-
THE ,!TTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS Aue-rxiw xl. Tn8xAn WILL WI JA30N ATTORNRYGkzNERAJ. my 22, 1957 HonorableJ. B. Walling,Chaiman opinionIvo.m-141 CmmmCarriere Camittee Re3 Constitutionality Of House of Representatives SenateBill1CO, as Austin,Teraa emended,relatingto pamenger servioeon Dear &.a Walling8 railroada. This is in euswer to your requeetfor au opiuionfrau this office as to the coustitutianality of Senate Bill 100. This Bill seeks to emu& Article 6479, veruon'sCivil Statutes,by providing: “2. It shall be the duty of the C~mnissionto see that upon each railroadin thie State oarryiugpasseugersforhire there shallbe runatlesstone train eaoh &ay,Suu&ays ex- cepte8,upon which passengersshall be hauled;provided,how- ever, the Ccmmissioumay, in its disoretion,upon applioation filed and after notice and hearing,relax such requirement as to auy railroad,or part, portionor braucb thereof,uheu (1) in its opinion,public om~enienoe pentkits of such relax- ation, and ma2 relax such requirementwhen it appearsupon suoh hearing that the ruuuingof one train each bay, Sundays excepted,is not necessaryin the renditionof adequate8er- vice to the public;or (2) that on auy railroad,or pmt, or portionor brauoh thereof,passengerserviceas frequeutas one train each day, Sundaysexcepted,with the passenger trafficofferedand reasonablytobe expeoted,doesnot and will not pay the cost of such serviceplus a reasonablere- turu upon the propertyemployediu the renditionof such servicej provided,however,that publicconvenienceshall always be a superiorconsiderationin detenuiuiugwhetheror not the requireukentof nmuiug at least one paesengertrain a day may be relaxed;. . .* The portim of Article 6479 sought to be amendedpro~idesn “2. It shall be the duty of the Caomission to see that upon eaahrailroad in this State carryingpassengersforhire there shallbe nm atleastone train each day,Sundaye ex- cepted,upon which passengersshall be haul&j provided,how- ever, the C~nmiasionmay, in its diecretion,upon application filed and after notice an8 hearing,relax such requirement as to auy railroad,or part, portionor bran& thereof,when, in its opinion,public conveniencepermitsof such relaxation, . . _ .I HonorableJ. B. Walling,Page 2 (WW-141) and shall relax such requirementwhen it appearsupou suoh hearing that the ruuuiugof oue train each day, Sundays excepted,is not necessaryin the renditionof adequate serviceto the public,or that on any railroad,or part, or portionor branoh thereof,passengerserviceas fre- quent as one train each day, Sundays excepted,with the passengertrafficofferedand reasonablyto be expected, doss not and will not pay the cost of such serviceplus a reasonablereturnupon the propertyemployedin the ren- ditionof such service;D 0 +* Under the proposedmuendnentthe RailroadCcmmissionis author- ized,but not required,,torelax the requirementof rmming at least one train each day, Sundaysexcepted,in two situations: (1) where public oonveniencepermiteor where such service,isnot necessaryin the rendi- tion of adequateserviceto the public,and (2) where the passengertraffic does no.t.:xld will not pay the cost of such serviceplus a reasonablereturn. The constitutionalproblemstems frcpnthe provisoto the seoond situationprovidingthat public convenienceshall alwaysbe a superior considerationin determiningwhether or not the requirementof runningat least one passengertrain a day may be relaxed. This pro~isicmis most Bmbiguotla,however,we interpretit to mean that when the Cauaisaionfinds that pablioconveniencerequiresthe contiuuedservice,but that the cost of such servicewill not pay for itself,the Ccmmissicmmust give greater weight to the publicconveniencein determiningwhether it should permit the relaxationof ths one train a day requirement. Such a provisiondoes not renderSenateBill 100 unconstitutional on its face. The railroadsin the exeroi6eof their publlo functionsas oaannan carriersare subjectto reasonableregulationsby the State. As au&, the railroadsten be requiredto furnishservicesand faoilitiesreasonably adequateto satisfythe publicneeds. Such authorityby the State may ex- tend to requiringthe ruuningof trains in additionto those providedby the carriereveu where this may involvescunepecuniaryloss. See Missls- sippi RailroadCommissionv. Mobile and Ohio RailroadCo., 244 OS= Under the 1925 statutesand court decisionsrelatingto the abandonmentof railroadsonce in operation,it was well settledthat the Legislaturecould requirethe railroadsto continuepassengerservioe regardlessof loss in operation. See State V* Rnid, 0. and W. Ry. co., 108 Tes. 239, 19lS.W. 5603 State Y. SugarlandR. Co.,
163 S.W. 1047. III 1927 the LegislatureamendedArticle 6479 to providethat the Commission could, in its discretion,relax the requ-&sent as to passengerservice by a certainclass of railroads. In 1933, the Legislaturefurtheramended Article 6479 permittingpassengerserviceto be relaxedunder conditions stated in the currentstatute. HonorableJ. B. Walling,Page 3 @W-141) Sinoe before1933 the Legielatureoould requiredaily passenger serviceregardleeeof whether the aervioewas profitable,we are of the opinionthat the Legislatureoau requirethe operationof daily passenger servioewheneverthe public oouveulencerequiresit, providedthat the Rail- road Is permittedto make a reasonableprofit ou its overalloperations. As to the effect of an amendmentprovidingfor trialde novo in appealsfrom orders of the RailroadCamDissionunder this statute,such an smendmentwouldhave no effectwhatsoeverupon appealsfron orders of the RailroadC-iesion under other statutes. SenateBf9.1lOC, seekingto amend Article 6479, V.C.S., in its presentform is oonstitutional.The amendmentwould require the Ccouni33sion to give a greaterweight or priorityto the consideration of the public conveniencethan to the cost of renderingsuch servioewhen the Camnission,isseekingto de- tenninewhether or not to relax the requirementof operating at least one passengertrain a day. Appeals trial de novo under thfr,ststrtewould have no effeotwhatsoeverupon appealsfrom orders of the RailroadCcsuuis~ionunder other statutes. WILL WIISON Attor#vyGeneralof Texas APPROVED: OPIIVION Cm: James 18.Ludlun,Chairmen WaylandC. Rivers,Jr. Jemes W. Wilson Robert 0. Smith RRVIEWDFORTEEATYORNRY GRNERAL BY: Gee. P. Blezkburn
Document Info
Docket Number: WW-141
Judges: Will Wilson
Filed Date: 7/2/1957
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 2/18/2017