Hugo Black

“ We hold that the Submerged Lands Act grants Florida a three-marine-league belt of land under the Gulf, seaward from its coastline, as described in Florida's 1868 Constitution. The cause is retained for such further proceedings as may be necessary more specifically to determine the coastline, fix the boundary and dispose of all other relevant matters. ”

“ Foreign countries have not the same interest in this purely domestic carriage of goods, as they have in controlling the movement of railroads in their territory. [12] Such transportation must be regulated by this country if it is to be effectively regulated. Congress recognized this fact when it made special provision in Section 15 (3) for the Commission to regulate water transportation from one to another place in the United States, even though that transportation took place 'partly outside' the United States. ”

“ Florida contends that the record shows it to be entitled under the Act to a declaration of ownership of three marine leagues of submerged lands, because (1) its boundary extended three leagues or more seaward into the Gulf when it became a State, and (2) Congress approved such a three-league boundary for Florida after its admission into the Union and before passage of the Submerged Lands Act. Since we agree with Florida's latter contention, as to congressional approval, we find it unnecessary to decide the boundaries of Florida at the time it became a State. ”

“ We cannot agree with the contention that the Commission has less power now to protect water carriers than it had in 1914. [5] The 1940 Act was intended, together with the old law, to provide a completely integrated interstate regulatory system over motor, railroad, and water carriers. In the light of its declared policy, and because of its provisions hereafter noted, we think railroads are under a duty to provide interchange of cars with water carriers to the end that interstate commerce may move without interruption or delay. ”

“ The right of appeal to the courts contained in Section 66 of the 1919 Law was first omitted from the 1921 Porto Rican Law, [7] and this led the Supreme Court of Porto Rico to declare in the present case that 'since 1921, * * * the right to bring suits for the recovery of taxes other than those paid under protest has been abrogated.' [8]
Furthermore, four different sections of the 1925 Act (57, 60, 62 and 76 (a) constitute a statutory plan under which a taxpayer who pays under protest is granted the right to sue in the courts for refund. ”

“ Constitutions so adopted were then to be 'submitted to Congress for examination and approval,' after which approval by Congress and after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment by each State, each should be 'declared entitled to representation in Congress.' Florida's Constitution was written, considered and voted upon in the State in accordance with these statutory directions and under the eye and control of an Army general. ”

“ It is contended that the railroads are under no duty to deliver their cars to Seatrain and that the Interstate Commerce Commission is without authority to require them to do so. It has long been held, and it is not denied here, that since the passage of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., railroads may be compelled to establish through routes [2] and to interchange their cars with each other, [3] both subject to reasonable terms. ”

“ It is contended, and the court below held, that if the Commission has power to require railroads to interchange cars with through route connecting water carriers, it is without power to do so if a route traverses, in part, foreign waters, as Seatrain's does. ”

“ It was from its power to require through routes that the Commission originally derived its power to require interchange of railroad cars among connecting railroads. [7] Since a rail-water through route with Seatrain cannot function without an interchange of cars, the unquestioned power of the Commission to require establishment of such routes would be wholly fruitless, without the correlative power to abrogate the Association's rule which prohibits the interchange. ”

“ After careful review of this Court's decisions on the question of intergovernmental immunity, the State court concluded that the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and the Regional Agricultural Credit Corporation were 'instrumentalities' performing 'essential governmental duties' and that State taxation of respondent's salaries violated the Federal Constitution as interpreted by the Graves case. ”

“ The very complexities of the subject have necessarily caused Congress to cast its regulatory provisions in general terms. Congress has, in general, left the contents of these terms to be spelled out in particular cases by administrative and judicial action, and in the light of the congressional purpose to foster an efficient and fair national transportation system. ”

“ Taxing acts of Porto Rico are purely local and the traditional reluctance of this Court to overturn constructions of such local statutes by local courts is particularly applicable to interpretations of Porto Rican statutes by Porto Rican tribunals. [18] Orderly development of the government of Porto Rico as an integral part of our governmental system is well served by a careful and consistent adherence to the legislative and judicial policy of deferring to the local procedure and tribunals of the Island. ”

“ Both sides appealed directly to this Court as authorized by the Urgent Deficiencies Act of October 22, 1913, 28 U.S.C. §§ 47, 47a, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 47, 47a, and Section 238 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. § 345, par. (4) , 28 U.S.C.A. § 345 (4) . ”

“ Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER, whom Mr. Justice BRENNAN, Mr. Justice WHITTAKER and Mr. Justice STEWART join, concurring.
Notes * NOTE: This opinion applies also to United States v. Louisiana, et al., ante, p. 1. ”

“ Atlantic Fruit Co., 264 U.S. 109, 120, 44 S.Ct. 274, 275, 276, 68 L.Ed. 582; Tipton v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 298 U.S. 141, 152, 153, 56 S.Ct. 715, 719, 80 L.Ed. 1091, 104 A.L.R. 831; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. ”

“ R. v. Friday, 232 U.S. 694, 700, 34 S.Ct. 468, 469, 58 L.Ed. 802.↑ Phoenix R. Co. v. Landis, 231 U.S. 578, 579, 34 S.Ct. 179, 180, 58 L.Ed. 377.↑ De Villanueva v. Villanueva, 239 U.S. 293, 299, 36 S.Ct. 109, 111, 60 L.Ed. 293; Waialua Co. v. Christian, 305 U.S. 91, 109, 59 S.Ct. 21, 30, 83 L.Ed. 60; Inter-Island Co. v. ”