Cargill, Incorporated v. United States

• Citation: 188 F. Supp. 386
• Decision Date: 16 September 1960
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 59 C 335(3)
• Parties: CARGILL, INCORPORATED, a corporation, A. L. Mechling Barge Lines, Inc., a corporation, Mississippi Valley Barge Line Company, a corporation, the Ohio River Company, a corporation, and Blaske, Inc., a corporation, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Defendants. Pennsylvania Railroad Company et al., Intervening Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

188 F. Supp. 386

CARGILL, INCORPORATED, a corporation, A. L. Mechling Barge Lines, Inc., a corporation, Mississippi Valley Barge Line Company, a corporation, the Ohio River Company, a corporation, and Blaske, Inc., a corporation, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Defendants Pennsylvania Railroad Company et al., Intervening Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 59 C 335(3)

United States District Court E. D. Missouri, E. D.

September 16, 1960.

William G. Guerri, and Thompson, Mitchell, Douglas & Neill, St. Louis, Mo., and Harold E. Spencer, and Belnap, Spencer, Hardy & Freeman, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff, Cargill, Inc.

William G. Guerri, and Thompson, Mitchell, Douglas & Neill, St. Louis, Mo., and Edw. B. Hayes and Wilbur S. Legg, and Lord, Bissell & Brook, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs, A. L. Mechling Barge Lines et al.

Robert A. Bicks, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., and John H. D. Wigger, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., and William H. Webster, U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for defendant, United States of America.

Robt. W. Ginnane, General Counsel, and H. Neil Garson, Associate Gen. Counsel, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D. C., for defendant, Interstate Commerce Commission.

Eugene S. Davis, St. Louis, Mo., Don McDevitt, Chicago, Ill., Donald M. Tolmie, Chicago, Ill., John W. Adams, Jr., Mobile, Ala., John M. Souby, Chicago, Ill., Richard J. Murphy, Chicago, Ill., James A. Gillen and James E. Steffarud, Chicago, Ill., for intervening defendants Pennsylvania Rd. Co. et al.

Before MATTHES, Circuit Judge, HARPER, Chief Judge, and WEBER, District Judge.

WEBER, District Judge.

Plaintiffs are barge line operators. They commenced this action on November 16, 1959, against the United States of America and the Interstate Commerce Commission seeking an injunction of the Commission's Fourth Section order No. 19059, entered January 9, 1959, and for a declaratory judgment. They are in competition with various railroads which can be classified into two groups: one, the eastern group which has trunk lines from Chicago, Illinois, to the east and with proportional or re-shipping rates for long hauls and, two, the western group which has lines serving west of Chicago and with short haul rates that are higher than the eastern long haul rates. These railroads were granted leave to intervene.

District Courts have jurisdiction of actions to enforce, enjoin, set aside, annul or suspend, in whole or in part, any order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, § 1336, Title 28, U.S.C., and the action has been brought in the judicial district of parties plaintiff as provided by § 1398, Title 28 U.S.C. A three-judge court was duly composed under the provisions of §§ 2284 and 2321-2325, Title 28 U.S.C. Motions to Dismiss were filed by defendants and intervenors challenging plaintiffs' Petition on the grounds of mootness and that declaratory judgment relief would not lie. These Motions were orally heard, supporting memoranda filed and the matter taken under submission.

The actions of the Interstate Commerce Commission for which plaintiffs seek relief in this suit involve the matter wherein the intervenors published rates with the Commission in which combination (long haul) rates were lower than local (short haul) rates and relief was sought under Section Four of the Interstate Commerce Act.¹ The proceeding was entitled "Grain and Grain Products from Illinois to the East" and the plaintiffs here filed their protests.

The order of the Commission provided that the rates described in the application would become effective January 10, 1959, that they were subject to the Commission's investigation and approval, could not be increased unless authorized and the investigation would be made "with a view to making such findings and orders in the premises as the facts and circumstances shall warrant." The matter was assigned for hearing at a time and place thereafter to be fixed and the intervenors here were permitted to become respondents to the proceedings.

Plaintiffs contend in this action that the establishment of rates, pending the hearing on the Section Four application and prior to actual investigation, hearing and finding of facts, amounts to an avoidance of the prohibitions contained in Section Four, which make it unlawful to charge or receive such rates. They say that such establishment of rates amounts to the granting of a "temporary rate" and is void and unlawful, arbitrary and capricious, thus depriving them of their property without due process of law and violative of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. On the declaratory judgment side, plaintiffs contend that this procedure is a continuous practice by the Interstate Commerce Commission; that the Commission thus establishes a rate without support by adequate findings from which it can be determined if the facts constitute a special case and if the rates are reasonably compensatory, all as required by Section Four; and that the Commission will probably enter a final order of dismissal to make the matter "moot" before this Court can hear and decide the issues and that such practice, too, has been followed in the past and is continuing to plaintiffs' damage.

The defendants and intervenors point out that the rail carriers did notify the Commission on March 28, 1960, of the withdrawal of their Section Four Application and requested cancellation of the Commission's temporary orders. The Commission acted upon this notification on March 31, 1960, and the application was permitted to be withdrawn. They further state that the Commission records show that a new schedule of...