Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission
Decision Date | 05 October 1911 |
Docket Number | 7. |
Citation | 190 F. 591 |
Parties | ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. et al. v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION (UNITED STATES & A.H. FRUIT CO. et al., Interveners). |
Court | United States Commerce Court |
Robert Dunlap, C. W. Durbrow, and H. A. Scandrett (Gardiner Lathrop and T. J. Norton, on the brief), for petitioners.
Blackburn Esterline, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen. (James A. Fowler, Asst. Atty Gen., on the brief), for United States.
William E. Lamb, for Interstate Commerce Commission.
Asa F Call, for interveners.
Before KNAPP, Presiding Judge, and ARCHBALD, HUNT, CARLAND, and MACK, Associate Judges.
The complaint made to the Interstate Commerce Commission by shippers that the car load rate of $1.15 per 100 pounds for oranges and lemons from California and other western points to the East prescribed by the railroads was unreasonably high was dismissed by the commission as to oranges, but sustained as to lemons. These rates are so-called 'blanket rates,' covering transportation to practically the entire territory east of the Rocky Mountains, including New England. The rate for oranges had originally been $1.25 per hundred but had been voluntarily reduced by the railroads in 1907 to $1.15, the present rate; while the rate for lemons from 1902 on had fluctuated between $1.25 and $1 per hundred, having been several times reduced to the latter figure and again advanced to the former. Except for a brief interval, it was allowed to stand at $1 per hundred from January, 1904, to November, 1909, when it was advanced to $1.15, the same as on oranges. This is the rate now complained of. By the action of the commission, the $1.15 rate on oranges was left undisturbed, but the rate on lemons was reduced to $1, the rate so fixed being conditioned on the same requirements with regard to minimum weights that had theretofore prevailed, and being extended without change to the same territory blanketed. So much of the complaint as had reference to the additional precooling and refrigerating charges was held by the commission for further advisement, and is not included in this proceeding. This case to enjoin the enforcement of the order prescribing the $1 lemon rate was begun by bill filed in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas. It was subsequently transferred to this court, and is now up for final disposition on the bill, answers, and testimony taken.
The first and decisive ground of attack is that the order 'is without the scope of the delegated authority under which it purports to have been made' (I.C.C. v. Ill. Centr R.R. Co., 215 U.S. 452, 470, 30 Sup.Ct. 155, 54 L.Ed 280), in this: that, while in form holding the $1.15 rate unreasonable and prescribing the $1 rate as reasonable, in substance the commission did not determine the intrinsic reasonableness of either rate, but reduced the rate prescribed by the railroads in order that, and to a point at which, in its judgment, the California growers might successfully compete with their Sicilian competiors in a broader market than would otherwise be possible; in other words, that the commission acted upon the erroneous assumption that it had the power and the right, if not the duty, so to adjust railroad rates as would give to the American industry protection against foreign competition.
If complainants are right in their contention, the invalidity of the order necessarily follows. This has been clearly established by the decision rendered since the order herein was made, in Southern Pacific Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 219 U.S. 433, 31 Sup.Ct. 288, 55 L.Ed. 283, reversing the decree of the Circuit Court and annulling an order of the commission, which had reduced a $5 lumber rate advanced from $3.10, the rate in force for over 10 years, to $3.40 and $3.65, respectively.
Chief Justice White, voicing the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court, thus enunciated the principles which it is urged are controlling in the present case:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Texas Ry Co v. United States 11 8212 13, 1932
...L.Ed. 1036; United States v. Illinois Central R.R., 263 U.S. 515, 524, 44 S.Ct. 189, 68 L.Ed. 417; At- chison, T. & S.F. Ry. v. Interstate Commerce Comm. (Com. Ct.) 190 F. 591; Anchor Coal Co. v. United States (D.C.) 25 F.(2d) 462, 1. In the light of the facts exhibited by the record and th......
-
Great Northern Utilities Co. v. Public Service Commission
...the carriers may do what they could not be compelled to do." In this connection, see, also, Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. v. Interstate Commerce Commission (Com. Ct.) 190 F. 591, 592-594, in which the Southern Pacific Case, supra, is followed; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Trammell et......
-
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of Idaho
... ... 47, L. R. A. 1916F, 756.) ... The ... Interstate Commerce Commission can require an increase in ... intrastate rates to ... 184, 16 S.Ct. 700, 40 L.Ed. 935; Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry ... Co. v. Interstate Commerce Com., 190 F. 591; In re ... ...
-
McLean Lumber Co. v. United States
... ... Needham, both of Washington, D.C., for ... Interstate Commerce Commission ... Before ... WARRINGTON, ... 108, ... 56 L.Ed. 308. And see Atchison Railway v. United ... States, 232 U.S. 199, 221, 34 ... ...