Document: 345 U.S. 146 73 S.Ct. 592 97 L.Ed. 912 BALTIMORE & O.R. CO. et al.v.UNITED STATES al. No. 258. Argued and Submitted Jan. 7, 1953. Decided March 16, Mr. Robert H. Bierma, Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D.C., appellees I.C.C. Frank A. Leffingwell, Dallas, Tex., Texas Citrus Vegetable Growers Shippers. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The appellant railroads brought this action in a United States District Court to set aside rate order Interstate Commerce Commission. prescribed maximum carload rates carrying certain kinds fresh vegetables. were charged be 'confiscatory' therefore violation Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment. sole basis charge was an allegation that if put effect would produce less money than it cost carry particular vegetables covered by each rate. Denying commodity violates due process merely because is noncompensatory, Commission moved dismiss complaint on ground proof everything alleged not justify invalidation order. On ground, without reaching another contention which relied, we hold case properly dismissed court.1 2 There has been no claim challenged will make any one complaining operate its entire business at loss, or even all loss. are but minor alterations vast, complex network apply fresh-vegetable shipments throughout Nation. One two applies only carrots with tops, other limited group such as string beans, lettuce parsnips. And both relate from points some states. 3 Such adjustments among here made appear normal, run-of-the-mine regulations fixing cheaper transportation vegetable may well serve important public need. So long railroad caused lose over-all business, hard think could successfully property being taken use 'without just compensation.'2 apparently rely compensation provision This appears their cases cited support contention. Chief reliance placed Northern Pacific R. Co. v. North Dakota, 236 585, 35 429, 59 735, companion decided same day, Norfolk W.R. West Virginia, 605, 437, 745. Both involved state statutes rates, coal passengers. found noncompensatory. held violative Fourteenth In 'unreasonable' 'arbitrary.' careful point out emphasize there nothing records those show 'reasonable' grounds imposing noncompensatory railroads. It possible result unreasonable arbitrary action. 4 history regulation south southwest shows difficulties had field. Much can reports below.3 Not consider conflicting claims between shippers carriers; also resolve disputes over questions carriers themselves. present series orders designed correct defects injustices develop time general pattern. Among factors considered these have these: value vegetable; comparison values; comparisons different sections country; commodities vegetables; special characteristics add subtract expense transportation; perishability; hazards carrier competing truck rates; harmful effects prices sales. 5 mere sample demonstrates absolute necessity considerable flexibility making. For fair decisions vital welfare farmers whole health well-being Nation involved. Moreover, power adjust meet needs implicit congressional plan nationally integrated system. Lowden, 308 225, 230, 60 248, 84 208; New England Divisions Case (Akron, C. Y.R. U.S.) 261 184, 43 270, 67 605; Railroad Wisconsin Chicago B. Q.R. Co., 257 563, 583—586, 42 232, 236, 66 371. so afford services should construed bar when interest thereby served. 6 Affirmed. 7 CLARK took part consideration decision case. 8 DOUGLAS, whom CHIEF JUSTICE concurs, dissenting. 9 Baltimore Ohio States, 298 349, 56 797, 80 1209, established rule procedure entitles raise issue confiscation judicial proceedings review Commission, though tendered hearings before petition reconsideration after issued. That Brandeis three Justices joined. Id., page 381, 813. much discussion briefs oral argument concerning wisdom propriety rule. Whatever concluded merits, litigants entitled until unless overruled. Appellants relied here. After entered order, appellants filed reconsideration, offering prove costs operation under new exceed revenues. erred ruled evidence bearing inadmissible 105 F.Supp. 631. 10 Court, deciding issue, assumes tender timely, concludes confiscatory established, relief. ruling is, my view, quite unjustified record us. 11 offer handling traffic greater revenues rates. We must assume Court's fact. What justification then forcing haul cost? 12 read vain clue. report largely hodge-podge statistics dealing Texas, California, Arizona, Mexico eastern northern points. bent leveling down them more nearly equal Mexico. reasons disclosed. 13 suggestion intimation markets suffering reason 14 growers complained structure unduly prejudicial preferential former competition latter various markets. But 'no persuasive evidence' adverse shippers. words refused find § Act. 49 U.S.C. 3, U.S.C.A. 3. 15 did, however, unreasonable; proceeded prescribe pursuant 15(1) 16 Can statutory constitutional system within operates? incredible me Congress used odd unusual sense. ratemaking, reviewed denies it. Perhaps exceptions. dire emergencies arise, making necessary compel cost. certainly step appropriate findings showing why one. 17 controversy merits insubstantial. fail. contends, since 1940 voluntarily published yielding half revenue per car yielded issues tried. If confiscatory, impossible say they 'reasonable.' offered finished hearings, declined railroads' request hear costs, procedural course approved remand preliminary appraisal facts line York 331 284, 334—336, 1207, 1233—1234, 91 1492. Relying case, supra, contend dismissal delay raising deprived right determination Amendment Commission's answer re-examine abandon principles announced majority concurring minority views Because assume, deciding, raised time. provides part: 'No person shall * property, law; nor private use, compensation.' 279 671 284 206 original rehearing Other Southwestern Case, 200 355, 209 606, 214 63; Southeastern 273; Transcontinental Rates Estimated Weights Vegetables, 270 665; Lettuce Southwest, 276 647.

Category: 3