Document: 366 U.S. 272 81 S.Ct. 1341 6 L.Ed.2d 284 H. K. PORTER CO., Inc., et al., Appellants,v.CENTRAL VERMONT RAILWAY, INC., al. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Appellant, v. CENTRAL UNITED STATES, Nos. 257, 258, 266. Decided May 22, 1961. Argued April 20, Mr. Richard A. Solomon, Washington, D.C., for appellant in no. Robert W. Ginnane, No. 258. Submitted on briefs by E. B. Ussery, Columbia, S.C., and John D. Carbine, Rutland, Vt., appellants 257. J. Edgar McDonald, New York City, appellees each case. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The Interstate Commerce Act confers broad powers upon Commission to regulate railroad transportation United States or from a foreign country, 'but only insofar as such * takes place within States.'1 In this case, here appeal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1253 2101(b), U.S.C.A. 1253, three-judge District Court set aside order ground that was attempting Canada excess Commission's jurisdiction.2 2 Province Quebec, Canada, is principal source asbestos manufacturers products country. It transported Canadian railroads through southern points Vermont three five miles south border carried there various appellee other States. American carriers have joined publication joint rates available consignees 'official territory' Northeastern States,3 which are substantially lower than combination separate local published Southern On basis these facts found after hearings higher complainants South were: (a) 'unjust unreasonable' therefore violation § 1(5) Act,4 (b) 'unduly prejudicial' 'undulyp referential' northern enjoying rates, 3(1).5 then entered its directing cease desist continuing practice undue prejudice preference it had establish, post maintain practices would thereafter 'prevent avoid' preference.6 3 Court's holding without jurisdiction based assumption attempted control part transportation. But did not run against any except taking 'within States.' directed defendant railroads, 'according they participate States,' take action their power participation be prejudicial 3(1). affected country 'from country' over 1(1)(a) specifically gives jurisdiction, nothing more direct engaged adjust States' way eliminate illegal discriminations. These operating undoubtedly complete stop Mere withdrawal preferential through-rate agreements an obvious do so, alternative method territory reduction interchange South. 4 has long been settled forbid unlawful rate discriminations no diminished because rates.7 This likewise lost merely becaue particular carrying goods happens continuation carriage another Otherwise mandate protect shippers all frustrated with respect include payment country.8 5 error lack judgment reversed. Reversed. 49 1(2), 1(1)(a), (2). 182 F.Supp. 516. 'Official general area lying east Mississippi River north Potomac Ohio Rivers. See Class Rate Investigation, 1939, 262 I.C.C. 447, 457. 1(5), 1(5). 3(1), Since challenged prescribed 'reasonable rates' observed, we occasion consider contention prescribe rates. Nor enter final complainant entitled award damages charged Such order, when if made, can before single judge 16(2), 16(2). I.C.C., 337 426, 442—443, 69 1410, 1419—1420, 93 L.Ed. 1451; Pennsylvania R. Co. States, 363 202, 205, 80 1131, 1133, 1165. 7 Illinois Central Co., 263 515, 527, 44 189, 194, 68 417. 8 Cf. Commissioner Eastman's concurring Cyanamid Crude Cyanide Niagara Falls, Ontario, 155 488, 501 502.

Category: 7