[ G.R. No. 8095. March 31, 1915 ] 31 Phil. 1
[ G.R. No. 8095. March 31, 1915 ]
F. C. FISHER, PLAINTIFF, VS. YANGCO STEAMSHIP COMPANY, J. S. STANLEY, AS ACTING COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, IGNACIO VILLAMOR, AS ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, AND W. H. BISHOP, AS PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OF THE CITY OF MANILA, RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N
CARSON, J.:
The real question involved in these proceedings is whether the refusal of the owners and officers of a steam vessel, duly licensed to engage in the coastwise trade of the Philippine Islands and engaged in that trade as a common carrier, to accept for carriage “dynamite, powder or other explosives” from any and all shippers who may offer such explosives for carriage can be held to be a lawful act without regard to any question as to the conditions under which such explosives are offered for carriage, or as to the suitableness of the vessel for the transportation of such explosives, or as to the possibility that the refusal to accept such articles of commerce in a particular case may have the effect of subjecting any person or locality or the traffic in such explosives to an undue, unreasonable or unnecessary prejudice or discrimination. Summarized briefly, the complaint alleges that plaintiff is a stockholder in the Yangco Steamship Company, the owner of a large number of steam vessels, duly licensed to engage in the coastwise trade of the Philippine Islands; that on or about June 10, 1912, the directors of the company adopted a resolution which was thereafter ratified and affirmed by the shareholders of the company, “expressly declaring and providing that the classes of merchandise to be carried by the company in its business as a common carrier do not include dynamite, powder or other explosives, and expressly prohibiting the officers, agents and servants of the company from offering to carry, accepting for carriage or carrying said dynamite, powder or other explosives;” that thereafter the respondent Acting Collector of Customs demanded and required of the company the acceptance and carriage of such explosives; that he has refused and suspended the issuance of the necessary clearance documents of the vessels of the company unless and until the company consents to accept such explosives for carriage; that plaintiff is advised and believes that should the company decline to accept such explosives for carriage, the respondent Attorney-General of the Philippine Islands and the re¬spondent prosecuting attorney of the city of Manila intend to institute proceedings under the penal provisions of sections 4, 5, and 6 of Act No. 98 of the Philippine Commission against the company, its managers, agents and servants, to enforce the requirements of the Acting Collector of Customs as to the acceptance of such explosives for carriage; that notwithstanding the demands of the plaintiff stockholder, the manager, agents and servants of the company decline and refuse to cease the carriage of such explosives, on the ground that by reason of the severity of the penalties with which they are threatened upon failure to carry such explosives, they cannot subject themselves to “the ruinous consequences which would inevitably result” from failure on their part to obey the demands and requirements of the Acting Collector of Customs as to the acceptance for carriage of explosives; that plaintiff believes that the Acting Collector of Customs erroneously construes the provisions of Act No. 98 in holding that they require the company to accept such explosives for carriage notwithstanding the above mentioned resolution of the directors and stockholders of the company, and that if the Act does in fact require the company to carry such explosives it is to that extent unconstitutional and void; that notwithstanding this belief of complainant as to the true meaning of the Act, the questions involved cannot be raised by the refusal of the company or its agents to comply with the demands of the Acting Collector of Customs, without the risk of irreparable loss and damage resulting from his refusal to facilitate the documentation of the company’s vessels, and without assuming a risk of pains and penalties under the drastic provisions of the Act which prohibit any attempt on the part of the company to test the questions involved by refusing to accept such explosives for carriage. The prayer of the complaint is as follows:
“Wherefore your petitioner prays to this honorable court as follows: “First. That to the due hearing of the above entitled action be issued a writ of prohibition perpetually restraining the respondent Yangco Steamship Company, its appraisers, agents, servants or other representatives from accepting to carry and from carrying, in steamers of said company dynamite, powder or other explosive substance, in accordance with the resolution of the board of directors and of the shareholders of said company. “Second. That a writ of prohibition be issued perpetually enjoining the respondent J. S. Stanley as Acting Collector of Customs of the Philippine Islands, his successors, deputies, servants or other representatives, from obligating the said Yangco Steamship Company, by any means whatever, to carry dynamite, powder or other explosive substance. “Third. That a writ of prohibition be issued perpetually enjoining the respondent Ignacio Villamor as Attorney-General of the Philippine Islands, and W. H. Bishop as prosecuting attorney of the city of Manila, their deputies, representatives or employees, from accusing the said Yangco Steamship Company, its officers, agents or servants, of the violation of Act No. 98 by reason of the failure or omission of the said company to accept for carriage or to carry dynamite, powder or other explosive. “Fourth. That the petitioner be granted such other remedy as may be meet and proper.”
