US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

The Interstate Commerce Commission found that, at certain complaining markets, the railroads absorbed switching charges on competitive grain shipments (i.e., traffic originating at points served by more than one railroad), but not on noncompetitive or local traffic (originating at points served by only one railroad), while, at all other markets in central-western territory, the carriers absorbed the switching charges on both competitive and noncompetitive shipments. This practice, it found, was at variance with the general purpose of the grain rate structure to bring about

"an adjustment under which the rates to and from all western markets would be on relatively the same level, or an adjustment under which the rates to and from the markets would approximate a mileage parity,"

and was supported neither by revenue considerations nor sound transportation factors, and was unreasonable.

Held, that a cease and desist order based upon these findings was within the statutory and constitutional powers of the Commission. P. 316 U. S. 348.

41 F.Supp. 439 affirmed. chanrobles.com-red

Page 316 U. S. 347

Appeal from a decree of the District Court dismissing a suit to set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission. See 245 I.C.C. 11.