Page images
PDF
EPUB

year 1958; and $300,000 to carry out new responsibilities resulting from the passage of the Transportation Act of 1958.

The Transportation Act of 1958 increased the work of the Commis sion in three major areas in which the act gave the Commission new or amended duties: (1) applications for Government guarantee of loans to railroads from private sources to finance additions or betterments or for other capital expenditures or for the financing of expenditures for maintenance of property; (2) applications to discontinue certain train or ferry services; and (3) applications for authority to transport by motor vehicle certain agricultural products theretofore exempt from economic regulation. These activities also led to increased work in connection with the rate proposals of the formerly exempt carriers and the protests thereto.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Some modifications in procedures incident to orderly processing of issues before the Commission were necessary in support of transportation legislation enacted by the Congress. They mainly reflected the amendments and additions to the act made by the Transportation Act of 1958.

Rules and regulations were approved governing applications for guaranty of loans to railroads and governing notices and petitions filed in connection with proposed discontinuance or change of operation or service of trains or ferries.

Forms BOR 1 and BOR 2 were prescribed for applications for motor carrier "grandfather" and "interim" certificates relating to transportation of agricultural commodities formerly exempt from economic regulation. The regulations provided that the authority sought by such applications, filed pursuant to section 7 of the Transportation Act of 1958, would be summarized by the Commission and published in the Federal Register. Press releases and informal information bulletins were used to inform the large number of motor carriers made subject to economic regulation under various provisions of part II of the act.

Information bulletins also were used to notify interested parties of the Commission's jurisdiction in connection with regulation of motor transportation to or from points in the new State of Alaska.

Revised portions of the General Rules of Practice, and the current Special Rules of Practice, were reissued under one cover to facilitate their use by Commission personnel, practitioners, and others.

ADMISSIONS TO PRACTICE

During the year, 655 applicants were admitted to practice. Of this number, 539, or 82.3 percent, were members of the bar of the highest court of their States. The remaining 116, or 17.7 percent, were nonlawyers admitted upon written examination. These 116 successful nonlawyer applicants were only 59.2 percent of the total number of 196 applicants who took the examination. During the preceding year, 80.1 percent of the nonlawyer applicants passed the examination.

A total of 27,765 have been admitted to practice since our bar was established on September 1, 1929. Of these, 18,632, or 67.1 percent, were admitted as attorneys, while 9,133, or 32.9 percent, have been admitted as nonlawyers.

The accompanying chart gives a year-by-year comparison of attorney and nonlawyer admissions to practice since our bar was established on September 1, 1929.

[blocks in formation]

LITIGATION INVOLVING COMMISSION ORDERS

The staff of 10 attorneys in the Office of the General Counsel was concerned during the period with handling 116 cases in various stages of litigation in the Federal courts.

There were 63 cases pending on June 30, 1958, and 53 cases were instituted in the courts between that date and June 30, 1959. Of the total, 61 were concluded, leaving 55 cases pending on June 30, 1959. These comprised 3 cases pending in the Supreme Court of the United States, and 52 in the district courts of the United States.

Ten cases were concluded in the Supreme Court and 51 concluded in the district courts during this period. The more important cases are discussed herein.

SUPPLY OF FREIGHT CARS

The Supreme Court summarily affirmed a district court decision 1 upholding our determination that a railroad had not violated sections 1(4), 1(11), and 3(1), by failing to provide adequate and nondiscriminatory rail transportation to Oregon lumber shippers. The district court sustained our conclusion that there was no showing that the railroad had failed to provide transportation upon reasonable request, or had failed to furnish adequate car service within the limits of its capacity, or had subjected any of the complaining shippers to undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.

RAILROAD MERGERS

The Supreme Court affirmed summarily a decision of a district court upholding our order authorizing the merger of lessor and lessee railroads prior to the expiration of the leases. The district court

held, contrary to the contentions of a minority stockholder of the lessor railroads, (1) that the leases were not legal impediments to the merger, and (2) that our determination of the fair value of the stock of the lessor railroads, by capitalizing the present value of future rental payments under the leases, was just and reasonable.

4 Shippers' Car Supply Com. v. Interstate Commerce Com'n., 160 F. Supp. 939, affirmed per curiam, 358 U.S. 45 (Docket No. 30708, Shippers Car Supply Committee v. Southern Pacific Co., 292 I.C.C. 537).

Irving D. Friedman v. United States et al., 359 U.S. 205, rehearing denied, 359 U.S. 985, opinion below 168 F. Supp. 815; (Illinois Central R. Co. Merger, Finance Docket No. 19677, 295 I.C.C. 731).

154

JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 5

A district court sustained our order which authorized the acquisition of control jointly by the Pennsylvania Company (and through it the Pennsylvania Railroad Company) and the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company of the Toledo, Peoria & Western Railroad Company through ownership by each of 50 percent of Western's capital stock. The Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company also sought authority to acquire control; and certain other railroads opposed the above applications, urging, in the alternative, that they be included in the acquisition of control. The court held that the conclusion reached by us was within our power and was supported by adequate findings and substantial evidence. In its opinion, the court specifically discussed and rejected contentions that we improperly sanctioned a violation of section 10 of the Clayton Act; that we failed to give appropriate consideration to the policy of the antitrust laws as embodied in section 1 of the Sherman Act and section 7 of the Clayton Act; that we failed to afford the application of the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company due consideration; and that we failed to make adequate findings respecting the competitive effects of the acquisition of control. This decision has been appealed to the Supreme Court and probable jurisdiction has been noted.

DISCONTINUANCE OF PASSENGER SERVICE

The Supreme Court affirmed summarily the judgment of a district court which (1) sustained the validity of section 13a (1) (49 U.S.C. 13a (1)) as added by the Transportation Act of 1958, and (2) refused to upset our determination not to institute an investigation pursuant to section 13a (1) into New York Central's proposed discontinuance of its passenger ferries across the Hudson River. The Supreme Court's action constituted an affirmance of the holdings of the district court that (1) section 13a (1) confers no right to a hearing either to a State or to users of the service before discontinuance of the service; (2) that so construed, section 13a (1) does not violate the due process requirement of the fifth amendment; (3) that our determination not to institute an investigation under section 13a (1) is committed to our discretion and is not subject to judicial review; and (4) that even if

The Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co. et al. v. United States et al., 165 F. Supp. 893; (Toledo, Peoria & Western Railroad Company Control, 295 I.C.C. 523, Finance Docket Nos. 18991 and 19086).

7 State of New Jersey et al. v. United States et al., 359 U.S. 27, opinion below 168 F. Supp. 324; (New York Central Railroad Co.-Discontinuance of Service-Weehawken Ferry, Finance Docket No. 20291). For the companion case involving the Erie and New York, Susquehanna and Western Railroads, see 168 F. Supp. 342; (Erie Railroad Co. and New York, Susquehanna and Western Railroad Co. -Discontinuance of Service -Chambers St. Ferry, Finance Docket No. 20295.

« PreviousContinue »