Document: 355 U.S. 175 78 S.Ct. 189 2 L.Ed.2d 183 INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Appellant,v.BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY et al. The PENNSYLVANIA COMPANY, Appellant, v. BALTIMORE ERIE and the Port of New York Authority, Appellants, NEW YORK CENTRAL ARMCO STEEL CORPORATION, M. A. Hanna Company, Iron Ore Company Canada, DELAWARE RIVER PORT AUTHORITY, City Philadelphia, Chamber Commerce Greater UNITED STATES America, Nos. 463—468, 473. Decided Dec. 9, 1957. Motion to Clarify Judgment Denied June 2, 1958, 356 970, 1133. Messrs. Robert W. ginnane Issaac K. Hay, Washington, D.C., for appellant Interstate Com. Com'n. Guernsey Orcutt, Richard R. Bongartz, Pa., William Pepper Constable, Baltimore, Md., Pennsylvania Co. Sidney Goldstein, City, Francis Mulhern, Newark, N.J., Arthur L. Winn, Jr., J. Stanley Payne Samuel H. Moerman, appellants Erie others. 1 D. Brooks, Murphy, Chicago, Ill., Cent. Mr. John F. Donelan, Armco Steel Corp. 3 Warren Price, Delaware River Authority. 4 David Berger, Philadelphia. 5 Frederick, Knight, 6 Solicitor General Lee Rankin, Victor Hansen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daniel Friedman, United States. 7 Edwin Burgess, Anthony P. Donadio, Norman C. Melvin, Purnell Jervis Langdon, Baltimore Ohio Railroad 8 Marbury, Maryland 9 Harry Ames, Charles McD. Gillan, Association Commerce. 10 Murnaghan, Canton 11 Thomas N. Biddison, Mayor Council Baltimore. 12 PER CURIAM. 13 This litigation involves validity an order Commission dealing with proper relationship, under National Transportation Policy (§ Act 1940, 54 Stat. 899, 49 U.S.C., at p. 7107, U.S.C.A. note, preceding section 1), railroad tariffs on imported iron ore shipped a steel-producing area in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia (the so-called 'differential territory' Central Freight Association) from ports York, A tariff differential favor had existed prior this controversy. In succession reductions, railroads serving Philadelphia filed schedules designed establish parity rates among several ports, while maintain differential. Upon protest against by civic commercial interests that port, instituted investigation as result which Division report approving giving but finding all other been issued series reductions be not just reasonable. 291 I.C.C. 527. On petition various parties, reopened proceedings, October 1, 1956, full modified findings extent schedules, well reasonable, 299 195. Commission's was challenged proceeding 28 U.S.C. § 1336, appropriate District Court held approval between without basis record ordered portion vacated. court further supported essential ocean freight costs anticipated traffic remanded more explicit findings. also granted relief subsidiary these actions. O.R. U.S., 151 F.Supp. 258. These are only portions decision below we here concerned. We put one side those provisions decree affirmed order. 14 From what appears, it is precluded may find interrelationship, within purview Policy, supra, lawful established three territory.' light deem that, reconsidering relationship pursuant remand Court, should free reconsider take action upon schedules. carrying out Court's direction regarding rates, permitted into account effect enter such orders respect required their interrelationship. Accordingly, appeals before us, so much did affirm vacated, cause disposition inconsistent opinion. 15 CHIEF JUSTICE Justice BLACK would judgment Court.

Category: 8