Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/320/685/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:19:02+00:00

Document:
1. In a proceeding before the Interstate Commerce Commission upon the application of a carrier, under § 1(18)-(20) of the Interstate Commerce Act, for a certificate authorizing abandonment of part of it lines, the jurisdiction of the Commission being challenged under § 1(22) of the Act -- which provides that the authority of the Commission to permit abandonment of line "shall not extend" to "street, suburban, or interurban electric railways, which are not operated as a part or parts of a general steam railroad system of transportation" -- the Commission should make jurisdictional findings; and, in the absence of such findings, an order granting the certificate should, on review, be set aide. P. 320 U. S. 689.
2. A proper regard for local interests in the management of local transportation facilities requires that federal power be exercised only where the statutory authority affirmatively appears. P. 320 U. S. 691.
Appeal from a decree of a District Court of three judges, refusing to set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
of public convenience and necessity allowing any carrier subject to the Act to abandon "all or any portion" of its line of railroad. Sec. 1(18), (19), (20), 49 U.S.C. § 1 (18), (19), (20), 24 Stat. 379, 41 Stat. 477, 478. But the Act also provides that that authority of the Commission "shall not extend" to the abandonment "of street, suburban, or interurban electric railways, which are not operated as a part or parts of a general steam railroad system of transportation." Sec. 1(22), 49 U.S.C. § 1(22).
New York City and Harmon, New York, and Harlem Division so far as White Plains, New York, the Putnam Division between Sedgwick Avenue and Van Cortlandt Park Junction, and the Yonkers line in question. With the exception noted, no part of the Putnam Division is electrified, its trains being operated by steam.
This Yonkers electric branch handles no freight, mail, express, or milk traffic, and no industries are dependent on it for such service. Its traffic is exclusively passenger traffic, principally commuter travel between Getty Square and three other stations in Yonkers and Grand Central Station in New York City. The trains serving stations on this Yonkers electric branch do not go through to Grand Central Station on account of the congested condition of the main-line tracks funnelling into Grand Central Station. Accordingly, these trains run only from Getty Square to Van Cortlandt Park Junction, and thence over the main line of the Putnam Division to the terminal at Sedgwick Avenue. Passengers from Yonkers to Grand Central Station must transfer to Hudson Division trains at either High Bridge or University Heights stations, which are north of the Sedgwick Avenue Station. Tariffs of the New York Central provide for one-way monthly commutation, and other tickets usable between the stations in Yonkers and Grand Central Station. Timetables of the New York Central disclose the service on this electric branch. And its operating results are reflected in the accounts of the New York Central.
The trains running on this electric branch are composed of two, three, or four cars. The trains are hauled not by a locomotive, but by so-called multiple unit cars. The structure of the line is such that locomotives cannot be used on it. The trains on this electric branch proceed only to Getty Square, Yonkers, and not beyond.
the question whether this electric branch line was or was not "operated as a part or parts of a general steam railroad system of transportation" within the meaning of § 1(22). The Commission did not undertake to review the evidence relevant to that issue. It made no findings respecting it. It authorized the abandonment on the grounds that continued operation would impose "an undue and unnecessary burden" upon the New York Central and upon interstate commerce. [Footnote 1] The Commission says that the question of its jurisdiction under § 1(22) was neither presented in limine nor urged in the briefs, in the exceptions to the examiner's report, or in the oral arguments. It was, however, presented in petitions for reconsideration which the Commission denied without opinion.
This suit to enjoin the order of the Commission, brought before a District Court of three judges, 38 Stat. 219, 220, 28 U.S.C. § 47, was initiated by the Public Service Commission of New York, the City of Yonkers, and a committee of Yonkers commuters. [Footnote 2] The jurisdiction of the Commission was challenged before the District Court. And that objection, which was overruled there (50 F.Supp. 497), has been renewed on the appeal which brings the case here. 28 U.S.C. §§ 47a, 345.
to the Hudson Division, and that those transfers made it necessary for the New York Central to provide seats on the Hudson Division trains for all the transferred Yonkers passengers for the remaining short run to Grand Central Station.
"construction of these exclusion clauses, great difficulty has been experienced, particularly in determining the roads properly classifiable as interurban electric railways."
