Court Opinion

ID: 9562677
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:32:37.801613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:28.934043
License: Public Domain

Browning, Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent from the decision of the Court in this case, and would affirm the order of the Public Service Commission in denying the application of the railway company.
There are two controlling issues involved in the Court’s decision, and I am in disagreement with its position as to both. The first concerns the interpretation of Code, 31-2-1, and the second, the Court’s holding as a matter of law that *185the applicant by his application seeks only to engage in a specialized, limited service in the transportation of freight in less than carload lots.
The pertinent provisions of Code, 31-2-1, are quoted in the Court’s opinion, and I am concerned with the statement therein that the provisions of the Motor Carrier Act have not superseded the broad transportation privileges accorded railroad companies by that section. If railroad companies still have the authority “to engage in transporting persons and all commodities, objects and things which are subjects of commerce or of transportation by any and all means and methods, which are now used, or which may hereafter be developed.”, unhampered and unlimited by the provisions of the Motor Carrier Act, except for the formality of securing a certificate from the Public Service Commission so that the latter may routinely supervise the activities of such companies, all others engaged in the transportation of persons and commodities in this State are placed in a most hazardous position. It is my opinion that the language used in Chapter 24-A, the Motor Carrier Act, clearly shows the intent of the Legislature to limit the broad powers granted railroad companies by the ancient statute. The Act clearly shows a complete and comprehensive system of economic regulations for all who would transport persons and property over the highways of this State, a system not contemplated at the time of the original adoption of what is now Code, 31-2-1.
Section 2 of Article 1 of the Motor Carrier Act specifically provides that the term “common carrier by motor vehicle” includes “such motor vehicle operation of carriers by rail * * *.” While there can be no disagreement with the position of the Court, as stated in its opinion, that the repeal of a statute by implication is not favored, the principle that a new Act repeals an earlier one, where there is an “irreconcilable repugnance” to the extent of such repugnancy is equally well established. Beck v. Cox, 77 W. Va. 442, 87 S. E. 492, and other decisions of this Court cited in the majority opinion.
*186It is my position that railroad companies are either subject absolutely, as are all others, to the provisions of-the Motor Carrier Act, with regard to transportation of persons and commodities upon the public highways of this State, or they are not subject to> the provisions at all. If this Court has held in this case that railroad companies are not subject to the provisions of the Motor Carrier Act, or, if so, then only for the formal purpose of accepting the regulatory provisions of that Act, and the Public Service Commission is without authority to deny such companies permission to engage in such transportation upon the highways of this State, a most serious constitutional question is thereby presented. It is my opinion that railroad companies have no superior rights to others engaged in transportation upon the highways of this State, and that the provisions of the Motor Carrier Act, in clear and unambiguous language, so state. If there is a conflict between the provisions of that Act and the old railroad statute, the limitation of the former must, and does, supersede the provisions of the latter.
The Court has also erroneously determined, in my opinion, that the application of the applicant and the record made in the hearing before the Public Service Commission show that the applicant is engaged in a specialized, limited service which exempts it from making the showing required by the Motor Carrier Act for the issuance of a certificate to transport commodities as a common carrier by motor vehicle over the routes designated in the application. It must be observed that this applicant, seeking to transport commodities, in less than carload lots, by motor vehicles, asks permission to render this service “without limitation”. In other words, the applicant specifically refused to limit its application to the transportation of commodities involving prior or subsequent shipment by rail, and likewise refused to be limited by so-called “key point” restrictions. While it is true that the Court’s opinion states “that this proceeding must be remanded to the Public Service Commission with directions that such certificate be granted, with the *187imposition of such conditions and restrictions as deemed by the Public Service Commission to be necessary or proper in the public interest, * * the position of the Court, as stated in its opinion, is such that the Public Service Commission can have little discretion in imposing restrictions upon the applicant that will not be inconsistent with the views expressed by this Court. It is my position that if conditions and restrictions are to be applied by the Public Service Commission, that its ruling in this proceeding should be affirmed, and the applicant required to file a new application so that the hearing would produce evidence pertinent to the conditional application, rather than to require the Commission to attempt to impose restrictions upon a record made upon the sole issue of whether a certificate should be issued without limitations of any kind. If the applicant and other railroad companies are required to submit to the provisions of the Motor Carrier Act, as I believe they are, then I can not escape the conclusion, from a review of the evidence produced at the hearing before the Commission, that the eligibility of the applicant for the certificate which it sought was a question of fact.
The principal test as to whether the applicant was to engage in a motor carrier service that was distinctive from, and more limited than, such services being rendered by others, was a question of fact as to whether the one would be in competition with the other. A large volume of testimony was adduced upon this question, and certainly the decisions of this Court are uniform in holding that a finding of fact by the Public Service Commission will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence. The second syllabus point of the Court’s opinion, quoting from the Bluefield Telephone case, is illustrative of the Court’s position as to that question.
Subsection (a) of Section 5, Article 2 of the Motor Carrier Act, which is quoted in full in the Court’s opinion, requires an applicant for a certificate of convenience and necessity, not only to make a showing of such public convenience and necessity, but to affirmatively show that *188any common carrier holding such a certificate, over any of the routes where the new applicant seeks to operate, is not providing adequate service. The holder of such certificate shall have reasonable time and opportunity to remedy the inadequacy or insufficiency before any certificate shall be granted to the new applicant seeking to operate over such route or routes. There is no evidence in this record to justify a conclusion that the present carriers were not rendering such service over the routes where the applicant sought to operate, but the applicant, refusing to attempt to produce evidence to that effect, relied upon its contention that such was not required where a certificate was sought for a specialized, limited service, and this Court sustained its position in that regard. It is my opinion that the very question of- whether the applicant was to engage in a service that exempted it from making this showing was a question of fact, and •that factual question having been determined by the Commission, this Court is not at liberty to disturb it, in the absence of a showing that such order manifests unlawful, arbitrary or capricious exercise of power.
As stated in the Court’s opinion, the only states which have a “protective clause” in their acts, similar to ours, are Ohio and Virginia. There is no such provision in the Federal legislation which governs the activities of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The decisions of the Federal courts, therefore, are not applicable, although it is to be noted that even in the absence of such a clause in the Federal legislation, those courts have applied the principle in granting certificates, and have uniformly protected the old certificate holders by proper limitations in certificates granted to new applicants, including key point, and prior or subsequent rail transportation in applications for certificates for motor vehicle transportation by railroad companies where such privilege is sought as an auxiliary to rail service.
The Ohio decisions discussed in the Court’s opinion involve cases in which the commission was affirmed by the Supreme Court of that State in issuing such certificates *189upon a factual determination of a lack of harmful competition, or where stringent limitations were placed upon the applicants. The only case directly in point is the Virginia case of Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company v. Commonwealth, which is discussed in the Court’s opinion. In that case, where the pertinent factual situation can not, in my opinion, be distinguished from that in this case, the commission was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Virginia in denying the application of the railroad company to operate a trucking service paralleling its rail line.
I would affirm the order of the Public Service Commission in its entirety, and I am authorized to say that Judge Riley is of similar opinion, and concurs in this dissent.