1. In a suit to set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce
Commission, a claim that the order was unsupported by evidence
cannot be considered if only part of the evidence taken before the
Commission is introduced in the suit. P.
257 U. S.
116.
2. One of numerous lumber tap lines whose allowances, under
joint rates and through routes with trunk lines, were fixed by the
Commission with reference to length of tap-line haul added to its
haul a preliminary out-of-line movement to a scales, where it
weighed the shipments. The Commission, finding no necessity for
weighing by the tap line, rather than by the trunk line, and that
an increase of allowance based on such out-of-line haul would
result in discrimination unjust to other tap lines and open the way
for relocation of scales by other tap lines and increases of
allowances amounting to rebates, refused to allow the out-of-line
haul to be considered.
Held that its order was not
arbitrary or unreasonable. P.
257 U. S.
117.
274 F. 372 affirmed.
Page 257 U. S. 115
Appeal from a decree of the district court dismissing the bill
in a suit to set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce
Commission.
MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Louisiana & Pine Bluff Railway Company, a common carrier
owned by the Union Sawmill Company, serves it by means of a tap
line which connects its mill at Huttig, Arkansas, with the Missouri
Pacific Railway at Dollar Junction. The trunk line and the tap line
joined in establishing through routes and joint rates from the mill
to points on the trunk line and beyond. The division or allowance
given to the tap line out of the joint rates was large. It was held
by the Interstate Commerce Commission to amount to a rebate to the
Union Sawmill Company, and to discriminate unjustly against the
Wisconsin Lumber Company, an independent concern also served by the
tap line. [
Footnote 1] After
proceedings before the Commission which extended over many years,
its supplemental order, entered June 10, 1919, limited the division
receivable by the tap line for hauling lumber from the Union
Sawmills
Page 257 U. S. 116
to Dollar Junction to $3 per car. [
Footnote 2] The Louisiana & Pine Bluff Railway Company
then brought this suit in the Federal District Court for Western
Arkansas against the United States to enjoin enforcement of the
order and to annul the same. The bill charged that the order
deprived plaintiff of property without due process of law, that it
discriminated against plaintiff by denying to it the same
compensation which other carriers were allowed to charge for like
service, and that the Commission was without authority in law or
fact to make the order complained of. The Interstate Commerce
Commission intervened. Answers setting forth the proceedings taken
were filed, and, by consent of parties, the case was submitted for
final hearing upon the pleadings. The district court entered a
decree dismissing the bill, and the case comes here on appeal under
the Act of October 22, 1913, c. 32, 38 Stat. 208, 220.
No claim is made here that the division allowed is so low as to
be confiscatory. No claim is made that there was lack of notice or
of opportunity to be heard before the Commission, or that the
proceedings before it were otherwise irregular. Nor could a claim
that the order was unsupported by evidence be insisted upon. For
only a part of the evidence taken before the Commission was
introduced.
Manufacturers' Railway Co. v. United States,
246 U. S. 457,
246 U. S. 481;
Spiller v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co.,
253 U. S. 117,
253 U. S. 125.
The claim now urged is that the order was arbitrary and so
unreasonable that it should be set aside.
After the decision in the
Tap Line Cases, 234 U. S.
1, the Commission made, in respect to each of the many
tap line
Page 257 U. S. 117
companies which were party to the proceeding, an order, 40
I.C.C. 470, like that sustained in
O'Keefe v. United
States, 240 U. S. 294. By
these orders, the maximum division to a tap line for hauling a car
from the mill to the junction with the trunk line for a distance of
not more than three miles was fixed at $3. For a distance over
three and not more than six miles, the division to the tap line was
fixed at 1 1/2 cents per 100 pounds, or approximately $9 a car. The
plaintiff contends that it should be allowed to receive the
division of 1 1/2 cents per 100 pounds on the ground that its haul
from the Union Sawmill plants to Dollar Junction was longer than
three miles. Cars loaded with lumber at the platforms of the Union
Sawmills, if hauled direct to Dollar Junction, would travel only
2.41 miles. But they are not hauled direct to the junction; they
are taken first in the opposite direction to a track scale located
on and controlled by the trunk line. Because of this fact, the
distance actually traveled is 3.42 miles. The Commission,
interpreting its own order, directed that, for this service, the
plaintiff could not be allowed by the trunk line more than $3. The
contention is that weighing the car is an integral part of the
transportation service (In re Weighing of Freight by Carriers, 28
I.C.C. 7; Detroit Coal Exchange v. Michigan Central R. Co., 38
I.C.C. 79), and that to refuse to make an allowance for the out of
line haul is arbitrary, and so unreasonable as to invalidate the
order. For the haul from the Wisconsin Lumber Company's mill to
Dollar Junction, which is 3.24 miles in the direct line, the
Commission authorized the division to the plaintiff of 1 1/2 cents
per 100 pounds.
The contention that the order is invalid ignores both the nature
of the proceeding before the Commission and the findings upon which
the order was made. The proceeding was one to remove unjust
discrimination. The Commission's decision is based upon a
consideration both
Page 257 U. S. 118
of general conditions and of the particular situation. It finds
that allowance of more than $3 a car for hauling the car from the
Union Sawmill plant to Dollar Junction would result in unjust
discrimination. That the finding was supported by evidence we must
assume in this proceeding, and not only does plaintiff fail to show
that the conclusion reached was arbitrary, but additional findings
in the report afford abundant reason why the out of line haul to
the scales should not be allowed for in fixing the division. The
Commission finds, 53 I.C.C. 475, 476, that "the evidence does not
show that it is necessary that the shipments be weighed by the tap
line, rather than by the trunk line," and, 40 I.C.C. 470, 471, that
allowing the larger division on these facts would place the
plaintiff in a more advantageous position than any other tap line
in that territory performing a similar service, and would
"open the way in the case of many tap lines for a relocation of
their track scales so as to require a long back haul, and in that
way to lay a basis for divisions or allowances very materially in
excess of those fixed by the Commission for the distance covered by
a direct movement from the mill to the junction;"
in other words, divisions that would operate as rebates.
Affirmed.
[
Footnote 1]
See The Tap Line Case, 23 I.C.C. 277; 23 I.C.C. 549; 31
I.C.C. 490; 34 I.C.C. 116; Louisiana & Pine Bluff Divisions, 40
I.C.C. 470; 53 I.C.C. 475.
[
Footnote 2]
By the fifth supplemental order, the maximum division for
shipments after May 31, 1919, was raised to $3.50 per car, and a
further increase to $4.50 per car was made by the sixth
supplemental order. Increased Rates, 58 I.C.C. 220. Corresponding
increases were made for hauls greater than three miles. These
increases do not affect the legal questions involved.