To this complaint the respondents demurred, and we are of opinion that the demurrer must be sustained, on the ground that the complaint does not set forth facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. It will readily be seen that plaintiff seeks in these proceedings to enjoin the steamship company from accepting for carriage on any of its vessels, dynamite, powder or other explosives, under any conditions whatsoever; to prohibit the Collector of Customs and the prosecuting officers of the government from all attempts to compel the company to accept such explosives for carriage on any of its vessels under any conditions whatsoever; and to prohibit these officials from any attempt to invoke the penal provisions of Act No. 98, in any case of a refusal by the company or its officers so to do; and this without regard to the conditions as to safety and so forth under which such explosives are offered for carriage, and without regard also to any question as to the suitableness for the transportation of such explosives of the particular vessel upon which the shipper offers them for carriage; and further without regard to any question as to whether such conduct on the part of the steamship company and its officers involves in any instance an undue, unnecessary or unreasonable discrimination to the prejudice of any person, locality or particular kind of traffic. There are no allegations in the complaint that for some special and sufficient reasons all or indeed any of the company’s vessels are unsuitable for the business of transporting explosives; or that shippers have declined or will in future decline to comply with such reasonable regulations and to take such reasonable precautions as may be necessary and proper to secure the ‘safety of the vessels of the company in transporting such explosives. Indeed the contention of petitioner is that a common carrier in the Philippine Islands may decline to accept for carriage any shipment of merchandise of a class which it expressly or impliedly declines to accept from all shippers alike, because, as he contends “the duty of a common carrier to carry for all who offer arises from the public profession he has made, and is limited by it.” In support of this contention counsel cites a number of English and American authorities, discussing and applying the doctrine of the common law with reference to common carriers. But it is unnecessary now to decide whether, in the absence of statute, the principles on which the American and English cases were decided would be applicable in this jurisdiction. The duties and liabilities of common carriers in this jurisdiction are defined and fully set forth in Act No. 98 of the Philippine Commission, and, until and unless that statute be declared invalid or unconstitutional, we are bound by its provisions. Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Act are as follows:
“SEC. 2. It shall be unlawful for any common carrier engaged in the transportation of passengers or property as above set forth to make or give any unnecessary or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, company, firm, corporation or locality, or any particular kind of traffic in any respect whatsoever, or to subject any particular person, company, firm, corporation or locality, or any particular kind of traffic, to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or discrimination whatsoever, and such unjust preference or discrimination is also hereby prohibited and declared to be unlawful. “SEC. 3. No common carrier engaged in the carriage of passengers or property as aforesaid shall, under any pretense whatsoever, fail or refuse to receive for carriage, and as promptly as it is able to do so without discrimination, to carry any person or property offering for carriage, and in the order in which such persons or property are offered for carriage, nor shall any such common carrier enter into any arrangement, contract or agreement with any other person or corporation whereby the latter is given an exclusive or preferential privilege over any other person or persons to control or monopolize the carriage of any class or kind of property to the exclusion or partial exclusion of any other person or persons, and the entering into any such arrangement, contract or agreement, under any form or pretense whatsoever, is hereby prohibited and declared to be unlawful. “SEC. 4. Any willful violation of the provisions of this Act by any common carrier engaged in the transportation of passengers or property as hereinbefore set forth is hereby declared to be punishable by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars money of the United States, or by imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both, within the discretion of the court.”
The validity of this Act has been questioned on various grounds, and it is vigorously contended that in so far as it imposes any obligation on a common carrier to accept for carriage merchandise of a class which he makes no public profession to carry, or which he has expressly or impliedly announced his intention to decline to accept for carriage from all shippers alike, it is ultra vires, unconstitutional and void. We may dismiss without extended discussion any argument or contention as to the invalidity of the statute based on alleged absurdities inherent in its provisions or on alleged unreasonable or impossible requirements which may be read into it by a strained construction of its terms. We agree with counsel for petitioner that the provision of the Act which prescribes that, “No common carrier * * * shall, under any pretense whatsoever, fail or refuse to receive for carriage, and * * * to carry any person or property offering for carriage,” is not to be construed in its literal sense and without regard to the context, so as to impose an imperative duty on all common carriers to accept for carriage, and to carry all and any kind of freight which may be offered for carriage without regard to the facilities which they may have at their disposal. The legislator could not have intended and did not intend to prescribe that a common carrier running passenger automobiles for hire must transport coal in his machines; nor that the owner of a tank steamer, expressly constructed in small watertight compartments for the carriage of crude oil must accept a load of cattle or of logs in the rough; nor that any common carrier must accept and carry contraband articles, such as opium, morphine, cocaine, or the like, the mere possession of which is declared to be a criminal offense; nor that common carriers must accept eggs offered for transportation in paper parcels or any merchandise whatever so defectively packed as to entail upon the company unreasonable and unnecessary care or risks. Read in connection with its context this, as well as all the other mandatory and prohibitory provisions of the statute, was clearly intended merely to forbid failures or refusals to receive persons or property for carriage involving any “unnecessary or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, company, firm, corporation or locality, or any particular kind of traffic in any respect whatsoever,” or which would “subject any particular person, company, firm, corporation or locality, or any particular kind of traffic to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or discrimination whatsoever.” The question, then, of construing and applying the statute, in cases of alleged violations of its provisions, always involves a consideration as to whether the acts complained of had the effect of making or giving an “unreasonable or unnecessary preference or advantage” to any person, locality or particular kind of traffic, or of subjecting any person, locality, or particular kind of traffic to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or discrimination. It is very clear therefore that the language of the statute itself refutes any contention as to its invalidity based on the alleged unreasonableness of its mandatory or prohibitory provisions. So also we may dismiss without much discussion the contentions as to the invalidity of the statute, which are based on the alleged excessive severity of the penalties prescribed for violation of its provisions. Upon general principles it is peculiarly and exclusively within the province of the legislator to prescribe the pains and penalties which may be imposed upon persons convicted of violations of the laws in force within his territorial jurisdiction. With the exercise of his discretion in this regard the courts have nothing to do, save only in cases where it is alleged that excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments have been prescribed, and even in such cases the courts will not presume to interfere in the absence of the clearest and most convincing argument and proof in support of such contentions. (Weems vs. United States, 217 U. S., 349; U. S. vs. Pico, 18 Phil. Rep., 386.) We need hardly add that there is no ground upon which to rest a contention that the penalties prescribed in the statute under consideration are either excessive or cruel and unusual, in the sense in which these terms are used in the organic legislation in force in the Philippine Islands. But it is contended that on account of the penalties prescribed the statute should be held invalid upon the principles announced in Ex parte Young (209 U. S., 123, 147, 148) ; Cotting vs. Godard (183 U. S., 79, 102) ; Mercantile Trust Co. vs. Texas Co. (5.1 Fed., 529) ; Louisville Ry. vs. McCord (103 Fed., 216) ; Cons. Gas Co. vs. Mayer (416 Fed., 150). We are satisfied however that the reasoning of those cases is not applicable to the statute under consideration. The principles announced in those decisions are fairly indicated in the following citations found in petitioner’s brief:
“But when the legislature, in an effort to prevent any inquiry of the validity of a particular statute, so burdens any challenge thereof in the courts that the party affected is necessarily constrained to submit rather than take the chances of the penalties imposed, then it becomes a serious question whether the party is not deprived of the equal protection of the laws. (Cotting vs. Godard, 183 U. S., 79, 102.) “It may therefore be said that when the penalties for dis-obedience are by fines so enormous and imprisonment so severe as to intimidate the company and its officers from resorting to the courts to test the validity of the legislation, the result is the same as if the law in terms prohibited the company from seeking judicial construction of laws which deeply affect its rights. “It is urged that there is no principle upon which to base the claim that a person is entitled to disobey a statute at least once, for the purpose of testing its validity, without subjecting himself to the penalties for disobedience provided by the statute in case it is valid. This is not an accurate statement of the case. Ordinarily a law creating offenses in the nature of misdemeanors or felonies relates to a subject over which the jurisdiction of the legislature is complete in any event. In the case, however, of the establishment of certain rates without any hearing, the validity of such rates necessarily depends upon whether they are high enough to permit at least some return upon the investment (how much it is not now necessary to state), and an inquiry as to that fact is a proper subject of judicial investigation. If it turns out that the rates are too low for that purpose, then they are illegal. Now, to impose upon a party interested the burden of obtaining a judicial decision of such a question (no prior hearing having ever been given) only upon the condition that, if unsuccessful, he must suffer imprisonment and pay fines, as provided in these acts, is, in effect, to close up all approaches to the courts, and thus prevent any hearing upon the question whether the rates as provided by the acts are not too low, and therefore invalid. The distinction is obvious between a case where the validity of the act depends upon the existence of a fact which can be determined only after investigation of a very complicated and technical character, and the ordinary case of a statute upon a subject requiring no such investigation, and over which the jurisdiction of the legislature is complete in any event. “We hold, therefore, that the provisions of the acts relating to the enforcement of the rates, either for freight or passsengers, by imposing such enormous fines and possible imprisonment as a result of an unsuccessful effort to test the validity of the laws themselves, are unconstitutional on their face, without regard to the question of the insufficiency of those rates. (Ex parte Young, 209 U. S., 123, 147, 148.)”
