97 F.Supp. 614, 619, 621; Lang Transp. Corp. v. United States, 75 F.Supp. 915, 930.
In addition, it is not necessary that the findings be precise and detailed for 'so long as the agency makes amply clear the factual basis upon which it has proceeded, there can be no ground for complaint.' Capital Transit Co. v. United States, supra.
Complainant Koppers has failed to establish that the varying proportional rates have caused unjust discrimination under Section 2, or undue prejudice to it or unreasonable preference to its competitors under Section 3(1). Nor has complainant met the burden as required by law as to the financial losses alleged to have been sustained as the proximate result of the proportional rates permitted by the Commission.
It is our considered judgment the Interstate Commerce Commission has properly carried out the powers and duties conferred upon it by the Interstate Commerce Act, that the Commission's findings of fact are fully supported by substantial evidence, and that the Commission has properly interpreted and supplied the applicable principles of law. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment should be denied, and motions of defendant and intervening defendants for summary judgment should be granted, and the complaint dismissed.
The court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
Findings of Fact
1. This cause came on to be heard before a duly constituted statutory court which was convened pursuant to statute, 28 U.S.C.A. Sections 2284(1) and 2325, to hear and determine the applications.
2. By agreement of the parties the issues were submitted upon final hearing, upon the pleadings and upon the complete record of the proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Commission.
3. Ex Parte 175, 284 I.C.C. 589, 663, the Commission on April 11, 1952 permitted the proportional rates which are the subject of this proceeding.
4. The Railroad published the permissive increases authorized by the Commission, which became effective on May 2, 1954.
5. On May 8, 1952, the complainant filed a petition for intervention and modification of the order issued by the Commission on April 11, 1952, in which it was charged that the proportional rates were in violation of Sections 2 and 3(1) of the Interstate Commerce Act.
6. The Commission by Division Two on March 10, 1954 denied relief. 292 I.C.C. 23.
7. On May 28, 1954, the complainant filed a petition for reconsideration and on October 8, 1954, the Commission denied said petition.
8. On January 3, 1955, the complainant filed suit to set aside the action of the Commission and the statutory court dismissed the proceeding on the ground that the complainant had no standing to institute the complaint and must exhaust its administrative remedy before the Commission. Koppers Co., Inc., v. United States, D.C., 132 F.Supp. 159.
9. Hearings were held by the Commission on September 21 and 22, 1955, and the proportional rates were upheld by Division Three on July 2, 1957, 301 I.C.C. 284, and the entire Commission on March 20, 1958.
10. The Interstate Commerce Commission had before it substantial evidence in support of its findings.
Conclusions of Law
1. The court has jurisdiction of this cause and of the parties thereto.
2. The issues posed are presented in motions for summary judgment filed by the complainant, respondent and intervening respondents.
3. The Interstate Commerce Commission had jurisdiction over the proceedings wherein the orders of March 10, 1954, October 4, 1954, July 2, 1957 and March 20, 1958 were made.
4. Said orders were within the constitutional and statutory authority of the Commission, and were not arbitrary or based upon mistake of law or misapplication of the proper statutory standards. Said orders were made by the Commission upon adequate findings, supported by substantial evidence, and in accordance with the applicable law, and were and are valid and lawful in all respects.
5. The relief prayed for in the complaint should be denied and the suit dismissed, which requires the refusing of the motion of the complainant for summary judgment and the granting of the motion of the defendant and intervening defendants for summary judgment; the complainant to pay the costs.
6. An appropriate order for judgment should be submitted by the parties in accordance with the conclusions of the Statutory Court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the adjudication, in the office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.