Transit Commission v. United States

• Citation: 1 F. Supp. 595
• Parties: TRANSIT COMMISSION v. UNITED STATES et al. (INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Intervener). STATE OF NEW YORK v. SAME.
• Decision Date: 03 October 1932
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

1 F. Supp. 595

TRANSIT COMMISSION v. UNITED STATES et al. (INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Intervener).

STATE OF NEW YORK v. SAME.

District Court, S. D. New York.

October 3, 1932.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

George H. Stover, of New York City (Philip Hodes, of New York City, of counsel), for New York State Transit Commission.

John J. Bennett, Jr., Atty. Gen. of State of New York (Wendell P. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for the State of New York.

George Z. Medalie, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Elmer B. Collins, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., of counsel), for the United States.

Joseph F. Keany, of New York City (Alfred A. Gardner, of New York City, of counsel), for respondents Long Island R. R. and Pennsylvania R. Co.

Daniel W. Knowlton, of Washington, D. C. (H. L. Underwood, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for intervening respondent Interstate Commerce Commission.

Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judge, and BONDY and PATTERSON, District Judges.

AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).

The question involved in these suits is whether the Transit Commission or the Interstate Commerce Commission has jurisdiction to pass on the trackage agreements of the Pennsylvania and the Long Island Railroads. This depends on the proper interpretation of section 1 (18) of the Interstate Commerce Act. The caption of subdivision 18 of section 1 is: "Extension or abandonment of lines; certificate required."

Subdivision 18 provides that: "No carrier by railroad subject to this chapter shall undertake the extension of its line of railroad, or the construction of a new line of railroad, or shall acquire or operate any line of railroad, or extension thereof, or shall engage in transportation under this chapter over or by means of such additional or extended line of railroad, unless and until there shall first have been obtained from the commission a certificate that the present or future public convenience and necessity require or will require the construction, or operation, or construction and operation, of such additional or extended line of railroad, and no carrier by railroad subject to this chapter shall abandon all or any portion of a line of railroad, or the operation thereof, unless and until there shall first have been obtained from the commission a certificate that the present or future public convenience and necessity permit of such abandonment."

It is contended by the Transit Commission and the state of New York that subdivision (18) requires a certificate from the Interstate Commerce Commission only where a railroad (1) extends its line, (2) constructs a new line, (3) acquires another line, or (4) engages in transportation "over or by means of such additional or extended line"; and that the Long Island is not doing any of these things, when it is merely using, jointly with the Pennsylvania, certain existing lines of the latter under a trackage agreement.

The difficulty with this position is that it disregards the broad purposes of the Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act (of 1920) under which section 1 (18) was adopted. Its general purpose was to control railroads, whose operations affected interstate commerce, in such a way as to avoid excessive expenditures by the building of unnecessary lines and to prevent injurious competition and the abandonment of useful arteries of commerce. New England Divisions Case, 261 U. S. at page 189, 43 S. Ct. 270, 67 L. Ed. 605; Texas & Pac. Ry. v. Gulf, etc., Ry., 270 U. S. at page 277, 46 S. Ct. 263, 70 L. Ed. 578; Colorado v. United States, 271 U. S. at pages 161, 162, 46 S. Ct. 452, 70 L. Ed. 878; Alabama, etc., Ry. Co. v. Jackson, etc., Ry., 271 U. S. at page 249, 46 S. Ct. 535, 70 L. Ed. 928. Operation, whether over newly constructed lines or under trackage agreements over existing lines of another carrier, may substantially affect interstate commerce by affecting the ability of the carriers involved to perform their service as a part of the general transportation system of the country, by unnecessarily duplicating lines, or by causing undesirable expense or other undue burdens.

In view of the settled governmental policy of control of interstate transportation by a single body charged with the duty of supervising it as a whole, it seems reasonable to construe the words "operate any line of railroad," found in subdivision 18 of section 1, as embracing any railroad having interstate relations that runs its trains over the lines of another, under a trackage agreement entered into between the two roads. It is true that the clause might be interpreted as directed only to a railroad owning, leasing, or maintaining the tracks used, but it seems hard to justify a definition that would prevent national control of such important arteries of interstate commerce as are railroads using the tracks of other railroads engaged therein. In our opinion the above words are alone sufficient to bring the present case within the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Moreover, the words "no carrier * * * shall undertake the extension of its line of railroad * * * or shall engage in transportation * * * by means of such * * * extended line" fairly cover the proposed contract. It is unreasonable to confine them to cases of the construction, acquisition, or maintenance of an extension by an owner. An extension, whether arising out of a trackage agreement...