Document: 376 U.S. 651 84 S.Ct. 1044 12 L.Ed.2d UNITED STATES, Appellant,v.EL PASO NATURAL GAS COMPANY et al. No. 94. Argued Feb. 25 and 26, 1964. Decided April 6, Archibald Cox, Sol. Gen., for appellant. Gregory A. Harrison, San Francisco, Cal., appellees. Opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, announced CLARK. 1 This is a civil suit charging violation § 7 Clayton Act,1 reason acquisition stock assets Pacific Northwest Pipeline Corp. (Pacific Northwest) El Paso Natural Gas Co. (El Paso). The District dismissed complaint after trial, making findings fact conclusions law, but not writing an opinion. case here on direct appeal. 15 U.S.C. 29. We oted probable jurisdiction, 373 930, 83 1537, 10 689. 2 ultimate issue revolves around question whether substantially lessened competition in sale natural gas California—a market which was sole out-of-state supplier at time acquisition.2 3 In 1954, received approval Federal Power Commission to construct operate pipeline from Juan Basin, New Mexico, State Washington, supply then unserved area. Later it authorized receive large quantities Canadian enlarge its system that purpose. addition, acquired Rocky Mountain reservoirs along route. At end 1957 had estimated 3.51 trillion cubic feet reserves owned outright Basin; 1.04 under contract 1.59 area; 2.33 Canada—8.47 all. By 1958 one-half sales were Canada. 4 1954 entered into two exchange contracts with Paso—one deliver 250 million per day Idaho transportation California via Nevada, other gather jointly Basin five-year period. Under latter agreement loaned wells avoid duplication facilities, agreed own facilities Paso's eastern portion basin, perform same service western portion. undertook purchase 300 West-coast Transmission Co., Ltd., pipeline. 5 An executive called these agreements 'treaty' 'solve major problems have been confronting us.' A letter stockholders stated: 6 'This tri-party deal will benefit all concerned. It give Westcoast what they fighting for—a mean expand be larger company, protect future caused dismissal law against Pacific's present certificate. means protected competition, further results parties now working together common rather than each other.' (Italics added.) Paso, however, could get build necessary California. Consequently, new aspect negotiated 1955, whereby 50 delivered basis Colorado. Northwest, still obligated take Westcoast, disposed balance areas. 8 Prior 1955 tried enter rapidly expa ding market. prepared plans regarding California, where distributed & Electric (PGE). That effort—suspended when made—was renewed made 1955; negotiation conceived as occasion 'lifting restrictions growth Pacific.' 1956 indeed engaged negotiations Southern Edison (Edison). latter, largest industrial user used gas, purchased through distributor. had, low priority distributor, being 'interruptible' basis, i.e., subject interruption during periods peak demand domestic uses. wanted firm and, upon advised if policy sell only distributors, started May 1956. idea point California-Oregon border day. July reached tentative agreement. thereupon develop within integrated distributing supplied itself others. decided fight plan last ditch, succeeded getting (through distributor) Edison's needs. terminated. Before terminated deliveries gas; while original offer 40 Mcf, price dropped 38¢ 34¢ finally 30¢. Thereafter, merger pending, efforts 9 interested acquiring since 1954. first December 1955—an rejected. Negotiations resumed summer 1956, trying obtain outlet. shares accepted Northwest's directors November 99.8% outstanding stock. Department filed violated Act. August applied permission acquire Northwest. On 23, 1959, approved effected 31, 1959. 1962 we set aside Commission's order, holding should acted until passed Act issues. People v. Comm'n, 369 482, 82 901, 54. Meanwhile (in October 1960) United States amended so include asset charged There oral argument judge bench3 judgment would appellees he write He told counsel 'Prepare judgment. They obeyed, submitting 130 one conclusion which, are advised, adopted verbatim. Those findings, though product workings district judge's mind, formally his; rejected out-of-hand, stand supported evidence. Crescent Amusement 323 173, 184—185, 65 254, 89 L.Ed. 160. drawn insight disinterested mind are, more helpful appellate court.4 See 2B Barron Holtzoff, ractice Procedure (Wright ed. 1961), 1124. Moreover, detailed 'mechanically adopted,' use phrase late Judge Frank Forness, Cir., 125 F.2d 928, 942, do reveal discerning line decision basic case. review record—which composed largely undisputed evidence—we conclude 'the effect such may lessen competition' meaning 11 can no doubt production, transportation, 'line commerce' 7. also 'section country' question, therefore, facts sufficient tendency or saved independent entity, obtained supplies financing project put acceptable regulatory agencies. irrelevant. As said Brown Shoe States, 370 294, 323, 1502, 1522, 510: 'Congress words 'may (emphasis supplied), indicate concern probabilities, certainties. Statutes existed dealing clearcut menaces competition; statute sought ephemeral possibilities. Mergers anticompetitive proscribed this Act.' Philadelphia National Bank, 374 321, 362, 1715, 915. 13 shown record hav substantial factor Paso. actual vast market, expands annual rate 200 day.5 important interstate west Mountains. Though young, prospering appeared strong enough warrant markets. 14 search illustrates merely potential competitor took problem seen, Edision gas. responded, offering concessions. wear blinders see mere unsuccessful, powerful influence business attitudes State. repeat purpose 'to arrest trend toward concentration, monopoly, before consumer's alternatives disappeared * *.' 367, 1744, field merchants continuous daily struggle hold old customers win ones over their rivals. regulated industry company (unless has excess capacity) must compete for, into, advance constructing facilities. pipelines very expensive; justified need long-term travel them. transactions distributors few number. For example, there significant wholesale purchasers—Pacific north Companies south. Once grants authorization f cilities transport commerce, once made, particular withdrawn competition. increments emerge expanding population household 16 another determined nature extent nearness absorbed it, company's eagerness resourcefulness, on. position competitive disproved never sold there. Nor conclusive attempt failed. might weighty presently saturated showed signs petering out. But irrelevant like incremental needs booming. underscored memorandum dated 18, summarized meeting terms negotiated. recited concluded additional 'Pacific selling volume *' 5, just three days prior exchange, PGE up 350 20 years. Even chief 22, said: 'I think moment confuse our taking part Reason Paso-Pacific collapse nothing substance California.' 17 proximity market—550 miles distant Wyoming, even nearer away Oregon. enormous Mountains, Western Had remained independent, exploit formidable geographical vis-a -vis No knows success had. know, addition serve California—one newcomers bringing down So know opportunities independent. 18 Unsuccessful bidders less competitors successful one. presence suppliers gives buyers choice. feeble, failing company;6 nor inexperienced lacking resourcefulness. serving trans-Rocky States; raised $250 extended 2,500 rugged terrain. adequate managerial skill. militant viewed concern, coveted, If absorb without violating Act, section field. normally competition—once lines built negotiated—except respects 19 Since notice antitrust charge almost beginning—indeed merger—we reverse below order divestiture delay.7 Reversed. 21 WHITE consideration 22 HARLAN (concurring dissenting part). I. 23 Contrary I thought, Government asking case, did Yellow Cab 338 338, 340, 70 177, 178, 94 150, 'in try de novo,'. Rather contends determination clearly erroneous. id., 341—342, 150. reasons given Court's opinion, agree established, erred deciding otherwise. score shall comment matters. 24 First. strictures concerning seem me miss mark. Findings should, course, conscientious judge. Nevertheless, evidence, rendered suspect simply because trial court, here, toto proposed side other. real lack wrote opinion setting forth reasoning underlying any subsidiary disputed issues connecting merger. Both practitioner felt closely contested government favor defendant, foundered illuminating Court. Courts forget cases, trials usually result long complex factual records, come sifting Appeals. absence handicap instance. 26 Second. affords example unsatisfactoriness existing bifurcated regulation various fields. indicated public interest. Justice, considered violative laws alone, Court, scheme things choice record* sustain constrained do, albeit my view justification, recent cases involving dual regulation. Cf. 915; First Bank Trust 665, 1033, opinions those cases. unrealistic recognize state affairs placing driver's seat Congress lodged primary authority elsewhere. 27 does duplicative venture say, anachronistic re-examined. subtle necessarily speculative questions involved assessing short-term effects appraisal single agency, congressionally established standards marking relationship between different often competing objectives governing 'interstate' who say outcome? II. 28 While merits, dissent peremptory ordering divestiture. 'The framing of' appropriate relief 'should place Appellate Courts.' Internation l Salt Inc., 332 392, 400, 68 12, 92 (footnote omitted). E. du Pont De Nemours 366 316, 81 1243, 318, contrary; already merits (353 586, 77 872, 1057), came again stage observed (have) responsibility initially fashion remedy 1248, 318. instance directed kind relief. 'on notice,' ante, p. 662, charges them justification departure normal practice. cited second U.S., 322, 29 remand fashioning Section 38 Stat. 731, 1950 Celler-Kefauver Anti-Merger 64 1125, provides relevant part: 'No corporation commerce acquire, directly indirectly, whole share capital jurisdiction Trade country, tend create monopoly.' 50% consumed State, remainder coming intrastate sources. Judgment defendant Prepare 'How much you want submit it? 'Mr. Harrison. Does court rule, your Honor? No, rule about that. Could twenty days, Twenty prepare shan't didn't hear you. don't intend matter. taken full, fair look evidence issues, am satisfied discharged burden.' J. Skelly Wright Appeals Columbia recently 'Who findings? Rule 52 says findings. find specially separately law.' happened. Many courts decide plaintiff him sign denounced every appeals save abandonment duty trust placed rules. noncompliance specifically betrays 52—the preparation assist adjudication lawsuit. suggest strongly far possibly signing some lawyer puts nose. These lawyers, properly so, zeal advocacy enthusiasm going can. When won't worth paper written assisting determining why case.' Seminars Newly Appointed Judges (1963), 166. brief amicus curiae, pp. 5—6, tells us: dependence fuel unique among states. possess coal deposits energy requirements. dependent approximately quarters utilized comes Ninety cent homes heated depends fuel. percentage total provided greater nation whole. 'During 1962, utilities 745,000,000,000 cost somewhat $266,850,000. takes ten moving throughout exceeds imported state. interest proceeding evident. More 80 resided ratepayers bear most costs 'California, consumes Middle Atlantic states combined, half highly industrialized, thickly populated East North-Central Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio Wisconsin, seven make West Out-of-state averaged billion 1961. slightly thirty cents thousand (Mcf), $1,000,000 day.' International 280 291, 89, 74 431. Wisconsin 281 179, 197, 266, 799. Commission.

Category: 7