speaking) a standard of rates with respect to that traffic in the light of which it is insisted that the rate should still be regarded as reasonable, that should be made to appear. As has been said, it does not appear here. Frequently, attacks upon State rates have raised the question as to the profitableness of the entire intrastate business under the State's requirements. But the decisions in this class of cases [citing cases] furnish no ground for saying that the State may set apart a commodity or a special class of traffic and impose upon it any rate it pleases, provided only that the return from the entire intrastate business is adequate. *

The judgments, respectively, are reversed and the cases are remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.

Mr. Justice PITNEY dissents.

NOTE: 1. "The fundamental question presented is whether the validity of the passenger rate can be determined by its effect upon the passenger business of the company, separately considered. * the State has a broad field for the exercise of its discretion in prescribing reasonable rates for common carriers within its jurisdiction; * it is not necessary that there should be uniform rates or the same percentage of profit on every sort of business; and that there is abundant room for reasonable classification and the adaptation of rates to various groups of services. the State has no arbitrary power over rates; the devotion of the property of the carrier to public use is qualified by the condition of the carrier's undertaking that its services are to be performed for reasonable reward; and that the State may not select a commodity, or class of traffic, and instead of fixing what may be deemed to be reasonable compensation for its carriage, compel the carrier to transport it either at less than cost or for a compensation that is merely nominal." Norf. & West. Ry. v. West Virginia, 236 U. S. 605, 8-9.

2. "The primal duty of a carrier is to furnish adequate facilities to the public, that duty may well be compelled, although by doing so as an incident some pecuniary loss from rendering such service may result." Atlantic Coast Line v. N. Car. Corp. Com'n, 206 U. S. 1, 26.

3. "The demands upon a carrier which lawfully may be made are limited by its duty, and the present record conclusively shows the required structure [scales for weighing stock] had no direct relation thereto." Gt. Northern Ry. v. Minnesota, 238 U. S. 340, 346 Ed.

CHAPTER VI.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAY RESTRAIN ACTS WHICH INTERFERE WITH OR LESSEN THE VOLUME OF FOREIGN AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE

SECTION 1. BY CIVIL PROCESS

IN RE DEBS (1895)

158 U. S. 564; 39 L. Ed. 1092.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

The Federal Government, by civil process, may prevent the forcible obstruction of interstate commerce by a strike, boycott or conspiracy.

Mr. Justice BREWER: The case presented by this bill is this: The United States, finding that the interstate transportation of persons and property, as well as the carriage of the mails, is forcibly obstructed, and that a combination and conspiracy exists to subject the control of such transportation to the will of the conspirators, applied to one of their Courts, sitting as a Court of equity, for an injunction to restrain such obstruction and prevent carrying into effect such conspiracy. Two questions of importance are presented: First. Are the relations of the General Government to interstate commerce and the transportation of the mails such as authorize a direct interference to prevent a forcible obstruction thereof? Second. If authority exists, as authority in governmental affairs implies both power and duty, has a Court of equity jurisdiction to issue an injunction in aid of the performance of such duty.

First. What are the relations of the General Government to interstate commerce and the transportation of the mails? They are those of direct supervision, control, and management. While under the dual system which prevails with us the powers of government are distributed between the State and the Nation, and while the latter is properly styled a government of enumerated powers, yet within the limits of such enumeration it has all the attributes of sovereignty, and, in the exercise of those enumerated powers, acts directly upon the citizen, and not through the intermediate agency of the State.

"The Government of the Union, then is, emphatically and truly, a government of the people. In form and in substance it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit."

"No trace is to be found in the Constitution of an intention to create a dependence of the Government of the Union on those of the States, for the execution of the great powers assigned to it. Its means are adequate to its ends; and on those means alone was it expected to rely for the accomplishment of its ends. To impose on it the necessity of resorting to means which it cannot control, which another government may furnish or withhold, would render its course precarious, the result of its measures uncertain, and create a dependence on other governments, which might disappoint its most important designs, and is incompatible with the language of the constitution." Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U. S. 4 Wheat. 316, 405, 424.

"Both the States and the United States existed before the Constitution. The people, through that instrument, established a more perfect union by substituting a national government, acting, with ample power, directly upon the citizens, instead of the confederate government, which acted, with powers greatly restricted, only upon the states." Chief Justice Chase in Lane County v. Oregon, 74 U. S. 7 Wall. 71, 76.

"We hold it to be an incontrovertible principle, that the Government of the United States may, by means of physical force, exercised through its official agents, execute on every foot of American soil the powers and functions that belong to it. This necessarily involves the power to command obedience to its laws, and hence the power to keep the peace to that extent."

