Hugo Black

“ But unlike the Carrier Act the provisions of the Power Act under consideration in Montana-Dakota regulated wholesale rates, that is rates charged purchasers for resale, not rates charged retail customers. [27] The purpose of that Act was, nevertheless, to benefit consumers by holding down wholesale prices. Whole-salers whose purchase price was reduced prospectively could pass the reduction on to their customers, the consumers. In Montana-Dakota the Court indicated that the consumers would not be helped by ex post facto determinations of unreasonableness resulting in a refund to wholesalers. ”

“ Thus the representative of the freight forwarders, whose status under the Act is the same as that of motor carriers, referring to the Bell case said 'It is the law today,' and then added 'If the Commission finds that the rates have been unreasonable in the past, damages may be obtained under the law as it stands today.' [18] He opposed the proposed change because he felt that it would make it easier for shippers to obtain reparations where no damages were actually suffered. [19] When the bills were reported by the Committees the provisions for reparations before the Commission were excluded. ”

“ Moreover, if motor carrier shippers are deprived of court actions to recover for unreasonable rates, they are placed in a much worse position than wholesale power purchasers. 16 U.S.C. § 824d (e) , 16 U.S.C.A. § 824d (e) , authorizes the Power Commission to suspend rates for five months and, if a hearing on those rates is not concluded by that time, to order the power company to keep an accurate account of the amount and source of all money received. Should the rates be found unreasonable, the Commission can order the excess refunded with interest. ”

“ Shippers have the right to recover in court any damages resulting from violations of the law by motor carriers or carriers by water.' S.Rep.No. 433, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. 18. (Emphasis supplied.) [14]
It seems clear, therefore, that when the 1940 Motor Carrier Act was adopted, at least the Senate Committee was fully informed of an existing interpretation of the 1935 Act under which shippers could sue for damages on the basis of unreasonable rates. ”

“ Nor can it be questioned that the Motor Carrier Act confirmed the common-law policy against unreasonable rates and in fact expressly made such rates illegal. [2] It is also clear that the Act attempted to preserve all pre-existing remedies which did not directly conflict with its aims. [3] Nevertheless the Court today holds that the statute abolished the common-law remedy by implication and left shippers helpless against carriers who have charged unreasonable and therefore illegal rates. ”

“ The Committee then stated that legislation making additional reparations provisions applicable to motor carriers and freight forwarders was not at that time deemed desirable. It concluded that the other provisions, including a uniform statute of limitations in cases arising from the charging of tariffs different from those on file should be enacted. ”

“ Citing this brief the Court accepted the F.P.C. argument, 341 U.S. at page 254, 71 S.Ct. at page 697, note 11, over a vigorous dissent which indicated that perhaps ways of refunding the excess to consumers might be found. ”