*1 be accentuated; individuals, and whatever said of may contrary their morality, imprisoned are fined Congress. party the wishes of I shall not be a to that process. the Caminetti consequence of prolonging principle morality
is to make the federal courts the arbiters of the of those who lines in cross state women girls. must They “any decide what meant purpose” regard plainly immoral without standards by Congress. set forth I do not believe that this falls legitimate within the scope judicial function. Nor does respect it accord the Congressional which pro- nouncements are entitled. I
Hence judgments would reverse the conviction these cases. v.
CHAMPLIN REFINING CO. UNITED STATES et al. Argued 9,8, Reargued
No. 21. November October 1945.— 18, 1946. 1946. Decided November *2 Moody argued
Dan appellant orig- cause for on the argument. him inal With on the was Harry briefs 0. argued reargument. Glasser. Both the cause on Edward argued Dumbauld the cause for the United States Commission, Interstate Commerce appel- Mc- Solicitor General him brief were on the lees. With Berge, W. Daniel Attorney General Grath, Assistant Nelson Thomas. Knowlton and opinion delivered Jackson
Mr. Justice Court. acting Commission, under
The Interstate Commerce Act,1 ordered the (a) of the Interstate Commerce schedules, maps appellant inventories, to furnish certain objec- Champlin’s and charts of its pipe property.2 the Act if it be order, tions that does not authorize unconstitutional, construed do so is were overruled again by the Commission and District which Court *3 dismissed the company’s injunction.3 suit for an These
1 investigate, ascertain, report “. . . the commission . and shall . . property by every the of all value the or used common carrier owned subject provisions to the . of this Act. . . The commission shall make inventory every property an which shall list the common carrier subject provisions detail, to the of this Act in and show the value thereof provided, classify physical prop as hereinafter and shall the erty, nearly practicable, conformity as as with the classification expenditures equipment, by for road prescribed and Interstate the 701, Commerce Commission.” 37 Stat. 49 U. S. C. 19a. § 2 May 15, 1941, On Commission, by the Interstate Commerce letter president addressed to Champlin Refining Company, the of the requested company that the prepare and file with the Commission complete inventory “a property of the Champlin line Refining Company, except showing land, classes, quantities, units, the kinds, and condition thereof.” The Commission enclosedwith its letter copies of its Valuation 27, Orders Nos. 26 inventory and with which the comply. Champlin was to company respond did not to the re quest satisfactory in a manner Commission, to the 12, and on June 1944, the Commission made order company of which the here complains. It company directed comply to provisions with Valuation Orders Nos. ninety days 26 and 27 within of the service of the order. 3In response to the May Commission’s letter of 15, 1941, the Champlin company filed with the Commission information and charts which it believed would satisfy request. the Commission’s The Com- Judicial appeal. brought here law are
questions 345. C. 238, § 28 U. S. Code five of six-inch a line operates owns in five states. lying length miles and sixteen hundred refinery, Oklahoma Enid, Champlin’s at Originating Dakota, South Nebraska, part Kansas, crosses company’s convey to It is used ends Iowa. at terminal stations its own refinery products own Rap- Nebraska; and Rock Hutchinson, Kansas; Superior, storage with line connects of which the Iowa, at each ids, made. deliveries are which facilities from apply that it shall relevant, says statute, so far as of oil “transportation in” carriers “to common another. line from one state commodity” by pipe pipe- “all carrier” includes “common It also that provides would seem language on its face This companies.” operation. appellant’s cover the in it report company, because however, to the mission, returned that statutory car- recognized company that it was a had viewpoint. The report compiled the rier and had not requested hearing to determine before the Commission then 12, 1944, 1942, reargument, and on June status. On December subject to appellant carrier decided that is a common the Commission supple- had issued its of the Act. After Commission appellant petitioned mentary 12, 1944, the district order of June against injunction order. In accordance with an court for §§ judge C., judge district convened a three and 47 of Title U. S. *4 appellant's petition. court, which heard the case and dismissed 4 “(1) apply 1. That the of this Act shall to common § engaged in— carriers “(b) transportation commodity by pipe The of oil or other ... any . . . from one State ... to other . . . State “(3) (a) The term‘common carrier’as used in this Act shall include express pipe-line companies; companies; sleeping-car companies; all artificial, engaged transportation persons, and all natural or in such 474, amended, as aforesaid as common carriers for hire.” 41 Stat. as 1102, (3) “engaged (a), 48 Stat. 49 U. 1. The last 1 S. C. words of § transportation such hire,” as aforesaid common carriers for do
33 “transportation” that the Champlin contends, however, of one’s carriage to the mentioned the Act does not refer -own The goods. District has found that Court through its transported is the sole owner the products line; transport, pipe transported, it has never offered to any transport belonging or been asked any products other connect person; pipe or line does not with with tanks at any storage line but points; putting the three terminal no there are facilities for any product the Enid petroleum into the line other than at refinery; delivery of the at the terminal products three points means Champlin’s storage made tanks not truck racks railroad tank car racks and is made directly instance; from the line in no tariffs stat- any ‘ ing charges have been filed with the Interstate or with com- any Commerce Commission state mission or regulatory body.
