forth, are substantially these: In No. 478, one Ed Rivers, having been convicted in a court of Alabama of the offense of petit larceny, was fined $15, and costs $43.75. The defendant Reynolds appeared as surety for Rivers, and a judgment by confession was entered up against him for the amount of the fine and costs, which Reynolds afterwards paid to the State. On May 4, 1910, Rivers, the convict, entered into a written contract with Reynolds to work for him as a p. 140farm-hand for the term of nine months and twenty-four days, at the rate of six dollars per month, to pay the amount of fine and costs. The indictment charges that he entered into the service of Reynolds, and under threats of arrest and imprisonment if he ceased to perform such work and labor, he worked until the sixth day of June, when he refused to labor. Thereupon he was arrested upon a warrant issued at the instance of Reynolds from the County Court of Alabama, on the charge of violating the contract of service. He was convicted and fined the sum of one cent for violating this contract, and additional costs in the amount of $87.05, for which he again confessed judgment with G. W. Broughton as surety, and entered into a similar contract with Broughton to work for him as a farm-hand at the same rate, for a term of fourteen months and fifteen days.

The rulings in the court below upon the plea and demurrers, were that there was no violation of the Federal p. 141statutes, properly construed, and also held that the conduct of the defendants was justified by the provisions of the Alabama Code, upon which they relied. These provisions are as follows:

“7635. When Additional Hard Labor Imposed for Costs; Rules in Reference to.—If on conviction judgment is rendered against the accused that he perform hard labor for the county, and if the costs are not presently paid or judgment confessed therefor, as provided by law, then the court may impose additional hard labor for the county for such period, not to exceed ten months, as may be sufficient to pay the costs, at the rate of seventy-five cents per day, and the court must determine the time required p. 142to work out such costs at that rate; and such convict must be discharged from the sentence against him for costs on the payment thereof, or any balance due thereon, by the hire of such convict, or otherwise; and the certificate of the judge or clerk of the court in which the conviction was had, that the costs, or the residue thereof, after deducting the amount realized from the hire of the convict, have been paid, or that the hire or labor of the convict, as the case may be, amounts to a sum sufficient to pay the costs, shall be sufficient evidence to authorize such discharge.

“6848. Damages Paid to Injured Party out of Fine Imposed.—From the fine imposed under the two preceding sections, when collected, the damages sustained by p. 143the party contracting with such defendant must be paid to such person by the officer collecting the same.”

By these enactments Congress undertook to strike down all laws, regulations and usages in the States and Territories which attempted to maintain and enforce, directly or indirectly, the voluntary or involuntary service or labor of any persons as peons, in the liquidation of any debt or obligation. To determine whether the conduct of the defendants charged in the indictments amounted to holding the persons named in a state of peonage, it is essential to understand what Congress meant in the use of that term prohibiting and punishing those guilty of maintaining it. Extended discussion of this subject is rendered unnecessary in view of the full consideration thereof in the prior adjudications of this p. 144court. Clyatt v. United States, supra; Bailey v. Alabama, supra.

Applying this definition to the facts here shown, we must determine whether the convict was in reality working for a debt which he owed the surety, and whether the labor was performed under such coercion as to become a compulsory service for the discharge of a debt. If so, it amounts to peonage, within the prohibition of the Federal statutes. The actual situation is this: The convict instead of being committed to work and labor as the statute provides for the State, when his fines and costs are unpaid, comes into court with a surety, and confesses judgment in the amount of fine and costs, and agrees p. 145with the surety, in consideration of the payment of that fine and costs, to perform service for the surety after he is released because of the confession of judgment. The form of the contract, said to be the usual one entered into in such cases, is given in the record, and reads:

It also stands admitted in this record, that the sureties in fact paid the judgment confessed. Looking then to the substance of things, and through the mere form which they have taken, we are to decide the question whether the labor of the convict, thus contracted for, amounted to vol . ccxxxv—10 p. 146involuntary service for the liquidation of a debt to the surety, which character of service it was the intention of the acts of ..Congress to prevent and punish. When thus at labor, the convict is working under a contract which he has made with his surety. He is to work until the amount which the surety has paid for him—the sum of the fine and costs—is paid. The surety has paid the State and the service is rendered to reimburse him. This is the real substance of the transaction. The terms of that contract are agreed upon by the contracting parties, as the result of their own negotiations. The statute of the State does not prescribe them. It leaves the making of contract to the parties concerned, and this fact is not changed because of the requirement that the judge shall approve of the contract. When the convict goes to work under this agreement, he is under the direction and control of the surety, and is in fact working for him. If he keeps his agreement with the surety, he is discharged from its obligations without any further action by the State. This labor is performed under the constant coercion and threat of another possible arrest and prosecution in case he violates the labor contract which he has made with the surety, and this form of coercion is as potent as it would have been had the law provided for the seizure and compulsory service of the convict. Compulsion of such service by the constant fear of imprisonment under the criminal laws renders the work compulsory, as much so as authority to arrest and hold his person would be if the law authorized that to be done. Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U. S. 219, 244; Ex parte Hollman, 60 S. E. Rep. 19, 24.

Under this statute, the surety may cause the arrest of the convict for violation of his labor contract. He may be sentenced and punished for this new offense, and undertake to liquidate the penalty by a new contract of a similar nature, and, if again broken, may be again prosecuted, and the convict is thus kept chained to an ever- p. 147turning wheel of servitude to discharge the obligation which he has incurred to his surety, who has entered into an undertaking with the State or paid money in his behalf. The re-arrest of which we have spoken is not because of his failure to pay his fine and costs originally assessed against him by the State. He is arrested at the instance of the surety, and because the law punishes the violation of the contract which the convict has made with him.

We are cited to a series of Alabama cases, in which it is p. 148held that the confessed judgment and the contract do not satisfy the law nor pay the penalty imposed, but the hirer becomes the transferee of the right of the State to compel the payment of the fine and costs, and by this exaction of involuntary servitude the convict has only changed masters, and that under the Alabama constitution the law is constitutional, and that the convict is not being imprisoned for indebtedness. It is to be observed that the same learned court, in one of its later deliverances (State v. Etowah Lumber Company, 153 Alabama, 77, 78), has said in speaking of this contract, “the State was in no sense a party to the contract by which the company acquired the custody of Falkner [the convict in that case]. It is true it [the State] permitted the making of the contract, and provided a punishment for its breach.” Here is a direct utterance of that court that the State was not a party to the surety’s agreement, but its connection with it was to permit it, and provide the punishment for its breach.

True it is that this court follows the decisions of the state courts, in determining the constitutionality of statutes under the constitutions of the States; and in considering the constitutionality of statutes ordinarily accepts their meaning as construed by the state courts. The Alabama decisions, to which we have been referred, are more strictly speaking determinations of the legal effect of these statutes than interpretation of any doubtful meaning which may be found within their terms. Moreover, we are here dealing with a case which involves the Constitution and statutes of the United States, as to which this court, by force of the Constitution, and the several Judiciary Acts which have been enacted by Congress, is the ultimate arbiter. In such cases this court must determine for itself whether a given enactment violates the Constitution of the United States or the statutes passed in pursuance thereof. The validity of this system of state law must be judged by its operation and effect upon rights p. 149secured by the Constitution of the United States and offenses punished by the Federal statutes. If such state statutes, upon their face, or in the manner of their administration, have the effect to deny rights secured by the Federal Constitution or to nullify statutes passed in pursuance thereto, they must fail. Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U. S. 219, 244; Henderson v. Mayor, 92 U. S. 259, 268.