Legal Document

355 U.S. 83 78 Supreme Court Reporter 173 2 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 117 SCHAFFER TRANSPORTATION COMPANY and American Trucking Associations, Inc., Appellants,v.UNITED STATES of America Interstate Commerce Commission et al. Number 20. Argued Nov. 13, 1957. Decided Dec. 9, Mr. Peter T. Beardsley, Washington, D.C., for appellants. Charles or Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 Weston, appellee States. Neil Garson, Commission. Amos M. Mathews, Chicago, Ill., appellees intervening rail carriers. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion Court. 1 The issue in this case is whether adequately correctly applied standards National Transportation Policy denying a motor carrier's application to provide service between points now served exclusively by rail. applicant, A W. Schaffer, common carrier doing business as Schaffer Co., holds certificate public convenience necessity authorizing him transport granite from Grant County, South Dakota, 15 In present he sought additional authority under § 207(a) Motor Carrier Act 1935, amended 1940,1 County various new well Vermont several Midwest South.2 From all that appears Commission's report, currently only mode transportation available shippers be Schaffer. evidence adduced demonstrate need Schaffer's came three shippers, six receivers an association composed primarily manufacturers finished products. Their evidence, summarized report Division 5 Commission, disclosed following advantages gained service:3 3 'They agree (existing rail) service, main, satisfactory carload shipments but entirely inadequate less-than-carload shipments, not standpoint cost, also standpoint. respect, record shows on movements small supporting witnesses have experienced delays, damage their merchandise, been hampered some degree lack insufficiency sidings. many instances, they asked customers furnish delivery because such unable comply with these requests. Moreover, no less important point view, are faced competitive disadvantage having compete producers at other locations which truck available. Then, too, has impeded shippers' ability increase sales expand markets area. By use proposed certain benefits would accrue dealers. For example, latter able maintain lower inventories, receive freight faster more frequently, thus, better meet erection deadlines, especially during peak seasons. Furthermore, amount crating necessary reduced resultant savings time money.' 4 Relying factors, approved application, full reconsidered same record, and, four Commissioners dissenting, ordered it denied. Atlantic Extension—Granite, 63 M.C.C. 247. brought action before statutory three-judge court 49 Code KF62 305(g), Annotated KF65 U5 305(g) set order aside. District denied relief complaint dismissed. 139 F.Supp. 444. here direct appeal.4 28 §§ 1253, 2101(b), 2101(b). We noted probable jurisdiction. 352 923, 77 220. 6 Policy,5 formulated Congress, specifies its terms govern administration enforcement provisions Act, made clear policy yardstick correctness actions will measured. Dixie Carriers, Incorporated versus States, 351 56, 76 578, 100 L.Ed. 934; Eastern-Central Carriers Association 321 194, 64 499, 88 668; McLean company 67, 370, 544. Of course, possesses 'wide range discretionary authority' determining interest warrants certification any particular service. Detroit & Cleveland Navigation 326 236, 241, 66 75, 77, 90 38; Parker, 60, 65 1490, 89 2051. But discretion must exercised conformity declared policies Congress. To see those implemented we look own summary particularly findings, formal otherwise, made. Just overstep our duty undertaking evaluate according notions interest, shirk were summarily approve evaluation without agency's had accordance mandate 7 basis: 8 'On foregoing facts, conclude require operation. It seen one reason another find fault presently utilized Actually, however, conclusion reasonably satisfied except share, namely, too slow. Nevertheless, practice hold until can accumulate poolcar load may move pool-car rate. This followed knowledge consent consignees, sole purpose therein take advantage Less-than-carload while expeditious fairly good, higher rate involved seldom used witnesses. testimony Dakota shipper indicates support largely motivated anticipated cheaper transportation. 9 'We carefully considered applicant's arguments contrary, forced adequate. witnesses' main obtain rates rather than improved established proper basis grant authority, therefore, denied.' 10 Viewing conclusions light outset there 'inherent advantages' applicant. That requires administer so 'recognize preserve inherent each supra; I.C.C. v Mechling, 330 567, 67 894, 91 1102. When seeks offer where authorized, critical factor assess. How significant given factual context what exists supply considerations 11 Rather benefit might bring public, cast first principal adequacy existing finding 'reasonably adequate.' Yet itself previously stated: 'That adequate sufficient denial (to carrier).' Bowles Common Application, 589, 591. relevant consideration, recognized Metler Extension—Crude Sulphur, 62 143, 148, 'relative comparative adequacy' consideration when interests competition being reconciled maintaining sound system. does disclose factors compared concluding determined provided carriers, 'unduly prejudicial'6 balance reject bare traffic, regard give unwarranted protection others. As emphasizes, 'No entitled continuance fails need, nor, token, should deprived divert traffic carriers.' 12 second basic was prospect obtaining rates. discounted witnesses, apparently even evaluating claimed think approach runs counter Policy. operate competing types precisely sort advantage' congressional recognize. supra. asserts always irrelevant proceedings 207(a), yet, exception, relies administrative decisions involving applications area already transportation.7 Those different situation presented here, handled circumstances attributable differences two modes type cannot ignored 13 Since failed including whatever exist rates, since findings do decision comports Policy, aside, proceed further said. 14 minimize complexity task faces balancing numerous collectively determine lies situation. And suggest self-executing principles inevitably way result case. On overlap conflict, occurs, resolution agency expert field. indication conflict policies. Shippers testified gain There authorization impair operation carriers certificated. Nor properly evaluated urged standard met. reasons, judgment reversed cause remanded directions aside remand opinion. ordered. 16 Judgment directions. 17 FRANKFURTER (dissenting). 18 1940 (amending Act) grants powers imposes limitations upon exercise greatly varying degrees definiteness. consequence, left correspondingly, scope judicial review orders vary. Thus, day Nos. 8, Associations 141, 165, striking illustration difference limitation subjected proceeding 5(2)(b) 24 Statutes-at-Large 379, amended, 5(2)(b), requirements 207 551, 307, although both relate railroads. power undefined long-and-short-haul clause Mann-Elkins June 18, 1910, 36 539, 547, Intermountain Rate Cases (U.S. Atchison, S.F.R. Co.), 234 476, 34 986, 58 1408, modified specific Congress wrote into 1940, 54 904, 4(1), 4(1). short, rules dealing regulation surface narrowly specific, leaving practically Other expressed necessarily leave considerable implied ingredients, still others breadth wider opportunity displaced court's independent guise review. 19 us, amended. denial, sustained reverses ground enforce 899, U.S.C., note preceding section 1, 1. very name introductory recitals illumines legal significance: 'All shall administered enforced view carrying out above declaration policy.' thus conveyed most generalized manifold, complicated frequently elusive duties. nature things unlike rule affording defined criteria Still afford concrete, definable overturning conscientious attempt translate concreteness 20 No doubt obligation heed 'the national Congress,' 'to fair impartial subject recognize each.' Surely mechanical self-defining standards. They imply widest areas exercised, it, massive experience attributed N Immigration Nationality Decisions myself regretfully disagreement my brethren regarding problem like affirm 21 is, pertinent add Court's serve useful if lead despite enormous volume business, detailed illuminating formulation reasons reaches class cases relied enforcing broadly policy. fall scrutiny, desirable insist precision action. 307(a), 307(a). Section provides: '(a) Subject 210, issued qualified applicant therefor, whole part operations covered found fit, willing, perform conform requirements, rules, regulations thereunder, extent authorized certificate, required future necessity; otherwise * *.' portion requested East-bound opposed certificated five Eastern longer did seek reconsideration. With solely railroads involved. Whether us say. them indicate showing established. plaintiff below appellant here. supported ICC's concluded 'on analysis' erroneous; therefore motion filed brief oral argument Fifty-four railroads, serving operating appear along 'It hereby each; promote safe, adequate, economical, efficient foster economic conditions among carriers; encourage establishment maintenance reasonable charges services, unjust discriminations, undue preferences advantages, unfair destructive practices; cooperate duly officials thereof; wages equitable working conditions;—all end developing, coordinating, preserving system water, highway, rail, means, needs o commerce Postal Service, defense. All 70, 1495, purport rely indicating revenue lose Omaha C.B. Ry. Bridge 52 207, 234—235; Pomprowitz Extension—Packing House Products, 51 343, 347—348; Black Extension Operations Prefabricated Houses, 48 695, 708—709; Johnson 195—196; Wellspeak 712, 714. Youngblood Canton, N.C., 193,

Classification Label: 7