Document: 356 U.S. 412 78 S.Ct. 880 2 L.Ed.2d 879 COUNTY OF MARIN et al., Appellants,v.UNITED STATES of America al. No. 415. Argued April 9, 1958. Decided May 19, Mr. Spurgeon Avakian, Oakland, Cal., for the appellants. Robert W. Ginnane, Washington, D.C., appellees United States and Interstate Commerce Commission. Allan P. Matthew, San Francisco, intervening appellees. Justice CLARK delivered opinion Court. 1 At issue here is exclusive plenary authority Commission to approve a transaction in which Pacific Greyhound Lines, motor carrier subsidiary Corporation,1 would transfer its operations Francisco Bay area Golden Gate Transit organized by it that purpose. receive all capital stock exchange operating rights, certain equipment, an amount cash. Appellants, two counties their respective commuter associations, opposed challenged power authorize it,2 but asserted jurisdiction and, on terms conditions, approved plan merits. 65 M.C.C. 347. A three-judge District Court, appellants sought set aside order, held had under § 5(2)(a) Act.3 150 F.Supp. 619. In view importance jurisdictional question impact federal-state relations, we noted probable jurisdiction. 1957, 355 866, 116, L.D.2d 72. We conclude proposed beyond scope 5(2)(a).4 3 time application, was common passengers seven western southwestern certificates issued combination with members system other lines, provided joint through service from more distant areas country. California, extensive services included are involved here. These routes within 25 or 30 miles city, extending north into Marin County, east Contra Costa south Peninsula. Measured revenue, only 5.7% traffic interstate movement; 94.3% intrastate, largely commuter. 4 The corporate approval conceived environment financial difficulties plaguing operations. consistently operated at loss, some extent blamed rate-making practices policies California Public Utilities proceedings commutation rate increases over these routes, example, State Greyhound's applications should be determined light total revenues intrastate California. Fares, 50 Cal.P.U.C. 650. This company deemed unjustified subsidization local losses profits unrelated operations.5 5 admittedly designed escape, upon Commission, incorporated 1953, engaged no business activity not carrier. Under agreement, arrived early 1954, substantially rights area, $150,000 cash, equipment.6 turn Greyhound. result obvious: purposes before deficit-ridden operation, after split-up separate corporations, forced stand own—or collapse. 6 Although did formally intervene, filed views regarding It stated 'local' wholly unnecessary, create questionable expense, tend inject confusion rate-fixing. Further, feared Gate's resulting structure 'questionable soundness.' 7 conditioned proposal increase cash consideration $250,000, hearing officer recommended disapproval entirety. 8 congressional purpose sweeping revision Act 1940, enacting present form, facilitate merger consolidation national transportation system.7 Transportation 1920 Congress directed itself take initiative developing 'for railway properties continental limited number systems,' 41 Stat. 481, 20 years trial approach appeared inadequate. 1940 extended water carriers, relieved responsibility initiate unifications. 'Instead, authorized carrier-initiated, voluntary plans if, subject such terms, conditions modifications as might prescribe, transactions met tests public interest, justice reasonableness * *.' (Emphasis added.) Schwabacher v. States, 1948, 334 182, 193, 68 958, 964, 92 L.Ed. 1305. order avoid delays incident each operated, effectuation Commission-approved 'without invoking any authority.'8 short, change means, while end remained same. very language amended 'unification section'9 expresses clearly desire industry proceed toward integrated substantial simplification. Subject authorization makes lawful carriers; purchase lease property, acquisition control, one another; control noncarrier.10 9 determining whether this case, must examine statutory language. companies regard 'acquisition' Greyhound, authorizing '* acquire another ownership otherwise.' think clear contemplates acquisition, carrier, Gate, mere shell without property function, can stretch imagination 'carrier.' Even if look status, however, consummation, find alleged amounts little than paper transaction. reality carriers propose split-up—something 5(2)(a). now solely those divided Gate; where there two. dissipated functions dismembered, hope escaping 10 There may not, fact, operational justification transaction; us. consider applicability ground jurisdiction, so doing narrows 'the nature relations between companies.' Alleghany Corp. Breswick & Co., 353 151, 169, 77 763, 773, 726. For reasons have stated, eliminates 11 Our holding does vacuum regulation. cases 5, nevertheless assert 212(b) Act.11 transferred were predominantly suburban-commuter nature, they least movement, serviced Commission; Commission-approved. See Atwood's Transport Line—Lease John A. Clarke, 52 97, 105—108, discussed distinction 212(b). will, course, Far being void regulation, will invoke body most directly concerned operation. say could never along test comes 5(2)(a), exercise 12 Finally, referred evidence prior administrative practice supports sustaining Gehlhaus Hollobinko Control, 60 167; Takin—Purchase—Takin Bros. Freight Line, Inc., 37 626; Consolidated Freightways, Inc.—Control Convoy 36 358; Columbia Motor Service Co. Purchase—Columbia Terminals 35 531. While interpretation given statute charged application enforcement entitled considerable weight, hardly conclusive. Missouri R. 1929, 278 269, 280, 49 133, 137, 73 322. evidenced is, our opinion, insufficient outweigh apparent statute—especially delicate federal leads, statute, complete ouster state authority.12 13 original part record appeal, appears briefs contained alternative prayer certificate transfers Therefore, judgment reversed case remanded conformity opinion. ordered. 14 Reversed remanded. 15 FRANKFURTER, BURTON, HARLAN, WHITTAKER affirm judgment, pending when instant MC—F—573, has since been consummated. Certain divisions Amalgamated Association Street, Electric Railway Coach Employees America, representing employees also joined seeking Commission's However, complaint later dismissed union material Section 5(2)(a): 'It shall lawful, subdivision (b)— '(i) consolidate merge franchises, thereof, corporation ownership, management, operation theretofore ownership; jointly, purchase, lease, contract operate properties, otherwise; person otherwise amended, U.S.C. U.S.C.A. 5(2), (a). disposition unnecessary appellants' contention, namely, Court abused discretion denying motion amend complaint. 1952 unsuccessfully County operator who offered invest $200,000 working capital. finding 'adverse interest,' denied application. Certificate Transfer, 2, 7. buses recently purchased conditional sales contracts, 138 use system, 194 fare boxes. assume payment $982,566 new buses, addition pay $173,394 equity therein. S.Rep. 433, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. 28—32; H.R.Rep. 1217, 6, 12, 17; 2016, 3d 61; 2832, 68—69. historical outline 'consolidation' provisions St. Joe Paper Atlantic Coast Line 347 298, 315, 74 574, 584 (appendix), 98 1118. 5(11): 'The conferred section plenary, participating thereunder, full carry effect own franchises acquired said 54 908, 5(11), 5(11). 28. note 3, supra. 212(b): 'Except title, permit transferred, pursuant rules regulations prescribe.' 555, 924, 312(b), 312(b). 8,

Category: 7