Document: 382 U.S. 237 86 S.Ct. 338 15 L.Ed.2d 294 The WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY et al., Appellants,v.UNITED STATES al. No. 12. Argued Oct. 19, 1965. Decided Dec. 7, Walter G. Treanor, San Francisco, Cal., for appellants. Paul Bender, Washington, D.C., appellants, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court. Robert W. Ginnane, and Frank S. Farrell, St. Paul, Minn., appellees. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion 1 Section 3(4) Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, 54 Stat. 902, 49 U.S.C. § (1964 ed.), commands that 'All carriers subject to provisions this chapter * shall not discriminate in their rates, fares, charges between connecting lines *.'1 meaning term 'connecting lines' is crucial question controversy Western Pacific Railroad Company, on one hand, Union Company Northern Railway other. contends it a line' relation these that, therefore, entitled invoke against them prohibiting discriminatory rates. Commission District Court held otherwise. 2 filed complaint with Commission, alleging, part, practice rate discrimination it.2 alleged consists refusal carriers, except respect few commodities, enter into joint through rates via Portland, Oregon, route which although they maintain full line such competitor, Southern Company. hearing examiner found favor Pacific, but Division reversed. both could because was line,' even if were, evidence did establish 'similarity circumstances conditions' would compel treatment equal accorded Pacific. refused accord status ground neither physically connects allegedly discriminating at point discrimination, nor participates existing routes point. R. Co. v. Camas Prairie Co., 316 I.C.C. 795. When denied further hearing, brought action United States California set aside Commission's order. three-judge court dismissed solely line.' States, 230 F.Supp. 852. It agreed limited definition said, 'Any liberalization present will have come from Supreme Court.' Id., 855. We noted probable jurisdiction. 379 956, 85 656, 13 553. 3 Analysis case closely tied geographical, structural, economic relationships among railroads involved. short-line connections provide exclusive rail service many points Northwest Oregon. From two competitive descend, times parallel, intertwined, California. closest seacoast largely To east lies so-called Bieber whose completion 1931 authorized competition Pacific.3 composed end-to-end three different companies: Great Portland Bieber, California; Stockton; Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Stockton Thus connect where facilities interchange traffic exist. 4 presently enjoy themselves. Moreover, other participants expressed willingness join seeks over 50 years, maintained Portland. They refused, however, offer moving established are lower than combination local otherwise apply. Since can only cannot match offered shippers most commodities exclusively served 5 held, under circumstances, eligible complain discrimination. In argument here appellee contend qualify must show more an all stand willing cooperate establishing rates.4 urged hold complainant railroad either itself make direct connection carrier, or be part already includes carrier. accept construction statute. 6 literal statute does require construction. sure, suggests requirement actual physical 'line,' admits single track owned company. may also interpreted reasonably include functional unit involved here. parties litigation recognize Atlantic Coast Line 284 288, 52 171, 76 L.Ed. 298, rejected contention statutory language might initially suggest. Brandeis, speaking unanimous Court, wrote, 'There no warrant limiting those having *. commonly used referring making up route.' 293, 173. 7 There been referred previous judicial administrative decisions compelling conclusion. case, supra, imposes limitation. extends beyond encompass participating route, hint any limitation nature much less carrier.5 Our subsequent 'through route' Thompson 343 549, 72 978, 96 1134 adds analysis 3(4). arose §§ 15(3) 15(4) we had improperly applied test existence route: '* whether themselves out offering transportation service.' U.S., 557, S.Ct., 983. use But if, after Line, carrier 'lines route,' 173, offers solution problem presented simply speak conjunction seeking status. 8 reason issue has decided before now6 sort complained uncommon. instances advantage encourage movement sources possible.7 when occur directly likely take lead complainant. 9 absence settled 3(4), then, its manifest purpose deprive discretion apportion competitors common basic guide decision. Just conferred upon position were bar nonadjacent eligibility complain. Indeed holding result anomalous clearly illustrated context. No doubts virtue connection, practiced route. undisputed merely affects segment behalf whole. clear entered relationship then abandon it, somewhat higher participant therefore construe put greater disadvantage comparable Hence, need interchange, arrangements necessary eliminate 10 Such interfere function 911, 15(3), establishment 'in public interest.'8 Section, applicable narrower range situations involving interchange. remedy entail routes, indeed particular form relief. All required elimination treatment. See Chicago, Indianapolis Louisville 270 287, 292—293, 46 226, 228, 70 590; Illinois Central 263 515, 520—521, 44 189, 191, 68 417. Finally our define characteristics Relief warranted appears differential justified differences operating conditions substantially affect p. 521, 192; 218 359, 369. 11 complain, reach vacate judgment remand proceedings consistent opinion. so ordered. 12 Judgment Vacated Case Remanded Directions. DOUGLAS, dissenting. 14 Under seq., I read there ways obtaining routes.' One within similarly situated competing given route.1 apply 1(4).2 event refuses 'upon own initiative without complaint,' 'deemed desirable interest.' 15(3).3 appellants sought certain same basis adversary proceeding 1(4) saying: 16 urge give freedom choice goods, improve service, time transit, car supply, available additional transit privileges. Nothing record, indicates inadequate meet needs shipping public. fact failure shipper witnesses initiate last 31 years determined campaign persuade defendants necessity complainants' defendants' Northwest, least some indication adequacy routes. expression interest' means mere desire something convenient them. This weighed effect general On find interest requiring slower costlier 795, 810—811. 17 What today let swallow letting multi-carrier become line.'4 For ban forces routes' 'just reasonable rates' 1(4), satisfying 15(3). today, whole protective scheme makes guardian (see Louis South-western 245 136, 142—143, 38 49, 51, 62 199) breaks down. 18 addition forth power 15(4), prevents 'short haul' (enumerated 15(4)) 552—556, 980, 982, 1134; Denver P.R. 351 321, 325, 984, 100 1220 seq.; M., P. 366 745, 81 1630, 772. Can today's decision compelled internal invokes 3(4)?5 19 narrowly construed abut, would, course, lift cases 15. exceptions, relatively number. multiplies almost end holds interior 20 Today's uproots concept As stated 983 (quoting 21st Annual Report Congress): 21 'A continuous railway formed arrangement, express implied, carriers. Existence incidents shipment, billing, transfer another, collection division charges, proportional junction basing points. These named regarded others tend carrier's course business shipments.' Then added: 22 'In short, affering service. Through carriage implies whatever charged Ibid. (Italics added.) 23 And see 327, 330, 985, 987, 1220. 24 Here 'holding out' (either consensually action) If allow exist harmony, adhere requirement, restricting 25 opposed. While system, controversy. 292, 172. words lines'6 'all here, expressly disallowed pursuant provides full: shall, according respective powers, afford reasonable, proper, lines, receiving, forwarding, delivering passengers property lines; unduly prejudice distribution specifically routed shipper. paragraph water title.' subsidiaries defendants: connections. allegations complaint. intervened opposition answered expressing relief violation Act requires, 'reasonable classifications thereto. *' voluntarily, authority prescribe short-haul embodied 15(4). Although complainants indicated rely allegation well. Construction, 166 3, 39; 170 399. Pursuant 28 2322 defendant not, defense order, supports leasing Carolina, Clinchfield Ohio approval restrictive schedules designed ultimately exclude yet incomplete extension Georgia Florida participating, completed, Clinchfield. ordered canceled violated terms lease, accepted lessees, conditioned approval. condition lessees permit link 'such now connecting, hereafter connect, (it) *.' note made rails intermediate sustained Even assuming complaining faced squarely us now. do regard 590, dispositive presented, facts, conclusion reach. response inquiry oral argument, submitted memoranda agreeing ordinarily voluntary agreement, usually interchanges 554, 981, 1134. relevant part: 'The may, whenever deemed interest, complaint, classifications, maxima minima, charged, divisions hereinafter provided, operated.' provides: constitute Dixie Carriers, Inc. 56, 578, 934. 'It duty every furnish request therefor, just thereto; chapter, title, 'multi-carrier indicate This, describes southern Congress requested repeal 555, 982. earlier orders allowing lease another. accompanied assuring 'equal routing, reached lessee. context protected though 'physically abut'

Category: 7