Document: 358 U.S. 68 79 S.Ct. 107 3 L.Ed.2d 34 BOSTON & MAINE RAILROAD CO. et al., Petitioners,v.UNITED STATES of America al. CHICAGO, BURLINGTON QUINCY Petitioners, v. Nos. 310, 322. Decided Nov. 17, 1958. No. 310: Messrs. Richard Swan Buell, Wm. T. Griffin, Otto M. Buerger, Carl E. Newton, New York, for appellants. S. R. Brittingham, Jr., Chicago, J. Lee Rankin, Solicitor General, Washington, D.C., appellees. 322: Mr. General the U.S., PER CURIAM. 1 These cases concern range Interstate Commerce Commission's power over rates car hire in railroading. Because they predominantly originate freight, long-haul trunk-line railroads own most freight cars industry. Short-haul terminal railroads, on other hand, mainly terminate freight; to avoid needless duplication, roads rather than replace them with their own. The compensation be paid use another's has, part, been fixed by themselves, originally terms mileage which borrowed traveled using road, later form a flat per diem rate. Since September 1, 1947, amount has adjusted accordance an agreement prepared Association American Railroads (AAR). Prior this litigation, so established were followed generally, signers and nonsigners alike. 2 In March 1951 Susquehanna Western Railroad announced that it would no longer comply then applicable diem. Other soon suit. response, nineteen Class I filed complaint Commission against five short-haul same six short-line Classes II III. Additional intervening one side or brought total number involved just hundred. complainants specifically declined invoke recognized rule-making car-hire conferred § 1(14)(a) Act, 40 Stat. 101, as amended, 41 476, 49 U.S.C. 1(14)(a), U.S.C.A. 1(14)(a). Instead, asked declare various diems effect since November 1949, reasonable public interest required uniform observance those all members Relying issue declaratory orders granted 5(d) Administrative Procedure 60 240, 5 1004(d), held each not excess compensation. Accordingly, entered order discontinuing proceeding. 4 action before statutory three-judge District Court have set aside. As court below noted, was 'to require respondent (terminal) carriers, and, indeed, practical matter others, pay charges car-use found reasonably compensatory * *.' 162 F.Supp. 289, 292—293, note 4. contended determination rate applied throughout industry beyond adjudicatory jurisdiction lay exclusively within its power. This contention, forms basis appeal rejected Court, judge dissenting. Nonetheless, aside merits. It pointed out had erred considering repairs, depreciation 'car day divisor' components But rested decision summary rejection alternative method compensation, introduce factor into diem, advocated certain roads. view, plan like 'suggested plans varying could put without extensive investigation either A.A.R. facts arguments here presented are persuasive kind desirable.' 297 I.C.C. 291, 296. thought approach much recommend face ruled: 6 'In advance more thorough study we do see broad conclusion is both impractical undesirable. To perform our function evidence desirable feasible must at least some inkling general conclusions contrary. short think brushing such importance many vital links transportation system little casual wave hand.' page 298. 7 memorandum expressed readiness 'proceed remand.' result, find question raised 310—whether determine application engage what characterized 'full scale investigation' accompanying promulgation rule under 1(14) (a)—prematurely decision. recognizes 'further 'more detailed findings' will requisite compliance Court's remand. Should proceedings lead reconsider estimate desirability embracing factor, result might well declaration present but establishment new If, conversely, adheres original light findings derived from further investigation. event, remand may lose characteristics take procedure, thereby causing now sought reviewed disappear. appropriately observed, record presents essentially only 'an interim ruling.' 8 considerations us dismiss 310 prejudice raising 'adjudicatory' again, if survives proceedings. also disposes 322, cross challenging scope review. ordered. 9 Appeal dismissed prejudice.

Category: 7