"Fifteenth: For the railroad fare, hotel bills and reasonable expenses of Charles Blood Smith and J. G. Waters in attending on the Supreme Court in October, 1908, the sum of.... "Sixteenth: For the costs due the plaintiff in the Supreme Court of the United States, the sum of... 480.60 148.25" The 17th, 18th, and 19th items embraced small items of traveling and other expenses of the parties and some of their attorneys. In the items of court expenses the difference between the original claim was substantially this, that the claim had grown from about $2800 for attorneys' fees in the state court when the original claim in damages was filed to a sum in excess of $75,000.00, all of which increase resulted from charges made for professional services rendered in this court in connection with the trial of the case. The remaining items of the third class related to expenses incurred under the reference to the Commissioner before whom the case was pending with a reservation of the right to make future charges for such purpose when the reference was completed. The Railway Company objected to the various items in the amended claim as follows: To those covering the business losses, decrease of output, increased expenses, etc., etc., besides denying that the suit was the proximate cause of the losses represented by the alleged claims and asserting their speculative nature, it was specially charged that in so far as they included items arising after the allowance of the writ of error from this court and the giving of the supersedeas bond they were not within the cognizance of the court but were matters alone of Federal competency within the jurisdiction of this court. So far as the claims for alleged outlay and expenses including attorneys' fees in the state court were concerned, it was alleged that there was no right to recover them because the only authority under which they could be allowed was a statute of the State of Kansas relating to mandamus proceedings and that such statute as construed by the court of last resort of the State was repugnant to the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment because under such construction a right was given by the statute to a plaintiff in mandamus to recover attorneys' fees as damages, while no reciprocal right in case of success was given to a defendant and no such right was given to litigants generally. Coming to the alleged right to recover attorneys' fees for services rendered on the writ of error in this court and the other items, such as briefs, traveling expenses, hotel bills, etc., etc., it was expressly charged that under the statutes of the United States the effect of the writ of error from this court and the supersedeas was to deprive the state court of all authority over such expenses and that moreover "Under such statutes and laws of the United States, this Court has no power, authority or jurisdiction to consider the claim and demand for damages on account of attorneys' fees for services rendered in such proceedings in error from the Supreme Court of the United States to the Supreme Court of Kansas; and for the further reason that, if the said plaintiffs were entitled to any damages, their application therefor should be made to the Supreme Court of the United States, or in an independent proceeding brought on the supersedeas bond so approved and allowed as a supersedeas by the Chief Justice of this state. and because, further, to allow such claim would be violative of the Constitution of the United States, and especially the Fourteenth Amendment thereof, which prohibits any state from denying to any person, company or corporation the equal protection of the laws, and prevents any state from depriving any person, company or corporation of its property without due process of law; and because of such Judiciary Act (of the United States) this court is deprived of all jurisdiction to consider or determine any such question or element of damage in a proceeding of this kind; and because, further, the Supreme Court of the United States, in affirming the judgment of this court allowed to said plaintiffs, on account of attorneys' fees, the sum of $20.00 and assessed the same against the said defendant. After proof and hearing the Commissioner made an elaborate report stating fully what he conceived to be the facts and the law of the case. On the subject of the various claims made for the allowance of damages for a charge of fees for professional services rendered in the Supreme Court of the United States, the Commissioner made the following statement: "I find, that no agreement has ever been had between the Mill Company and any of the attorneys as to the amount of their compensation; that neither of the attorneys has at any time entered on his books a charge against the Mill Company for services rendered; nor have they informed the Mill Company of the amount intended to be charged; nor have they determined in their own minds any definite amount intended to be charged. "I find, that the attorneys will claim the full amount, and will accept whatever amount that shall be determined by this Court in this proceeding to be a reasonable compensation for their services in the case and allowed as part of the damages. "I further find, that it is mutually understood between the Mill Company and the attorneys named that whatever amount is recovered in this proceeding on account of fees and expenses of counsel will be paid by the Mill Company to and accepted by the attorneys as a full discharge of the liability to them." The conclusions of the Commissioner as to the amounts to be allowed as damages under the three classes of claims were as follows: VOL. CCXXXIV-30 As to the first class, he reduced the claim for business losses, increased expenses, etc., etc., from $18,921.90 to.. As to the amount claimed as due because of the professional services of Waters & Waters in the state court the sum claimed was allowed in full.... As to the items for professional services rendered in the Supreme Court of the United States, including hotel bill, etc., the amount was reduced from about $75,000 to..... Under the third class three small items were allowed relating to the expenses of the parties in Kansas and concerning the reference to the Commissioner. Total.... $ 5,658.10 2,500.00 11,480.00 376.00 $20,014.10 Both parties excepted to the report of the Commissioner on various grounds and after a hearing the Supreme Court sustained his action and affirmed his report. 85 Kansas, 214. Mr. B. P. Waggener for plaintiff in error. Mr. Charles Blood Smith and Mr. Joseph G. Waters, with whom Mr. John C. Waters and Mr. John F. Switzer were on the brief, for defendant in error. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court. Both before the Commissioner and to the court where the report of the Commissioner was acted on the propositions under the Constitution and laws of the United States upon which the railway company relied, were pressed and overruled and the rightfulness of having so done is the 234 U. S. Opinion of the Court. question here for decision. But first we notice a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. It is difficult to grasp the ground upon which it rests. In one aspect it would seem to assert that there is no jurisdiction because the Federal rights which were passed upon below were correctly decided. But this obviously goes to the merits. In the only other possible aspect it would seem that the motion proceeds upon the theory that the Federal rights which were decided below were so obviously rightly decided that the contention of error concerning them is too frivolous to sustain jurisdiction, a view which is supported by a statement in the argument for the motion that of course there would be jurisdiction if it appeared that the judgment below "under the color and sanctity of the law inflicted exceptional and unjust exactions." But taking the most favorable view for the motion and assuming that it proceeds upon the only ground upon which it can possibly be said to rest, that is, the frivolousness of the errors relied upon, we pass from its consideration since upon such hypothesis we think on the face of the record the contention is so clearly unsound as to require no further notice. The Federal errors relied upon concern three subjects: The allowance of business losses, etc.; the award of a sum for attorneys' fees in the state court up to and including the writ of error from this court and the supersedeas; and the grant of an amount for attorneys' fees agreed or supposedly agreed to be paid for professional services rendered in this court on the writ of error and traveling expenses and hotel bills allowed for the same purpose. The three involve different considerations and hence we consider them separately. We come first to test the question as to attorneys' fees in this court, as it is the most important and far reaching since it involves considerations of the gravest importance going to the entire structure of our system of government, based as it is upon an absolute |