Court Opinion

ID: 9420454
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:54:36.54951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:25.024691
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Jackson
dissents upon the ground that resort to legislative history to vary the terms of the statute is not justified in this case.
Mr. Chief Justice Vinson and Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter,
whom
Mr. Justice Reed joins, dissenting.
The sole question before us is the proper construction to be given to the amendment made to § 5 (2) (f) of the Interstate Commerce Act by the Act of September 18, 1940, 54 Stat. 898, 906-07. The District Court agreed *156with the construction given to the provision by the Interstate Commerce Commission. In the court below, but not here, the Department of Justice joined the Interstate Commerce Commission in urging this construction upon that court. I do not think the arguments which the Government urged below have been adequately answered, and I therefore yield to them. I cannot do better than state them in the Government’s own language:
“The section contains the clear and precise provision that the four-year period shall commence from the effective date of the order of approval. Had Congress intended that the period shall run from the date when the consolidation goes into effect or, as argued by plaintiff, from the date the employees are adversely affected, such words easily could and would have been used by Congress. Nor does the section give to the Commission discretion in applying a period other than four years from the effective date of the order of approval. The terminology in the statute is that the Commission shall include the four-year limitation therein provided. To provide a different period in the Commission’s order would be contrary to the specific requirement imposed upon the Commission by the statute.
“Congress deliberately fixed the period of protection to start from the effective date of the order and not the date an employee is adversely affected.
“In the light of the clear unambiguous and specific language of Section 5 (2) (f), its consistent interpretation and application by the Commission, since its enactment and over a long period of years, and the legislative history of the statute, the order of the Commission herein should not be disturbed.”
I would affirm the judgment of the District Court.