Legal Document

338 U.S. 286 70 Supreme Court Reporter 115 94 L.Ed. 93 UNITED STATES et al.v.CAPITAL TRANSIT CO. al. WASHINGTON, VIRGINIA & MARYLAND COACH CO., Inc., versus CAPITAL Nos. 40, 41. Argued Oct. 20—21, 1949. Decided Nov. 14, Motion for Issuance of Mandate Denied 21, See 186. Mr. Philip Elman, Washington, D.C., appellants, the United States and Interstate Commerce Commission. Manuel Judge Davis, appellant, Va. Md. Coach company Incorporated S. Harrison Kahn, Alexandria, Barcroft Washington Transit Samuel O. Clark, Jr., appellee, Capital Lloyd baron Harrison, Public Utilities Commission District Columbia. Henry E. Ketner, Richmond, Va., State Corporation as amicus curiae by special leave Court. [Argument Counsel from page 287 intentionally omitted] PER CURIAM. 1 In Co., 325 357, 65 1176, 89 1663, we upheld jurisdiction to regulate certain Transit's bus streetcar rates. The rates involved were in two different categories. operated, it still does, a system within connecting residential area with central business area. It was also one four companies carrying passengers that Pentagon Building other defense establishments located just across Potomac Virginia. Each day thousands Government employees living boarded streetcars near their residences, rode District's area, there transferred Virginia busses carriage nearby establishments. above case sustained order fixing through fare entire trip between governmental installations. had strongly urged its transportation areas, being wholly District, could not be treated part an interstate movement. For reasons stated our former opinion rejected contention, holding daily stream workers back again movement therefore subject regulation This applied even where traveled on lines. contended precluded proviso § 216(e) Motor Carrier Act, 49 Code Annotated KF65 U5 316(e), exempting 'intrastate transportation' motor carriers contention repeated motion rehearing. We it. Our District-Virginia movements 'interstate necessarily made exemption inapplicable. 2 After entered new putting into effect rate sustained. present cases, here appeal three-judge under 28 KF62 §§ 1253 2101(b), 1253, enjoined1 ground transportation, which held interstate, now become 'intrastate.' On same ground, court exempt 216(e). cited support ruling recent decision Yellow Cab 332 218, 67 1560, 91 2010. 3 apparently took position changed conditions since prior deprived jurisdiction. When Commission's case, itself operating lines issued transfers areas. These good rides own busses, but would give three competitive adverted relied this situation supporting requirement make similar arrangements fares April 1, 1947, abandoned line. Because date all Virginia-bound has been transportation.' 4 Court's annulment cannot stand. previous intra-District bound 'interstate' throughout, upon proper findings. supra, does conflict continuous transportation. adhere holding. going is integral 5 judgment no substantial evidence findings exercise necessary national 'adequate meet needs * defense.' argument seems should have altered finding proceedings because nation longer at war. Another factor pointed out are fewer Army Navy who work Neither these arguments sufficient justify setting aside point. before indicates exist action before. And despite attempted interference power true neither nor adequate travel. 6 argued orders set they confiscatory. But record fails show issue properly presented determination. Therefore question confiscation ripe judicial review. 7 examined contentions judgments find without merit. 8 cases reversed causes remanded directions dismiss actions. 9 Reversed remanded. 10 so ordered. 11 Justice DOUGLAS consideration or case. 12 CHIEF JUSTICE, REED, JACKSON dissenting. 13 view bases 'that findings.' Since rest applicability Statutes-at-Large 543, 301 seq., Company existence Maryland, we, too, lay problem aside. understand assert statute empowers enter contested whether operates admitted routes. 14 differs involving operations Company. 1663. earlier served areas competition operators busses. As operator routes selling tickets lines, required sell accept passage Such obligation imposed 216(e), section prohibiting anything 'unduly preferential unduly prejudicial,' 216(c), regulating charges voluntary 362, 1178, 15 Now operate points. carrier over route tickets. Therefore, finds rely put Act engaged commence far transports, ultimate out-of-state destination. do believe permits such construction. 16 Clearly limited commerce.1 Congress used full extent commerce reach incidents affecting emphasized contrary intention providing exclusion coverage situations, passenger traffic municipality, contiguous municipalities adjacent zones. 203(b)(8), 303(b)(8). Likewise specifically bars intrastate affects transportation.2 activities merely affect commerce, think theory inapplicable.3 agree continue journey state way another unconnected makes first 17 may unfortunate results. Its unlimited language sweeps hands local carries large proportion destined arriving example, seem include New York City commuter moving bus, subway street car service simultaneously enjoined enforcement subsequent related orders. One declined permit cancellation prescribed schedules. 47 M.C.C. 205. increased maximum provided divisions among passengers. 270 I.C.C. 651. 'Sec. 202(a), 302(a). provisions apply property foreign procurement provision facilities thereof, therefor, hereby vested Commission.' 'That nothing shall empower prescribe, any manner regulate, rate, fare, charge connected therewith, purpose removing discrimination against whatever.' McLeod, Threlkeld, 319 491, 63 1248, 87 1538; National Labor Relations Board Jones Laughlin, 57 615, 81 893, 108 American Law Reports 1352; Stafford Wallace, 258 495, 42 395, 66 735, 23 229.

Classification Label: 7