&uet 10, 1955'

Ron. VIIMM J. Xurxn~. Jr.. -- - Chaiiman kallroad

Colpieaion

of Texae Tribune BullaID&! Austin,- Opinion Ho; ~9-165 Be: Application

of Railroad

CclllieslonQ~ traueportationxatee to the intrastate ahlpilent

or &oda for t&emilitary DearNr.&rrayr brenohee of the mited Statee;

Pour request

for a ievlev

of the app&ioabillt~ of the Railroad

Commisslon'~

rate8to intrastate

ehipment

of Soodefor theUnited States is qu0t.h .pp‘m, M fo*8: ._, ~...

. _ .,.

_. __ ~I..

_ :..z apOn request

fmn the RailroadCamnl~alon of Tesae, thk &ttorneyQeneralof Texas issued

three oplnione

relatlngto the~tterofre@atedcarriere treneport~ehlpme&a of tiight.f& the United States Goverwint.,

or ite military

In pertlculer,

intraatete:

in Taxee;at rate6

dif- ~fensit fYcm the rates

prescribed

by the Ballmad Comnlsaion **of** TM, **or aa**  might **be appmwd**  **by the**  **molti. Them**  Oplnlons

veredite&Aprll'l& 19% (without nuaber);D&xmber lB,lg4C (CplnionIo. o-2954)andMay lo, 

### 1~3(opinionEo. O-B).. Oneeop7 FhM,theae Cpinione ie golmedhere-

,. with ior ycmrread7 rer-e.L I~ ---~
~eomo~ le of the op*1ou taatthC~olon'e tralleportatlon raten~are

appllcabbla’to

the intr~tateahlpbent of goodo

for the lilted Statee. (mllltuy)vhenthemovementle oonductadb~

Yndependmtoontznctorsi The authoritler rallynl upoz~ **by** t.+fcumr oplnloue of tbleoffice have been dletln&ehed or overruled b7 anbaequent

came; therefore,

much opinions

are overruled

insofar a8 t&p oonfllottith t.3H.e opinion.
The regulation

of tranepo~tlou rate8b7 the etatee ie a validand aeceesary

iunctlab~fo~,pmeerve and pmt+ot t& public interest.

Stepheneon v:Blnfonl, 267U.S. Q51( 1932); SteeleP. Ceneralllllls, 329U. S. 433 (lPh7). '~ .~ -~ StateregalH,ion~@ey not direotly

interfue

vi& the funotion

of Sovemmentil

operationa

~Qm~<a offloere aud @encler. Johneon V. xsryland,

254 u. 8. 51 (1920);

Louweln V. mod& I2 S.U. 2d%m=Eon. YllllemJ.Murra7, Jr.,pale2 (S-165)

App. 1929). Hovever, indepmdent

contr~~tora

rendering

nervloes

to the g o ve r me nt

a r e n o t l xoh egenclee

conducting

Sovermeutal

functiona,

aid themere faotnon-diec&uina@xyregulatlom of the cmtraotor fndirectQ lncreaaee

the burden

unon thegovernment

no lonuerbrini@

auoh oontract

### Gi a Boowr, oiuwithinan7 tipUeh<7 fnrm state re&tion. Penn Dairies ve. Xllk Control

Caani~ion,3l.8 U. S. 261 (1943); Alabama a 314U.s.ttir.e Ltipolis B. Co. v. Llchtenbag, 176Md.~ 383, 4 A. a 734 (;9m

In the PennDairies

ceee, the Supreme

Court upheld a Pennejrlvanla milkprice fixing

lav ae applied

to the sale ofmilkto the UnnitedStatee. The court

distinguiehed

adencies

performins

Sovernmental

funotfona,

such aa the mail carrier

In the Iouuein

case,from the a&e of independentcontraotora

by stating

onpage~follovs%

“Wema7 ae.xfme

al.80 that, in the abeence of Congresslonalconaent,

thereie an inplied

constitutional

inmmit7 of the nationalgovenmentfivmetate taratlonandirometate regulation

of the perfozmence

by federal

offioere

end aSen- .clee., of &overnmul

talfunctlone.

ohlov. -lTmw, 173 u. 8. 276; Johneon

v. IU$and, 254V. S. 51;Hunt v. UnltedStatea, 278 0. S. 96;Arlwma v. Callfornla, 283 U. 8. 423. But those who contraot

to furnleh

euppllea

or render

aervloes

to the SoveiWentare not suchagencies and bd mot perform

governmentalfuiictione.

Metcalf S Bids v. Mltohell.

269 0. S. 514;.524- 5; Jmea V. DiavoC~Q%Ctf.XW **CO.9** 3C2U: S.-u4, 145;**BGk** staff Co. v.McKlnlee,

308U.s. 358, 362-63 andoaaee cited; Co. Vi Tax Comn'n., 283 U. 6. 291, **294;** Helvei- 303 U. S. 376. 385-86; **ad** the ‘.

