US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Appellant operated tugboats for hire in and about New York harbor and on the Hudson River. The tugboats carried no cargo, but towed cargo vessels belonging to others. Operations were between New York and New Jersey, but mostly between points in New York and other points in the same State.

Held:

1. Appellant was a "water carrier" within the meaning of Part III of the Interstate Commerce Act. P. 321 U. S. 636.

2. The finding of the Interstate Commerce Commission that appellant was a "common carrier by water" within the meaning of § 302(d) of the Act is supported by substantial evidence, and is sustained. P. 321 U. S. 637.

3. Under § 302(i)(1) of the Act, which defines "interstate transportation" as including transportation "wholly by water from a place in a State to a place in another State," appellant's chanrobles.com-red

Page 321 U. S. 635

towage operations between New York and New Jersey were subject to regulation. P. 321 U. S. 638.

4. Section 302(i)(1) is properly construed to apply also to appellant's towage operations between points in New York and other points in the same State where, in the course of such operations, the tows regularly crossed into New Jersey waters. P. 321 U. S. 638.

53 F.Supp. 349 affirmed.

Appeal from a judgment of a district court of three judges, which dismissed a suit to set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission.