# Jurisdictional Statement — East Texas Lines v. Frozen Food Exp. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386408_0187%3A03 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Jurisdictional Statement - **Published:** January 1, 1956 - **Citation:** 351 U.S. 49 ## Text » & N THE Supreme ais of the United Siates Octobe Y Term 1959 - No.. 162 East Texas Moror FREIGHT LINEs, INc., GILLETTE - Motor Transport, Tne, Fors Trrek. Lives, Txe., -" AMERICAN -TRUCKING AssoctaTions, INc., ET AL, : ) ' Appellants Vv. : ¢ ‘F'rozEN Foop Express, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE OF tHE UNiTep STATES,.ET AL., Appellees’ ‘Appeal trom the United States District ‘iden for the Southern District of Texas, Houston concert , Bae. Si . JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT | 5 sae | Davin G. MacbonaLp . : Francis W. McINERNyY . ‘ 504 Commonwealth Buildin e - “Of Counsel: _. ° Washington, D. C. Mac eay, LYNCH AND Peter T. Be —— RMBONALD Fritz R. Kaun Washington, D. aa _» 1424 Sixteenth Street, LN W. ‘Canfaway, Reep, Kinwetn .° Washington, D. C. ~ AND BRooKS ee Wee ais ‘ . we «CLARENCE. R. Topp sewies ae ©. *° “Dare C. Dien . Reeper, GisiLxk AND GRIFFIN .944 Washington Building Kansas City, Missouri Washington, D. C: Pra ° s \ : we Pusss or Byron S. Adams, Wasmncrok, D.C. oe on INDEX - gy. Opinions Below FR | EAE Ce ere eee ear a” ae e Jurisdiction *......5... kthcelane sue vaaeweud knees 2 Statute Involved ....... 8.00... be SpA vee ei bbe eens 3 7 Questions Presented ‘ : RAR Tre eae pee ae’. ii ~ ae _. Statement of;the Case ....... Vanths ee Pan Sage eye ‘ The Questions are Substantial + + iv kkneaaN Me eens (a) The Need. for Cc ertainty Pe seers ne aye “bd. reese ‘of ¢ ‘onimission ‘Adniinistration— 30- +‘ Be cena soa ak oe Vetdst pao neecsaewresea”' 2H (a) The Questions Presented Are Not Foreclosed By Prior’Decisions of This Court .....0..6., ‘(d) The- Questions Presented Require for Their _ > Resolution Plenary Consideration With Briefs ’- -- + onthe Merits and Oral Argument ...... _ aR Boles There i is Conflict on fhe Question Presented Among the Fifth, Sixth and Fighth ‘Cir. cuit-Courts of Appeal .i2...¢s.03.02... (2) The District Court’s Decision Reverses Set- tled Admjnistrative Construction ....... _ (3) Dispositive Action on -the Questions Pre: sented Will Tend-to Lessen Further Liti- _ gation Before the. Interstate Commerce Cominission and the Federal Courts .... Craidluaion (hk Wawa rere 4 deans ue cence’ veeges es er _ Certificate & Service ........... se cepecceseeeoedece ee Appendices : Appendix A: Opiniqn of the United States District + ROPE TCC CEL YT Pee ETE TT EEC eT Tee T ES Appendix B: Report and Ordeg of the Interstate ‘Commerce Commission ..... os 0cecceseccccenics Appendix (*: Judgment of the United States Dis- trict fore Pee nie 0'd0406 FRSA steeees #9 i ; ’ Index Continned oT ABLE OF AU THORITIES cation, 26 M.C.C. 615 (Nev ember dh ses, eutus & be ; age . 13 _ Jpiciat. Sincnianenn + ITRD: $8 Pp Aleoa S. S. C8. Vv. U. S., 338 {: S. #21, 423; 70 Ss. Cty = 2; i a i Oe ON Kai's aed 004 Kis cad kek br cerns ° 21 American Trucking Ass'n, ia ¥.. Se 344 US. ° Sa Se OR ae ek a nk wwe nc - Commissioner v.South Texas Lumber C ompany, 333 U.S. 496-500; 68.8. Ct. 695; 92 L Ed. Ree ee 20) _ Frozen Food Express, et.al, v. U. S., et al (C ‘wil. Action 8396) 128 F. Supp. 374, 379 2.20... Feces 2 Frozen Food Express, et al, v. U. S., ‘et al (Civil ia Action No, 8285) 128 F..Supp. 374; 877 2.2.2.0... . & . LC.C. vy. Kroblin, 133 F. Supp. 599; 212 F. 2d 555: _ (Cert. denied October 14, 1954) 99 L. ‘Kd. {Advance ae EE ERM RG ka Reh see's eT Petry OT aa 8, 10, 15 1.C.C. v. Weldon, 90-#. oe $73 ere te - Ludecke v. W atkins, ; 335 US . 160, 162;.68 8. Ct. 142 93 OL NE ES CCS DCC Che Sa Pah Casts ae Oak wh 21 Radio ior ho Cape of Pern v. U.'S.; 341 U. S. 412} 71S. Ct. S06 ; i es bso a es ees Southwestern: Trading Company v. U. S., 208 Fy 2d PS eae Aah ESRC ae ce aw hn ae eke ss ea Sunal v. Large, 332 U. S. BE as Ci hd eek ows ie on U.S Baltimore and Ohio R. Co., 333 U. S. 169; . . 43's. Ct. le Be | NA nee arene” 3 ' United States v. Carner, 260 U.S. 482, 490 ........ +B U. S..v. Hancock. Truck Lines, 324 U.S. 774; 65'S. Ct. mee ot BS Ga REE ee ree 3 " . U.S. v. Reed Procking’ Co., Inc. (not reported) . 16 i sg 8 eat os 2d 367 (Cert. — October - 8, 1051) 342. 2 SS Bea rete 17 Inrerstate C OM MERCE CS atatisston Cases ‘CITED: Determination of Exempt Agricultural ( ‘ommodities, eS ee ee Aa aot ; East Texas Motorg# reight Lines, Ine. et al. v. F rozen. Food: Express, 62 M.C:C: 646°. >... 0.6.2.6 c. ans § Frank Battaglia Common Carrier Application; eae ; ls et SE | re 2 - Interstate Commerce Act Title 49 U.S. Code e : ate . Sections 301 ; ° > This’ appeal seeks review oT the. action of the Die ‘trict Couft enjoining the Inte rstate Commerce Com mission from enforcing that portion of the Commission | _ order yequiting Frozen Food Express to cease and de- sist from transporting fresh and frozen dressed poul- try jn interstate commerce: for compensation to, fren _and between points where the latter does not hold.op- serating authority. isitek by the Interstate. oo _ Commission... : (il) The judgment on the action-avas iieied by the . ‘District Court on February: 23, 1955 and is reproduced herein as, Appendix “C%.* Noticé of Appeal to this . Court was filed on Apri 20, 1955, with the Clerk of the U nited States District C ourt for the Routwerd Dis- trict of Texas. (iii) The jurisdicton of this Court is invoked tinder ‘the provisions of Dine We" 1253. of. the J udicial Code (28 © U.S.C. 1253). (iv) The’ jririadictinn of this Court is believ ‘ed to be sustained by a number of decisions of this Court, in- cluding: tC =, 5 Baltimore and Ohio R. Co:, 333 U.S. 169 ‘@ S, Ct. 494; 92 L. Ed. 618 | v 5S. Vz Hancock Truck Lines, 324 USS. 114: 65 -, $. ct. 1003;89 Le Ed. 1357) - > Ree ee of America v. U.§., 341 US. 4:71 S. Ct. 8063.95 L. Kd. 1062.7 | 4 American ‘Trucking Ass’n. Inc., v. U. S., 344 US, 298; 73.8. Ct. 307; 971. Ed. 337 . STATUTE INVOLVED ©The essential issues dec cided by the Interstate Com- merce Commission and by the lower court in the pro- ceedings giving rise to this appeal required construc. | e, o cee 4 Se : . + ° - . i sn tion and application of Sec ‘Lion 203 (b) (6) of Part [I .. : _rvfthe Interstate C ‘ommiere e Act. (49 U.S.C. 303(b).(6), A number of the prov isions of the Interstate Goimmerce - Act, (49 U.S. Code, 301, et Seq) are involved in this appeal, including 203(h) (6), 206(a), 209(a), and 222 (b). (49° U.S.C. 303 (b) (6), 300 (a.), 309(a) and .322(b) ). Thé N vational Transportation Policy. and. eer-. ° tain terms of Section 203(b) €6), being direc tly hefore, this court for ait. eran and appecasen, ape set . forth verbatim. e ° : Se dis ; . Se) ; : e. o 4s 8 The ‘Agricultural Commodity Exemption - es ‘Title 49 U.S: Code Section 308 (b) (6): - rs, Nothing ine this part, except the provisifins of Section, 204 relative to qualifications, and maxi-- mum: hours of service of en jloyeesgand safety of operation ‘or standards of ‘equipment ‘shall be " vonstrued to include * * * (6) motor vehicles used. in-earrying property consisting of ordinary live- stock, fish (ineluding shell fish), or agric cultural | (including, horticultural] ) commodities (not inelud- ing manufactured products thereof), if such motor vehicles a used iy carrving any other prop-° erty, or passengeys, for conspensation ie” QUESTIONS PRESENTED | (ce) The questions presented by this appeal are: : (1) Whether the United States District C ourt erred -in holding that fresh and frozen dressed poultry are agricnitural products and not manufactured ¢ products thereof, and, therefore within the ex- emptive language of Section 2033 sit teat of the Interstate Commerce Act. © (2) (a) Whether the United States. District Court exceeded its authority in setting aside, in part,: ancorder of the Interstate Commerce Commis-. sion which was supported by adequate findings ‘of fact, in tuth supported by substantial ey idence, and correct con¢lusions of law. * (bd). Subsidiary to the pfeceding questions is whether the Commission’s order. entered in’ Docket No. MC-C-1605—East Texas Motor ‘Freight Lines, Inc. et al. v. Frozen Food Ex- press, 62 M.C.C., 646 is supported by substantial — evidence, adequate findings of .fact and correct conclusions of law.: .. °° 6 & ye t eo & “2 e + . e * . We found in the prior report : that - the term “ordinary: livestock’? embraced poultry as well as ‘attle, horses, sheep, etes_but that dressed poultry, picked but not drawn, “does not come within tie term livestock.”’ In view of the definition of erdi- nary livestock set forth in Section 20 (11), which the legislative history ahove-discussed indicates should be applied also to the term as used in See- tion 205°(b) (6), it is apparent that poultry in any condition is not ‘ordinary livestock’’.. However, they are raised on the farm,’ and clearly are ime, cluded Within the broader description “agricul- tural ecommodities.”*. It therefore becomes neces- sarv to determine whether poultry which have been killed and picked but not drawn are unmanufac- tured agricultural commodities within the meaning of the present exemption. | As-in the case ‘of shelled pecans ‘and walnuts, there is-a complete absence of any showing of the customs and practices obtaining in the marketing of poultry, but certain facts in this connection are so well known that we mav take cognizanée of them for the purpose of the present determination. — It is-common knowledge that, generally, farmers.do not kill and pick poultry in marketing it. Prob- ably ‘without. exc eption, or at most with rare ex- ceptions, ‘the commercial killing and dressing of poultry is done by meat-packing companies or by special poultry packers, Its subsequent transpor- tation is under refrigeration. As suche it can no longer be considered an unmanufactured agrieu- tural com modddy. (# mphasis added) The next reported. decision by the Commission. was issued in Determination of Exempt Agricultural Com- 14 “modities, 52 MiC.C. 511, where it was held by the nememesmnye 3 at page 557, as follows: ‘* .. we find that the te rm ‘agricultural com- modities (not ‘including , manufactured products thereof)’ as used Ail Section 203° (b) (6) of the Interstate Commerce Act means: Products raised: or produced on farms by. tillage and cultivation . of the soil (such as vegetables, fruits and nuts) ; forest products; live poultry and bees; and com- modities produced by ordinary livestock, live poul- try, and bees (such as milk, wool, eggs, and honey), put not including any such products or commodi- ties whitch, as a result ‘of.some treatment have been so changed as to possess new forms, qualities, or properties, or result in combinations. ‘We find that the term agric ultaral> -commodi- > - Hes (not ineluding manufactured product ts there- of)’ as used in Section 203 (b) (6) ineludes .. . (9) live. poultry, namely, chickens, turkeys, ducks, © geese, and taal cee (Emphasis added) The foregoing cases represent all of those in ‘which the Inter state Commerce Commission, in reported deci- sions, gave specific consideration to dressed poultry. However, the Commission’s interpretation of % an appli- cation of the provisions of Section 203(b) (6) was con- -tinuous and consistent ina countless number of motor carrier applieation proceedings not reported in the permanent bound volumes of the Commission... Oper- - ating authorities involving thee transportation of —_ dressed poultry were obtained by a number of motor carriers pursuant to applications filed with and heard — _ by the Interstate Commerce Commission and supported ‘by evidence submitted on behalf of all of the most ‘important meat packers of the country as,well as many of the most important commercial poultry processors. \ 15 There is nothing revealed in unreported cases of the Commission which would indicate that any of the. shipper interests or any carrier applicant ever con- tended prior to or since the Determination Case that « dressed poultry should be classitied as, a so-called. ex- empt commodity: The contention that dressed poultry was within the purview of. the exemption was not advanced with any vigor until the vear 1948, at which | time the Seéretary of Agriculture alone jrged the Commission to reverse