Summary

Pierce Butler United States v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company…

The Commission did not fix such charges, but held, that it had power to establish joint rates from any point on such terminals, where traffic was received by the Pennsylvania, to a point on any connecting line and vice versa. In the course of its report, the Commission illustrated the practical application of the statute where a through route is made up of two overlapping lines. It is manifest that, without back hauling, each could not have its long haul.
Source: Wikisource

Pierce Butler United States v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company…

The proviso contained in the order, reflecting that view, falls far short of protecting the carrier's long-haul routes as contemplated by paragraph (4) . The language of that provision is so clear and its meaning so plain that no difficulty attends its construction in this case. Adherence to its terms leads to nothing impossible or plainly unreasonable. We are therefore bound by the words employed and are not at liberty to conjure up conditions to raise doubts in order that resort may be had to construction. It is elementary that, where no ambiguity exists, there is no room for construction.
Source: Wikisource

Pierce Butler United States v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company…

The purpose is to protect the long haul routes of carriers. It is clear that, within the meaning of paragraph (4) , the mileage of the Missouri Pacific between its Mississippi river crossings and Ft. Smith lies between the termini of all routes through or from such gateways west-bound over the line of the Subiaco. The existing routes include these Missouri Pacific lines and give that company long hauls as compared with the length of the Paris branch. The latter is the only line of the company included in the Subiaco route.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature