Court Opinion

ID: 9419251
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:47:58.226847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:16.640879
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Douglas,
dissenting:
The question in this case is not where the transportation ends but what the particular transportation service includes. I do not suppose that it would be contended that a railroad could lawfully exact from a passenger who had alighted on the station platform an extra charge for passing through the station to the street. The reason why it could not make that exaction is that, although the transportation ended at the platform, the transportation service included free egress from the station. I think that that principle is applicable and controlling here.
Covington Stock-Yards Co. v. Keith, 139 U. S. 128, which arose prior to the Interstate Commerce Act, applied that *234principle to the delivery of livestock at stockyards. This Court, after stating that a carrier of livestock has no right “to make a special charge for merely receiving or merely delivering such stock, in and through stock yards provided by itself,” added (pp. 135-136): “If the carrier may not make such special charges in respect to stock yards which itself owns, maintains or controls, it cannot invest another corporation or company with authority to impose burdens of that kind upon shippers and consignees. The transportation of livestock begins with their delivery to the carrier to be loaded upon its cars, and ends only after the stock is unloaded and delivered, or offered to be delivered, to the consignee, if to be found, at such place as admits of their being safely taken into possession.”
So far as I am aware, the Covington case has never been overruled. As recently as 1939 we approved it. For we stated in Union Stock Yard Co. v. United States, 308 U. S. 213, 219, after reviewing §§ 1 (3) and 15 (5) of the Interstate Commerce Act: “Without the aid of these statutes the transportation of livestock by rail was held to begin with its delivery to the carrier for loading onto its cars, and to end only after unloading for delivery or tender to the consignee at the place of destination. Covington Stock-Yards Co. v. Keith, 139 U. S. 128, 136. The same rule has been repeatedly applied since the statute was adopted. Erie R. Co. v. Shuart, 250 U. S. 465, 468; Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. United States, 295 U. S. 193, 198, and cases cited; Denver Union Stock Yard Co. v. United States, 304 U. S. 470; 2 Hutchison, Carriers, 3d ed. § 510.”
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. United States, 295 U. S. 193, did not alter that rule. As stated by the majority in that case (295 U. S. p. 200): “The Hygrade Company did not seek and the Commission did not grant relief upon the ground that the carriers failed to provide egress from the unloading pens in the public stockyards to the city streets by means of which consignee’s animals might be *235removed to its plant. Consignee sought free delivery in cars switched into its plant, but the Commission found the switching charge not unreasonable. Consignee also sought free use of the Yards Company’s properties, including the overhead runway to take its animals from holding pens as well as from unloading pens to its plant.” And the majority added (p. 201): “Plainly there is an essential difference between the route from unloading pens to consignee’s plant and a mere way out to the public highways. Transportation does not include delivery within the Hygrade plant or the furnishing of the properties, overhead runway and all, that are used for that purpose.” Although certain general statements in the opinion are not consistent with the rule of the Covington case, a unanimous Court recently explained Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. United States as follows: “There the Commission’s order directing the discontinuance of appellant’s yardage charge to consignees was set aside on the sole ground that the Commission’s findings failed to show that the service for which the charge was made was any part of the loading or unloading services, or otherwise a service which the rail carrier was bound to furnish.” Union Stock Yard Co. v. United States, supra, p. 219. That is amply supported by the reasons given by the majority itself for setting aside the Commission’s order in the Atchison case: “But the Commission, in respect of the shipments covered by its order, made no definite finding as to what constitutes complete delivery or where transportation ends. Its report does not disclose the basic facts on which it made the challenged order. This court will not search the record to ascertain whether, by use of what there may be found, general and ambiguous statements in the report intended to serve as findings may by construction be given a meaning sufficiently definite and certain to constitute a valid basis for the order.” 295 U. S. pp. 201-202. And Armour & Co. v. Alton R. Co., 312 U. S. 195, did not weaken the rule *236of the Covington case. We merely held in that case that the complaint of a packer who sought to be rid of “yardage charges” raised certain administrative problems necessitating primary resort to the Interstate Commerce Commission. We did not reach in that case the merits of that controversy nor the questions of law involved here.1
Hence, I think we reach the question of the application of the rule of the Covington case to this situation unembarrassed by a prior holding.