Because of these facts appellant suggests language holding concerning this Court the Uncle Pipe Cases, Line Company Sam Oil 548, S.U. States, approved in Company Valvoline Oil United v. U. S. 141, govern this case. The Uncle Company Sam operation described as oil “simply drawing from its own wells across a state line to refinery use, its own for its own Cases, . .” Line . Pipe that is all . U. S. 562. The Court considered this was not “transportation” within the meaning of the Act.
But we think it would expand holding the actual that case apply its conclusion to Champlin. The con- trolling fact under the statute is transporting commodities from state by pipe to state line. Admittedly Champlin is not a common carrier in the sense law car- rier for hire. However, the Act does stop at but “not generality affect the of the first pipe-line companies.” clause as to Valvoline Oil Co. v. States, United 308 U. S. 146. *5 carrier” term “common that say on to its use
goes meaningless addi- companies pipe to include all is —a without term included what thereby if it tion technically had included. While always more have manufacturing processes oil, own transporting is Champlin’s moved for being is not completed; oil been put operated are interstate facilities own use. These commerce in the market interstate products its finished advantage. greatest at the economic supports methods Champlin’s pricing Examination of transportation even appellant the view that is own when moved. though products are still its points that at the terminal price District Court found addi- price refinery includes f. o. b. at the Enid and an differential is the tional sum called a differential. The through freight rate from Enid to the final desti- railroad (usually business), less purchaser’s place nation charges line terminal to final des- carrying found, however, tination. The District Court competitive depar- and other conditions “sometimes cause prices tures from the with the arrived at accordance Appellant formula above described.” states that as to for merely some deliveries “rail rates were used as a basis calculating charge a delivered price, transpor- not as a so, though tation.” Even and even departures from calculated differential are we frequent, substantial and think practice points significant this up a distinction'from the Uncle Sam case.
We hold that Champlin’s operation within the meaning of the Act sup- and that the statute ports the Commission’s order to furnish information.
Appellant further contends that, construed, as so Act exceeds the power commerce Congress and violates process due clause of the Fifth because, Amendment argued, interpretation private converts a line into a public utility and requires private carrier to *6 rests on no a But conclusion common carrier. our become power of implication. such basis and affords no such dependent to Congress regulate interstate commerce is not quite is on the technical common carrier status but over been private power yet extensive a carrier. This has only Champlin invoked the to requiring extent being furnish certain used in information as to facilities marketing products. interstate of its The commerce is power adequate requirement whether support this appellant private be considered a carrier or a common carrier. (cid:127) The contention that the statute as so construed violates process
the due clause by imposing upon a carrier private obligations aof conventional common carrier for hire is premature too and hypothetical to warrant considera- tion on this appellant record. The in its period entire operation has never been carry asked to products and may another never be. So far, Commission has changes made no order which obligations the appellant’s other to-any If it it will person. does, be timely requirements consider concrete and their specific on appellant. effects present, At appellant asked to provide information subject power about a within the possessed by Congress delegated and to the Commission, taking that cannot be considered even if property it appellant’s arouses premonitions.
holdWe that the order by before us is authorized statute in respect and that within statute is the commerce power and does offend Fifth Amendment.
Affirmed. Mr. Justice Reed, with whom Mr. Justice Frank- Douglas Mr. and Mr. Justice Burton furter, Justice join, dissenting. appeal brings
This question into the extent to which the Interstate Commerce Act covers pipe by lines virtue of. author- Acting under the 1 and 19a.1 § Commerce Commission sections, Interstate
ity of these Refining Company, upon appellant, called if it a com- make, it to appropriate for reports deemed challenged the appellant the act. mon carrier under not covered that was ground order on the Commission’s sections. or other for the of oil carriage Champlin owns to vari- refinery from its Oklahoma commodity similar no com- distributing states. It carries points ous refinery produced its own its own except modities *7 storage of line into own pipe delivered at the ends the its for sale its customers. It also is sole holding or tanks to Valley of the Line Com- Pipe owner of the stock Cimarron sup- an common that admittedly carrier, intrastate pany, The with its oil. plies Champlin refinery the crude treat reports do not Commission’s orders valuation 1 49U. S. C. 1:§
“(1) provisions chapter apply . . . The of this shall to common engaged carriers in—
“(b) transportation except commodity, The of water oil or other except by gas, pipe line, partly by pipe and natural or artificial or partly by by water; and or railroad “(3) (a) chapter The term ‘common carrier’ as used shall in this pipe-line companies; express include all companies; .sleeping-car com- panies; persons, artificial, engaged and all natural or in such trans- portation as aforesaid as hire common carriers for - 19a:
49U.S.C.§ “. . . investigate, The ascertain, report Commission shall . . . and property the value of all the every owned or used carrier common subject provisions to chapter the of this .... The Commission inventory shall . . . every make an property which shall list the subject provisions carrier to the chapter detail, of this in and the provided, show value thereof as classify hereinafter and shall physical property, nearly practicable, conformity as as in with the expenditures equipment, classification for road and prescribed as by the Interstate Commerce Commission.” unitary operation. and Cimarron as inten- bar, expressly any this disclaimed Commission, at distributing subjection Champlin’s tion to test ownership of the power by Champlin’s line to Commission Cimarron stock. As the Court treats situation distributing line, between the though Champlin’s only, involved, accept sale we refinery and the tanks were view for the of this dissent the Commission’s purpose Champlin. the test to be applied “common applies
Section of the act in transportation carriers of oil” or similar Cases, Pipe Line commodities. In 234 U. S. States,
Valvoline Oil
Co. v. United
U.