"This power to enforce the laws and to execute its functions in all places does not derogate from the power of the State to execute its laws at the same time and in the same places The one does not exclude the other, except where both cannot be executed at the same time. In that case, the words of the Constitution itself show which is to yield. "This constitution, and all laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land." [Citing cases.]

Among the powers expressly given to the national government are the control of interstate commerce and the creation and management of a postoffice system for the nation. Article I, section 8, of the Constitution provides that "the Congress shall have power. Third, to regulate commerce with foreign nations and

among the several States, and with the Indian tribes. Seventh, to establish postoffices and postroads."

Congress has exercised the power granted in respect to interstate commerce in a variety of legislative acts. Passing by for the present all that legislation in respect to commerce by water, and considering only that which bears upon railroad interstate transportation (for this is the specific matter involved in this case) these acts may be noticed: First, that of June 15, 1866, c. 124, 14 Stat. 66, carried into the Revised Statutes as section 5258, which provides:

"Whereas, the Constitution of the United States confers upon Congress, in express terms, the power to regulate commerce among the several States, to establish postroads, and to raise and support armies: Therefore, Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That every railroad company in the United States whose road is operated by steam, its successors and assigns, be, and is hereby, authorized to carry upon and over its road, boats, bridges, and ferries all passengers, troops, government supplies, mails, freight, and property on their way from any State to another State, and to receive compensation therefor, and to connect with roads of other States so as to form continuous lines for the transportation of the same to the place of destination."

Second. That of March 3, 1873, c. 252, 17 Stat. 584 (Rev. Stat. §§ 4386 to 4389) which regulates the transportation of livestock over interstate railroads. Third. That of May 29, 1884, c. 60, § 6, 23 Stat. 31, 32) prohibiting interstate transportation by railroads of livestock affected with any contagious or infectious disease. Fourth. That of February 4, 1887, c. 104, 24 Stat. 379, with its amendents of March 2, 1889, c. 382, 25 Stat. 855, and February 10, 1891, c. 128, 26 Stat. 743, known as the "Interstate Commerce Act," by which a commission was created with large powers of regulation and control of interstate commerce by railroads, and the sixteenth section of which act gives to the Courts of the United States power to enforce the orders of the commission. Fifth. That of October 1, 1888, c. 1063, 25 Stat. 501, providing for arbitration between railroad interstate companies and their employes; and, sixth, the act of March 2, 1893, c. 196, 27 Stat. 531, requiring the use of automatic couplers on interstate trains, and empowering the Interstate Commerce Commission to enforce its provisions.

Under the power vested in Congress to establish postoffices and postroads, Congress has, by a mass of legislation, established the great postoffice system of the country, with all its detail of organization, its machinery for the transaction of business, defining what

shall be carried and what not, and the prices of carriage, and also prescribing penalties for all offenses against it.

Obviously these powers given to the National Government over interstate commerce and in respect to the transportation of the mails were not dormant and unused. Congress had taken hold of these two matters, and by various and specific acts had assumed and exercised the powers given to it, and was in the full discharge of its duty to regulate interstate commerce and carry the mails. The validity of such exercise and the exclusiveness of its control had been again and again presented to this Court for consideration. It is curious to note the fact that in a large proportion of the cases in respect to interstate commerce brought to this Court the question presented was of the validity of State legislation in its bearings upon interstate commerce, and the uniform course of decision has been to declare that it is not within the competency of a State to legislate in such a manner as to obstruct interstate commerce. If a State with its recognized powers of sovereignty is impotent to obstruct interstate commerce, can it be that any mere voluntary association of individuals within the limits of that State has a power which the State itself does not possess?

As, under the Constitution, power over interstate commerce and the transportation of the mails is vested in the National Government, and Congress by virtue of such grant has assumed actual and direct control, it follows that the National Government may prevent any unlawful and forcible interference therewith. But how shall this be accomplished? Doubtless, it is within the competency of Congress to prescribe by legislation that any interference with these matters shall be offenses against the United States, and prosecuted and punished by indictment in the proper courts. But is that the only remedy? Have the vast interests of the nation in interstate commerce, and in the transportation of the mails, no other protection than lies in the possible punishment of those who interfere with it? To ask the question is to answer it. By article 3, section 2, clause 3, of the Federal Constitution it is provided: "The trial of all crimes except in cases of impeachment shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed." If all the inhabitants of a State or even a great body of them should combine to obstruct interstate commerce or the transportation of the mails, prosecutions for such offenses had in such a community would be doomed in advance to failure. And if the certainty of such failure was known, and the National Government had no other way to enforce the freedom of interstate commerce and the transportation of the mails than by prosecution and punish