I do not agree that Congress has left to the Commission the power to eliminate free egress from this particular transportation service. Whatever may have been the scope of the authority of the Commission prior to the Transportation Act of 1920 (Adams v. Mills, 286 U. S. 397), it should be noted that Mr. Justice Brandéis, the author of Adams v. Mills, joined in the dissenting opinion in the Atchison case, which repudiated the notion that the transportation service in this type of shipment was completed at the unloading pens. Furthermore, as stated in the dissenting opinion in the Atchison case, it is clear that Congress itself provided a rule, in § 15 (5) of that Act, which placed on the Commission the duty and the author*237ity to see to it that tribute was not exacted from a shipper by exaction of a separate charge for egress from the station to the street or other public place. 41 Stat. 456, 486, 49 U. S. C. § 15 (5). That section, so far as material here, provides that transportation wholly by railroad of ordinary livestock in carload lots received at public stockyards “shall include all necessary service of unloading and . . . delivery at public stockyards of inbound shipments into suitable pens . . . without extra charge therefor to the shipper, consignee, or owner . . To say that carriers need not furnish facilities for delivery and immediate removal of livestock by the consignee, without extra charge, is to give § 15 (5) an interpretation which is not only “ingenious” (Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. United States, supra, p. 205, dissenting opinion) but which is also quite oblivious of the crying abuses which § 15 (5) was designed to correct. The words “all necessary service of unloading and . . . delivery” of livestock at public stockyards must be taken to include all services at a terminal incidental to obtaining delivery of the livestock. Any delivery “into suitable pens” must be taken “to mean pens to which the consignees may gain unimpeded access for the purpose of removing their stock.” Id., p. 206. As stated by Commissioner Eastman in Hygrade Food Products Corp. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 195 I. C. C. 553, 559, pens are not “suitable,” within the meaning of § 15 (5), where they do not “permit of reasonable opportunity to accept delivery and remove the livestock from the premises after notice of arrival.” Otherwise, the purpose of § 15 (5) in removing “an old evil” is defeated and “a crop of new ones” is sanctioned “by giving stock yards and rail carriers of livestock carte blanche to impose vexatious charges which for more than thirty years had been condemned by this Court.” Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. United States, supra, 295 U. S. at p. 206, dissenting opinion.
*238The legislative history of § 15 (5) was reviewed in the dissenting opinion in the Atchison case. 295 U. S. at pp. 207-208. The mandate contained in § 15 (5) originated with the American National Live Stock Association (59 Cong. Rec. 674) and the National Live Stock Shippers’ League. Hearings, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, H. R. 4378, 66th Cong., 1st Sess., Yol. I, pp. 139-141. The proposal was not vague. It was that there be “one through rate on live stock for the whole services from point of origin to the destination at public stockyards used at market place which shall include unloading into suitable pens and delivery therein at such stockyards, where the animals may be counted and checked, including such facilities as are necessary or in use for making such delivery.” Id., p. 141. It was the enactment of the rule of the Covington case which was specifically asked. Id., p. 874. The argument was that a railroad would not “make two rates to its own pens if it owned and operated them, and neither should it do so with respect to pens which it uses in the same manner. There should be one fare, the same as a passenger rate, to such depot as they use in a given city.” Id., p. 881. The record shows that Congress was alive to the evils of which the shippers complained and that it endeavored to correct them. As stated by the House Managers, the aim of the amendment introduced in the Senate and amplified in Conference was to provide that the “through rates on live stock should include unloading and other incidental charges.” 59 Cong. Rec. 3264. Indeed, the sole purpose of the amendment was to impose on the Commission the duty and authority to eliminate the practices condemned by the Covington case. In view of that explicit history, it comes as a surprise that the Commission can now abdicate and say that a consignee or owner who has paid a through rate may not have free receipt of- his.stock at the' station.' To hold that *239the separate charge for unloading livestock into pens, which § 15 (5) outlawed, may now be exacted for taking the livestock out, is to make the relief afforded by that section illusory indeed.