An examination of the general provisions of our statute, of the circumstances under which it was enacted, the mischief which it sought to remedy and of the nature of the penalties prescribed for violations of its terms convinces us that, unlike the statutes under consideration in the above cited cases, its enactment involved no attempt to prevent com¬mon carriers “from resorting to the courts to test the validity of the legislation;” no “effort to prevent any inquiry” as to its validity. It imposes no arbitrary obligation upon the company to do or to refrain from doing anything. It makes no attempt to compel such carriers to do business at a fixed or arbitrarily designated rate, at the risk of separate criminal prosecutions for every demand of a higher or a different rate. Its penalties can be imposed only upon proof of “unreasonable,” “unnecessary” and “unjust” discriminations, and range from a maximum which is certainly not excessive for willful, deliberate and contumacious violations of its provisions by a great and powerful corporation, to a minimum which may be a merely nominal fine. With so wide a range of discretion conferred upon the courts, there is no substantial basis for a contention on the part of any common carrier that it or its officers are “intimidated from resorting to the courts to test the validity” of the provisions of the statute prohibiting such “unreasonable,” “unnecessary” and “unjust” discriminations, or to test in any particular case whether a given course of conduct does in fact involve such discrimination. We will not presume, for the purpose of declaring the statute invalid, that there is so real a danger that the Courts of First Instance and this court on appeal will abuse the discretion thus conferred upon us, as to intimidate any common carrier, acting in good faith, from resorting to the courts to test the validity of the statute. Legislative enactments, penalizing unreasonable discriminations, unreasonable restraints of trade, and unreasonable conduct in various forms of human activity are so familiar and have been so frequently sustained in the courts, as to render extended discussion unnecessary to refute any contention as to the invalidity of the statute under consideration, merely because it imposes upon the carrier the obligation of adopting one of various courses of conduct open to it, at the risk of incurring a prescribed penalty in the event that the course of conduct actually adopted by it should be held to have involved an unreasonable, unnecessary or unjust discrimination. Applying the test announced in Ex parte Young, supra, it will be seen that the validity of the Act does not depend upon “the existence of a fact which can be determined only after investigation of a very complicated and technical character,” and that “the jurisdiction of the legislature” over the subject with which the statute deals “is complete in any event.” There can be no real question as to the plenary power of the legislature to prohibit and to penalize the making of undue, unreasonable and unjust discriminations by common carriers to the prejudice of any person, locality or particular kind of traffic. (See Munn vs. Illinois, 94 U. S., 113, and other cases hereinafter cited in support of this proposition.) Counsel for petitioner contends also that the statute, if construed so as to deny the right of the steamship company to elect at will whether or not it will engage in a particular business, such as that of carrying explosives, is unconstitutional “because it is a confiscation of property, a taking of the carrier’s property without due process of law,” and because it deprives him of his liberty by compelling him to engage in business against his will. The argument continues as follows: “To require of a carrier, as a condition to his continuing in said business, that he must carry anything and everything is to render useless the facilities he may have for the carriage of certain lines of freight. It would be almost as complete a confiscation of such facilities as if the same were destroyed. Their value as a means of livelihood would be utterly taken away. The law is a prohibition to him to continue in business; the alternative is to get out or to go into some other business—the same alternative as was offered in the case of the Chicago & N. W. Ry. vs. Dey (35 Fed. Rep., 866, 880), and which was there commented on as follows:
" ‘Whatever of force there may be in such arguments, as applied to mere personal property capable of removal and use elsewhere, or m” other business, it is wholly without force as against railroad corporations, so large a proportion of whose investment is in the soil and fixtures appertaining thereto, which cannot be removed. For a government, whether that government be a single sovereign or one of the majority, to say to an individual who has invested his means in so laudable an enterprise as the construction of a railroad, one which tends so much to the wealth and prosperity of the community, that, if he finds that the rates imposed will cause him to do business at a loss, he may quit business, and abandon that road, is the very irony of despotism. Apples of Sodom were fruit of joy in comparison. Reading, as I do, in the preamble of the Federal Constitution, that it was ordained to “establish justice,” I can never believe that it is within the power of state or nation thus practically to confiscate the property of an individual invested in and used for a purpose in which even the Argus eyes of the police power can see nothing injurious to public morals, public health, or the general welfare. I read also in the first section of the bill of rights of this state that “all men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness;” and I know that, while that remains as the supreme law of the state, no legislature can directly or indirectly lay its withering or destroying hand on a single dollar invested in the legitimate business of transportation.’ " (Chicago & N. W. Ry. vs. Dey, 35 Fed. Rep., 866, 880.)
