King v. United States

• Citation: 101 F. Supp. 941
• Decision Date: 29 June 1951
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 292-T.
• Parties: KING et al. v. UNITED STATES et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida

101 F. Supp. 941

KING et al. v. UNITED STATES et al.

Civ. No. 292-T.

United States District Court, N. D. Florida, Tallahassee Division.

June 29, 1951.

Lewis W. Petteway, D. Fred McMullen and Guyte P. McCord, Jr., Tallahassee, Fla., for plaintiffs.

F. C. Hillyer, Jacksonville, Fla., M. W. Wells, Orlando, Fla., Frank W. Gwathmey and James A. Bistline, Washington, D. C., for intervenors.

John F. Baecher, Washington, D. C., George Earl Hoffman, Pensacola, Fla., Allen Crenshaw, Washington, D. C., for defendant.

Before McCORD, Circuit Judge, DE VANE, Chief Judge, and WHITEHURST, District Judge.

DE VANE, Chief Judge.

This is an action brought by the Florida Railroad and Public Utilities Commission, and the members thereof, against the United States of America, under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1336 and others, seeking to permanently enjoin, set aside and annul an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission affecting intrastate rates and charges in the State of Florida. Two shortline railroads, the Florida Citrus Commission, Growers and Shippers League of Florida and numerous shippers intervened as parties plaintiff. The Interstate Commerce Commission and all Class I railroads operating in Florida, intervened as parties defendant.

The case arises out of a report and order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, Docket No. 30140; 278 I.C.C. 41, entered in a case entitled "Increase in Florida Intrastate Rates." The suit is brought to enjoin and set aside the order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, dated July 25, 1950, of which the report is made a part.

The order, complained of, directed the raising of rates and charges for the intrastate transportation of freight over the lines on all railroads operating in the State of Florida to correspond with increases that had theretofore been made in interstate freight rates and charges. It was made pursuant to authority vested in Interstate Commerce Commission under provisions of Section 13(3, 4) and Section 15(1) of the Interstate Commerce Act, Title 49 U.S.C.A. §§ 13(3, 4), and 15(1). The circumstances leading to the investigation by the Interstate Commerce Commission in Docket No. 30140 are briefly summarized below.

In a proceeding known as Ex Parte 162, Increased Railway Rates, Fares and Charges, 1946, 266 I.C.C. 537, the Interstate Commerce Commission, in response to a petition filed by all Class I railroads. of the United States, conducted an investigation of interstate railroad freight rates and charges. Upon the showing made by the petitioning railroads of rapidly mounting operating costs and declining passenger revenue, the Interstate Commerce Commission authorized a general increase of 20% in basic interstate freight rates and charges throughout the United States, with certain variations applicable to individual commodities.

Subsequently, in Ex Parte 166, Increased Freight Rates, 1947, 269 I.C.C. 33, 270 I.C.C. 81; 270 I.C.C. 93 and 270 I.C.C. 403, the Interstate Commerce Commission conducted a further general investigation of interstate freight rates and charges. Upon the showing made by the petitioning carriers of the continued increases in operating costs and declining passenger revenue, the Interstate Commerce Commission, finding the existence of an emergency, at first authorized an immediate interim increase of 10% in the interstate freight rates and charges, with certain exceptions, which were to continue pending the completion of the investigation. 269 I.C.C. 33.

In the second report in this proceeding the 10% interim increase previously authorized was raised to an interim increase of 20% 270 I.C.C. 81. In the third report, 270 I.C.C. 93, the interim increases theretofore allowed were superseded by general percentage increases, varying in amounts in the different territorial divisions of the country, the increases authorized within the territory in which Florida is located being 25% with certain variations as to particular commodities.

In the fourth and final report in this case the general increase of 25% was continued and made permanent, with various modifications and variations on individual commodities. 270 I.C.C. 403.

The parties are not in entire agreement as to the average percentage increases allowed by the Interstate Commerce Commission in its several decisions, but the question is not of importance in the decision of this case and the percentages used above are for illustrative purposes only and fairly well represent the increases authorized.

Following the action of the Interstate Commerce Commission in Ex Parte 162 and 166, the railroads operating in Florida, (as did the railroads operating in every other State in the United States), made application to the Florida Railroad and Public Utilities Commission to authorize like increases in intrastate rates in the State of Florida. In Florida Commission Docket N Florida. In Florida Commission Docket No. 1538, considering the increases granted by the Interstate Commerce Commission in its Docket No. 162, the Florida Commission granted the full increases requested, except that no increases were allowed on 1) logs moving to the mills, 2) wet phosphate moving from the washer to the drying plant, 3) waste wood moving to retort or recovery plant, and 4) sugar cane moving to the mills. Also increases on pulpwood were limited to 9%.

In Docket No. 1466, by a series of orders, the Florida Commission dealt with applications of the rail lines for general increases similar to those embraced in the Interstate Commerce Commission Ex Parte No. 166 proceeding.

In Order No. 1466(A), the Florida Commission granted the full 20% increases in effect at that time (April 9, 1948) under orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission in its Docket Ex Parte No. 166, with the following exceptions:

1. No increases were allowed on protective services.

2. No increases were allowed on waste wood to Pensacola, Florida.

3. No increases were allowed on sugar cane from the fields to the mill in Clewiston, Florida.

4. No increases were allowed on fertilizer and fertilizing material.

5. Increases on road aggregates were limited to 10%.

6. Increases on class rates and rates made in relation thereto were limited to 10.25%.

In the No. 1466(C) Order, the Florida Commission continued the 20% increases granted in its Order No. 1466(A) until July 1, 1949, retaining in effect the same exceptions above mentioned. By Order No. 1466(D) these increases and exceptions were continued in effect until after the disposition of Docket No. 30140 by the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Thus, the record in this case shows that in Florida, on intrastate traffic, the Florida Commission granted the rail lines the same increases in freight rates as were granted by the Interstate Commerce Commission in Dockets, Ex Parte No. 162 and No. 166, with the exception of the 5% granted by the Interstate Commerce Commission in Ex Parte No. 166 and the commodity and class rate exceptions hereinbefore enumerated.

The case instituted by the carriers before the Interstate Commerce Commission, Docket No. 30140, was for the purpose of securing an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission authorizing the carriers to also put into effect the increases in rates approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission for interstate traffic, but disapproved by the Florida Commission on intrastate traffic.

Since the Interstate Commerce Commission issued its order making the full interstate rates prescribed by it effective on intrastate traffic in Florida, certain changes have been made in rates applicable to road aggregates, waste wood, sugar cane, fertilizer and fertilizing materials, the latter applicable only on the Florida East Coast Railroad. Otherwise, rates prescribed by the Interstate Commerce Commission, for interstate traffic, have also been made effective by the Interstate Commerce Commission for the movement of intrastate traffic in Florida.

The respective parties to this suit appear to be in accord on the proposition that the Interstate Commerce Commission heard and determined Ex Parte No. 162 and No. 166 primarily as revenue cases. They also appear to be in accord that the carriers are making substantial profits out of their...