Court Opinion

ID: 9418802
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:39:57.400379+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:10.846577
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Stone,
concurring.
I concur in the result.
The statute, in words, authorizes the Commission to grant a hearing as to the reasonableness and lawfulness of the proposed rates and divisions, if complaint is filed, and the Commission has plenary power, upon consideration of the complaint, to postpone the effective date of *465the order and to suspend the rates after the order becomes effective. §§ 15 -(7), 16 (6),’Interstate Commerce Act.
As respondents have failed to invoke these administrative remedies by filing a complaint with the Commission, it seems plain that their rights, constitutional or otherwise, have not been' infringed, and I see no occasion for speculation as to what the statutory duty of the Commission may be in .the event a complaint is filed, or to resort to concessions of counsel in brief and argument to-define that duty, or to suggest that the statute falls short of constitutional requirements if it fails to command the administrative action which it permits. The mere power, unexercised, to withhold constitutional right is not a denial of it. It is enough that respondents have filed no. complaint with the Commission designed to secure a hearing. Before administrative action which respondents may invoke, but have not, it cannot be said that there is any infringement of their constitutional rights to a hearing or to protection from the rates pending a hearing. Compare Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Seattle, ante, p. 300; Porter v. Investors Syndicate, 286 U.S. 461, 470, 471.
Further, there is no intimation in the record that upon resort to the administrative remedies which the statute permits any relief to which respondents are justly and equitably .entitled will be Withheld. And there is no contention that the proposed rates will not yield a fair return or that they otherwise infringe constitutional rights. At most it appears that the interest sought to be protected is a prospective share in future traffic which it is feared may be diverted to.the Barge Line, an interest to which the Constitution plainly affords no protection. Edward Hines Trustees v. United States, 263 U.S. 143, 148; Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. United States, 279 U.S. 768, 780; Sprunt & Son v. United States, 281 U.S. 249, *466Thus, regardless of what the statute commands, there is no such showing of threatened "denial of a hearing or of injury'to a property right as would warrant resort to .the equity powers of a federal court. Vandalia R. Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 242 U.S. 255; United States v. Los Angeles & St. L. R. Co., 273 U.S. 299, 314; White v. Johnson, 282 U.S. 367, 373; Porter v. Investors Syndicate, supra.
Me. Justice Brandeis, Mr. Justice Roberts, and Mr. Justice Cardozo concur in this opinion.