Evening star., 1949-03-14
High hCourt Rule
Asked in Joint
BusRateDispute
Virginia Companies
Charge PUG Voided
ICC Ruling Here

The Spreme Court was asked
today to settle the controversy
between the Capital Transit Co.
and two Virginia bus lines over q
former joint fare between the Dis
trict and Arlington County points
such as the Pentagon.
The issue came before the high
court in an appeal by the Wash
ington, Virginia g. Maryland
Coach Co., Inc. and the Alex
andria Bancroft & Washington
Transit Co. from a District Court
ruling last December.
A three-iudge court then held
that, in effect, the Public Utilities
Commission here had jurisdiction
over the transportation Of passen-
gers by the Capital Transit Co.
within the District, whether or
not such passengers came from or
went to points outside of the Dis
trict.
ICC OrdeS Set Aside.
The District Court ruling. &C
cording to the Virginia bus COM
panies, set aside an Interstate
Commerce Commission order
which required the Capital Tran
sit Co. and the Virginia COM
panies to maintain Joint fares and
transportation privileges between
the District and specified points in
Arlington County. Those points
included not only the Pentagon
and several other Army and Navy
buildings in that area, but also
the National Airport.
In April, l947, according to the
petition filed with the Supreme
Court, the Capital Transit Co. dis
continued bus service to the Pen
tagon and asked the PUG for a
declaratory order on the question
of the ices jurisdiction over rates
of the Capital Transit Co.
Specifically. the PUG was asked
to rule whether the ICC could
exercise jurisdiction over Capital
Transit service within the District
for passengers moving in inter-
state commerce over the. joint IA
cilities of the Virginia companies
and Capital Transit.
Cash Adjustment Demanded.
The PUG handed down its ruling
June II, 1947. and the Capital
Transit Co., according to the Pc
tition, demanded that the Virginia
companies make a cash adjust
ment for each joint fare used on
its lines within the District. The
matter then went to District Court
here.
In their appeal to the Supreme
Court the Virginia companies con-
tended that the District Court
decision was contrary to an earlier
ruling by the Supreme Court in
another case affecting the Capital
Transit Co. In that instance, the
companies declared, the Supreme
Court held that the ICC had
jurisdiction in such an arrange
ment under the National Trans
portation Policy.
The District Court decision, the
Virginia companies also con-
tended, should be reversed because
it set aside a "bonafide contrac-
tual arrangement between the
Capital Transit Co. and the Vir-
ginia companies without the
consent or approval of the Vir-
ginia companies"
Capital Transit Replies.
In it's reply to the appeal to the
Supreme Court. the Capital Tran
sit CO. contended that the ques-
tion decided by the District Court
was "solely between the statutory.
regulatory power of the ICC and
PUG over the compensation Of
Capital Transit for services wholly
within the District"
The transit company also de-
clared that no legal controversy
exists over the authority of the
1CC to regulate admittedly inter.
state services of the Virginia COM
panies.
The company also held that the
questions raised by the Virginia
companies are so unsubstantial
as not to justify action by the
Supreme Court.