William J. Brennan, Jr.

“ It must be admitted that Congress dealt with the problem as it affected the relations between shippers and carriers, making no express reference to the interests of competing carriers and their customers such as are involved in the instant case. We see no warrant in that omission, however, for a difference in result. Conflicts over rates between competing carriers were familiar to the Commission long before 1910; [18] indeed, the struggle between competing barge and rail carriers has been going on almost since railroads came onto the national scene. ”

“ Our holding today therefore means only that the injunction remedy is not available to these petitioners, just as it is unavailable to shippers.
Our conclusion from the history of the suspension power is buttressed by a consideration of the undesirable consequences which would necessarily attend the survival of the injunction remedy. A court's disposition of an application for injunctive relief would seem to require at least some consideration of the applicant's claim that the carrier's proposed rates are unreasonable. ”

“ A schedule of reduced rates proposed by the respondent rail carriers was suspended by the Interstate Commerce Commission for the maximum statutory period of seven months pending a determination whether the reduction was lawful. The statute [1] expressly provides that 'the proposed change of rate * * * shall go into effect,' if the Commission's proceeding has not been concluded and an order made within the period of suspension. ”

“ Indeed, in another provision of the very same statute Congress in 1910 dealt explicitly with the reduction of rates by railroads competing with water carriers: Section 4 (2) of the Act forbids a rail carrier competing with a water carrier to increase rates once reduced on a competitive service, unless 'after hearing by the Commission it shall be found that such proposed increase rests upon changed conditions other than the elimination of water competition.' 49 U.S.C. § 4 (2) . ”

“ The petitioners contend that in any event injunctive relief is authorized in this case to enforce the National Transportation Policy. [25] They argue that when the rail carriers' rates go into effect the barge line will inevitably and immediately be driven out of business, contrary to the paramount concern of the policy for the portection of water carriers threatened by rail competition. ”

“ In addition § 8 of the Act, 49 U.S.C. § 8, creates a private right of action for damages-based upon conduct violative of the Act-which might be available, though we have no occasion here to decide the question, to a competitor claiming that a proposed rate reduction had been grossly discriminatory. ”