Statement by Wood, J.: More than fifteen citizens of the town of Benton, Saline county, Arkansas, presented a petition to the Railroad Commission of Arkansas, in which they stated that they were shippers and patrons of the St. Louis, Iron Mountain, & Southern Railway Company, and that the depot of said company at Benton had been recently destroyed by fire; that the company was preparing to build a new depot on the old site, which was on the extreme edge of the city, and not accessible to travelers without passing a distance of 1,500 or 1,700 feet along the right of way of the company, and between its tracks where travel was made extremely the order of the Commission requiring compliance with the preceding section; or § 3453, providing for the enforcement of the orders of the Railroad Commissioners by proceedings in chancery upon refusal of the railroads to comply therewith. And it was further held that such authority was not conferred by § 3490, giving the Commissioners general supervision over all railroads of the state, and directing that they should, from time to time, examine the railroads and keep themselves informed as to their condition and the manner in which they were operated with reference to the security and accommodations of the public, and should recommend to the railroads the adoption of such measures as the Commissioners might deem conducive to the public safety and interests; or by § 3494, giving the Commissioners authority to notify the railroads of what they deemed necessary changes. Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. State, supra. Reasonableness of change ordered. dangerous by the passage of trains on the main line and switches of the railway. They urged the Commission to require the railway company to build its depot at a point immediately south of where its line known as the Little Rock & Hot Springs Western was intersected by East street and Main street. The Commission took the petition under consideration, visited the town of Benton, examined the location mentioned in the petition, heard many witnesses, and concluded that it would be unwise to require the railway company to build its new depot at the point named in the petition. But it issued an order requiring the railway company to build its where its depot had been located and the new depot building at a point between location asked by the petitioners, which it described in the order as follows: "Commence on the east line of East street between tracks of the Iron Mountain main line and tracks of the Hot Springs Western branch of the Iron Mountain Railway, with the platform, run thence east with platform 340 feet, and build passenger station according to plans, which show length of new station to be 188 feet, then continue eastward with the platform 340 feet on the east or north side of the depot." The company was ordered to begin construction work on its new depot building on or before July 15, 1913. The appellant, St. Louis, Iron Mountain, & Southern Railway Company (hereafter, for convenience, called company) instituted this suit against the appellees to enjoin them from enforcing the above order, setan order of the Corporation Commission requiring a railroad to change the location of its stock pens, and fixing a place of location, was not only legislative, but also administrative, in its character; and that such order when entered was presumed to be reasonable and just, and would not be disturbed on an appeal to the supreme court when the evidence did not show that it was unreasonable. And in Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Levick, 38 Okla. 746, 134 Pac. 874, the presumption that an order of the Corporation Commission requiring a railroad company to remove its station from its location north of the platted part of a town to a point south of the main street of the town, to be agreed upon by the railroad and citizens, or upon their being unable to so agree by the Commission, was prima facie just, reasonable, and correct, was held not overcome by certain evidence relating to the cost of moving the station and tracks, adequacy of room for relocation, etc. And in St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. State, 28 Okla. 372, 111 Pac. 396, 114 Pac. In St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Miller, 31 1096, an order of the Corporation CommisOkla. 801, 123 Pac. 1047, it was held that'sion requiring the removal of stock pens ting up that the Railroad Commission (hereafter called Commission) did not have authority under the act of May 17, 1907 (under which it claimed to be acting) to make the order; that no petition asking that the passenger depot be located at the point designated by the Commission was filed as the statute requires; that the location designated in the petition that was filed was several hundred feet west of the location selected by the Commission; that the order was void because it imposed an unnecessary and unreasonable burden and expense upon the company in requiring it to remove its station from a point where it had acquired station grounds which were adequate for all purposes, and which had been fully prepared for depot purposes at great expense, and that to place the depot at the point designated by the Commission would require the company to obtain and improve other lands, to readjust and change its numerous tracks, to cut down the grade of its line at various points at an enormous expense, and thereby deprive the company of its property without due process of law and in violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which provides that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law; that the order was unreasonable and void for the reason that it required the company to place its depot at a point where its lines passing same would be upon a curve and upon a grade, making it exceedingly dangerous to operate its from one location and re-establishment at some convenient point was affirmed, it appearing that the old pens were not accessible except by driving stock through the business or residential section of a city which had grown up since the pens were first located. But in State ex rel. Great Northern R. