Opinion of the Court. 300 U.S. roads; may delegate the duty to an officer or commission; and may exact the reasonable cost of such supervision and regulation from the utilities concerned and allocate the exaction amongst the members of the affected class without violating the rule of equality imposed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The supervision and regulation of the local structures and activities of a corporation engaged in interstate commerce, and the imposition of the reasonable expense thereof upon such corporation, is not a burden upon, or regulation of, interstate commerce in violation of the commerce clause of the Constitution. A law exhibiting the intent to impose a compensatory fee for such a legitimate purpose is prima facie reasonable." If the exaction be so unreasonable and disproportionate to the service as to impugn the good faith of the law it cannot stand either under the commerce clause or the Fourteenth Amendment. The state is not bound to ad " just the charge after the fact, but may, in anticipation, fix what the legislature deems to be a fair fee for the expected service, the presumption being that if, in practice, the sum charged appears inordinate the legislative body will reduce it in the light of experience. Such a statute may, in spite of the presumption of validity, show on its 8 10 5 Charlotte, C. & A. R. Co. v. Gibbes, 142 U. S. 386; New York v. Squire, 145 U. S. 175, 191.. 6 Atlantic & Pacific Tel. Co. v. Philadelphia, 190 U. S. 160; Mackay Telegraph Co. v. Little Rock, 250 U. S. 94, 99. ? Western Union v. New Hope, 187 U. S. 419, 425; Pure Oil Co. v. Minnesota, 248 U. S. 158, 162. 8 McLean v. Denver & R. G. R. CO., 203 U. S. 38, 55. Compare Red “C” Oil Co. v. North Carolina, 222 U. S. 380, 393. Western New Hope, supra. . Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U. S. 78, 83; Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Taylor, 192 U. S. 64; Pure Oil Co. v. Minnesota, supra, p. 162. 10 Atlantic & Pacific Tel. Co. v. Philadelphia, supra, p. 164; Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Taylor, supra, p. 69. Foote & Co. v. Stanley, 232 U. S. 494, 503 504. Union v. 12 face that some part of the exaction is to be used for a purpose other than the legitimate one of supervision and regulation and may, for that reason, be void. And a statute fair upon its face may be shown to be void and unenforceable on account of its actual operation. If the exaction be clearly excessive it is bad in toto and the state cannot collect any part of it.18 The contention is that the challenged statute is void on its face since it discloses that the fee charged the appellant is not imposed for, or limited by, the reasonable cost of supervision or regulation of its business; and, if this is not so, the case made in respect of the act's operation cast on the appellee the burden of proof, which it failed to carry. The Supreme Court of the state based its decision in favor of the validity of the statute on two grounds: First, that the act is not unconstitutional on its face; secondly, that, as the answer denied the material allegations of the complaint concerning the operative effect of the act, the plaintiff had the burden of proof, which it failed to sustain; and, if the burden was shifted by the case made by the plaintiff, the evidence preponderated in favor of the defendant. First. The statute does not exhibit a failure reasonably to adjust the fee to the expense of the supervision and regulation of railroads. The legislation is to be accorded the presumption of fairness and regularity. It cannot be deduced from the provisions of the act that the amounts collected from the railroads grossly exceed those legitimately expended for inspection and regulation. The ap a 11 Foote & Co. v. Stanley, supra, p. 505; Lugo v. Suazo, 59 F. (20) 386. 12 Western Union v. New Hope, supra, p. 425; Foote & Co. v. Stanley, supra, p. 507. 13 Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. New Hope, 192 U. S. 55; Foote & Co. v. Stanley, supra, p. 508. 130607-37-11 Opinion of the Court. 300 U.S. pellant insists that such is the necessary inference from the circumstance that the same fee is exacted from public utilities generally, and the collections go into a single fund and are indiscriminately disbursed for the many branches of the department's work. But these facts, without more, do not prove that the amounts derived from the railroads are in excess of the legitimate expenses of. inspection and regulation. It may be that, in spite of this lumping of receipts and expenditures, the fees paid by the railroads are no more than enough to defray such expenses. The court below was, therefore, justified in refusing to hold the statute void on its face. Second. The court thought the plaintiff had the burden of showing that the sums exacted from rail carriers substantially exceeded the amounts expended for regulation and supervision, and the proofs offered were insufficient to shift the burden to the defendant. This view was erroneous. Foote & Co. v. Stanley, 232 U. S. 494. In that case it appeared that the plaintiffs were packers of oysters taken from the waters of Maryland, Virginia, and New Jersey, and shipped to Baltimore. A statute of Maryland required that the oysters be inspected at Baltimore. It imposed a charge of one cent a bushel “to help defray the expenses of such inspection and the other expenses of the State Fishery Force, upon all oysters unloaded from vessels at the place where said oysters are to be no further shipped in bulk in vessels.” The plaintiffs refused to pay the exaction and, upon threat of enforcement, filed a bill in a state court for injunction alleging the fee was excessive, a burden on interstate commerce, and a violation of the constitutional provision that "No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws." The Maryland Court of Appeals [117 Md. 335; 82 Atl. 380] affirmed a decree dismissing the bill and this court reversed its decision. The plaintiff asserted that as the act laid the fee for the expense of inspection, "and other expenses,” it was obvious that the state had provided for the collection of more than was necessary for inspection. To this the state answered that the section levying the fee was but a part of an elaborate system of inspection imposed upon the state fishery force. It appeared from the evidence, as it does here, that the fishery force had duties other than those of inspection which were to be paid for out of the fund produced by the fees. This court said (p. 503): "But while the two duties may sometimes overlap, there is a difference between policing and inspection, and if the State imposes upon one set of officers the performance of the two duties and pays the whole or a part of the joint expenses out of inspection fees, it must be made to appear that such tax does not materially exceed the cost of inspection—the burden in such cases being on those seeking to collect the combined charge.” And said further (p. 506): “But the commingling of these various duties, paid for out of a fund raised for inspection, does not necessarily show that the fee is excessive. For the presumption of invalidity arising from such intermingling might be met by carrying the burden of showing that, while the statute required payment out of such joint fund, the collections were not sufficient, but only helped, to pay the definitely scertained expenses of inspection. The question of reasonableness, therefore, may be considered in the light of the practical operation of the law with a view of determining, with reasonable certainty, the permanent relation between the amount collected and the cost of inspecting.” The court examined the evidence as to the operation of a prior law which levied the same charge per bushel and which the challenged act superseded, consisting of the Opinion of the Court. 300 U.S. annual reports of the comptroller, and found therefrom that one-third of the amount collected was sufficient to pay the cost of inspection and the other two-thirds had been appropriated to "other expenses of the Fishery Force.” In the light of the operation of the previoụs act, and the failure of the state to show that the amount collected under the new law would not be more than was necessary for the expenses of inspection proper, the challenged statute was held void. There are factual distinctions between the cited case and the instant one, but they do not affect the binding authority of the former. The law under consideration in the Foote case was purely an inspection measure. That here under review is characterized by the state court as one for regulation and inspection. The specific mandate of the Federal Constitution limiting state inspection fees to an amount absolutely necessary for executing a state's inspection laws was treated in the Foote case as raising the same issue as was presented in earlier decisions with respect to the bearing of the commerce clause upon the imposition of regulatory and inspection fees imposed upon local property of interstate enterprises. And the cases decided under the commerce clause dealing with the reasonableness of regulation and inspection fees have been treated by this court as apposite to the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the Foote case reference to the accounts and records kept by state authority disclosed the extent of the excess of receipts over expenditures, whereas here it is demonstrated that while expenses other than those of inspection and regulation of railroads are paid out of the fees, the amount of the excess over what is necessary for regulation and inspection cannot be ascertained from the department's accounts. The Foote case is authority that in such circumstances the burden is on those seeking to collect the charge. |