entitled to efficient motor-carrier, as well as rail transportation. There appears little if any reason to doubt that applicant's service is required at intermediate points on the proposed routes between Long Branch and Keansburg.
'Sheet 9, paragraph 2, line 11: However, applicant's proposed service from and to Long Branch undoubtedly will be attractive to passengers who use applicant's water transportation to Keansburg. We are convinced that applicant may be permitted to serve Long Branch as a terminal without any noticeable adverse effect on other carriers which serve that point.
'Sheet 9, paragraph 3: The only other question is whether applicant should be permitted to serve Keansburg. The joint board concluded that it should be permitted to pick up and discharge passengers in Keansburg, only on that part of its routes which are between its pier there and Long Branch. One such route (route 4) passes through the center of the community. Hudson serves Keansburg, but during the last winter season, it operated only two schedules daily in each direction between Keansburg and New York. Applicant has a pier and other facilities there and has served Keansburg by water over a number of years. The development of the community, at least to some extent, is related to this long service. Such a logical improvement in the service as that proposed should be permitted. We conclude that applicant should be permitted to serve all points in Keansburg. Applicant is fit and able to perform the service hereinafter authorized.
'Sheet 9, paragraph 4: We find that present and future public convenience and necessity require operation by applicant, in interstate or foreign commerce as a common carrier by motor vehicle of passengers and their baggage (1) from New York, N.Y., etc., describing route, and concluding; that applicant is fit, willing and able properly to perform such service and to conform to the requirements of the act and to our rules and regulations thereunder. that an appropriate certificate authorizing such operations should be granted; and that the application in all other respects should be denied.' (Emphasis supplied.)
The court feels that there is one thing that is significantly illustrative of plaintiffs complaint against the report. Where the report said (sheet 8, par. 4), 'Keyport is served by Central, by Hudson, and by Asbury-Coastal. Union Beach is adjacent to Keyport and is served by Hudson and by Central. We concur in the conclusion of the joint board that the present service at these points is adequate', evokes no criticism from plaintiffs, but where the report in paragraphs and paragraphs gave conclusions and reasons for granting the other portions of the application, the plaintiffs complain that there is not sufficient explanation.
Examination of this court's records leads to the case of Inter-City Transportation Co. v. U.S., D.C., 89 F.Supp. 441, 444, opinion by Circuit Judge McLaughlin, April 13, 1948. The report under consideration in that case and the report presently under consideration are strikingly similar. In that case Judge McLaughlin had this to say of the report under consideration: 'On that comprehensive report, as a matter of common justice to the Commission, we must hold that its decision makes sense. Based on a sound foundation of evidence, the Commission concluded that it was doing a progressive, good thing in giving the territory in question the transportation sought: in giving that territory service needed now and for the future. While another fact finding tribunal might possibly arrive at a different conclusion from the facts, the Commission's decision is at least readily understandable.'
Does the report presently under consideration meet the same test as the one quoted by Mr. Justice Rutledge in Eastern Central Carriers Association v. United States, supra, 321 U.S.at page 211, 64 S. Ct.at page 508, 88 L. Ed. 668:
'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.'
And 321 U.S.at page 212, 64 S. Ct.at page 508, 88 L. Ed. 668:
'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 that established by Mr. Justice Cardozo in Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. United States, 292 U.S. 282 to 287, 54 S. Ct. 692, 694, 78 L. Ed. 1260: '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 task are plain, even to the casual reader, upon the face of its report.'
We think that the report does meet these tests and consequently for the reasons stated herein the bills of complaint will be dismissed.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.