. cf. susquehanM ingv.MountainProdw.%raCorp mere factthatnon~rlmlnatorgtasationoi re&&v&nof the contraotor

lmpoeee anfncreeaed

eaonanlc

burdenan the.#xernment 'la

uo longer

r8gaHed am brln@ng the eontraotca wIthin auy fmDlled iisnunitrof

theaovemnaentfr&atateWatimorre&a- _ tion. Alabama

v. ?Ung &-Doozer,

314U.-S; 1,-g,

end oaeeacited; Baltlmore

6 Avmapolfa

8. Co. v. WChMberg, 176~~11 ’ 383, 4 A. Qd 734, 0: o., mitea statell t:Baltfmore

a Annapolle

B. co. 308 TJ. 8. ‘ -525. ”

_. The supreme

Cburtalmheld that State fit6 ragulation~v~notticcmeietent

vltb the Aott! of Congiere requiring

crmpetltive

bidding,

naylng, in part,at prge 275,ae follownx
" .Anunexpressed purpose of Congrese

to aet aeideetatutes oi ihe et&&~ regulat3ng theirlutema affair6 la 'mt U&t4 .tobe~fnferredandon&tnottobe luplledwhere the lagialative command,

read fn the light

of Itshietorp,

rmaainaembisuOUB. Consideratlone whichlead

ua not to favor

repeal of statuteeby implication, United Statea v. Borden

Co., 308 0. 8. 188,Eon. Wllllam J. wufiy, Jr., page 3 p-165)

198-g; IlhltedStska

V. Jeti=, 302 U. 9. 628, 631; Pwadaa v. IlatIonal~Clty Bank j 296, U. S. 497, 503-5, ah= be at baet ae pereuaelve vhen the queetlon

lr oI1e of the nulJ.lflcatlon

of at&e paver

by Congreeelonal

leginlatlon.
!'Reuoe, Inthe aba&ce of come evldellee of en InflerlbleCongrea~Ia&lpol.lcy requI.rInggovermaentoontract.d to be awarded

on the lwert bid despite nonCanpllence

vIt,h etate regalations

QtberuIre

applIoable,ve

cannoteaythat the PennaylvanIamllk i%gulation

conflicta

with Congreaslanal legislation

or polIc7

andmuntbe eat aside merely becauee it lncreaees

the prlcdof milk to the government. It vouq be tiomore thanepeculatlcmforun to say thatCongnasvould consider the govarmuen t'e pecaniary

Interest

ea a purchaser of mIilk more Important

thanthe imtereet

deserted

by Penn@ylvanla in ti e

l tabIlizatIon

of her milk eupply

throw control of prloe. Courta

ehould guard rgalnet resolving

themeetipetIng wnelderatlone

of pollc7

by imputing

to Congress

a decision which quite

clearly It has not undertaken to make. Furthermore,ve should

be olow to strike

down legislation

vhIch the atatewnoededl7

had **paver** to enact,

becauae,of

Its ass-ted burden on the fedezilgove=nt. **For** the state Ie poverleer to remove

the ill effecta

of our decision,

vhile the national govermuent,

vhIch hae the ultimate

power, remains

free to remove theburden."

that Further,

the f$upreme

Court in the Penn DaIries'oplnlon reasoned Panhandle

Oil Company

v. Knox,277 U. S. 218 (1928);apdlike cases, had been overruled

by Alabama

v. King & Boozer,

supza.

In Paolflo

Coast Dairies v. Department,

318 U. S. 285 (l&3), deoidcd on the acmeda7 ae thePenn Dairies caee, the Supreme

Court held thata California

milk price

regulation

vae not appl.Icabls

to the~sale

of **milk** contracted

and **wncmmated** within a Federal

enclave. The irorrrt

eaeoned thatCongress

had exolualve

power over Federal

enclave8

by reyon **of** Clause 17, Section

0 of ArtIclaI of the Constitution of the United

States. The factaof thatoaaearenotcontrolll~here because the contraotavIth

the govement contemplate themovement

of goods

wholly upon the highways **of** Texas, except, In a few instances,

where there Ia a nominal entry In **or** departure

from a Federal

enclave by the carrier. InHughes Transportation Co. v. United

States,

l21Fed. Sup. 212 **(19541,** a KentucQ rate regulation vas held applicable

to themovement

of **gwda** for the Department of theAzm7by an independent contractor.

The Court of Clalma

has renmnded

the case for further findings

of fact nlegated to the proper

determination

and interpretation

of the KentuckHan. lfilllu J. Nurray,

Jr., page 4 (s-165)

Mm. Thlr Ia the lateet exprvralon of the lav**by** a reden oourt.

3he &rut&e ehlpmnt of goode bye en lndkpimdent

oontmctor for t.be mllltary

braiichee

of the Vnlted

Skater3.6

eubJect to the rate regnl~- tionof theRailnmd ConmImIca. The authoritler nIled upon **b7** the former opinlone

6f thl6office

havebeen distl.uguIehed or overruled

by mubmsquent o-em) tbrefore, ouoh opinion em overruled lneofar M they conilIot with thin opinion.

APPmmr Tours very truly,

J. A.‘.kmIe,

Jr. Rev1m.r

~. Davla orant Revlever

WI= b..‘Datia Reviewer
Robert S. TI6tt.l nrnt AxJaldant
JohnBen Snepperd Attorney

Osnerrl Anelstant Attome Dsneral