Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad

Citations

• 227 U.S. 88
• 33 S. Ct. 185
• 57 L. Ed. 431
• 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2279

Syllabus

<p>The Act to Regulate Commerce, as amended by the Hepburn Act, gives a right to a full hearing on the subject of rates, and that confers the privilege of introducing testimony and imposes the duty of deciding in accordance with the facets proved.</p> <p>A finding without evidence is arbitrary and useless, and an act of Congress granting authority to any body to make a finding without evidence would be inconsistent with justice and an exercise of arbitrary power condemned by the Constitution.</p> <p>Administrative orders guasi-judicial in character are void if a hearing is denied; if the hearing granted is manifestly unfair; if the finding is indisputably contrary to the evidence; or if the facts found do not, as matter of law, support the order made.</p> <p>Administrative orders can only be reviewed by the court where a justiciable question is presented, and where the act provides for judicial review of such orders it will be construed as providing for a hearing so that the court may consider matters within the scope of judicial power.</p> <p>Under the Act to Regulate Commerce the carrier retains the primary right to make rates, and the power of the Commission to alter them depends upon the existence of the fact of their unreasonableness, and, in the absence of evidence to that effect,-the Commission has no jurisdiction.</p> <p>The legal effect of evidence is a question of law, and a finding without evidence is beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission.</p> <p>Where the party affected is entitled to a hearing, the Interstate Commerce Commission cannot base an order establishing a rate on' the information which it has gathered for general purposes under the provisions of § 12 of the act. The order must be based on evidence produced in the particular proceeding.-</p> <p>In this case, the Interstate Commerce Commission having found, after taking evidence, that the new rates were excessive and that the through rate which exceeded the sum of the locals should have been