US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Section 3 of the Act to Regulate Commerce forbids any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage in favor of any person, company, firm, corporation or locality, and what is such undue or unreasonable preference or advantage is not a question of law, but of fact.

The courts cannot set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission in regard to interchange of freight by carriers which does not contravene any constitutional limitation and is within the constitutional and statutory authority of that body and is not unsupported by testimony; such an order is only the exercise of the authority vested by the law in the Commission.

Although § 3 of the Act to Regulate Commerce remains in its original form, it must now be read in connection with amendments to, and subsequent provisions of, that Act by which the term transportation covers the entire carriage and services in connection with the receipt and delivery of property transported, including facilities of a terminal character for delivery. As so read, § 3 must be construed with a view to carrying out all the provisions of the Act as it now is, and to make every part of it effective in accordance with the intention of Congress.

The Interstate Commission has jurisdiction to require an interstate carrier to receive and transport over its terminals carload interstate freight from one carrier having a physical connection with its lines on the same terms on which it performs such service for other connecting carriers similarly situated.

Such an order is not an appropriation of the terminal property of the carrier in violation of the due process provision of the Fifth Amendment, but a regulation of its terminal facilities within the power properly delegated by Congress. Grand Trunk Ry. v. Michigan Railway Commission, 231 U. S. 457, followed; Louis. & Nash. R. Co. v. Stock Yards Co., 212 U. S. 132, distinguished.

Congress may so control the terminal facilities of a carrier, and the Interstate Commerce Commission may make such orders, as will chanrobles.com-red

Page 236 U. S. 352

prevent creation of monopolies within the prohibition and limitation of the Anti-Trust Act. United States v. St. Louis Terminal, 224 U. S. 383.

214 F.4d 5 affirmed.

The facts, which involve the validity of orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission regarding the establishment of joint and through rates to and from, and regulations as to switching cars at, New Castle, Pennsylvania, by the Pennsylvania Company are stated in the opinion. chanrobles.com-red

Page 236 U. S. 355