its long-standing position with. respect to dressed poultry -and classify it as exempt. At this point jtis appropriate to point out that no individual cAmmerdal poultry processor intervened in. the Determination Cysé.for the purpose of urging-the-———__ acceptance of the views of the Secretary of Agriculture ij with respect to the elassification of dyessed poultry. Since no immediate attack had been made -on the eonelusions reached by the Commission in .the Deter- mination Case, it had been- generally assumed that any question with respect to whether motor vehicles trans- porting dressed poultry were embraced within the exemptive language had been put to rest. However, on: October 17, 1952, the Commission filed a complaint: against Allen FE. Kroblin, Ine. in the United States. District Court for the Northern District of Towa alleg- ing that the defendant was.unlawfully engaged in the transportation of New York dressed and eviscerated poultry in? interstate commerce. The relief sought by the Commission was to restrain the defendant from the further performance of the operations complained of until such time.as it had acquired appropriate author- ity from thé Interstate Commerce Commission. The District Court refused to grant the injunction en the: grounds that the commodities tfansported by the. de- 16 aes fendant were unmanufactured - agric cultural ceommiodi- ties, and, on appeal, was’sustained by the United States. Circuit Courtof Appeals. This Court denied certiorari ’ on October 14, 1954. . o 2. Ye : ie Prior to the Aroblin: decision, the Department: of. Justice had generally followed ‘the Interstate Com- merce Commission’s interpretation of the statute witli respect to poultry and had subjected to criminal prose- _ cution a number of carriers for engaging in the trans- | portation of dressed poultry without appropriate ”_ operating authority from the Commission:—On Mareh 19, 19: -a- criminal proceeding of the character inentioned, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, in U. S.v. Reed Trucking Co., Tne. (not: reported), the defendant was fined $250 for transporting dressed poultry without “authority. The ~ ~ same: Court on October 4, 1950, imposed fines on. Reed Trucking Co., Inc. and -H & H Poyltry Company total- ing $16300 because the shipper had been granted rate ‘concessions. on dressed poultry traffic. Had the traffic been exempt, published rates - -would not have been required and. the prosecutions could not have been brought suécessfully. — anne ‘This Court’s refusal to grant certiorari in the Krob- lin Case, supra, apparently has aot changed the Coni- mission’s position. As indicated earlier, however, a position contrary to that assumed. by the Commission is taken by hoth the Department of Agriculture and the Department. of Justice. - Both executive, depart- . , - ‘ments urged the Court helow to reject the holdings of the ( omission. in thetr entirety. ee ’ The existing conflict in interpret ration of the stadt between the Department ot Justice and the Commis- vi 's' . makes it impossible to effectively administer the pain for .while’ the Commission’ still requires carriers to obtain certificates, the. Department of adios refuses to prosecute carriers for not faving ‘eertiticates when , transporting - dressed poultry traffic. (e) The Questions Presented Are ‘Not Foreclosed By Prior Decisions’of This Court.’ “Two petitions for certiorari have been presented to this Court ites questions concerning the applica- _tion ‘of Section 203 3(b) (6). ~The first ease, Weldon vy, LGC.C., 188. F. y 367; 342 U.S. 827, presented the question of whether motor vehicles tisé transport shelled raw peanuts were within the exemption. The _ second case, 1.0.0. v . Kroblin, supra, presented the question of whether motor vehicles transporting New York dressed poultry were within the exemption. In both cases,. this Court denied certiorari leaving the Court of Appeals’ decisions in: effect. Appellants con- tend that those decisions are in direct conflict. Cee In accordance with the decisions of this Court which caution against dr awing inferences as to