Louis Brandeis

“ The past failure of the railway to apply for leave to discontinue the service does not, however, justify exposing it, and its officers and employe s, to the severe penalties prescribed by the statute. It may be that, upon full presentation of the facts, the commission would find that to continue the service would subject the carrier to an unreasonable burden; or the carrier may suggest some satisfactory substitute for the specific service now demanded of it. The commission should give to the railway the opportunity of presenting the facts ”

“ The bill alleges that the operation of the interstate trains by which the intrastate service had long been furnished had involved the carrier in losses; that the service still furnished by other trains is adequate to supply the reasonable needs of the communities; that, upon learning of the discontinuance of the service, the commission demanded that it be restored, without first hearing the carrier ”

“ An application for an interlocutory injunction, heard before three judges under section 266, Judicial Code (28 USCA § 380) , was denied (D. C.) 27 F. (2d) 893. A restraining order, issued upon the filing of the bill, was continued in force pending the determination of this appeal. ”