Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/257/591/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 14:00:36+00:00

Document:
which the United States and the Commission are made parties. P. 257 U. S. 600.
2. Evidence found insufficient to sustain an order for a general increase of state passenger, baggage, and milk rate as prejudicial to persons and localities in interstate commerce, under § 416 (§ 13, paragraph 4) of the Transportation Act of 1920. P. 257 U. S. 600. Cf. Railroad Commission of Wisconsin v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co., ante, 257 U. S. 563.
3. Interference with a charter fare-limiting contract between a railroad and a state is not a taking of the property of the state or its people without due process of law when done under the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, nor doe the contract clause of the Constitution forbid. P. 257 U. S. 600.
4. Intrastate rates so low that they discriminate against interstate commerce, within the meaning of the Transportation Act of 1920, may constitutionally be increased thereunder by the Interstate Commerce Commission to conform with like rates in interstate commerce fixed by it pursuant to the act. P. 257 U. S. 601. Railroad Commission of Wisconsin v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co., ante, 257 U. S. 563.
Appeal from a decree of the district court dismissing a bill brought by appellants against the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission to annul an order of the latter authorizing an increase of intrastate railroad rates. Various carriers intervened and became appellees.
to such passengers, and twenty percent increase in intrastate rates on milk, all for the purpose of bringing the intrastate rates to the level of the interstate rates previously fixed by the Commission. The bill was filed under and by virtue of the statute repealing the Commerce Court Act and conferring jurisdiction on the district court. 38 Stat. 219. The application for an interlocutory injunction was heard by a circuit judge and two district judges. Then a final hearing was had, and the court entered a final decree dismissing the complaint, from which this appeal has been taken. The railroad companies affected by the order were on their petition permitted to intervene, and are here as appellees.
findings as to any intrastate fares, charges or rates included therein on the ground that the latter were not related to interstate fares, charges or rates in such a way as to contravene the provisions of the Interstate Commission Act. Under this clause, at least one petition has been filed by a railroad, and the railroad excepted from the order.
This case differs from the Wisconsin Rate Case, ante, 257 U. S. 563, in that it is a direct proceeding to annul or set aside the order of the Interstate Commerce Commission complained of, brought against the United States and the Commission under the statute. Skinner & Eddy Corp. v. United States, 249 U. S. 557. The Wisconsin Rate Case was a suit by a railroad against the state authorities to prevent the latter from penalizing the railroad for complying with the order of the Commission. To this suit the United States and the Commission were not parties. The defense of the state authorities was a collateral attack upon the order, to prevail in which they were obliged to show that the order was void on the face of the findings, without regard to the evidence or the absence of it. In the case before us, the complainants are entitled to rely on the absence of any substantial evidence to sustain a material finding as a basis for attacking the order.
The first objection of the appellants is that there was no sufficient evidence of discrimination against persons and localities under § 13, par. 4, § 416, of the Transportation Act of 1920, to justify a statewide order of the kind here made. We have considered this objection in the Wisconsin Rate Case on a similar showing on the findings. Here, we consider it on the evidence. We reach the same conclusion here, and sustain the objection.
which the latter is bound not to charge more than two cents a mile for passenger carriage between Albany and Buffalo, and that, if the Transportation Act permits the Interstate Commerce Commission by such an order to enable the railroad company to violate its contract, it impairs the obligation of a contract in violation of § 10, Article I, of the federal Constitution. That section provides that "no state shall . . . pass a law . . . impairing the obligation of contracts," and does not in terms restrict Congress or the United States.
"Anything which directly obstructs and thus regulates that commerce which is carried on among the states, whether it is state legislation or private contracts between individuals or corporations, should be subject to the power of Congress in the regulation of that commerce."
Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 219 U. S. 467. See also Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 U. S. 141, 179 U. S. 162-163; Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 204 U. S. 364, 204 U. S. 400.
the state to secure the income of which the Interstate Commerce Commission must attempt to provide by fixing rates under § 15a of the Interstate Commerce Act as amended by § 422 of the Transportation Act of 1920, 41 Stat. 456, 488, in carrying out the declared congressional purpose "to provide the people of the United States with adequate transportation." As we have just held in the Wisconsin Rate Case, this constitutes "undue, unreasonable, and unjust discrimination against interstate commerce," which is declared to be unlawful and prohibited by § 13, par. 4, of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended by § 416 of the Transportation Act of 1920, 41 Stat. 456, 484, and which the Interstate Commerce Commission is authorized therein to remove by fixing intrastate rates for the purpose. We need not repeat our reasons for our ruling. Nor need we consider and give again the grounds upon which we hold § 13, par. 4, as thus construed, to be valid under the Constitution of the United States.

References: § 416
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 13
 § 416
 § 10
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 15
 § 422
 § 13
 § 416
 § 13