Court Opinion

ID: 9883576
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 01:50:42.670731+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:29:38.882858
License: Public Domain

HARTSHORNE, District Judge
(concurring) .
The real truth of the matter is that while the sightseeing tour industry eon--ducted in the manner used by Tauck was well known for many years before and after the enactment of the statute,1 neither the statute nor its legislátive history refers to that industry. The language of the statute, adopted with other situations in mind, should not lightly be construed to wipe out this long existing, wholesome industry. The purpose of the statute was of course to protect both the public and the bus transportation industry throughout the country, but to prevent the various branches of the industry from inequitably interfering with each other. This group sightseeing industry so differs in nature from mere individual transportation, that the one does not inequitably interfere with the other. But when an all-expense paid sightseeing tour becomes in reality mere ordinary transportation, so as to affect inequitably regularly scheduled operations, the Commission and this Court in the past has not hesitated to effectuate the intent of the Act and prevent its violation. Bingler Vacation Tours, Inc. v. U. S. A., D.C.N.J.1955, 132 F.Supp. 793.
Thus there is reason, in accordance with the intent of the statute, for the I. C. C. to set up conditions, carried out on the face of the contracts involved here, whereby the language of the statute can not be construed to wipe out this well established, wholesome industry. Since this action of the Commission therefore can not be found to be without reason, this Court must affirm the holding of the Commission, in accordance with well established principles.

. Tauck Tours began operations in 1926; the Motor Carrier Act, 49 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq. was adopted in 1935; Tauck’s operations were first attacked before the Commission in 1948.