Evening star., 1949-11-15
An Argument for Area PUG

In upholding the jurisdiction OF the
Interstate Commerce Commission In the
so-called Pentagon joint bus fare case, a
Supreme Court majority pointed to weak
ness In the public utility setup in the
METROPOLITAN Area that will become more
glaring as the region grows. This weak
ness is the lack of any agency other than
the ICC to handle such borderline utility
problems as the Pentagon case. The pos
sibility arises that this long jurisdictional
dispute between the ICC and the District
PUG might never have arisen had there
existed Metropolitan Area PUG OF the
type suggested in the past by various civic
organizations. The Pentagon fare case
was made to order for such regional
commission.
The five-to-three opinion by which the
court overturned a three Judge District
Court decision of last December points out
that neither the District PUG nor the
Virginia authorities have adequate power
to regulate rates for this daily stream Of
interstate travel"-referring to bus traffic
between the Pentagon and Washington.
This traffic moves in a sort Of twilight
zone of public utility control. The effect
of the courts ruling is to project the 1CC
into this no-man's-land to protect the
interests of a special group of bus riders,
namely, those employed in Army or Navy
Offices across the river.
The majority contends that this stream
of travel to and from Virginia is essentially
Interstate" even though it uses the strictly
tntrastate buses or streetcars OF the Capital
Transit Company for part of the trip. The
court therefore holds that the ICC has full
authority to regulate fares charged by
Capital Transit for its inside e-the-District
portion OF the trip. This view of five men,
bers of the court is opposed by Chief
Justice Vinson and Justices Reed and
Jackson, as well as by the District Court
and the District PUG. The dissenting
justices stand on the wording Of the Inter-
state Motor Carrier Act, which specifically
bars the commission from regulating intra-
state transportation on the ground that 1t
affects interstate transportation" Says the
majority: "We cannot agree that intra
state carriage Of passengers who have an
intention to continue their journey across
State lines by way of another and wholly
unconnected company makes the first
carrier a company engaged in interstate
commerce under the Motor Carrier Act as
to that transportation"
Yet the majority opinion does, in effect,
make an interstate carrier out OF the Cap
ital Transit Company, although its buses
no longer run to the Pentagon, as they
did during the war. And, as the minority
aptly stresses, If the majority view is sound
then the ICC can assert similar authority
anywhere over local transportation facil-
tiles that carry passengers leaving for or
arriving from out State points. The ICC
would be taking over an enormous job If
1t sought to exercise such Jurisdiction over
New York's buses and subways.
It is difficult to believe that Congress
ever intended to load such q burden on
the ICC, even II the law looks that way to
the court majority. The commission GER
tainly has enough to do trying to handle
carrier problems that are indisputably
interstate. It would be logical for the ICC
to stick to this non -contestable field of
operation. Meanwhile Congress should
give prompt and earnest study to the pro-
posal, Endorsed by The Star, for compact
created Metropolitan Area PUG to handle
such purely regional cases as the Pentagon
bus fare controversy.