Document: 385 U.S. 182 87 S.Ct. 359 17 L.Ed.2d 281 CANADA PACKERS, LIMITED, Petitioner,v.The ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY et al. No. 11. Argued Nov. 8 and 9, 1966. Decided Dec. 5, Charles B. Myers, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner. Harvey Huston, respondents. Louis F. Claiborne, Washington, D.C., the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court. Leonard S. Goodman, Interstate Commerce Commission, curiae. PER CURIAM. 1 This case concerns power Commission in reparations proceedings to determine reasonableness a joint through international freight rate. The American railroad respondents their connecting carriers delivered 131 cars potash from Carlsbad Loving, New Mexico, petitioner's plants Canada. Petitioner was charged it paid rate which later attacked unreasonable proceeding before Commission. Finding be unreasonable, ordered amount difference between would have been reasonable at time. Respondents refused pay part this on theory that represented an alleged overcharge Canadian leg trip over had no jurisdiction under applicable statute. action followed District Court collect unpaid amount. found petitioner, Appeals reversed, 342 F.2d 563, we granted certiorari, 383 906, 86 880, 15 661. 2 provisions Act apply not only transportation within States but or any place foreign country 'but insofar such * takes States.' 24 Stat. 379, amended, 49 U.S.C. § 1(1). held without rates taking Canada hence order with respect portion trip. latter differing case, take similar view. As original matter there might well considerable merit position. But contrary view is one long standing, see Black Horse Tobacco Co. v. Illinois Central R. Co., I.C.C. 588 (1910), Citizens Gas & Coke Utility Nat. Rys., 325 527 (1965), has upheld more than occasion. News Syndicate York 275 179, 48 39, 72 L.Ed. 225, squarely where carrier performing enters into covering abroad, does domestic service unreasonable. Lewis-Simas-Jones Southern Pacific 283 654, 51 592, 75 1333, Great Northern Sullivan, 294 458, 55 472, 79 992, are accord. distinguish these cases, think differences relied insubstantial. Indeed, quite candidly requests consider older cases so narrow powers rates. It shown, however, long-standing construction statute both produced particularly unfortunate consequences Congress, could easily change rule, yet seen fit intervene. In circumstances, shall disturb previously given Court, decision must reversed. 3 Reversed. 4 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting. 5 An Congress gives How can read, 'Whether States' remains mystery. actually decided something less. 6 point City; failed establish boundary City. let defeated way allowed U.S., 187, S.Ct., 40. also emphasized tariff 'to shipment bill lading' established 'as required Act.' 663, 596. Those were explained 462, 474, 992. 7 'In each, shipments moved adjacent made participating carriers. carrier, having violated failure file cover its transportation, collected charges excessive and, two tortfeasors, liable extent exacted excess what commission ascertained just reasonable. here excessive, confessedly same amounts lawfully injury damage plaintiff if imposed means 'joint' instead 'combination' they did establish.' present border points established. 300 87. issues presented therefore offered here. Stare decisis important principle dealing statutory law,1 though even always placed 'on shoulders burden Court's own error.' Girouard 328 61, 70, 66 826, 830, 90 1084.2 said Toucey Life Ins. 314 118, 140—141, 62 139, 147, 100: 9 'There occasion regard silence commanding plainly unmistakably spoken words. situation act after requested circumstances ordinarily expected act. To find significance Congressional non-action none.' 10 And Helvering Hallock, 309 106, 119—122, 60 444, 451—453, 84 604. Compare Mabee White Plains Publishing 327 178, 185, 511, 514, 607. Nor do precedent 'around which, accretion time response affairs, substantial interests themselves.' supra, 119, 451. 11 Moreover, need slaves treating standing nor subtly eroding sophisticated ways. See Radin, Trail Calf, 32 Cornell L.Q. 137, 143 (1946). enough approve 'of doctrinal generalization previous court used' (ibid.) confine decided. Certainly should extend range beyond generating reason especially when another policy, plain words will impaired doing so. 12 I affirm judgment. 'The House Lords longer regards reasoning sacrosanct. Witness striking departure Public Trustee Inland Revenue Commissioners ((1960) A.C. 398) Midland Silicones Ltd. Scruttons ((1962) 446). show treat absolutely binding line necessary decision: itself liberty depart convinced wrong.' Penn-Texas Corp. Murat Anstalt (1964) Q.B. 647, (1966) C.L.Y. 9921: Lord Chancellor following statement July 26, 1966, behalf himself Appeal Ordinary: 'Their Lordships use indispensable foundation upon decide law application individual cases. provides least some degree certainty individuals rely conduct basis orderly development legal rules. nevertheless recognise too rigid adherence may lead injustice particular unduly restrict proper law. They propose modify practice while former decisions normally binding, appears right connection bear mind danger disturbing retrospectively contracts, settlements property fiscal arrangements entered especial criminal 'This announcement intended affect elsewhere House.' generally Cross, Decisis Contemporary England, 82 L.Q.Rev. 203 (1966). We reluctant reverse our erroneous interpretation Congress. See, e.g., 604; Nye 313 33, 61 810, 85 1172; 100; Commissioner Internal Estate Church, 335 632, 69 322, 93 288; James 366 213, 81 1052, 246; Smith Evening Assn., 371 195, 83 267, Local 438, Construction General Laborers' Union Curry, 542, 552, 531, 538, 514; Fay Noia, 372 391, 435, 822, 847, 837.

Category: 8