&uet 10, 1955'
Ron. VIIMM J. Xurxn~.
-- Jr..
-
Chaiiman
kallroadColpieaion
of Texae
TribuneBullaID&!
Austin,- OpinionHo; ~9-165
Be: Application of RailroadCclllieslonQ~
traueportationxatee to theintrastate
ahlpilentor &oda for t&emilitary
DearNr.&rrayr brenoheeof the mited Statee;
Pour requestfor a ievlevof the app&ioabillt~
of theRailroadCom-
misslon'~rate8to intrastateehipmentof Soodefor theUnitedStatesis
qu0t.h .pp‘m, M .fo*8: ._,_ .,.
~...
_.
__~I..
_ :..z
apOn requestfmn the Railroad Camnl~alonof Tesae,
thk &ttorneyQeneralofTexas issuedthreeoplnione relat-
lngto the~tterofre@atedcarriere treneport~ehlp-
me&a of tiight.f& the UnitedStatesGoverwint., or ite
militaryIn pertlculer, intraatete:
in Taxee;at rate6dif-
~fensitfYcm the ratesprescribed
by the Ballmad Comnlsaion
of TM, or aa might be appmwd by the molti. Them
Oplnlonsvere dite&Aprll'l& 19% (withoutnuaber);D&xmber
lB,lg4C (CplnionIo.o-2954)andMay lo, 1~3(opinionEo.
O-B).. Oneeop7 FhM,theae Cpinioneie golmedhere-
with ior ycmrread7rer-e.L
,. I~ ---~
~eomo~ le of the op*1ou taatthC~olon'e tralleportatlon
raten~areappllcabbla’tothe intr~tateahlpbentof goodofor the lilted
Statee. (mllltuy)vhenthemovementleoonductadb~Yndependmtoontznct-
orsi The authoritlerrallynl by t.+fcumr oplnloue
upoz~ of tbleoffice
have been dletln&ehed or overruledb7 anbaequentcame; therefore,much
opinionsare overruled insofara8 t&p oonfllottitht.3H.e
opinion.
The regulationof tranepo~tlou rate8b7 the etateeie a validand
aeceesaryiunctlab~fo~,pmeerve and pmt+ot t& publicinterest.Stephen-
eon v:Blnfonl, 267 U.S. Q51( 1932);SteeleP. Ceneralllllls,
329U. S.
433 (lPh7). '~ .~ -~
StateregalH,ion~@ey not direotlyinterfuevi& thefunotionof
Sovemmentiloperationa ~Qm~<a offloereaud @encler. JohneonV.
xsryland,254 u. 8. 51 (1920);LouwelnV. mod& I2 S.U. 2d%m=
Eon. YllllemJ.Murra7,Jr.,pale2 (S-165)
App. 1929). Hovever,indepmdentcontr~~tora renderingnervloesto the
g o ver ment
a r eno t lxoh egenclee
conducting
Sovermeutalfunctiona, aid
the mere faotnon-diec&uina@xyregulatlom of the cmtraotor fndirectQ
lncreaaeethe burdenunon the government no lonuerbrini@auoh oontract-
oiu withinan7 tipUeh<7 fnrm statere&tion. Penn Dairiesve.
Xllk ControlCaani~ion,3l.8 U. S. 261 (1943); Alabamaa Gi a Boowr,
314U.s.ttir.e Ltipolis B. Co. v. Llchtenbag,176Md.~
383, 4 A. a 734 (;9m
In the PennDairiesceee,theSupremeCourtuphelda Pennejrlvanla
milkprice fixinglav ae appliedto the saleofmilkto the UnnitedStatee.
The courtdistinguiehed adenciesperformins
Sovernmental funotfona,
such
aa the mail carrierIn the Iouueincase,from the a&e of independent
con-
traotoraby statingonpage~follovs%
“Wema7 ae.xfme al.80
that, in the abeenceof Congres-
slonalconaent,thereie an inpliedconstitutional inmmit7
of the nationalgovenmentfivmetatetaratlonandirometate
regulation of the perfozmence
by federaloffioereend aSen-
.clee., of &overnmultalfunctlone.ohlo v.-lTmw, 173 u. 8.
276; Johneonv. IU$and, 254V. S. 51;Hunt v. UnltedStatea,
278 0. S. 96; Arlwma v. Callfornla, 283 U. 8. 423. But those
who contraotto furnleheupplleaor renderaervloesto the
SoveiWentare not suchagenciesand bd mot performgovernmen-
talfuiictione. MetcalfS Bidsv. Mltohell.269 0. S. 514;.524-
5; Jmea V. DiavoC~Q%Ctf.XWCO.9 3C2 U: S.-u4, 145;BGk-
staffCo. v.McKlnlee,308U.s. 358,362-63andoaaee cited;
cf. susquehanMCo. Vi Tax Comn'n.,283 U. 6. 291, 294; Helvei-
ingv.MountainProdw.%raCorp 303
‘.. U. S. 376. 385-86; ad the
mere factthatnon~rlmlnatorgtasationoi re&&v&nof the
contraotorlmpoeeeanfncreeaedeaonanlcburdenan the.#xern-
ment 'lauo longerr8gaHed am brln@ng the eontraotca wIthinauy
fmDlled
- _ iisnunitrof theaovemnaentfr&atateWatimorre&a-
tion. Alabamav. ?Ung &-Doozer, 314 U.-S; 1,-g,end oaeeacited;
Baltlmore6 Avmapolfa8. Co. v. WChMberg, 176~~11’383, 4 A.
