Interstate Commerce Commission v. United States Ex Rel. Humboldt Steamship Co.
Citations
- 224 U.S. 474
- 32 S. Ct. 556
- 56 L. Ed. 849
- 1912 U.S. LEXIS 2315
- 3 Alaska Fed. 833
Syllabus
<p>Alaska is a Territory of the United States within the meaning of § 1 of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended June 29, 1906, 34 Stat. 584, c. 3591.</p> <p>An organized Territory of the United States does not necessarily mean one having a local legislature as distinguished from one having a less autonomous form of government, such as that of Alaska.</p> <p>Even if “Territory of the United States” as used in § 1 of the InterState Commerce Act as amended includes only organized Territories, Alaska falls within its meaning. The Steamer Coquitlam, 163 U. S. 346; Binns v. United States, 194 U. S. 486; Bassmussen v. United States, 197 U. S. 516.</p> <p>The Hepburn Act of June 29, 1906, 34 Stat. 584, c. 3591, extended the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act to interterritorial commerce and for the first time gave to the Commission the power to fix rates. In so doing it made the act completely comprehensive, and the power given to the Commission superseded the power of the Secretary of the Interior to revise and modify rates of railroads in Alaska given by § 2 of the act of May 14, 1898, 30 Stat. 409, c. 299.</p> <p>Mandamus can be issued to direct performance of a ministerial act but not to control discretion. It may be directed to a tribunal, one acting in a judicial capacity, to proceed in a manner according to his or its discretion.</p> <p>The jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction, Ex parte Harding, 219 U. S. 363, does not'exist in an administrative body which is subject to having its jurisdicton defined by the courts.</p> <p>The United States Commerce Court has no jurisdiction to review the action of the Interstate Commerce Commission in refusing to entertain a complaint because the subject is beyond its jurisdiction. In such a case the remedy is by mandamus to compel the Commission to .proceed and decide the case according to its judgment and discretion.</p> <p>The Interstate Commerce Commission has jurisdiction to investigate violations of the Act to Regul
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- affirming an appellate court’s issuance of a writ of mandamus for the Interstate Commerce Commission to perform a discretionary function
- affirming an appellate court’s issuance of a writ of mandamus for the Interstate Commerce Commission to perform a discretionary function
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: McKenna
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.