Opinion ID: 1829127
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Operations of Carrier as a Whole

Text: Appellant earnestly insists that the earnings of Southern Railway on its entire intrastate business in Alabama and from its system as a whole must be taken into consideration, and that if gain is shown and the earnings have not been impaired by losses incurred in the particular branch line or operation, then the discontinuance must be disallowed. And evidence in the record does in fact show that appellee has profited quite well on its state and interstate systems on the whole. But we do not feel that the applicable law accentuates this one factor into such a prominent position in relationship to the other factors and criteria to be considered in such cases. Appellant has relied upon the authority of remarks made by Justice Frankfurter in his concurring opinion, which was joined in by Justice Jackson, to the opinion of Chief Justice Vinson in the case of Alabama Public Service Commission v. Southern Railway Co., 341 U.S. 341, 71 S.Ct. 762, 95 L.Ed. 1002. It would seem that the remarks in the concurring opinion were obiter dicta, as the court did not reach the merits of the case in coming to its decision. In Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Public Service Commission of South Carolina, supra [77 F.Supp. 686], it was held that an order of the South Carolina Public Service Commission requiring the continued operation of two intrastate passenger trains at a substantial loss could not be sustained even if the railroad system as a whole was being run at a profit. The court there observed that the power of the Public Service Commission of South Carolina to regulate the services and facilities of common carriers with reference to the security and accommodation of the public is not unlimited but is circumscribed by the federal constitution and the property of a carrier may not under the guise of such regulation be taken by requiring it to furnish services or facilities no longer reasonably necessary to serve the public. The court went on farther to say that in adverse circumstances it is the duty of a carrier to seek, and of regulatory agencies to permit, the elimination of those services and facilities that are no longer needed nor used by the public to any substantial extent. Even where a carrier's operations as a whole are reasonably profitable it has been held in various cases that it should not be required to continue the operation of passenger trains that show such disproportionate losses as to indicate that they are not substantially used or needed by the public. We think the quoted portion above from the Alabama Public Service Commission v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. case expresses quite clearly the Alabama law on this point and impels against the contention of the Commission. There is no merit in appellant's argument that the failure of appellee's original petition to allege facts concerning the overall profits of the carrier and its subsequent omission to introduce full and complete evidence on this subject were fatal to their case. It is apt to mention in this opinion that the record reveals that this was the second proceeding before the Commission on these same trains. Upon a showing of substantial loss in the prior case, the Commission likewise denied the company's petition to discontinue the trains. No appeal was taken from that order; rather, appellee elected to comply with certain requirements and suggestions set out by the Commission and to make some effort to regain public use of the service. The record in the instant case recites certain efforts of the company to improve the public use. The results were unavailing, as the facts heretofore set out plainly demonstrate. The court below held that the Commission erred in its application of the law to the facts and that such findings of fact as were made by the Commission were contrary to the substantial weight of the evidence. Notwithstanding, the presumption in favor of the Commission's order and the burden resting on the appellee to overturn that presumption, we find ourselves in agreement with the court below. We conclude that whatever inconvenience and injury to the public will result from the discontinuance of these trains will not offset the very heavy burden which the present operation imposes on the appellee. Alabama adheres to the relative doctrine, and negligible use of the trains at a few small communities can hardly warrant a finding that public necessity for the trains exists or that their removal would entail substantial public inconvenience. The true interests of the general public, therefore, are best served by the elimination of uneconomic services if that can be done without unduly impairing transportation facilities in the territory served. Illinois Central R. Co. v. Illinois Commerce Commission, supra. The problems raised by the discontinuance of trains numbers 19 and 20 depend largely upon the predominantly local factor of public need for the service rendered. Alabama Public Service Commission v. Southern Railway Co., supra [341 U.S. 341, 71 S.Ct. 766]. In that last cited case this court stated: State and federal regulatory agencies have expressed concern over the chronic deficit arising out of passenger train operations as a threat to the financial security of the American railroads and have recommended drastic action to minimize the deficit, including the discontinuance of unpatronized and unprofitable service. Railroads no longer have a monopoly in the transportation field. Illinois Central R. Co. v. Illinois Commerce Commission, supra. The court can not close its eyes to conditions as they exist and which are well known to everyone. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Public Service Commission of South Carolina, supra. The law must not allow itself to become bound to purely local, sentimental feelings attached to a once useful institution now, to some extent, fading. Alignment with modern trends of economic policy in the field of railroad transportation militates against the prolonged survival of such local, short hauls for passenger purposes when its usefulness therefor has been shown to be not in the public interest, as in the case in hand. Affirmed. LIVINGSTON, C. J., and GOODWYN and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.