from the other specific protections afforded the individual by the Bill of Rights. The founders of our federal government were too close to oppressions and persecutions of the unorthodox, the unpopular, and the less influential to trust even elected representatives with unlimited powers of control over the individual. From their distrust were derived the first ten amendments, designed as a whole to "limit and qualify the powers of Government," to define "cases in which the Government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode,” and to protect unpopular minorities from oppressive majorities. 1 Annals 437. The first of the ten amendments erected a Constitutional shelter for the people's liberties of religion, speech, press, and assembly. This amendment reflects the faith that a good society is not static but advancing, and that the fullest possible interchange of ideas and beliefs is essential to attainment of this goal. The proponents of the First Amendment, committed to this faith, were determined that every American should possess an unrestrained freedom to express his views, however odious they might be to vested interests whose power they might challenge.

But these men were not satisfied that the First Amendment would make this right sufficiently secure. As they well knew, history teaches that attempted exercises of the freedoms of religion, speech, press, and assembly have been the commonest occasions for oppression and persecution. Inevitably such persecutions have involved secret arrests, unlawful detentions, forced confessions, secret trials, and arbitrary punishments under oppressive laws. Therefore it is not surprising that the men behind the First Amendment also insisted upon the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, designed to protect all individuals against arbitrary punishment by definite procedural provisions guaranteeing fair public trials by juries. They sought by these provisions to assure that no individual could be punished except according to "due process," by

BLACK, J., dissenting.

322 U.S.

which they certainly intended that no person could be punished except for a violation of definite and validly enacted laws of the land, and after a trial conducted in accordance with the specific procedural safeguards written in the Bill of Rights.15 If occasionally these safeguards worked to the advantage of an ordinary criminal, that was a price they were willing to pay for the freedom they cherished. And one of the specific procedural safeguards which they inserted to shield the individual was the prohibition against compulsion of self-incriminatory testimony.

It is impossible for me to reconcile today's restrictive interpretation of the prohibition against compelled selfincrimination with the principle of broad construction which this Court heretofore has deemed essential to full preservation of the basic safeguards of liberty specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The protections explicitly afforded the individual by the Bill of Rights represent a large part of the characteristics which distinguish free from totalitarian government. Under our Constitutional system the privileges it embodies and the rights it secures were intended to be above and beyond the power of any branch of government to mutilate or destroy. We have no assurance that the fears of those who drafted and adopted our Bill of Rights were groundless, nor that the reasons for those fears no longer exist. Ancient evils historically associated with the possession of unqualified power to impose criminal punishment on individuals have a dangerous habit of reappearing when tried safeguards are removed.

This case involves the Fifth, not the Fourth, Amendment. Decisions which have read the Fourth and Fifth Amendments together for the purpose of broadening the Fourth Amendment should not now be employed to narrow the Fifth Amendment. To do so ignores the particu

15 See Chambers v. Florida, 309 U. S. 227, 235-238; Tot v. United States, 319 U. S. 463, 473.

lar reasoning of these decisions as well as the separate language and history of the two Amendments. See Boyd v. United States, supra; Counselman v. Hitchcock, supra; Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591; VIII Wigmore on Evidence, Third Ed. pp. 276-304, 368. Nothing this Court has said with regard to the Fourth Amendment requires that we now open the door which the Fifth Amendment in 1791 closed to compelled self-incrimination.

I would reverse the judgment.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE join in this opinion.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ET AL. V. CITY OF JERSEY CITY ET AL.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY.

No. 767. Argued May 2, 3, 1944.-Decided May 29, 1944. An order of the Interstate Commerce Commission authorized a fare increase from 8 cents to 9 cents. Upon finding that collection of the 9-cent fare was impracticable, the Commission modified its order so as to authorize a fare of 11 tokens for $1.00 or a cash fare of 10 cents. The Commission later reopened the proceeding, but only to consider the propriety and lawfulness of the modification of its original order. Upon further findings, the Commission authorized a fare of 11 tokens for $1.00 or a cash fare of 10 cents. A petition of the Price Administrator for modification of the reopening order "in order that the said record be brought up to date" was denied. Upon review of a decree setting aside the Commission's orders, held:

1. The Commission's findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence. P. 512.

2. Findings of the Commission so supported are conclusive. P. 512.

3. The Commission's denial of a rehearing of the whole case was not an abuse of its discretion and did not amount to unfairness such as would vitiate its orders. Pp. 514, 519.