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 60 Wash. 218, 110 Pac. 1075, an order of the Railroad Commission requiring the removal of a station to a point 500 feet from its old location was held unreasonable where it appeared that it was situated in a town of about seventy-five people, and was within 500 or 600 feet of the point upon the railway nearest the business center of the town; that there was no other good reason for moving it than to bring it that much nearer the business center; that there was nothing in the lay of the ground rendering it difficult of access; and that the original location was prompted by a desire in accordance with a rule of the railroad to keep the station 150 feet or more away from other buildings on account of fire. In State v. Yazoo & M. Valley R. Co. 87 Miss. 679, 40 So. 263, where § 4309 of trains at said station; that the order was in violation of § 22 of article 2 of the Constitution of Arkansas, which provides that "the right of property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction; and private property shall not be taken, appropri ated, or damaged for public use, without just compensation therefor;" that the order was in violation of § 9, article 2, of the Constitution of Arkansas, which prohibits the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment and excessive fines. The appellees answered, denying that the order was void, as set up in the allegations of the complaint, and that the order imposed any unreasonable burden upon the company, or that the company would be irreparably injured by the enforcement of the order. They further set up, as reasons why the company should be required to obey the order of the Commission, the following: "That the site at which plaintiff desires to build its new depot is way off at one side of the city, has no streets leading to or from it; that it is located between the tracks of the defendant company, same being the main line of the St. Louis, Iron Mountain, & Southern Railway Company on the south, and the Little Rock & Hot Springs Western Railway on the north; that said tracks are located about 100 feet apart, where plaintiff has maintained its depot, and about 200 feet apart at the point where said tracks are crossed by Main street; that from Main street to the site where plaintiff maintains its depot is a distance of more than one fourth of a mile; the Code of 1892 authorized the Railroad Commission to designate the site or location of any new building or station house which might be ordered erected in cases where the site selected by the railroad officials was inconvenient or inaccessible, but provided that "every depot must be located with due regard to the interest of the railroad and the public convenience," the Railroad Commission was held to have no power to order a railroad which had passenger and freight depots in a small town, although not conveniently situated, to build a passenger station within 400 feet of a designated crossing north of its track, and authorizing it to cease stopping its trains at its old depot, except so far as might be required for freight; it not appearing that the railroad had property at the point designated for the new station, or that it could procure it upon reasonable terms, and it appearing that there was a "stop station" at the point selected for the new location; since the order in effect required the maintenance of two depots, and did not have due regard to the interest of the railroad and the public convenience. J. T. W. the site selected by the railway company, and that the change in the location of the depot would render their property of little or no value, that their property was acquired with the understanding that the depot would remain where located, and that if they had not understood that the depot would remain there, they would not have invested their money in the property. They joined in the prayer for an injunetion against the enforcement of the order of the Commission. that practically all of the travel from the | Commission, and setting up that they were city to said station is by way of Main and engaged in business near the location of East streets, until the line of the Little Rock & Hot Springs Western Railroad is crossed, and then between the tracks to said station; that in going from Main and East streets to said station it is not only necessary to cross the railroad track of the Little Rock & Hot Springs Western Railway, but also to travel for a distance of 1,500 feet from Main street and 1,200 feet from East street between the said tracks of the plaintiff company, and also to cross a connecting track that connects the Little Rock & Hot Springs Western Railroad track to that of the main line of the St. Louis, Iron Mountain, & Southern Railway Company; that the land lying between the tracks, and over which it is necessary for the public to travel, belongs to the plaintiff company; that the city owns no street which approaches said station nearer than approximately 1,200 feet; that because of the location of said station at the place where plaintiff now contends that same remain located, it is very dangerous and inconvenient for people of Benton and vicinity to go to and from said depot," etc. The answer then proceeds to enumerate at length the causes and conditions existing at the place where the company proposes to build the new depot that would make the same dangerous and inconvenient for the people of Benton. Appellees averred that for twenty-six years and until about the year 1901, the plaintiff company operated its depot at a point between Main and Market streets, on a curve much greater than that at the point designated by the Commission; that it was only after the building of the Little Rock & Hot Springs Western Railway and the acquirement by gift from the people of Benton of the 40-acre tract of land which now lies immediately north of the site where said depot was burned that plaintiff moved its depot to the site where it now claims the same should be permanently located; that neither the curve nor grade at the point designated by the Commission for said depot is such as to make it more dangerous or hazardous for the plaintiff company to operate its trains than it would be with the station located at the point contended for by said company; that it is necessary for the convenience and safety of the public, who are patrons of the plaintiff, using its depot at Benton, that said depot