On this question, Mr. Justice Rutledge, in Eastern Central Carriers Association v. United States, supra, said (321 U.S. 205, 64 S. Ct. 508):
'In returning the case we emphasize that we do not question the Commission's authority to adopt and apply general policies appropriate to particular classes of cases, so long as they are consistent with the statutory standards which govern its action and are formulated not only after due consideration of the factors involved but with sufficient explication to enable the parties and ourselves to understand, with a fair degree of assurance, why the Commission acts as it does. (Italics ours.)
'We only require that, whatever result be reached, enough be put of record to enable us to perform the limited task which is ours.'
And Mr. Justice Cardozo in Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. United States, 292 U.S. 282-287, 54 S. Ct. 692, 694, 78 L. Ed. 1260, said:
'The judicial function is exhausted when there is found to be a rational basis for the conclusions approved by the administrative body. In this instance the care and patience with which the Commission fulfilled its appointed tasks are plain, even to the casual reader, upon the face of its report.'
And Judge Meaney, speaking for this court in Fine & Jackson Trucking Corporation v. United States et al., D.C., 65 F.Supp. 443, 444, said:
'It was squarely recognized that there is a duty on the Interstate Commerce Commission to make 'basic or essential findings required to support (its) order.' Without such basic findings, intelligent review of the proceedings of the Commission would be impossible and petitions for such review would be idle gestures.'
And Mr. Justice Rutledge in United States et al. v. Pierce Auto Freight Lines, Inc., supra, said (327 U.S. 515, 66 U.S. 696):
'Only the most hypercritical reading of the findings, and one which ignores the report's explicit statements in many respects, could construe them as meaning only that each operation was required by public convenience and necessity without any regard to competitive consequences of granting both.'
So with these to point the way we look to see whether the Commission has sufficiently explained its position or reasons.
In effect, the Commission said in its report to plaintiff: You have two lines, one cheaper than the other. Under the Solum case you must give to the shipper the benefit of the cheaper rate unless you can show us that such rate or action is unreasonable. We have listened to all your evidence and examined your exhibits. You have not carried the burden that was yours and we, therefore, find that your practice of charging the higher rate has been unreasonable.
What more could the Commission say without practically reviewing quite minutely the evidence adduced. An explication will be more than sufficient for one man in a particular case while it would not be sufficient to another man if it were twice as verbose.
Applying the test: Has the Commission made sufficient explication to enable the parties hereto and this court, on this application to review, to understand with a fair degree of assurance why the Commission acted as it did?
In our opinion the decision and report more than meet this test.
For the reasons expressed herein the action will be dismissed.