Interstate Commerce Commission v. Northern Pacific Railway Company
| Decision Date | 07 March 1910 |
| Docket Number | No. 570,570 |
| Citation | 54 L.Ed. 608,30 S.Ct. 417,216 U.S. 538 |
| Parties | INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Appt., v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Assistant to the Attorney General Ellis and Messrs. P. J. Farrell and Edwin P. Grosvenor for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 539-540 intentionally omitted] Mr. Charles W. Bunn for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 540-541 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:
This is a bill to restrain the enforcement of an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission. 16 Inters. Com. Rep. 300. A preliminary injunction was granted by four circuit judges, on the ground that the Commission had exceeded its powers, and the case was brought here by appeal. The order was made in a proceeding instituted by the Commission upon its own motion, and required the establishment of through routes and joint rates for passengers and their baggage, east and west, from and to points on the Chicago & Northwestern Railway between Chicago and Council Bluffs, Iowa, inclusive; and from and to points on the Union Pacific Railroad between Colorado common points and Omaha, Nebraska, and Kansas City, Missouri, inclusive; via Portland, Oregon; to and from points on the Northern Pacific Railway between Portland and Seattle. The joint rates are to be the same as the present rates between the same points via the Northern Pacific road and its connections. This order concerns passenger travel in one direction only. It does not affect round trips, and it does not deal with freight.
The points between Portland and Seattle can be reached from the places mentioned at the other end of the route, by way of the Northern Pacific alone from St. Paul, or by way of the Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy to Billings, Montana, and then by the Northern Pacific for the last thousand miles; the Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy being jointly owned and controlled by the Northern Pacific and the Great Northern roads. But an average of 8,000 persons a year go by way of the Union Pacific to Portland, where, to go further, passengers have to change to the Northern Pacific line. Under present arrangements, the Union Pacific issues a coupon with its tickets, entitling the holder to a first-class passage on from Portland, but he has to exchange the coupon for a ticket, to recheck his baggage, and to pay the additional Pullman fare. The effect of the order is to put the Union Pacific on an equal footing with the Northern Pacific in the use, for through travel, of the road belonging to the latter between Portland and Seattle. It is said that this road, with the expensive terminals of the Northern Pacific at Tacoma and Seattle, would not be supported by local business, but depends on the traffic of the whole Northern Pacific system. Therefore, the Northern Pacific objects to the order and brings this bill.
The authority of the Commission to establish through routes and joint rates is conditioned by the proviso that 'no reasonable or satisfactory through route exists.' Act of June 29,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marin v. Augedahl
...is between 'a rule of law for the guidance of the court and a limit set to its power.' Interstate Commerce Commission v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 216 U. S. 538, 544, 30 Sup. Ct. 417, 54 L. Ed. 608; Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U. S. 230, 235, 28 Sup. Ct. 641, 52 L. Ed. In the opinion of the cour......
-
St Joseph Stock Yards Co v. United States
...and circumstances which ought to have been considered were excluded from consideration, Interstate Commerce Commission v. Northern Pacific Ry., 216 U.S. 538, 544, 545, 30 S.Ct. 417, 54 L.Ed. 608; Northern Pacific Ry. v. Department of Public Works, 268 U.S. 39, 44, 45 S.Ct. 412, 69 L.Ed. 836......
-
St Louis Fallon Ry Co v. United States United States v. St Louis Fallon Ry Co
...Commerce Commission v. Alabama Midland R. Co., 168 U. S. 144, 18 S. Ct. 45, 42 L. Ed. 141; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Northern Pacific R. Co., 216 U. S. 538, 30 S. Ct. 417, 54 L. Ed. 608. 7 See Florida East Coast R. Co. v. United States, 234 U. S. 167, 187, 34 S. Ct. 867, 58 L. Ed. 1......
-
State v. Public Service Commission
...S. W. 703; Int. Cora. Com. v. III. Cent., 215 U. S. loc. cit. 470, 30 Sup. Ct. 155, 54 L. Ed. 280; Int. Com. Com. v. Nor. Pacific, 210 U. S. loc. cit. 544, 30 Sup. Ct. 417, 54 L. Ed. 608; Int. Cora. Glom. v. Ala. Mid. By., 168 U. S. 144, 18 Sup. Ct. 45, 42 L. Ed. 414; Van Dyke v. Geary, 244......
-
A common carrier approach to Internet interconnection.
...Act, 34 Stat. 584 (1906). (177.) Mann-Elkins Act, ch. 309, 36 Stat. 539, 552 (1910); see Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. N. Pac. Ry., 216 U.S. 538 (1910) (finding that, under Hepburn Act, carriers were not required to interconnect or establish through routes until ICC ordered such (178.) Tran......