Court Opinion

ID: 9745002
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:28:09.839439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:54.596442
License: Public Domain

McCOLLOCH, District Judge
(concurring specially).
I feel that this case can and should be decided on the basis of the power granted by Congress to the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate trucks and railroads, and on the basis of Congress’s declared policy1: “ * * * to regulate transportation by motor carriers in such manner as to * * * improve the relations between, and coordinate transportation by and regulation of, motor carriers and other carriers; * * * 49 U.S.C.A. § 302.
Trucks can effectively participate in the movement of the petroleum products in question only by short hauling from Umatilla and Attalia.2 If the railroads are permitted to lower rates from marine storage *1001at Portland and on Puget Sound to Spokane and intermediate points, below the combined costs of the river carriers and the trucks, the trucks will get none of the business; and the Commission rightfully held that it was within its granted powers to protect the trucks in a fair share of the business, even though the incidental effect was beneficial to the other transportation agency involved, — the unregulated water carriers.
The Commission found that 19^5 per hundred pounds was a reasonable minimum rate for common carrier truckers to charge from Umatilla to Spokane, and lesser sums to intermediate points. No common carrier trucker has challenged this finding. Having determined the lowest rate at which the truckers could operate with some profit, the Commission then, of necessity, had to make an estimate of what the river costs would be. The Commission thought that the river charges would stabilize at about 9%$i, including incidentals. The total of the reasonable minimum (19‡) prescribed for the truckers, plus the Commission’s estimate of the final figures at which the river charges would stabilize, indicated the reasonable minimum rate to be charged by the railroads.
It seems helpful here to refer to one of the fundamentals in this case. The railroads thought a rate as low as 25‡ was necessary “to meet” water and truck competition, based on the estimate of 7%^ for water carriage and an uncertain sum (but definitely less than 19^) for truck haul. There was testimony that the oil companies could haul from Umatilla to Spokane for as low as 15^ per hundred pounds.
In principle, the Commission has given the railroads what they asked. It gave them a rate which, in the Commission’s judgment, will "meet” water and truck competition.
The Commission strongly intimated that if its estimate as to the cost of competitive haulage proved too high, whether through lower charges by the present operators, or other operators who may come on the river, or through use by the oil companies of their own tankers and trucks, the Commission would permit the railroads to further reduce their rates to meet the lower competitive charges thus resulting.3 In short, the Commission has said to the railroads: so long as the return to you is reasonably compensatory, we will allow you to meet competition. For the present, having it in our power to do so, we will fix the common carrier truck rates at a somewhat higher figure than you used in your build-up of the rate of 25‡ which you thought necessary to meet river-truck competition. And for the present, we disagree with you by 2<5 as to what costs on the river will be.4
In a situation so nebulous, we may not substitute our judgment for the judgment of the Commission, as to how low a rate the railroads must put in to meet competition, present and future.
No one can, I think, question the Commission’s power under the statutory mandate to coordinate transportation by rail and truck, to attempt an equitable apportionment of the traffic involved between the railroads and the trucks,5 even though this results incidentally in help and protection of a decisive nature to intermediate unregulated water carriers. Because of the interest in the *1002case before us of the regulated trucks, what was said in Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. United States et al., 292 U.S. 282, 54 S.Ct. 692, 78 L.Ed. 1260,6 is to be distinguished from the present case. To give the railroads the same rate as the railroads’ allied competitors cannot be said to be unreasonable, under all of the facts of the case. The underlying difference between the Commission and the railroads is on the facts, as to what the competitive combined truck-water rate will ultimately be.7
Neither of the two steps which the Commission took in thus arriving at what it considered proper stabilization of the traffic between the rails and the river-truck route can be criticized as a matter of law. Fixing the minimum rate for the truckers was but exercise of the granted power to fix minimum reasonable truck rates, 49 U.S. C.A. § 316(e), and the Commission’s conclusion as to cost of river carriage certainly falls within the domain of lawfully exercised administrative fact-finding power, even though the Commission’s conclusion is seriously at variance with the judgment of the railroads.
In view of the abundance of testimony that private truckers and the oil companies can haul for much less than the truck rate which the Commission has appioved, we well might, were we the original triers of the facts, share the doubt expressed by Commissioner Aitchison, who dissented, as to the wisdom of the Commission’s determination that the rate of 19$ allowed to the common carrier trucks from Umatilla to Spokane will bring the business to the regulated trucks. But that, to repeat, is a matter of administrative judgment, with which we may disagree, but with which we may not interfere.
For the reasons given, the order should be sustained.

 Compare Ann Arbor R. Co. v. United States, 281 U.S. 658, 50 S.Ct. 444, 74 L.Ed. 1098, for the effect of a Congressional declaration of policy.

 The time may come when trucks can long-haul from Portland or Puget Sound to Spokane in competition with the railroads. The State of Oregon is contemplating the construction of a fast, straight line, water grade, hard surfaced highway from Portland to The Dalles. This will greatly shorten the time and reduce the expense of trucking from Portland to Spokane and the Inland Empire. Proportionately to population and resources, Oregon is far in advance of *1001most of the States in permanent highway-mileage, and, as might be expected, as a result, hauling by truck has expanded rapidly in recent years.

 « * * * if we ¶63.6 f0 assume that the shippers of petroleum products would use every means in their power to bring down their transportation costs to the lowest possible level, regardless of the effect upon the public carriers whose welfare is vital to the best interests of the country, we would go to a somewhat lower level of minimum rates. * * * ”, Page 637 of the printed report.

 The power to prescribe minimum rates, 49 U.S.C.A. § 15 (1), would seem to authorize the Commission to impose its judgment, when reasonably exercised, over the judgment of a carrier or carriers, as to how low a rate is necessary in a given ease “to meet competition”. Compare Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. United States et al., D.C., 4 F. Supp. 745, at page 746 towards the bottom of the first column: “ * * * Thereby the Commission approved the proposed rates in so far as they were based upon the 60,000 pound minimum, but did not approve the rates based upon the 80,000 pound minimum, which it found were lower than the necessities of the situation required * * • (Italics added).

 The oil companies intend to see to it that the water carriers always get a material portion of the business. Printed report, p. 619. The Government and other public agencies have spent over $91,000,000 in improving the Columbia River (printed report, p. 615), and the *1002oil companies intend to use the river thus improved as a permanent rate leveler.

 “ * * * The admonition does not mean that carriers by rail shall be required to maintain a rate that is too high for fear that through the change they may cut into the profits of carriers by water. * * * ” Quoted from 292 U.S. at page 288, 54 S.Ct. at page 694, 78 L.Ed. 1260.

 To me this case is the same in principle as if the trucks were long-hauling from Portland or Puget Sound in competition with the railroads. Given the power to coordinate transportation by truck and railroad, and to regulate both, the Commission could, I think, fix an equal rate for truck and railroad for the long haul, so long as the inherent advantages of one or the other form of transportation were not disregarded. I believe the Commission can do the same thing here, even though the participation by the trucks in the competitive haulage is only by short hauling, and even though the incidental result of the order is highly beneficial to the intermediate unregulated water carriers.
In this connection, I frankly concede that if words mean anything, the Commission bad the interests of the unregulated water carriers in mind equally with the regulated motor carriers. But I do not feel that the order is vitiated by the concern which the Commission manifested for the welfare of the unregulated water carriers.
Congress has said: “It is declared to be the policy of Congress to promote, encourage, and develop water transportation, service, and facilities in connection with the commerce of the United States, and to foster and preserve in full vigor both rail and water transportation. * * *”49 U.S.C.A. § 142.
Compare Commissioner Aitchison’s well reasoned dissenting opinion: “ * * * Our function * * * is to see that there is fair competition between the common carriers whom we regulate, and that the rights of the river carriers— left unregulated by the deliberate determination of Congress — are respected.” (Bottom of p. 651 of the printed report).
The Commissioner dissented as to the minimum rate prescribed for the truckers. He thought that the truckers should be allowed to go as low as 17$, making a combined river-truck rate of 26%$.