Southern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 189 U.S. 447 (1903)
Decided April 6, 1903
We revert to the industrialization cases after the detour to Cuba in The Paquette Habana case.
Another short opinion, six pages including syllabus, unanimous. Justices Brewer and Day did not participate in the decision.
Holmes has shown himself generally to be a friend of big business in his first year on the high court and to be deferential in extraordinary degree to the state courts, unwilling to project the authority of the United States that he fought and was thrice wounded for. He soured on the Civil War cause; that was part of the "experience" that he brought to the Supreme Court. He has been very slow, or reluctant, to grasp the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution as justifying or compelling federal action.
This is a simple case. It is a case in forfeiture brought to the Supreme Court under federal statute. Under an 1871 federal law the rights of appellant were made subordinate to those of the Texas Pacific Railroad Company. By an 1885 act Texas Pacific's grant was made forfeited to the general government of the United States. Southern Pacific argued that the forfeited grant should revert to it, not the United States. This simple-headed argument lost in both the circuit court and the circuit court of appeals.
The 1871 act granted Southern Pacific a charter to construct a railroad that would connect up with the Texas Pacific with purpose to get the Texas Pacific line to San Francisco,
"Provided, however, that this section shall in no way affect or impair the rights, present or prospective, of the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company, or any other railroad company." (italics in original; bold added).
Southern Pacific was not Atlantic and Pacific. Texas Pacific was an "other railroad".
In the first place, it is denied that the Texas Pacific is included under the words last quoted: "or any other railroad company." But we think it too plain for extended argument that it is included by those words. It was called into being, and was an "other railroad" at the moment when the proviso took effect. In fact, it was the only other railroad, so far as has been suggested to us, to which the words could apply. It received a grant for its main line, while that to the Southern Pacific was for a branch.
Yeah.
The conclusion is pure Holmes:
Without going into further reasons for our decision, we are of opinion that the decree appealed from was right. We deal only with the questions argued in this Court.
Decree affirmed.
I find this case to be too clear-cut to be revelatory of Holmes' judicial philosophy.