the merits of cases from denials of petitions for writs of certiorari, appellants contend that the cases above cited certainly have not foreclosed the question presented from éon- sideration by this Court. Authority for the position ass@med by appellants is contained in Jurisdiction of the- Supreme Court of the United States ‘hy Robertson _ and Kirkham, 1951 Edition, where it is stated: ¢Page 603). Beis, es etl Sea The fact that the Supréme Court does not sit as _ a court of errors and appeals’ in passing upon applications for writs of certiorari is pointédly enphasized by its practice of giving no reasons, _in most, cases, for its refusal of the 4 oe Caines x. Washington, 277 . S. 81, 87; by its ~ x . ee See general practice of entering an étder denying the ° . petition and not dismissing jt, even though the case be one of which:the Supreme Court-tas no juris- diction; and by its repeated warnings to the bar ’ that the deniaLofa writ of certiorari ianports no erpression of opinion upon the merits of the case, — ’ . , . > ’ ——~“as the bar has been told many times, United States v. Carver, 260 U, S. 482, 490. Et js likewise true that a denial of a petition for writ of certiorari, without more; imports-no expression .of opinion -as to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court .to issue the writ, Er Parte Bakelite Corporation, 279 U. S. 438, 448, nor as te the jurisdiction of any | _o other court to entertain a case. - We quoie also the same authors’ comments with respeetsto the impropriety of inferring that ‘denial of certiorari ‘terminates consideration of the questions involved by the Supreme Court: (page. 605) The danger with which such indulgence.in infer- ence is “attended. would appear to be* sufficiently. demonstrated by the not inconsiderable nuniber” of. cases in which the petition for certiorari las been denied on first applieation,, but has been sub-. sequently granted either on petition for rehearing or sta sponte, because of an intervening conflict of decision or because subsequent events imported ‘into the ease an element of importance it previ- — ously did not possess or Decause an apparent pro- -cedural defect had. been cured or shown not to . exist. Indeed, where counsel has relied on denials of certiorari in similar cases as a reason for failing to appeal in a subsequent case, the Court has held Mat such failure was not justified. Sunaty. Large, 332 U.S. 174. | a | 19 o ‘(d) The Questions Presented Require for dheir Resolution Plenary Consideration With Briefs on the Merits and Oral Argument _— a ea. The fundamental’ problem presented in this ease is, as earlier’ stated,. one requiring construction of the vlanguage of the federal statute. The key terms of the provision in question aye not free of ambiguity and, as a conseqf®nce, they have provoked “eénsiderable litigation before both the federal emirts and the Inter- state Commerce Commission. Opposing litigants in. the various proceedings, conceding the existence of ‘ambiguity in the words ofythe statute itself,. have resorted to the legislative history of the secti#on td support their respective claims as to Congressional intent. Unfortunately, howover, the legislative history contains no greater certainty than the statutory terms themselves. It is therefore necessary and appropriate that this Court have the advantage of considering | all - factors and circumstances leading to the enactment of Part IT of the Interstate Commerce ct and partigu- Jatly the agricultural exemption. Since the provision : here in question 1 is but a segment ofa complete scheme of regulation * for-meter transportation in interstate commerce, this-Court shéuld ‘have the opportunity of - considering the issues presented as they relate. to the ‘entire pattern of regulation. Appellants: submit that’ to achieve that end, briefs on the merits and oral argument are necessar v. This ease is presented to the Court on apes and - appellants believe that the matters already asserted justify full consideration by the Court. In addition, however, they desire to emphasize that this case: has a number of aspeets which, based on prior decisivas of - this Court, would -even justify. the grant of a writ of certiorari. - Those aspects are indicated below. . _— / 20 - (1) Tere Is Coxeiicr oN THE QUESTION PRESENTED | al ¥ . 