Source: https://openjurist.org/329/us/424
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 23:02:54+00:00

Document:
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Delaware.
Mr.Edward M. Reidy, of Washington, D.C., for appellants.
Mr. Wilbur LaRoe, Jr., of Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Part III of the Interstate Commerce Act, 54 Stat. 929, 49 U.S.C. § 901 et seq., 49 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq., subjected water carriers to the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Section 309(a) of that Act, 49 U.S.C.A. § 909(a), required them to obtain certificates of public convenience and necessity from the Commission. The same section contains a proviso commonly referred to as the grandfather clause. It provides that any water carrier, with an exception not here material, which was in bona fide operation as a common carrier by water on January 1, 1940, shall be entitled o a certificate to continue operations over the route or routes which it had been serving previous to that date without determination by the Commission of the question of public convenience and necessity.
Seatrain then brought this action before a three-judge District Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 41(28), 47, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 41(28), 47, to set aside the Commission's order. The District Court set aside the order on the ground that the Commission had exceeded its statutory authority in reopening the proceeding and altering the certificate. The District Court further held that even if the Commission would have had power under different circumstances to alter a certificate, it should not have done so in this case where, as the Court found from evidence before it but which had not been before the Commission, Seatrain had expended large sums of money in reliance upon the complete validity of its certificate. 64 F.Supp. 156. We need not consider the Commission's objection to the District Court's admission of evidence not heard by the Commission since we agree with the District Court that the Commission was without authority to cancel this certificate.
In altering Seatrain's certificate, the Commission held that a certificate authorizing the carriage of 'commodities generally' does not embrace the right to carry loaded or unloaded railroad cars; that consequently the original certificate granted Seatrain actually deprived it f any future right to carry railroad cars its chief business; that issuance of the original certificate to carry commodities generally was consequently an inadvertent error patent on the face of the record which the Commission has the right and power to change at any time the matter comes to its attention. But Seatrain argues that, far from restoring the right to which it was entitled under the original proceedings, the new order actually results in a drastic limitation on the nature of the equipment and service Seatrain is privileged to employ in loading and carrying freight, and could bar delivery or receipt of freight to or from any consignees except railroads.
Since the proceedings apparently were not reopened to correct a mere clerical error but were more likely an effort to revoke or modify substantially Seatrain's original certificate under the new policy announced in the Foss case, the question remains whether the Act authorizes such alterations. The water carrier provisions are part of the general pattern of the Interstate Commerce Act which grants the Commission power to regulate railroads and motor carriers as well as water carriers.3 The Commission is authorized to issue certificates to all three types of carriers. But it is specifically empowered to revoke only the certificates of motor carriers. Section 212(a), Part II, Interstate Commerce Act, 49 Stat. 555, 49 U.S.C. § 312(a), 49 U.S.C.A. § 312(a). In fact, when the water carrier provisions were pending in Congress, the Commission's spokesman, Commissioner Eastman, seems specifically to have requested the Congress to include no power to revoke a certificate. The Commissioner explained that while the power to revoke motor carriers' certificates was essential as an effective means of enforcement of the motor carrier section, it was not necessary to use such sanctions in the regulation of water carriers.4 It is contended nonetheless that the Commission has greater power to revoke water carrier certificates, where Congress granted no specific authority at a l, than to cancel and revoke motor carrier certificates where specific but limited authority was granted. But in ruling upon its power to revoke motor carrier certificates, the Commission itself has held that unless it can find a reason to revoke a motor carrier's certificate, which reason is specifically set out in § 212(a), it cannot revoke such a certificate under its general statutory power to alter orders previously made. Smith Bros. Revocation of Order, 33 M.C.C. 465.
Nor do we think that the Commission's ruling was justified by the language of § 315(c), 49 U.S.C.A. § 915(c), which authorizes it to 'suspend, modify, or set aside its orders under this part upon such notice and in such manner as it shall deem proper.' That the word 'order', as here used, was intended to describe something different from the word 'certificate' used in other places, is clearly shown by the way both these words are used in the Act. Section 309 describes the certificate, the method of obtaining it, and its scope and effect, but it nowhere refers to the word 'order.' Section 315 of the Act, having specific reference to orders, and which in subsection (c), here relied on, authorizes suspension, alteration, or modification of orders, nowhere mentions the word 'certificate.'6 It is clear that the 'orders' referred to in 315(c) are formal commands of the Commission relating to its procedure and the rates, fares, practices, and like things coming within its authority. But as the Commission has said, as to motor carrier certificates, while the procedural 'orders' antecedent to a water carrier certificate can be modified from time to time, the certificate marks the end of that proceeding.7 The certificate, when finally granted, and the time fixed for rehearing it has passed, is not subject to revocation in whole or in part except as specifically authorized by Congress. Consequently, the Commission was without authority to revoke Seatrain's certificate. That certificate, properly interpreted, authorized it to carry commodities generally, including freight cars on the routes for which the certificate originally issued. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE concurs in the result.
For a description of Seatrain equipment, see Investigation of Seatrain Lines, Inc., 195 I.C.C. 215, 218—222.
See Investigation of Seatrain Lines, Inc., supra; Seatrain Lines, Inc. v. Akron C. & Y. Ry., 226 I.C.C. 7; Hoboken Manufacturers R.R. v. Abilene & So. Ry. Co., 248 I.C.C. 109, but see Commissioner Patterson dissenting, id. at 120.
24 Stat. 379, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., 49 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq. (railroads); 49 Stat. 543, 54 Stat. 919, 49 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., 49 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq. (motor carriers); 54 Stat. 929, 49 U.S.C. § 901 et seq., 49 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq. (water carriers).
Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. v. U.S., 322 U.S. 1, 64 S.Ct. 842, 88 L.Ed. 1093; Crescent Express Lines v. U.S., 320 U.S. 401, 64 S.Ct. 167, 88 L.Ed. 127: Noble v. U.S., 319 U.S. 88, 63 S.Ct. 950, 87 L.Ed. 1277. See also Smith Bros. Revocation of Certific te, 33 M.C.C. 465; Quaker City Bus Co., 38 M.C.C. 603.
And §§ 316 and 317 of the Act, 49 U.S.C.A. §§ 916, 917, pointedly treat an order as one thing and a certificate as another.
See Smith Bros. Revocation of Certificate, supra, Quaker City Bus Co., supra.

References: § 901
 § 901
 § 909
 § 312
 § 312
 § 212
 § 315
 § 915
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 § 1
 § 301
 § 301
 § 901
 § 901
 v. 
 v. 
 v.