NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. United States
Decision Date | 01 April 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 36018.,36018. |
Parties | NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Clay Marsteller, Thomas O. Broker, Kemper A. Dobbins, Cleveland, Ohio, for Norfolk & Western Ry. Co.
Edwin Knachel, Cleveland, Ohio, Bruce Dwinell, Chicago, Ill., Joseph B. Fleming, John L. Bordes, Kirkland, Ellis, Hodson, Chaffetz & Masters, Chicago, Ill., John Guandolo, Washington, D. C., for Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. and Pullman R. Co., intervening plaintiffs.
Merle M. McCurdy, Cleveland, Ohio, for the United States and Interstate Commerce Commission.
William J. O'Brien, Jr., Chicago, Ill., John F. Dolan, Cleveland, Ohio, for Illinois Cent. R. Co. and others.
Charles B. Myers, Burchmore, Good & Bobinette, Chicago, Ill., John F. Dolan, Cleveland, Ohio, for Calumet Harbor Terminals, Inc., North Pier Terminal Co. and Seaway Stevedoring Co., Inc., intervening defendants.
Before EDWARDS, Circuit Judge, CONNELL, Chief District Judge, and KALBFLEISCH, District Judge.
By order of November 5, 1964, the motion of Thomas O. Broker, Counsel for The New York, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad Company, to change the designation of the plaintiff to Norfolk and Western Railway Company was granted.
This litigation arises out of the national expectation that the completion of the St. Lawrence Seaway will bring a great increase in ocean-going freight to Great Lakes ports in the heartland of the continent. Chicago, the largest city on the Great Lakes, created the Chicago Regional Port District to build a new harbor to serve this traffic. The Port District prepared docks for the ships to load and unload and trackage for railroad freight cars to serve the docks. Two railroads were closest at hand; six others sought Interstate Commerce Commission permission to build trackage to connect with the Port District. This legal battle has resulted.
These complaints were filed by two railroads to seek an injunction under Title 28 U.S.C., §§ 1336, 2284, and 2321-2325, inclusive, against certain orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission which authorized six other operating railroads to extend their tracks so as to offer direct services to the newly organized Chicago Regional Port District at Lake Calumet near Chicago, Illinois.
One of the two railroads, The New York, Chicago and St. Louis (henceforth the Nickel Plate) has a line so constructed as to parallel and be prepared to serve the east side of Lake Calumet. The other complainant, the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company and the Pullman Railroad Company (henceforth Rock Island) has trackage adjacent to the west side of Lake Calumet and has been providing service for such port facilities as previously existed at Lake Calumet for many years.
The six operating railroads (whose "invasion" of the Lake Calumet area is resisted by Nickel Plate and Rock Island) initiated the original proceeding before the Interstate Commerce Commission by a series of applications filed, starting in 1956. These applications sought I.C.C. approval of the construction of the necessary trackage and trackage right agreements to interconnect various of the six railroads to each other and ultimately to the Chicago Port District tracks at Lake Calumet.1 Subsequent supplemental applications and amendments sought approval likewise of an agreement between the six railroads and the Chicago Port District for operations within the Port District.
Lengthy hearings were held before the I.C.C. Hearing Examiner in 1957 at which Rock Island and Nickel Plate intervened on leave granted and objected.
Estimates of tonnage anticipated to be handled through the Port subsequent to the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway made by various witnesses for the petitioners before the Hearing Examiner ran from 30,000,000 tons per year to 58,000,000 tons per year, with grain and coal believed likely to constitute the bulk of this tonnage.
Extensive testimony was also taken from representatives of shipping and importing firms and concerns which had prospective economic relationships with the development of the proposed Port District.
We are confronted with two basic problems: (1) whether there is substantial evidence to support the decision of the Interstate Commerce Commission; and (2) the denial to the plaintiffs of due process of law.
The evidence submitted at the hearing before the I.C.C. Hearing Examiner by interveners in that proceeding who are plaintiffs in this one, bore principally upon three points: First, that the prospects of the port were not as rosy as the estimates of its proponents who testified before the Commission would have liked for the Commission to believe; second, that the two intervening railroads, plaintiffs herein, either were serving or were available to serve the port and the general area surrounding it; third, that the railroad service offered by them had been entirely satisfactory and still was. These latter two factual contentions on the part of the intervening railroads were largely undisputed. As to these the dispute lies not over the facts but over the legal conclusions which the opposite parties would seek to draw therefrom.
A subsidiary problem arose, however, during the course of the hearing before the Hearing Examiner and has continued down into the debate before the Interstate Commerce Commission and the presentation of issues to this court. This issue pertains to railroad operations within the Port District itself. The record shows that the Port District had built railroad trackage within its boundaries to serve the various docks and elevators and other port installations which the port was calculated to provide for. The basic plan for the port contemplated that all railroad operations would move over this Port District trackage. Obviously, therefore, some agreement would have to be provided among the parties if there was to be multiple railroad use as to charges to each and as to the plan of operation for the switching of cars in and out of the Port District.
Nonetheless, petitioners' applications as originally filed and as amended up to the point of the hearing before the Hearing Examiner did not request certificates of convenience and necessity for operation within the boundaries of the Port District. This was explained by petitioners' contention that no such certificates were legally required. Further, they claimed and showed that Rock Island was operating within the Port District without such a certificate. The Interstate Commerce Commission ruled otherwise.
Petitioners did, however, present an unexecuted proposed agreement designed to show a general plan of operation. This was introduced at the hearing before the Examiner and petitioners' witnesses were cross-examined by interveners in relation to it.
With this factual background before him, the Hearing Examiner entered lengthy findings of fact and recommended issuance of the certificates of convenience and necessity which the six railroads had applied for.
Extensive objections having been filed by interveners, the Interstate Commerce Commission heard oral arguments in relation to the objections and handed down a formal opinion containing findings of fact which largely duplicated those of the Hearing Examiner.
Among the important findings for which we find substantial support in this record are the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial