general rule, the assignments of error rest upon the hypothesis that the order which the court below enforced was so arbitrary and unreasonable in its character as to transcend the limits of regulation and to be in effect a denial of due process of law or a deprivation of the equal protection of the laws.

As the public power to regulate railways and the private right of ownership of such property coexist and do not the one destroy the other, it has been settled that the right of ownership of railway property like other property rights finds protection in constitutional guarantees, and, therefore, wherever the power of regulation is exerted in such an arbitrary and unreasonable way as to cause it to be in effect not a regulation but an infringement upon the right of ownership, such an exertion of power is void because repugnant to the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.1 The result, therefore, is that the proposition relied upon is well founded if it be that the order which the court below enforced was of the arbitrary and unreasonable character asserted.

In coming to consider the question just stated it must be borne in mind that a court may not, under the guise of protecting private property, extend its authority to a subject of regulation not within its competency, but is confined to ascertaining whether the particular assertion of the legislative power to regulate has been exercised to so unwarranted a degree as in substance and effect to exceed regulation, and be equivalent to a taking of property without due process of law, or a denial of the equal protection of the laws. We shall not in analyzing the case undertake to review in their order the Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Illinois, 200 U. S. 561, 584; Atlantic Coast Line v. Florida, 203 U. S. 256; Seaboard Air Line v. Florida, 203 U. S. 261.

1 Stone v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 116 U. S. 307, 331; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418, 455; Chicago & Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U. S. 339, 344; Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (No. 1), 154 U. S. 362, 399; St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co. v. Gill, 156 U. S. 649, 657; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, 241; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 512; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Tompkins, 176 U. S. 167, 172; Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Minnesota, 186 U. S. 257; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Illinois, 200 U. S. 561, 592.

ten propositions of error found in the record and reproduced in the briefs of counsel, as each proposition, although numbered separately, but reiterate grounds of error to be found in the others. In other words, the various grounds of error are so interblended in the several propositions as to render it impossible to treat one as distinct from the other. All the grounds, however, which the propositions assert as establishing the arbitrary and unreasonable character of the order complained of may be embraced under four general headings, which we proceed to dispose of.

1. That the order was arbitrary and unreasonable, because beyond the scope of the authority delegated to the corporation commission by the state law.

As this proposition involves no Federal question and is concluded by the judgment entered below, we put the subject out of view. And, although not cognate to this proposition, to clear the way for the consideration of the substantial issues we also put aside the suggestion made in argument that as the Southern Railway by its change of schedule originally rendered the connection at Selma impossible, therefore that road should have been compelled to restore the connection by a modification of the schedule or schedules of the trains by it operated. We put this suggestion aside because it does not seem to have been seriously urged in the court below, and besides is so directly refuted by the findings that we think it requires no further notice.

2. The order was arbitrary and unreasonable, because when properly considered it imposed upon the Coast Line a duty foreign to its obligation to furnish adequate facilities for those traveling upon its road.

This rests upon the assumption that as the order was based not upon the neglect of the Coast Line to afford facilities for travel over its own road, but because of the failure to furnish facilities to those traveling on the Coast Line who desired also to connect with and travel on the Southern road, therefore the order was in no just sense a regulation of the business

of the Coast Line. This reduces itself to the contention that, although the governmental power to regulate exists in the interest of the public, yet it does not extend to securing to the public reasonable facilities for making connection between different carriers. But the proposition destroys itself, since at one and the same time it admits the plenary power to regulate and yet virtually denies the efficiency of that authority. That power, as we have seen, takes its origin from the quasipublic nature of the business in which the carrier is engaged, and embraces that business in its entirety, which of course includes the duty to require carriers to make reasonable connections with other roads, so as to promote the convenience of the traveling public. In considering the facts found below as to the connection in question, that is, the population contained in the large territory whose convenience was subserved by the connection, and the admission of the railroad as to the importance of the connection, we conclude that the order in question, considered from the point of view of the requirements of the public interest, was one coming clearly within the scope of the power to enforce just and reasonable regulations.

3. That the facilities afforded the public by the railroad were of such a character as to demonstrate that the extra burden which would result from the compliance with the order was wholly arbitrary and unreasonable.

This rests upon the assumption that as there were several existing daily connections between trains of the Coast Line and those of the Southern at Selma, which might be availed of by those desiring to travel from eastern to western North Carolina and beyond, and, as besides, the proof established that another connection operating the same result was afforded by way of Weldon and the Seaboard Air Line to Raleigh and thence further west, therefore it was both arbitrary and unreasonable to superadd an unnecessary connection. Conceding, as must be done, that the nature and extent of the existing facilities furnished by a carrier for the public convenience are

essential to be considered in determining whether an order directing an increase of such facilities is just and reasonable, and that the deficiency of facilities must clearly appear to justify an order directing the furnishing of new and additional facilities, we think the proposition here relied on to be without merit. Its error arises from assuming that adequate facilities were afforded at Selma or via Weldon and the Seaboard without reference to the order complained of. In view of the facts as to the connections at Selma and the Weldon route found by the commission and reiterated by the court, which we have previously stated and which we accept, we cannot escape drawing for ourselves the conclusion deduced both by the commission and the court below that the connections relied on were wholly inadequate for the public convenience, and, therefore, a state of things existed justifying the order.

4. That, however otherwise just and reasonable the order may have been, it is inherently unjust and unreasonable because of the nature of the burden which it necessarily imposes.

This proposition is based on the hypothesis that the order, by necessary intendment, directed the Coast Line to operate an additional train, although such train could not be operated without a daily pecuniary loss. The premise upon which this proposition rests would seem to be irrelevant, since the court below in one aspect of its opinion treated the order of the commission as not requiring the operation of an extra train from Rocky Mount to Selma. Yet, as the facts found by the commission and which were affirmed by the court would indicate that it was considered that the operation of such train was the most direct and efficient means for making the ordered connection, and as the court considered and passed upon the duty of the railroad to comply with the order, even if to do so it became necessary to operate the extra train at a loss, we think the proposition relied upon is open and must be decided. The contention is that the fact that some loss would result from the requirement that the extra train be operated, in and of itself, conclusively establishes the unrea

sonableness of the order and demonstrates that to give it effect would constitute a taking of property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Conclusive support for this contention, it is insisted, is afforded by the doctrine upheld in Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, and the cases which preceded that decision. The cases relied upon, however, only involved whether a general scheme of maximum rates imposed by state authority prevented the railroads from earning a reasonable compensation, taking into view all proper considerations as to the value of the property and the cost of operation, and, if not, whether the enforcement of rates so unreasonably low would be unjust and unreasonable, and, therefore, be confiscation, that is, a taking of property without due process of law in violation of the Constitution of the United States. The principle upon which the cases in question proceeded was thus summed up by Mr. Justice Harlan, delivering the opinion of the court in Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 526:

"A state enactment or regulations made under the authority of a state enactment, establishing rates for the transportation of persons or property by railroad that will not admit of the carrier earning such compensation, as under all the circumstances is just to it and to the public, would deprive such carrier of its property without due process of law and deny to it the equal protection of the laws, and would, therefore, be repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States."

But this case does not involve the enforcement by a State of a general scheme of maximum rates, but only whether an exercise of state authority to compel a carrier to perform a particular and specified duty is so inherently unjust and unreasonable as to amount to the deprivation of property without due process of law or a denial of the equal protection of the laws. In a case involving the validity of an order enforcing a scheme of maximum rates of course the finding that the enforcement of such scheme will not produce an adequate return for the operation of the railroad, in and of itself dem