Wiley Blount Rutledge

“ The remaining objections are directed more appropriately to the findings and their support in the evidence. Appellees say that the order granting both applications is defective in that it is not founded upon an express finding or indeed upon any finding that there was a need for two through-line operations which would be in competition with one another. They urge that it was not sufficient for the Commission to find, as it did on adequate evidence, that the existing service between Portland and San Francisco was inadequate ”

“ Although each appellant originally sought exclusive authority to conduct the proposed through operation in substitution for the former joint service, and thus opposed the other's application, both now seek to sustain the Commission's order, as of course does the Commission itself.
At the time of Consolidated's application in December, 1939, it operated various routes in the Northwest, some extending eastward from the Portland and Seattle areas, in addition to the joint service by in erchange with O.N.C. southward from Portland to San Francisco. ”

“ Faris, Judicial Notice by Administrative Bodies (1928) 4 Ind.L.J. 167.↑ The Commission's report stated: 'Of the motor-carrier protestants, there is only one-Pierce-which is authorized to transport general commodities to and from all intermediate points along the Valley Route. Pierce did not reinstitute daily operations to and from San Francisco, however, until after the filing of these applications and but a few weeks prior to the hearings herein. Shipper witnesses generally were unfamiliar with the fact that Pierce's operation was daily. ”

“ One is that the Commission, in making the separately stated findings, could not have been oblivious to the competitive consequences of its order or the relation of those consequences to the public interest. ”

“ United States, 326 U.S. 77, 81-83, 65 S.Ct. 1499, 1500-1502.↑ There are five appellees. Pierce Auto Freight Lines, Inc., Los Angeles-Seattle Motor Express, and Angelo Colletti (doing business as Colletti Fast Freight) , are common carriers by motor vehicle which operate between Portland and San Francisco. Pacific Motor Trucking Company is a subsidiary of Southern Pacific Company and performs certain motor vehicle operations which are auxiliary to the rail services of the Southern Pacific Railway. ”

“ The protesting appellees were carriers competing with the joint service of Consolidated and O.N.C. and will be competitors of each, as those companies will be with each other, if the Commission's order is sustained. ”

“ Some of the shippers estimate an increase in their business amounting to several thousand dollars. Practically all of the witnesses prefer a single-line through service. Some of them have used the services of existing carriers and have not found them satisfactory principally because of improper refrigeration or lack of service to intermediate points.' See also note 17. The Commission noted in its report that the traffic between San Francisco and Portland was increasing.↑ The Commission has recognized the velue of reasonable competition, cf. ”

“ In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that public convenience and necessity require the finding n part upon the following statement↑ See note 14.↑ The Commission rested this ultimate finding in part upon the following statement as to the need for extended operations: 'There is no doubt but that a number of shippers desire such proposed services. Each applicant also operates units equipped with mechanical refrigeration, which service certain of the shippers desire or the proper transportation of their shipments. ”

“ See also note 15.↑ 'Fitness.-There is no doubt as to O.N.C.'s fitness, financial or otherwise, to conduct the operations herein authorized, although protestants question Consolidated's financial ability to conduct the proposed operation. Protestants content that if these applications are granted each applicant will operate at a loss. Each applicant of course claims that it will be better off if allowed to operate straight through without the necessity of nterchanging at Medford. Elimination of the cost of transfer at Medford would save approximately fifteen or sixteen hundred dollars a month. ”

“ Market St. Ry. Co. v. Railroad Comm., 324 U.S. 548, 561, 562, 65 S.Ct. 770, 777, 778; cf. Opp Cotton Mills v. Administrator, 312 U.S. 126, 154, 155, 657, 61 S.Ct. 524, 536, 537, 85 L.Ed. 624. In these cases no more is necessary than to apply that rule. ”