be moved to a point as far west as that designated by the Commission. An intervention was filed by various citizens, adopting the allegations of appellant's complaint, protesting against the removal of the depot to the place designated by the The chancery court, after hearing the evidence, which was adduced ore tenus and taken down by a stenographer and afterwards transcribed and made a part of the record of the chancery court, found that the Commission had authority to make the order; that the petition presented by more than fifteen citizens was sufficient to authorize the Commission to make the order of which appellant complains; "that the old location where the depot was burned is a better location for the depot building than the location mentioned in the order of the Railroad Commission;" but the court was of the opinion that it had no authority to set aside the order made by the Commission unless there was no reason therefor, and the court was of the opinion that there was a reason for the Commission to make the order, and therefore entered a decree dismissing appellant's complaint for want of equity. Other facts stated in the opinion. Messrs. E. B. Kinsworthy and T. d. Railroad Comrs. v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. 17 Or. 65, 2 L.R.A. 195, 19 Pac. 702; 2 Elliott, Railroads, 684 and note; Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. State, 137 Ala. 439, 34 So. 401; State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Railroad Commission, 109 Ark. 100, 158 S. W. 1076; State ex rel. Skeen v. Ogden Rapid Transit Co. 38 Utah, 242, 112 Pac. 120; People ex rel. Hunt v. Chicago & A. R. Co. 130 Ill. 175, 22 N. E. 857; Mobile & O. R. Co. v. People, 132 Ill. 559, 22 Am. St. Rep. 556, 24 N. E. 643; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. State, 74 Neb. 77, 103 N. W. 1087: Northern P. R. Co. v. Washington Territory, 142 U. S. 492, 35 L. ed. 1092, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 283; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Denver & N. O. R. Co. 110 U. S. 667, 28 L. ed. 291, 4 Sup Ct. Rep. 185; Currie v. Natchez, J. & C. R. Co. 61 Miss. 725: Marsh v. Fairbury, P. & N. W. R. Co. 64 Ill. 414, 16 Am. Rep. 564; Mobile & O. R. Co. v. People, 132 Ill. 559, 22 Am. St. Rep. 556, 24 N. E. 643; Florida C. & P. R. Co. | ing upon all such railroads within the state v. State, 31 Fla. 482, 20 L.R.A. 419, 34 of Arkansas." Am. St. Rep. 39, 13 So. 103. The order was unreasonable and invalid as a taking of plaintiff's property without due process. Missouri P. R. Co. v. Nebraska, 217 U. S. 196, 54 L. ed. 727, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 461, 18 Ann. Cas. 989. The order requiring plaintiff to locate its depot at a place where its main line will be upon a curve and its branch line upon a grade is unreasonable. Wayzata v. Great Northern R. Co. 67 Minn. 385, 69 N. W. 1073; State v. Des Moines & K. C. R. Co. 87 Iowa, 644, 54 N. W. 461; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. State, 74 Neb. 77, 103 N. W. 1087; State v. Yazoo & M. Valley R. Co. 87 Miss. 679, 40 So. 263; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. State, 31 Okla. 509, 122 Pac. 217. Mr. W. R. Donham for appellees. Laws 1907, p. 357. The power conferred upon the Commission by the above statute to hear and consider petitions for "depots, stations, spurs, side tracks," etc., and "to determine the amount, degree, and character of construction, equipment, changes, enlargement of stations and depots," is sufficiently comprehensive to enable the Commission to establish a depot or station in the first place, or to change the location of depots that have been formerly established. The act, in express terms, gives the Commission power to hear and consider petitions for the "discontinuance" of depots, stations, spurs, etc., "as well as for their establishment." While the word "relocate" is not used, yet the terms employed in the act are broad enough to include the relocation of a depot or station. A discontinuance of a depot or station at one location and the establish Wood, J., delivered the opinion of the ment of it at another is but a relocation. court: Appellant contends: em First. That the statutes did not power the Railroad Commission to relocate stations. The statute provides: "Section 1. That the Board of Railroad Commission of the State of Arkansas be and the same is hereby authorized, empowered, and required to hear and consider all petitions for train service, depots, stations, spurs, side tracks, platforms, and the establishment, enlargement, equipment, and discontinuance of the same along and upon the right of way of any railroad in this state; provided, said petition shall be signed by at least fifteen bona fide citizens residing in the territory sought to be affected by said petitioners. Therefore, the power to "discontinue" and to make "changes" of stations and depots necessarily includes the power to relocate. Second. Under the statute, a petition for the establishment of depots, stations, etc., or the discontinuance of the same at one point and a relocation and establishment thereof at another, is necessary to give the Commission jurisdiction of the subjectmatter. The But, while a petition "signed by at least fifteen bona fide citizens residing in the territory sought to be affected by said petition" is essential to give the Commission jurisdiction, the Commission, in the matter of locating or establishing a depot or station, is not required to order the same built or established upon the exact spot designated in the petition. "Sec. 2. The said Board of Railroad Com- statute does not require that the petition missioners shall, within thirty days after shall designate the precise point where the the filing of such said petition, proceed to depot shall be established, and if the petimake a personal inspection of the condi- tioners do define the place for the location tions complained of and investigate the ob- of the depot, the Commission is not bound to establish the same upon the exact spot jects sought to be accomplished by such said petitioners, and shall have the right and according to the limits set forth in the The Commission is only required and power to summon and swear witnesses, petition. which summons shall be served by any affected," and, of course, would be precluded to consider "the territory sought to be sheriff, constable, or deputy having legal from establishing a depot beyond the terrijurisdiction; whereupon, the said Board of Railroad Commissioners shall determine have stated, there is nothing in the act But, as we tory sought to be affected. the amount, degree, and character of con- requiring the exact location to be defined, struction, equipment, changes, enlargements nor circumscribing the authority of the of stations and depots which should be sup- Commission to those precise limits where plied by such railroad, railroad company, they have been set forth in the petition. its lessee, or operator, and shall have the A petition emanating from at least fifteen power and authority to require a reasonable bona fide citizens residing in the territory train service for each and every such rail- sought to be affected, setting forth that road station and depot within the state of they desire the establishment of a depot or Arkansas, and their findings shall be bind-station, or a discontinuance thereof at one expense of establishing and maintaining a station at the point designated by the Commission is greater, as shown by the testimony of witnesses for appellant, than the expense of building a new depot and maintaining the station at its present location, but it cannot be said that this difference is so great as to amount to a confiscation of appellant's property. The difference in the cost of the establishment and maintenance between the two locations is not so great as to make the order of the Commission unreasonable and arbitrary. This was a matter addressed primarily to the Commission, and, after a careful consideration of the evidence bearing upon this issue, we are of the opinion that the order of the Commission was not arbitrary and unreasonable. point and a relocation of same along and upon the right of way of any railway in this state, is sufficient to give the Commission jurisdiction to act in the premises, whether the exact point for the location or establishment, or relocation, of the depot or station is precisely designated and defined or not. Here "the territory sought to be affected" was the city of Benton, and the petition was signed by more than the requisite number of bona fide citizens of that territory. This was such a petition as the statute contemplates, and it gives the Commission jurisdiction of the subjectmatter, and it was then within the power of the Commission to discontinue the old station and establish the new depot along the line of appellant's railroad at any point "within the territory to be affected," which was found to be most conducive to the public welfare, taking into consideration, of course, the interests of the railway company and also the convenience of the general public that was to be subserved by the granting of the petition. It cannot be said that because the Commission did not direct the establishment of the new depot at the exact point described in the petition, it acted without a petition, and therefore had no authority to make the order. There was a petition signed by more than the prescribed number of bona fide citizens, and it was requested at the hearing that if the Commission did not see fit to locate the new depot at the site designated in the petition, Fourth. It is next contended that the that it be placed as near that site as prac-order was unreasonable in requiring the tical. Every requirement of the law was appellant to locate its depot at a place met in the matter of the petition. where its main line will be upon a curve and its branch line upon a grade. However much we may differ from the finding of the Commission, upon the evidence in this record, as to the wisdom and expediency of its order, on account of the increased cost to the appellant in making the necessary expenditures to comply with its order, nevertheless a fair consideration of all the testimony adduced on this issue does not convince us that the order was arbitrary and unreasonable. The order of the Commission, under the act, and the facts adduced by this record, was not a taking of property without due process of law. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. State, 99 Ark. 1, 136 S. W. 938. In Louisiana & A. R. Co. v. State, 85 Ark. 12, 106 S. W. 960, we said: "When the legislature passes a special act requiring the doing of a certain thing, such as the establishment and maintenance of a station at a given place by a railroad cor Third. Appellant contends that the order under review is unreasonable and invalid because taking its property without due process of law. Appellant, in this connection, says: "The effect of the order is to destroy the value of the property owned by it and to compel it to acquire and improve other property at great and un-poration, there may be a judicial question necessary expense, without any proportionately compensative advantage to the public." presented whether or not a real necessity exists for the doing of the thing in order to reasonably serve the public convenience. Appellant was given an opportunity to It is a question primarily for legislative be heard before the Commission, and was determination, and that determination heard. The Commission had before it the should not be disturbed by the court unless testimony adduced by the appellant, show- the power has been exercised arbitrarily ing the difference between the cost of re- and without reason. In other words, the building the new depot and the necessary legislative determination should be and is houses and the arrangement of the tracks conclusive unless it is arbitrary and withat the place designated by the Commission, out any foundation in reason and justice. and the cost of rebuilding and rearranging There may be cases where the power is exerthe tracks, freight houses, etc., at the place | cised so arbitrarily and unreasonably that of the old station. These were questions of the court should declare, as a matter of fact addressed to the Commission, and it could serve no useful purpose to set out in detail and discuss the evidence bearing upon these issues. The difference in the law, that the legislature exceeded its power, and that the legislative determination should be disregarded." We further said: "The utmost force must |