S.
term
interpreted
Court
“common carrier” to include
engaged,
all interstate
within
pipe-line companies
are
purview
act,
of the
oil.
In
cases, pipe-line
these
companies
that carried
their
although
large
own
oil,
all
of was
part
purchased
producers
prior
carriage
to its
pipe lines,
were
held common
meaning
within
purpose
carriers
act, though
not common
carriers
the technical
sense of holding
carry
one’s self
indiscriminately
out
all
*8
offered,
oil
because
bring
the act’s
purpose
evident
was to
within its scope
pipe
all
lines that would
all
carry
oil
“if only
offered
the
would sell” at
offerers
the carrier’s
In
Valvoline
price.
case,
this interpretation of the
Act,
1906
34
Stat.
was found to have been carried
into
act
as amended in
41
Stat. 474, despite
changes
certain
in language.
It is be noted,, Pipe however, Line and Valvo- that the line not bring cases did within scope of the Interstate Commerce Act all pipe lines that carried oil If interstate. the companies were common in carriers substance, the act made them so in form. pipe Those lines held covered Pipe The Line Cases and Valvoline were found the act in common carriers substance purchased because they Act con- Interstate Commerce all oil offered.
carried
in the
engaged
be
such carriers
required
has
tinually
Pipe
In The
other commodities.
of oil or
transportation
though
Company,
Oil
Cases,
Uncle Sam
company,
a
Line
the act’s
beyond
was held
carrying oil,
line
operating
oil as a
transportation
reach because
the act.
purpose
carrier within
drawing
simply
case,
inas
this
“When,
line to its own
wells across a state
from its own
oil
all, we do not
use, and that
own
refinery
act,
description
falling
it
within
regard
incident to use at
being merely an
transportation
“By the before mentioned and subordinate lines the Standard Oil Company only practicable transpor- had made itself master of the oil between the tation oil fields east of California and the Atlantic Ocean *9 greater part points.” much and carried of the oil between those
39 purpose its own for the ultimate Each carries oil same —to market. reach the any significant we distinction from the
Nor can see Unde Sam case in to use fre- practice Champlin of freight Enid final destination quently the rate from to the f. price as a of the Enid o. b. refinery, measure addition to charge distributing practice that it will at its tanks. This Naturally is meet some departed competition. from to refinery price must be to the transportation cost added elsewhere. How much it is or how it is calcu- deliveries upon question lated does not seem us to bear whether “a carrier in the is within transportation scope oil” act. very
We would have case the one different than before Congress ifus had all lines provided owners carrying oil give appropri- interstate commerce should ate information to the Interstate Commerce Commission. This requires is not what 19a does. reports only § It “every subject to provisions” common carrier “subject act. an provisions” When enterprise to the the act 1 (1) (3). § is defined (b) Therefore, § it is not 19a but that must be § §(cid:127) construed. The defini- tion of flows § into 19a but also into various other sections. Once an enterprise found to be included 1,§ subjects Interstate Commerce Act it to 19a§ dealing with common carriers “sub- ject to” act. Thus, give two instances, it must provide equal and reasonable to all comers, (§ 1 (4)-(6)); and it must file schedule of rates (§6(1)). If, therefore, any doubt is felt about the appli- cability of some of these requirements, the doubts are to be properly taken into account in determining the scope range of 1.§ of servitudes to which subjected fine is by including 1§ vitally bears upon whether such a given construction should be to 1.§ *10 do think above, we
For detailed the reasons we reverse act and would Champlin is covered decree the District Court. BAND OF v. ALCEA
UNITED STATES TILLAMOOKS et al. January 31, February 1, Reargued October Argued No. 26. 1946.— November 1946. 1946. Decided Cummings, Walter argued J. Jr. the cause for the United him on With the briefs were Solicitor General States. McGrath, Assistant Attorney Roger General Bazelon and Marquis. P. Edward J. Williams John Harrington C. brief on original argument. were also on the