It is manifest, however, that this contention is directed against a construction of the statute, which, as we have said, is not warranted by its terms. As we have already indi¬cated, the statute does not “require of a carrier, as a condition to his continuing in said business, that he must carry anything and everything,” and thereby “render useless the facilities he may have for the carriage of certain lines of freight.” It merely forbids failures or refusals to receive persons or property for carriage which have the effect of giving an “unreasonable or unnecessary preference or advantage” to any person, locality or particular kind of traffic, or of subjecting any person, locality or particular kind of traffic to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or discrimination. Counsel expressly admits that the statute, “as a prohibition against discrimination is a fair, reasonable and valid exercise of government,” and that “it is necessary and proper that such discrimination be prohibited and prevented,” but he contends that “on the other hand there is no reasonable warrant nor valid excuse for depriving a person of his liberty by requiring him to engage in business against his will. If he has a rolling boat, unsuitable and unprofitable for passenger trade, he may devote it to lumber carrying. To prohibit him from using it unless it is fitted out with doctors and stewards and staterooms to carry passengers would be an invalid confiscation of his property. A carrier may limit his business to the branches thereof that suit his convenience. If his wagon be old, or the route dangerous, he may avoid liability for loss of passengers’ lives and limbs by carrying freight only. If his vehicles require expensive pneumatic tires, unsuitable for freight transportation, he may nevertheless carry passengers. The only limitation upon his action that it is competent for the governing authority to impose is to require him to treat all alike. His limitations must apply to all, and they must be established limitations. He cannot refuse to carry a case of red jusi on the ground that he has carried for others only jusi that was green, or blue, or black. But he can refuse to carry red jusi, if he has publicly professed such a limitation upon his business and held himself out as unwilling to carry the same for anyone.” To this it is sufficient answer to say that there is nothing in the statute which would deprive any person of his liberty “by requiring him to engage in business against his will.” The prohibitions of the statute against undue, unnecessary or unreasonable preferences and discriminations are merely the reasonable regulations which the legislator has seen fit to prescribe (for the conduct of the business in which the carrier is engaged of his own free will and accord. In so far as the self-imposed limitations by the carrier upon the business conducted by him, in the various examples given by counsel, do not involve an unreasonable or unnecessary discrimination the statute would not control his action in any wise whatever. It operates only in cases involving such unreasonable or unnecessary preferences or discrimi¬nations. Thus in the hypothetical case suggested by the petitioner, a carrier engaged in the carriage of green, blue or black jusi, and duly equipped therefor would manifestly be guilty of “giving an unnecessary and unreasonable preference to a particular kind of traffic” and of subjecting to “an undue and unreasonable prejudice a particular kind of traffic,” should he decline to carry red jusi, to the prejudice of a particular shipper or of those engaged in the manufacture of that kind of jusi, basing his refusal on the ground of “mere whim or caprice” or of mere personal convenience. So a public carrier of passengers would not be permitted under this statute to absolve himself from liability for a refusal to carry a Chinaman, a Spaniard, an American, a Filipino, or a mestizo by proof that from “mere whim or caprice or personal scruple,” or to suit his own convenience, or in the hope of increasing his business and thus making larger profits, he had publicly announced his intention not to carry one or other of these classes of passengers. The nature of the business of a common carrier as a public employment is such that it is clearly within the power of the state to impose such just and reasonable regulations thereon in the interest of the public as the legislator’ may deem proper. Of course such regulations must not have the effect of depriving an owner of his property without due process of law, nor of confiscating or appropriating private property without just compensation, nor of limiting or prescribing irrevocably vested rights or privileges lawfully acquired under a charter or franchise. But aside from such constitutional limitations, the determination of the nature and extent of the regulations which should be prescribed rests in the hands of the legislator. Common carriers exercise a sort of public office’, and have duties to perform in which the public is interested. Their business is, therefore, affected with a public interest, and is subject of public regulation. (New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. vs. Merchants Bank, 6 How., 344, 382; Munn vs. Illinois, 94 U. S., 113, 130.) Indeed, this right of regulation is so far beyond question that it is well settled that the power of the state to exercise legislative control over railroad companies and other carriers “in all respects necessary to protect the public against danger, injustice and oppression” may be exercised through boards of commissioners. (New York etc. R. Co. vs. Bristol, 151 U. S., 556, 571; Connecticut etc. R. Co. vs. Woodruff, 153 U. S., 689.) Regulations limiting the number of passengers that may be carried in a particular vehicle or steam vessel, or forbidding the loading of a vessel beyond a certain point, or prescribing the number and qualifications of the personnel in the employ of a common carrier, or forbidding unjust discrimination as to rates, all tend to limit and restrict his liberty and to control to some degree the free exercise of his discretion in the conduct of his business. But since the Granger cases were decided by the Supreme Court of the United States no one questions the power of the legislator to prescribe such reasonable regulations upon property clothed with a public interest as he may deem expedient