Annual Report (1928), p. 80. That difficulty is apparent here by the division of opinion which exists in the Court whether this Yonkers branch is an "interurban electric" railway which is "operated as a part" of the New York Central system. [Footnote 3] § 1(22). As stated by Mr. Justice Brandeis in United States v. Idaho, 298 U. S. 105, 298 U. S. 109, the determination of what is included within the exemption of § 1(22) involves a "mixed question of fact and law." Congress has not left that question exclusively to administrative determination; it has given the courts the final say. Id., p. 298 U. S. 109. It is settled that the aid of the Commission need not be sought before the jurisdiction of a court is invoked to enjoin violations of the provisions in question. Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Gulf, c. & S.F. Ry. Co., 270 U. S. 266. And the fact that the Commission fails to make a finding on this jurisdictional question obviously does not preclude the reviewing court from making that determination initially. But we deem it essential in cases involving a review of orders of the Commission for the courts to decline to make that determination without the basic jurisdictional findings' first having been made by the Commission.
"delicate exercise of legislative policy in achieving a wise accommodation between the needs of central control and the lively maintenance of local institutions."
"suitable regard to the principle that, whenever the federal power is exerted within what would otherwise be the domain of state power, the justification of the exercise of the federal power must clearly appear."
findings before it undertakes to act not only gives added assurance that the local interests for which Congress expressed its solicitude will be safe-guarded. It also gives to the reviewing courts the assistance of an expert judgment on a knotty phase of a technical subject.
We are asked to presume that the Commission, knowing the limit of its authority, considered this jurisdictional question and decided to act because of its conviction that this branch line was not exempt by reason of § 1(22). But that is to deal too cavalierly with the Congressional mandate and with the local interests which are pressing for recognition. Where a federal agency is authorized to invoke an overriding federal power except in certain prescribed situations, and then to leave the problem to traditional state control, the existence of federal authority to act should appear affirmatively and not rest on inference alone.
This is not to insist on formalities and to burden the administrative process with ritualistic requirements. It entails a matter of great substance. It requires the Commission to heed the mandates of the Act and to make the expert determinations which are conditions precedent to its authority to act.
We intimate no opinion on the merits of the controversy. For, in absence of the requisite jurisdictional findings, we think the order of the Commission should have been set aside.
The certificate authorizes a complete abandonment of the Yonkers branch, including dismantlement and salvaging.
The Public Service Commission of New York, which took the lead in attacking the order of the Commission before the District Court but which has not appeared here, asserted in its complaint that authority to discontinue the four stations was required by New York law, but had not been sought or obtained.
Cf. Piedmont & Northern R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 286 U. S. 299, 286 U. S. 307, and United States v. Chicago, North Shore & M. R. Co., 288 U. S. 1, 288 U. S. 9-12, which emphasize in determining the status of independent electric roads the dominance of interurban passenger service and the preponderance of local traffic.
For cases dealing with the exception of suburban or interurban electric railways where the Commission has passed on the jurisdictional question, see In the Matter of Michigan United Rys. Co., 67 I.C.C. 452; Abandonment of Line by Boise Valley Traction Co., 79 I.C.C. 167; Proposed Abandonment by Lewiston & Youngstown Frontier R. Co., 124 I.C.C. 219; Proposed Construction of Lines by Piedmont & Northern R. Co., 138 I.C.C. 363, 372; Unified Operation at Los Angeles Harbor, 150 I.C.C. 649, 661; Glendale & Montrose R. Proposed Abandonment, 166 I.C.C. 625.
The requisite finding was made by the Commission in the Oregon Short Line case (193 I.C.C. 697, 705), in which the order of the Commission was set aside by United States v. Idaho, supra.
Congress has empowered the Interstate Commerce Commission to authorize a railroad, when public convenience permits, to abandon any portion of its line. But when such portion is a suburban or interurban electric railway, abandonment may be authorized only if it is part of a general steam railroad system of transportation.
Section 1 (18) and (22) of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended 49 U.S.C. § 1(18) and (22). This Court has held that whether such a line is of a character to permit abandonment under federal authority need not be determined in the first instance by the Interstate Commerce Commission, and such determination, when made, does not foreclose an independent judicial judgment. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Gulf, C. & S.R. Ry. Co., 270 U. S. 266, and United States v. Idaho, 298 U. S. 105. On such an independent examination of the issue, the court below had no doubt that the Yonkers branch of the New York Central, the portion of the Central lines for which abandonment was here sought, was not "a suburban or interurban line unconnected with the rest of the Central's railroad system," but was, in fact, "intertwined with the operation of the [New York Central Railroad] system as a whole." 50 F.Supp. 497, 498. The record amply sustains this conclusion. If this Court, however, on its own estimate of the various elements in the financial, physical, and transportation relations between the rest of the New York Central lines and this Yonkers branch, had struck a contrary balance and found that the Yonkers branch was not operated as a part of the general New York Central system, I should not have deemed the matter of sufficient importance to warrant expression of dissent.