But it is said that the matter is subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 and that, if relief is to be had, the Secretary of Agriculture must give it. The difficulty with that view is that that Act provides, “Nothing in this Act shall affect the power or jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission, nor confer upon the Secretary concurrent power or jurisdiction over any matter within the power or jurisdiction of such Commission.” 42 Stat. 169, 7 U. S. C. § 226. The boundary between the Commission and the Secretary of Agriculture is not the place where the transportation ends but the time when the transportation service is completed. It is not completed until the consignee has unimpeded access to the station for the purpose of removing the livestock. That view is supported by Union Stock Yard Co. v. United States, supra, where the stockyards argued that their loading and unloading services were subject to regulation by the Secretary of Agriculture and not by the Commission. We held that loading and unloading services were “common carrier services placed under the authority of the Commission by the Interstate Commerce Act.” 308 U. S. p. 221. And we defined the scope of those services in terms of the rule of the Covington case. Id., p. 219. To call the. withholding of the stock until an additional fee is paid a stockyard “service,” is indeed incongruous. It is to forget over half a century of history. It is to take away part of the protection which Congress afforded shippers by § 15 (5). It is to interpret § 15 (5) not liberally, as a remedial provision, but strictly against the stock raisers for whose ultimate benefit it.was passed. For years the carriers and stockyards persistently sought to dignify this type, of trib^. *240ute and exploitation as a “stock yard service.” Until the present, they were unsuccessful. They should fail again. The Covington case states the correct rule. It is that rule which Congress enacted into § 15 (5) for the protection of the stock raisers, who ultimately pay the tribute and vexatious charges which the middleman exacts. It is that rule which we should enforce, until Congress changes it.
The Interstate Commerce Commission followed that rule in Hygrade Food Products Corp. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry Co., 195 I. C. C. 553. That case met with reversal here. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. United States, supra. And the opinion of the Court contained a dictum that “Usage and physical conditions combined definitely to end transportation, at least in respect of these shipments, with unloading into suitable pens as is now required by § 15 (5).” 295 U. S. p. 201. It is that dictum which has haunted this litigation and which largely shaped the ruling of the Commission in the instant case. For the Commission proceeded from the premise that there was “no difference in principle” between the Atchison case and this one, and that this Court had stated in the earlier case “that the obligation of the line-haul carriers ceased when the animals were placed in the unloading pens.” 238 I. C. C. 179, 189-190, 196. But the Commission was under no such compulsion. Commissioner Alldredge was quite right when he pointed out in his dissenting opinion that the Commission misconstrued the opinion of this Court in the Atchison case. 238 I. C. C. pp. 197-198. Hence the conclusion of the Commission, reached in large measure under the compulsion of that erroneous assumption, should not be given the weight normally due findings and conclusions of such an expert body.
We should reaffirm once more the rule of the Covington case and reject the dictum in the Atchison case. We should hold that § 15 (5) is remedial and should be liberally construed and, as the Commission itself held in the *241Atchison case, that this particular transportation service includes the time-honored opportunity of the consignee or owner to go to the station and take away his livestock without payment of an additional toll.
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Murphy join in this dissent.

 It will not do to say that, if the rule of the Covington case applied, we erred in requiring primary resort to the Commission in the Armour case. There were several questions relating to complex transportations involved in that case which required primary determination by the Commission. They included possible readjustments of rate schedules, possible refunds to shippers, and definition of the boundaries of the station named in the tariff. The statement in the Armour case that the statute did not mark the point where the transportation service was completed “under all circumstances and conditions and in all cases” (312 U. S. p. 200) is borne out by the Atchison case, where the consignee, as we have noted, sought free delivery in cars switched into its plant and the use of an overhead runway from holding pens to its plant. Clearly, a determination of the precise facts concerning the characteristics and use of a particular station was necessary before a correct application of the applicable rule of law could be made.