Document: 382 U.S. 154 86 S.Ct. 277 15 L.Ed.2d 223 SEABOARD AIR LINE R. CO.v.UNITED STATES. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION v. FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO. Nos. 425, 555. Decided Nov. 22, 1965. Paul A. Porter, Dennis G. Lyons, Harold J. Gallagher, Walter H. Brown, Jr., Richard Hollander, Edwin Burgess, Prime F. Osborn, Albert B. Russ, and Phil C. Beverly, for appellants Seaboard Air Line Co. others. Robert W. Ginnane Fritz Kahn, appellant Interstate Commerce Commission. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney Turner Lionel Kestenbaum, the United States. Alvis Layne Fred Kent, appellee Florida East Coast railway co. Graham Claytor, Southern Ry. Edward Hickey, William Mahoney, Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n. PER CURIAM. 1 Atlantic Railroad Company filed with Commission an application authority to merge. In administrative proceedings, applicants contended that merger would enable them lower operating costs, improve service, eliminate duplicate facilities; other carriers opposed on ground it have adverse competitive effects; Department of Justice create a rail monopoly in central western Florida. 2 The approved merger, subject routing gateway conditions protect competing railroads. It recognized competition parts But found merged lines carried only small part total traffic area involved; ample remain therein; reduction 'have no appreciably injurious effect upon shippers communities.' Co., 320 I.C.C. 122, 167. addition, noted need preserve intramodal had diminished, due fact railroads were increasingly losing truck, water, modes competition. 3 A three-judge District Court set aside order remanded case further proceedings. concluded Commission's analysis effects was fatally defective because not determined whether violated § 7 Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, U.S.C. 18 (1964 ed.), by reference relevant product geographic markets. By thus disposing case, did reach ultimate question be consistent public interest despite foreseeable injury competition.1 4 We believe erred its interpretation directions this forth McLean Trucking States, 321 67, 64 370, 88 L.Ed. 544 (1944), Minneapolis & St. Louis 361 173, 80 229, (1959). As we said at 186, 237: 5 'Although 5(11) does authorize 'ignore' antitrust laws, 80, 544, there can 'little doubt is measure proposals (acquisitions) standards laws.' pages 85—86, page 379. problem one accommodation 5(2) legislation. remains obligated 'estimate scope appraise curtailment which will result from proposed (acquisition) consider along advantages improved service (and matters interest) determine assist effectuating over-all transportation policy.' 87, 381.' 6 same criteria should applied here merger. might otherwise violate laws; has been authorized byn Congress approve if makes adequate findings accordance quoted above such 'consistent interest.' 54 906, 49 5(2)(b) ed.). Whether confined itself within statutory limits discretion based substantial evidence are questions trial court first instance, States Great Northern 343 562, 578, 72 985, 994, 96 1142 (1952), indicate opinion same. therefore vacate judgment remand full review pursuant enunciated Court. 8 Vacated remanded. 9 Mr. FORTAS took consideration or decision these cases. expressly declined two issues, i.e., labor-protection control company Mercantile-Safe Deposit Trust interest.

Category: 7