◆ SpookStack

4 Texas et al. va. The United States et al. The Commission, on the first hearing, found that the consumma- tion of the plan presented by the applicant would result in an an- nual saving, under normal conditions, of about $81,000. This find- ing was repeated in the final report. The estimated saving would result from the unification of operations, the discontinuance of general offices of the Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway Company at Texarkana, and the removal to Shreveport and Kansas City of many of the activities at Texarkana which caused duplication of work, Thus, under the proposed plan, the auditor’s and treas- urer’s departments of the Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway Com- pany would be transferred to the applicant’s headquarters at Kansas City, with an estimated annual saving of over $57,000. The offices of the general freight agent, general passenger agent, superintendent, and division engineer, and of the master mechanic at Port Arthur, would be removed to Shreveport and consolidated with similar offices of the applicant, at an estimated annual saving of over $21,000. There would also be a decrease in expenses for various services in connection with the building at Texarkana. Shreveport, said the Commission, is considered to be more cen- traliy located from an operating standpoint than Texarkana, and there are at that point the applicant's main terminal for the southern territory, shops for heavy repairs, more industry, greater population, and more railroad connections. The Commission found that for the four years, 1928-1931, the Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway Company handled an average of $93,622 tons of intrastate traffic and 3,405,944 tons of interstate traffic. Of the average total of 4,399,566 tons, the applicant par- ticipated in the handling of 3,192,554 tons. The net income of the Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway Company amounted to $441,922 in 1926, $204,052 in 1927, $437,270 in 1928, $598,172 in 1929, and $95,655 in 1930. ‘In 1931 there appears to have been no net in- come. The Commission concluded that ‘‘in view of the velume of interstate traffic handled by the T. & F. S. and the net income earned by that carrier, it is clear that the expenditure of approxi- mately $81,000 a year, which will be unnecessary under the plan that the applicant proposes to put into effect under the lease, con- stitutes an undue burden upon interstate commerce.”’ The Commission further found ‘‘that the Jease by the Kansas City Southern Railway Company of the railroad and properties of the Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway Company, located in Tezas et al. vs. The United States et at. 5 Texas and elsewhere not now under lease, in accordance with the proposed lease, will be in harmony with and in furtherance of the plan for the consolidation of railroad properties heretofore estab- lished by us and will promote the public interest.” The State of Texas raises no question as to the constitutional power of the Congress to confer authority upon the Commission to approve the proposed lease with the stipulations under con- sideration. The question is simply as to the scope of the authority which has been eonferred,—the construction of the applicable stat- utory provisions. These are found in Section 5 of the Interstate Commerce Act as amended by the Emergency Railroad Trans- portation Act, 1933 (Title IT, sees, 201, 202). Paragraphs (4) (a) drid (4) (b) of that section make it lawful, with the approval and authorization of the Commission, for two or more carriers to con- solidate or merge their properties; ‘‘or for any carrier to purchase, lease, or contract to operate the properties, or any part thereof, of another’’, or to acquire control of another through pur- chase of its stock. On application to the Commission for such ap- proval, appropriate notice of public hearing must be given to the Governor of each State in which any part of the properties of the carriers involved is situated, as well as to the carriers themselves. If after hearing, ‘‘the Commission finds that, subject to such terms and conditions and such modifications as it shall find te be just and reasonable, the proposed consolidation, merger, purchase, lease, operating contract, or acquisition of control will be in harmony with and in furtherance of the plan for the consolidation of rail- way properties established pursuant to paragraph (3), and will promote the public interest’’, the Commission may give its ap- proval and authorization accordingly.* These broadening provisions of the Emergency Railroad Trans- portation Act, 1933, confirm and carry forward the purpose which 8The full text of paragraphs (4) (a) and (4) (b} is aa follows: ‘©(4) (a), It ghall be lawful, with the approval and authorization of the Commission, as provided in subdivision (b}, for two or more carriera to con- solidate or merge their properties, or any part thereof, into one corporation for the ownership, management, and operation of the properties theretofore in separate ownerehip; or for any carrier, or two or more carriera jointly, ta purchase, lease, or contract te eperate the properties, or any part thereof, of another; or for any carrier, or two or wore carriers jointly, to acquire control of another through purchase of its stock; or for a corporation whieh