Summary

Portrait of Felix Frankfurter Felix Frankfurter California v. United States ex rel…

If any discrimination by the appellants as between shippers were pointed out in may well be that the Commission might order the discontinuance of such discrimination. That is not this case. The Commission purports to order the discontinuance of a discrimination but, in reality, orders a rise in the level of rates applicable without discrimination to all those who can and do use the proffered services. Its order is a thinly veiled attempt to cloak a rate order under the guise of a regulation. I think it plain that Congress granted no such power.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Felix Frankfurter Felix Frankfurter California v. United States ex rel…

The only way to correct the preferential and unreasonable results of non-compensatory charges was to require compensatory charges. All that the Commission did was to translate that requirement from a generality into dollars and cents. That the phrase 'regulation or practice' extends to such discrimination as that which resulted from non-compensatory demurrage charges is amply demonstrated by the application of the concept 'practice' in comparable situations under the Interstate Commerce Act.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Felix Frankfurter Felix Frankfurter California v. United States ex rel…

Neither industry nor the community which it serves is benefitted by the explosion of intermittent lawsuits for determining the relative rights of conflicting interests. What more natural for the Commission, having found disobedience of the law against discriminatory and unreasonable practices, than to define the outer bounds of practices that would not be unreasonable nor discriminatory. [3] And so the Commission fixed a schedule of maximum free time and another schedule for avoiding discrimination through non-compensatory charges.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature