that connection afforded the principal means of travel between the eastern and western parts of the State. The grounds relied upon in the exception to show that an extension of the run of either of the local trains from Rocky Mount to Selma as previously ordered was impracticable, were reviewed and found to be without foundation. The trains which it was alleged afforded adequate means for connection between the western and eastern part of the State, irrespective of the connection formerly existing at Selma by train No. 39, were analyzed, and as a matter of fact the service afforded by these trains was held to be wholly inadequate. Thus, for example, whilst it was found that the first train relied upon-the one from Rocky Mount to Goldsboro, arriving there at 6:50 in the morning made a connection with a Southern Railway train moving from Selma via Raleigh to Greensboro, it was pointed out that it was inadequate because the train had no connection at its point of departure, Rocky Mount, with any incoming train over the large area covered by the branch roads, which area, it was stated, embraced a population of four hundred thousand people. Hence it was found that to use that train any person in the territory covered by the branch roads would be obliged to leave home the day before and pass the night at Rocky Mount. The fourth train relied upon, that is, a connection made by Coast Line No. 39 at Selma under the new schedule with a later train over the Southern road for Raleigh, was found to be but a connection with a Southern freight train, having no passenger car, but only a caboose. The trains under the second, third and sixth headings, connecting at Goldsboro or Selma in the afternoon and night, were found to make a connection only with a slow train over the Southern road, doing a mixed passenger and freight business, and which made no adequate connection beyond Raleigh to the west. The objection to suggested route No. 8, that is, via Weldon, and thence by the Seaboard Air Line to Raleigh and points further west, was decided to be that it was a longer route, more costly, and uncertain as to connections. The remaining suggested

routes were in effect disposed of upon similar considerations to those above adverted to.

Considering the operation of an extra train from Rocky Mount to Selma or the extension of the run of one of the branch trains as directed in the previous order, and the objection that a loss would be entailed in the operating expenses for such train or trains, the commission treated that fact as immaterial, because it found as a matter of fact that the total receipts of the Coast Line in North Carolina, taken from business in that State, were sufficiently remunerative, and therefore that even if the train was operated at a loss, as that loss would not reduce the total earnings below what was an adequate remuneration for the whole business, the order would not take the property of the road without due process of law. Summing up its conclusions, the commission said:

"The commission is of the opinion that the facilities given heretofore by the Atlantic Coast Line Company to the traveling public should not be lessened; that the connection furnished passengers from the Washington branch, the Norfolk and Carolina branch, the Plymouth branch and the Nashville branch with No. 135, Southern Railway passenger train at Selma, and also for all points between Rocky Mount and Selma, for nearly ten years, should be restored; that if this cannot be done by the Atlantic Coast Line train No. 39, as formerly, on account of this train being heavier, containing usually one or more extra express cars, and in all usually ten or more cars, and on account of increase in business between Richmond and Selma, which necessitates longer stops, then other facilities should be furnished by the Atlantic Coast Line Company; that this connection, which was the principal outlet for passengers from eastern Carolina to Selma and other Southern Railway points for the last ten years, instead of being abandoned should be made permanent and certain, and that this result be accomplished by carrying out the order heretofore made in this court. It is ordered, therefore, that the exceptions be, and they are hereby, overruled.”

The Coast Line, as authorized by statute, appealed to the Superior Court of Wake County, city of Raleigh, and the case was there tried de novo before a court and jury. The jury, under the instructions of the court, considered and responded to the eight questions, which follow:

"1. Is it practicable for train No. 39 of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, due to arrive at Selma at 2:50 P. M., to make connection at Selma with train No. 135, westbound, of the Southern Railway, due to leave Selma at 2:25 P. M.?

“2. Is it practicable to make said connection by extending the run of the Plymouth train daily from Plymouth to Selma and return, and if so, what would be the additional expense? "Answer.

No.

"3. Is it practicable to make said connection by the use of the Spring Hope train, and if so, what would be the additional expense?

"Answer. No.

"4. In order to make such connection would defendant company have to run an additional train on its main line from Rocky Mount to Selma?