or necessary to protect the public against danger, injustice or oppression. (Munn vs. Illinois, 94 U. S., 113, 130; Chicago etc. R. Co. vs. Cutts, 94 U. S., 155; Budd vs. New York, 143 U. S., 517; Cotting vs. Godard, 183 U. S., 79.) The right to enter the public employment as a common carrier and to offer one’s services to the public for hire does not carry with it the right to conduct that business as one pleases, without regard to the interests of the public and free from such reasonable and just regulations as may be prescribed for the protection of the public from the reckless or careless indifference of the carrier as to the public welfare and for the prevention of unjust and unreasonable discrimination of any kind whatsoever in the performance of the carrier’s duties as a servant of the public. Business of certain kinds, including the business of a common carrier, holds such a peculiar relation to the public interest that there is superinduced upon it the right of public regulation. (Budd vs. New York, 143 U. S., 517, 533.) When private property is “affected with a public interest it ceases to be juris privati only.” Property becomes clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to make it of public consequence and affect the community at large. “When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by discontinuing the use, but so long as he maintains the use he must submit to control.” (Munn vs. Illinois, 94 U. S., 113; Georgia R. & Bkg. Co. vs. Smith, 128 U. S., 174; Budd vs. New York, 143 U. S., 517; Louisville etc. Ry. Co. vs. Kentucky, 161 U. S., 677, 695.) Of course this power to regulate is not a power to destroy, and limitation is not the equivalent of confiscation. Under pretense of regulating fares and freight the state can not require a railroad corporation to carry persons or property without reward. Nor can it do that which in law amounts to a taking of private property for public use without just compensation, or without due process of law. (Chicago etc. R. Co. vs. Minnesota, 134 U. S., 418; Minneapolis Eastern R. Co. vs. Minnesota, 134 U. S., 467.) But the judiciary ought not to interfere with regulations established under legislative sanction unless they are so plainly and palpably unreasonable as to make their enforcement equivalent to the taking of property for public use without such compensation as under all the circumstances is just both to the owner and to the public, that is, judicial interference should never occur unless the case presents, clearly and beyond all doubt, such a flagrant attack upon the rights of property under the guise of regulations as to compel the court to say that the regulation in question will have the effect to deny just compensation for private property taken for the public use. (Chicago etc. R. Co. vs. Wellman, 143 U. S., 339; Smyth vs. Ames, 169 U. S., 466, 524; Henderson Bridge Co. vs. Henderson City, 173 U. S., 592, 614.) Under the common law of England it was early recognized that common carriers owe to the public the duty, of carrying indifferently for all who may employ them, and in the order in which application is made, and without discrimination as to terms. True, they were allowed to restrict their business so as to exclude particular classes of goods, but as to the kinds of property which the carrier was in the habit of carrying in the prosecution of his business he was bound to serve all customers alike (State vs. Cincinnati etc. R. Co., 47 Ohio St., 130, 134, 138; Louisville etc. Ry. Co. vs. Queen City Coal Co., 13 Ky. L. Rep., 832); and it is to be observed in passing that these common law rules are themselves regulations controlling, limiting and prescribing the conditions under which common carriers were permitted to conduct their business. (Munn vs. Illinois, 94 U. S., 113,133.) It was found, in the course of time, that the correction of abuses which had grown up with the enormously increasing business of common carriers necessitated the adoption of statutory regulations controlling the business of common carriers, and imposing severe and drastic penalties for violations of their terms. In England, the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act was enacted in 1845, the Railway and Canal Traffic Act in 1854, and since the passage of those Acts much additional legislation has been adopted tending to limit and control the conduct of their business by common carriers. In the United States, the business of common carriers has been subjected to a great variety of statutory regulations. Among others Congress enacted “The Interstate Commerce Act” (1887) and its amendments, and the Elkins Act as amended (1906) ; and most if not all of the States of the Union have adopted similar legislation regulating the business of common carriers within their respective jurisdictions. Unending litigation has arisen under these statutes and their amendments, but nowhere has the right of the state to prescribe just and reasonable regulations controlling and limiting the conduct of the business of common carriers in the public interest and for the general welfare been successfully challenged, though of course there has been wide divergence of opinion as to the reasonableness, the validity and legality of many of the regulations actually adopted. The power of the Philippine legislator to prohibit and to penalize all and any unnecessary or unreasonable dis-criminations by common carriers may be maintained upon the same reasoning which justified the enactment by the Parliament of England and the Congress of the United States of the above mentioned statutes prohibiting and penalizing the granting of certain preferences and dis-criminations in those countries. As we have said before, we find nothing confiscatory or unreasonable in the conditions imposed in the Philippine statute” upon the business of common carriers. Correctly construed they do not force him to engage in any business against his will or to make use of his facilities in a manner or for a purpose for which they are not reasonably adapted. It is only when he offers his facilities as a common carrier to the public for hire, that the statute steps in and prescribes that he must treat all alike, that he may not pick and choose which customer he will serve, and, specifically, that he shall not make any undue or unreasonable preferences or discriminations whatsoever to the prejudice not only of any