Qd 734, 0: o., mitea statell t:Baltfmorea Annapolle B. co. 308
TJ. 8. ‘
-525.”
_.
The supremeCburtalmheld that Statefit6 ragulation~v~notti-
ccmeietentvltb the Aott! of Congiererequiring
crmpetltive
bidding,nay-
lng, in part,at prge 275,ae follownx
" .Anunexpressedpurposeof Congreseto aet aeideetatutes
oi ihe et&&~ regulat3ng
theirlutema affair6 la'mt U&t4
.tobe~fnferredandon&tnottobe luplledwherethe lagiala-
tivecommand,read fn the lightof Itshietorp,rmaainaembisu-
OUB. Consideratlonewhichleadua not to favorrepealof stat-
UnitedStateav. BordenCo., 308 0. 8. 188,
utee by implication,
Eon. WllllamJ. wufiy, Jr., page 3 p-165)
198-g;IlhltedStskaV. Jeti=, 302 U. 9. 628, 631; Pwa-
Bankj 296, U. S. 497, 503-5, ah=
daa v. IlatIonal~Clty
be at baet ae pereuaelvevhen the queetlonlr oI1eof the
nulJ.lflcatlon
of at&e paverby Congreeelonal leginlatlon.
!'Reuoe,Inthe aba&ce of comeevldellee of en Infler-
lbleCongrea~Ia&lpol.lcy requI.rInggovermaentoontract.dto
be awardedon the lwert bid despitenonCanpllence vIt,h
etateregalations QtberuIreapplIoable,vecannoteaythat
the PennaylvanIamllk i%gulationconflictawith Congreaslan-
al legislation or polIc7and muntbe eat asidemerelybecauee
it lncreaees the prlcdof milk to the government.It vouq be
tiomorethanepeculatlcmforunto say thatCongnasvould
consider the govarmuen
t'e pecaniaryInterestea a purchaser
of mIilk more Importantthanthe imtereetdesertedby Penn@yl-
vanla in tieltabIlizatIon of her milk eupplythrow control
of prloe. Courtaehouldguardrgalnetresolvingthemeetipet-
Ing wnelderatloneof pollc7by imputingto Congressa decision
which quiteclearlyIt has not undertaken to make. Further-
more,ve shouldbe olow to strikedown legislation vhIch the
atatewnoededl7had paver to enact,becauae,ofIts ass-ted
burdenon the fedezilgove=nt. For the stateIe poverleer
to removethe ill effectaof our decision,vhile the national
govermuent, vhIchhae the ultimatepower,remainsfree to re-
move the burden."
Further,the f$upreme
Courtin the Penn DaIries'oplnlon
reasoned
thatPanhandleOil Companyv. Knox,277 U. S. 218 (1928);apdlike
cases,had been overruled
by Alabamav. King & Boozer,supza.
In PaolfloCoastDairiesv. Department, 318 U. S. 285 (l&3), deoid-
cd on the acme da7 ae thePenn Dairiescaee,the SupremeCourtheld thata
California milk priceregulation to the~saleof milk
vae not appl.Icabls
contracted and wncmmated withina Federalenclave. The irorrrt reaeoned
thatCongresshad exolualve poweroverFederalenclave8by reyon of Clause
17, Section0 of ArtIclaI of the Constitution of the UnitedStates. The
factaof thatoaaearenotcontrolll~here becausethe contraotavIththe
govement contemplate the movementof goodswhollyupon the highwaysof
Texas,except,In a few instances, wherethereIa a nominalentryIn or
departurefrom a Federalenclaveby the carrier.
InHughes Transportation
Co. v. UnitedStates,l21Fed. Sup. 212
(19541, a KentucQ rate regulation
vas held applicableto themovementof
gwda for the Department of theAzm7 by an independent
contractor.The
Courtof Clalmahas renmndedthe casefor furtherfindingsof fact nle-
gatedto the properdeterminationand interpretation
of the Kentuck
Han.lfillluJ. Nurray,Jr., page 4 (s-165)
Mm. Thlr Ia the lateetexprvralon of the lavby a reden oourt.
3he &rut&e ehlpmnt of goodebyeen lndkpimdentoontmctorfor
t.bemllltarybraiichee
of the VnltedSkater3.6eubJectto the rate regnl~-
tionof the Railnmd ConmImIca. The authoritlernIled upon b7 the for-
mer opinlone6f thl6officehave been distl.uguIehed
or overruled by mub-
msquento-em) tbrefore, ouoh opinion em overruled lneofarM they con-
ilIotwith thin opinion.
APPmmr Tours very truly,
J. A.‘.kmIe,
Jr.
Rev1m.r
~.
Davlaorant
Revlever
WI= b..‘Datia
Reviewer Anelstant Attome Dsneral
RobertS. TI6tt.l
nrnt AxJaldant
JohnBen Snepperd
AttorneyOsnerrl