"5. Is it practicable for said train to safely run the schedule prescribed in plaintiff's order, having due regard to the number of trains and number of stops, on defendant's main line from Rocky Mount to Selma?

"Answer. Yes.

"6. What would be the daily cost of operating such train from Rocky Mount to Selma and return?

"Answer. $40.00.

"7. What would be the probable daily receipts from such train?

"Answer. $25.00.

"8. Is it reasonable and proper that, for convenience of the traveling public, the defendant company should be required to make such connection?

VOL. CCVI-2

Opinion of the Court.

206 U. S.

"Answer. Yes."

The answers to the first four questions were the result of peremptory instructions by the court, and the responses to the last four were deduced by the jury from the testimony submitted to its consideration.

The court granted the prayer of the Atlantic Coast Line to that effect and rendered judgment on the verdict in its favor. The corporation commission was held to be without power "to interfere with the right of railway companies to regulate for themselves the time and manner in which passengers and property should be transported," provided only such companies complied with the existing statutory direction "to run one passenger train at least each way over its line every week day." On appeal the Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed the judgment. The facts found by the corporation commission were reiterated, and it was held that error had been committed by the court below in instructing the jury to give a negative response to the first three propositions. Indeed it was declared that the only essential proposition submitted to the jury was the eighth, which required it to be determined whether the connection at Selma was necessary for the public convenience. Treating the facts found by the commission as sustaining the conclusion reached by that body, it was decided that the commission had power to make the order, and that the exercise of the authority was not repugnant either to the Constitution of the United States or of the State. Notwithstanding the finding of facts made concerning the means by which the connection at Selma was to be performed, the court construed the order of the commission as not having been solely based upon the means of performance referred to in the findings and as embracing not only a choice of the methods referred to therein, but any other which the Coast Line might choose to adopt, provided only it accomplished the purpose of the order. But whilst thus from one point of view, treating the order of the commission so as to render it unnecessary to pass upon the particular methods for mak

ing the connection at Selma referred to in the findings, the court yet reviewed the means of performance therein stated. In doing so it was decided that although to execute the order of the commission it might be imperative for the Coast Line to operate at a pecuniary loss a new train from Rocky Mount to Selma, or the extension with like result of the movement of one or the other of the branch trains from Rocky Mount to Selma, no violation of any right of the Coast Line protected by the Constitution of the United States or of the State would arise. This was based upon the finding by the court that the average net earning of the railroad from its business in North Carolina was of such a character that an adequate remuneration would remain after allowing for any possible loss which might arise from operating either of the trains in question. 137 N. Car. 14.

All the assignments of error challenge the correctness of the decision below on the ground of its repugnancy to the due process or equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The elementary proposition that railroads from the public nature of the business by them carried on and the interest which the public have in their operation are subject, as to their state business, to state regulation, which may be exerted either directly by the legislative authority or by administrative bodies endowed with power to that end, is not and could not be successfully questioned in view of the long line of authorities sustaining that doctrine.1 Accepting this

1 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Iowa, 94 U. S. 155; Peik v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 94 U. S. 164; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Ackley, 94 U. S. 179; Winona & St. Peter R. Co. v. Blake, 94 U. S. 180; Stone v. Wisconsin, 94 U. S. 181; Ruggles v. Illinois, 108 U. S. 536; Illinois Central R. Co. v. Illinois, 108 U. S. 541; Stone v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 116 U. S. 307; Stone v. Illinois Central R. Co., 116 U. S. 347; Stone v. New Orleans & Northeastern R. Co., 116 U. S. 352; Dow v. Beidelman, 125 U. S. 680; Charlotte, C. & A. R. Co. v. Gibbes, 142 U. S. 386; Chicago & Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U. S. 339; Pearsall v. Great Northern R. Co., 161 U. S. 646, 665; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Kentucky, 161 U. S. 677, 695; Wisconsin, M. & P. R. Co. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287; Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 186 U. S. 257; Minnesota & St. L. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 193 U. S. 53;