person or locality but also of any particular kind of traffic. The legislator having enacted a regulation prohibiting common carriers from giving unnecessary or unreasonable preferences or advantages to any particular kind of traffic or subjecting any particular kind of traffic to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or discrimination whatsoever, it is clear that whatever may have been the rule at the common law, common carriers in this jurisdiction cannot lawfully decline to accept a particular class of goods for carriage, to the prejudice of the traffic in those goods, unless it appears that for some sufficient reason the discrimination against the traffic in .such goods is reasonable and necessary. Mere whim or prejudice will not suffice. The grounds for the discrimination must be substantial ones, such as will justify the courts in holding the discrimination to have been reasonable and necessary under all the circumstances of the case. The prayer of the petition in the case at bar cannot be granted unless we hold that the refusal of the defendant steamship company to accept for carriage on any of its vessels “dynamite, gunpowder or other explosives” would in no instance involve a violation of the provisions of this statute. There can be little doubt, however, that cases may and will arise wherein the refusal of a vessel “engaged in the coastwise trade of the Philippine Islands as a common carrier” to accept such explosives for carriage would subject some person, company, firm or corporation, or locality, or particular kind of traffic to a certain prejudice or dis-crimination. Indeed it cannot be doubted that the refusal of a “steamship company, the owner of a large number of vessels” engaged in that trade to receive for carriage any such explosives on any of its vessels would subject the traffic in such explosives to a manifest prejudice and discrimination. The only question to be determined therefore is whether such prejudice or discrimination might in any case prove to be undue, unnecessary or unreasonable. This of course is, in each case, a question of fact, and we are of opinion that the facts alleged in the complaint are not sufficient to sustain a finding in favor of the contentions of the petitioner. It is not alleged in the complaint that “dynamite, gunpowder and other explosives” can in no event be transported with reasonable safety on board steam vessels engaged in the business of common carriers. It is not alleged that all, or indeed any of the defendant steamhip company’s vessels are unsuited for the carriage of such explosives. It is not alleged that the nature of the business in which the steamship company is engaged is such, as to preclude a finding that a refusal to accept such explosives on any of its vessels would subject the traffic in such explosives to an undue and unreasonable prejudice and discrimination. Plaintiff’s contention in this regard is as follows:
“In the present case, the respondent company has expressly and publicly renounced the carriage of explosives, and expressly excluded the same in terms from the business it conducts. This in itself were sufficient, even though such exclusion of explosives were based on no other ground than the mere whim, caprice or personal scruple of the carrier. It is unnecessary, however, to indulge in academic discussion of a moot question, for the decision not to carry explosives rests on substantial grounds which are self-evident.”
We think however that the answer to the question whether such a refusal to carry explosives involves an unnecessary or unreasonable preference or advantage to any person, locality or particular kind of traffic or subjects any person, locality or particular kind of traffic to an undue or unreasonable prejudice or discrimination is by no means “self-evident,” and that it is a question of fact to be determined by the particular circumstances of each case. The words “dynamite, powder or other explosives” are broad enough to include matches, and other articles of like nature, and may fairly be held to include also kerosene oil, gasoline and similar products of a highly inflammable and explosive character. Many of these articles of merchandise are in the nature of necessities in any country open to modern progress and advancement. We are not fully advised as to the methods of transportation by which they are made commercially available throughout the world, but certain it is that dynamite, gunpowder, matches, kerosene oil and gasoline are transported on many vessels sailing the high seas. Indeed it is matter of common knowledge that common carriers throughout the world transport enormous quantities of these explosives, on both land and sea, and there can be little doubt that a general refusal of the common carriers in any country to accept such explosives for carriage would involve many persons, firms and enterprises in utter ruin, and would disastrously affect the interests of the public and the general welfare of the community. It would be going far to say that a refusal by a steam vessel engaged in the business of transporting general merchandise as a common carrier to accept for carriage a shipment of matches, solely on the ground of the dangers incident to the explosive quality of this class of merchandise, would not subject the traffic in matches to an unnecessary, undue or unreasonable prejudice or discrimination without proof that for some special reason the particular vessel is not fitted to carry articles of that nature. There may be and doubtless are some vessels engaged in business as common carriers of merchandise, which for lack of suitable deck space or storage rooms might be justified in declining to carry kerosene oil, gasoline, and similar products, even when offered for carriage securely packed in cases; and few vessels are equipped to transport those products in bulk. But in any case of a refusal to carry such products which would subject any person, locality or the traffic in such products to any prejudice or discrimination whatsoever, it would be necessary to hear evidence before making an affirmative finding that such prejudice or discrimination was or was not unnecessary, undue or unreasonable. The making of such a finding would involve a consideration of the suitability of the vessel for the transportation of such products; the reasonable possibility of danger or disaster resulting from their