4. It was the duty of the Commission to give full effect to wartime conditions and the stabilization legislation. P. 519.

Opinion of the Court.

322 U.S.

5. Upon the record, it can not be concluded that the Commission failed to give proper weight to stabilization considerations or that it ignored the Price Administrator's contentions as to inflationary tendencies of rate increases. P. 520.

6. The determination of the weight to be given to stabilization considerations in relation to other factors was for the Commission, not the courts. P. 522.

7. The Stabilization Act of 1942 did not give the Price Administrator standing superior to that of other litigants to ask the courts to override the normal discretion of the Commission in granting or refusing rehearings. Following Vinson v. Washington Gas Light Co., 321 U. S. 489. P. 523.

54 F. Supp. 315, reversed.

APPEAL from a decree of a district court of three judges which enjoined enforcement of an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Mr. E. M. Reidy, with whom Mr. Daniel W. Knowlton was on the brief, for the Interstate Commerce Commission; and Mr. John F. Finerty, with whom Messrs. John E. Buck and Thomas A. Halleran were on the brief, for the Hudson & Manhattan Railroad Co., appellants.

Mr. Charles Hershenstein, with whom Mr. Charles A. Rooney was on the brief, for Jersey City; and Mr. David F. Cavers, with whom Messrs. Richard H. Field, Harry R. Booth, Robert S. Keebler, and Herbert Sharfman were on the brief, for the Economic Stabilization Director, appellees.

Solicitor General Fahy and Mr. Chester T. Lane filed a memorandum on behalf of the United States, urging affirmance.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a direct appeal by the Interstate Commerce Commission, whose orders the District Court of New Jersey has set aside, and by the Hudson & Manhattan Railroad

503

Opinion of the Court.

Company, whose rates are subject to the enjoined orders. Respondents are the City of Jersey City and the Price Administrator, who intervened under powers duly delegated to him pursuant to the Emergency Price Control Act of 19421 and the Inflation Control or Stabilization Act of 1942.2

The Hudson & Manhattan Railroad Company owns about 8.5 miles of electric railway, of which all but 0.63 mile is underground. It has two double-track lines, one of which, known as the "uptown line," connects Hoboken, New Jersey, with Christopher Street, New York, by two parallel tunnels under the Hudson River, and runs uptown under Sixth Avenue from Christopher Street to a terminal at 33rd Street. The other line, known as the "downtown line," crosses under the river by two parallel tunnels between Exchange Place, Jersey City, and Hudson Terminal, New York. It also extends westwardly in Jersey City to Journal Square, where connection is made with the Pennsylvania Railroad. The uptown and downtown lines are connected on the New Jersey side by means of a line paralleling the Hudson River. In conjunction with the Pennsylvania Railroad the Hudson & Manhattan operates a joint rapid-transit service between Hudson Terminal and Newark. It carries only passengers.

The present controversy has its roots in a rate case precipitated by the Company's effort to establish a 10cent fare on its downtown line in 1937.3 After full hear

1 Act of January 30, 1942, c. 26, 56 Stat. 23, 50 U. S. C. App., Supp. II, § 901 et seq.

2 Act of October 2, 1942, c. 578, 56 Stat. 765, 50 U. S. C. App., Supp. II, § 961 et seq.

3 Prior to 1920, the Hudson & Manhattan's rates had been 5 cents on the downtown line and 7 cents on the uptown line. In that year the railroad proposed a flat fare of 8 cents, but the Commission fixed the fares at 10 cents for the uptown line and 6 cents for the downtown line. Local Fares of Hudson & Manhattan Railroad Co., 58 I. C. C. 270. Those fares continued in effect until the 1937 proceedings began, when the railroad sought to make the fare 10 cents on both lines.

587770°-45-36