to the futile end of having this Court then, forsooth, express an opinion on the merits opposed to that of the Commission and the District Court. This danger, if not likelihood, of thus marching the king's men up the hill and then marching them down again seems to me a mode of judicial administration to which I cannot yield concurrence. I think the case should be disposed of on the merits by affirming the judgment of the District Court.
wrong." See United States v. Chicago, M., St.P. & P. R. Co.,@ 294 U. S. 499, 294 U. S. 509-511.
This is the real ground for the decisions which have found Interstate Commerce Commission orders wanting in necessary findings. They have all been cases where the determination of an issue is not open to independent judgment by this Court, and where the case, as it came here, rested on conflicting inferences of fact left unresolved by the Commission. Such were the circumstances, for instance, in Florida v. United States, 282 U. S. 194, particularly at 282 U. S. 214-215, and United States v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 293 U. S. 454, 293 U. S. 455, particularly at 293 U. S. 463-464. Findings in this sense is a way of describing the duty of the Commission to decide issues actually in controversy before it. Analysis is not furthered by speaking of such findings as "jurisdictional," and not even when -- to adapt a famous phrase -- jurisdictional is softened by a quasi. "Jurisdiction" competes with "right" as one of the most deceptive of legal pitfalls. The opinions in Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, and the casuistries to which they have given rise bear unedifying testimony of the morass into which one is led in working out problems of judicial review over administrative decisions by loose talk about jurisdiction.
The nub of the matter regarding the requirement of findings, where the formal making of them is not legislatively commanded, is indicated in United States v. Louisiana, 290 U. S. 70. Reviewing the validity of the Commission's order is the serious business of sitting in judgment upon a tribunal of great traditions and large responsibility. An order of the Commission should not be viewed in a hypercritical spirit, nor even as though elegantia juris were our concern. We should judge a challenged order of the Commission by "the report, read as a whole," 290 U.S., supra, at 290 U. S. 80, and by the record as a whole out of which the report arose.
"(1) the line sought to be abandoned is an interurban electric passenger railway located wholly within the New York, and (2). . . the alleged annual operating deficit"
of the Yonkers branch was too insignificant to burden the operation of the New York Central. Exercising the discretion which Congress explicitly conferred upon it, the full Commission denied the petition for rehearing. Interstate Commerce Act, § 17(6). In any fair construction of the action of the Commission, such a denial is an adverse finding of such claims as were made in the petitions for rehearing. The crucial fact is that only when the present bill was filed in the court below did the objection which the Court now sustains emerge in the specific claim that the Yonkers "branch is not operated as a part or parts of a general steam railroad system of transportation."
Can there be any doubt that this contention was not put to the Commission because it was an afterthought? This issue was never tendered to the Commission because the facts which deny it were never questioned in the proceedings conducted before it with vigor and ability by several protestants during the three successive stages that preceded a challenge in the courts.
within § 1(22). Is not insistence on such an empty formalism a reversion to seventeenth century pleading which required talismanic phrases, as for instance, that a seller could not be held to warrant that he sold what he purported to sell unless the buyer pleaded warrantizando vendidit or barganizasset? On the other hand, if the Court, with all the facts before it, does not think the Yonkers branch is a part of the railway operations of the New York Central, now is the time to say so.
MR. JUSTICE REED and MR. JUSTICE JACKSON join in this opinion.
* Due concern for local interests in the administration of the Interstate Commerce Act hardly calls for an exaggerated concern for formal findings. The Interstate Commerce Act relies primarily on state authorities for the safeguarding of local interests. It is therefore relevant to note that the New York Public Service Commission, which is charged with the duty of protecting the local interests of New York against federal encroachments and which does not appear to have been unalert in doing so, has acquiesced in the decision below, and is not here urging the local interest on which the decision of this Court seems to be based. That the state agency had best be looked to for the vindication of conflicting local interests within a state is well illustrated by the fact that, while the City of Yonkers protested against the abandonment of the branch line, the City of New York urged it.

References: § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 47
 § 1
 v. 
 § 1
 v. 
 § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 17
 § 1