transportation in the form and under the conditions in which they are offered for carriage; the general nature of the business done by the carrier and, in a word, all the attendant circumstances which might affect the question of the reasonable necessity for the refusal by the carrier to undertake the transportation of this class of merchandise. But it is contended that whatever the rule may be as to other explosives, the exceptional power and violence of dynamite and gunpowder in explosion will always furnish the owner of a vessel with a reasonable excuse for his failure or refusal to accept them for carriage or to carry them on board his boat. We think however that even as to dynamite and gunpowder we would not be justified in making such a holding unaided by evidence sustaining the proposition that these articles can never be carried with reasonable safety on any vessel engaged in the business of a common carrier. It is said that dynamite is so erratic and uncontrollable in its action that it is impossible to assert that it can be handled with safety in any given case. On the other hand it is contended that while this may be true of some kinds of dynamite, it is a fact that dynamite can be and is manufactured so as to eliminate any real danger from explosion during transportation. These are of course questions of fact upon which we are not qualified to pass judgment without the assistance of expert witnesses who have made special studies as to the chemical composition and reactions of the different kinds of dynamite, or attained a thorough knowledge of its properties as a result of wide experience in its manufacture and transportation. As we construe the Philippine statute, the mere fact that violent and destructive explosions can be obtained by the use of dynamite under certain conditions would not be sufficient in itself to justify the refusal of a vessel, duly licensed as a common carrier of merchandise, to accept it for carriage, if it can be proven that in the condition in which it is offered for carriage there is no real danger to the carrier, nor reasonable ground to fear that his vessel or those on board his vessel will be exposed to unnecessary and unreasonable risk in transporting it, having in mind the nature of his business as a common carrier engaged in the coastwise trade in the Philippine Islands, and his duty as a servant of the public engaged in a public employment. So also, if by the exercise of due diligence and the taking of reasonable precautions the danger of explosions can be practically eliminated, the carrier would not be justified in subjecting the traffic in this commodity to prejudice or discrimination by proof that there would be a possibility of danger from explosion when no such precautions are taken. The traffic in dynamite, gunpowder and other explosives is vitally essential to the material and general welfare of the people of these Islands. If dynamite, gunpowder and other explosives are to continue in general use throughout the Philippines, they must be transported by water from port to port in the various islands which make up the Archipelago. We are satisfied therefore that the refusal by a particular vessel, engaged as a common carrier of merchandise in the coastwise trade of the Philippine Islands, to accept any or all of these explosives for carriage would constitute a violation of the prohibitions against discrimi¬nations penalized under the statute, unless it can be shown by affirmative evidence that there is so real and substantial a danger of disaster necessarily involved in the carriage of any or all of these articles of merchandise as to render such refusal a due or a necessary or a reasonable exercise of prudence and discretion on the part of the shipowner. The complaint in the case at bar lacking the necessary allegations under this ruling, the demurrer must be sustained on the ground that the facts alleged do not constitute a cause of action. A number of interesting questions of procedure are raised and discussed in the briefs of counsel. As to all of these questions we expressly reserve our opinion, believing as we do that in sustaining the demurrer on the grounds indicated in this opinion we are able to dispose of the real issue involved in the proceedings without entering upon the discussion of the nice questions which it might have been necessary to pass upon had it appeared that the facts alleged in the complaint constitute a cause of action. We think, however, that we should not finally dispose of the case without indicating that since the institution of these proceedings the enactment of Acts No. 2307 and No. 2362 (creating a Board of Public Utility Commissioners and for other purposes) may have materially modified the right to institute and maintain such proceedings in this jurisdiction. But the demurrer having been formally submitted for judgment before the enactment of these statutes, counsel have not been heard in this connection. We therefore refrain from any comment upon any questions which might be raised as to whether or not there may be another adequate and appropriate remedy for the alleged wrong set forth in the complaint. Our disposition of the question raised by the demurrer renders that unnecessary at this time, though it may not be improper to observe that a careful examination of those acts confirms us in the holding upon which we base our ruling on this demurrer, that is to say “That whatever may have been the rule at the common law, common carriers in this jurisdiction cannot lawfully decline to accept a particular class of goods for carriage, to the prejudice of the traffic in those goods, unless it appears that for some sufficient reason the discrimination against the traffic in such goods is reasonable and necessary. Mere prejudice or whim will not suffice. The grounds of the discrimination must be substantial ones, such as will justify the courts in holding the dis-crimination to have been reasonable and necessary under all the circumstances of the case.” Unless an amended complaint be filed in the meantime, let judgment be entered ten days hereafter sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the complaint with costs against the complainant, and twenty days thereafter let the record be filed in the archives of original actions in this court. So ordered. Arellano, C. J., and Trent, J. concur. Torres and Johnson, JJ., concur in the result.