Court Opinion

ID: 9618763
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:16:52.42606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:31.849891
License: Public Domain

KENNAMER, District Judge
(dissenting).
Rate making in matters of this nature is the function of the Interstate Commerce Commission; and transportation rate making and economics is a complex and *416difficult problem, requiring the attention of experts, and the results cannot be attained by a mathematical formula applicable to all situations. Nor should this court exact of it a legalistic formalism in its fact findings.
The petitioners allege in their bill of complaint that the defendant Commission’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, without rational basis, and constitutes an abuse of discretion; that the increased charges discriminate against water carriers and deprive shippers of the inherent advantages of barge transportation, in that the differential between ex-barge and ex-rail charges -is riot justified .by any evidence in the record.
The evidence before this court 'is to the contrary. The Commission conducted full and fair hearings on the petition for suspension of the proposed increased charge. Voluminous evidence was taken; including the testimony of experts and transportation cost analysts, submitted by protesting petitioners, respondent carriers, and other interested parties. Witnesses, pro and con, were examined and cross examined. Exhibits were introduced by all parties who desired to do so, and briefs were submitted and considered. The record made at these hearings embraces 345 pages of testimony, together with 33 exhibits.
By the Transportation Act of 1940, it is as much the duty of the Interstate Commerce Commission to recognize and preserve the inherent advantages of rail as well as barge transportation. Here there was a conflict between the two, and the Commission, acting within the ambit of its statutory sanction, had to reconcile the conflict so as to establish and maintain reasonable charges for rail transportation services, without unjust discrimination, preferences or advantages.
There was competent and ample evidence before the Commission to sustain its order. Under these circumstances,. the judgment of the Commission should not be disturbed by this court. ■ '
The relief prayed for in the bill of complaint should be denied.