3 ~ Phe 7 s 2 AMONG THE FirrHy, SIXTH AND: EkiGHTH CIRCTIT CouRTS OF APPEAL. Ai teveiue _— > ~ Customaril¥ this Court has entertained cases from a lower federal court wheré itghas been shown.that the decision sought to be reviewed is in conflict with prier decisions of one or more other Circuit. Courts.of Ap- peal. Appeliants contend that an analysis of the Dis- - - t¥iet Court’s decision, although in. agreement with the Eighth Cireuit in the Kroblin Case, is in conflict or at least ‘subst intially. inconsistent in theory with the . Weldon Case in the. Sixth Cirenit Court of Appeals and. with Southw estern, Trading Company v., U.S. — 208 F’, 2d 708, from the ¥ ifth Circuit Court of Appeals. (2: jo THE District Cov RT’S Dec ISION Rev ERSES SETTLED a ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION. | | _ Long standing administrative construction by an ageney charged with the enforcenient ‘of the statute in question has been given great weight by ‘the federal courts and where a lower court has disagreéd with - administrative interpret? ition this Court’ has fre- quently granted certiorari for the purpose o@ returning certainty to the law, Commissjoner Vv. South Teas — Lumber Company, 333 U.S. 496; 499-500; 68 S. Ct. *695; 92 L.. Ed: 831., It has been shown that at least with -respect to poultry, the . Interstate Commerce Commission, for a period: of more than 15 years, has consistently: construed the. provisions of Section 20:5» _(b) (6) so as to require authority for its transportation. ® aos . - . ; \ 9 - tty oe ‘ ; \ “\ : a 21 on idle f : a f ar 6 i =e (3), DISPostTivE Act TION ON THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED “Witt Tend To Liesseny FURTHER Litigation qBe- ‘FORE THE: INTERSTATE CoM MERCE, COMMISSION’ AND THE FEDERAL COURTS. 8 : = * In-Aleoa &. S..Co. v. US. 4. 338 US. 421, 42 23:3 70'S. 5 4 Ct. 190; 94 ‘L. Ed. 225, this Court stated: “we granted certiorari because dotevnitation of the issue raised here will guide adjustment of a large body, of similar claims now pending.” fn similar’ circumstances, certiorari Was granted in Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160, 162; 6 68 S. €¢. 1429; 92 L. Ed. 1861, where i it Was stated by the Court (feot- note 2, page 162) :- **We are advised that ia are 5: 530 afien enemies -ordered to depart from the United States, whase disposition awaits the outcome.of this case. B Bis he foregoing cases quite clearly . indicate that the reason fi oy fully considering the matters presented was that final resolution by ,the Supreme. Court of the questions involved would fend to eliminate further litigation in the lower courts. Appellants submit that the Supreme Court; by fully disposing of. the inter- pretation question here’ present; will effectively check a substantial part of the litigation’ now anticipated under Section 203(b) @). 7 7 : % e fj: CONCLUSION - PROBABLE JURISDICTION. SHOULD BE NOTED. ‘Respectfully submitted, Davip G. Macponaup : c | FRANCIS W. McInerny Attorneys for, East Texas \ Motor Freight eid teeter t Lines, Ine. ° Gillette "Motor Transport, ‘Inc. Jones Truck Lines, Inc. Perer/I', BEARDSLEY. Fritz R, Kann Attorneys. for ; American Trucking Ass’ us, Tne. , os Le eee CLARENCE R. Topp : :, Date: C, DjLLON: , Attorneys for. The Contract Carrier and - Irregular Route Carrier? se aa Conferences of American ore _ Trucking Ass’ns, Ine. 4 _ Of Counsel: . Macteay, Lygeu ann Macponatp is Washington, D. C. | : ee, el = -Cattaway, Reep, Kipwe. AND ) BRooKs pet * Dallas, Texas 3%) Rernen, GISLER-AND Grivers: Kansas City, - Missouri 543 4 s Cottiticate of Service 8 =i te In compliance with, Rules 13 (2) and 33 (4), (2) and (3-b) of the Revised Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, I, Francis W. MeInerny, one of the atforneys * for the sev eral Appellants on whose behalf tlie fe regoing Jurisdictional Statement is submitted, and a- Member of the Bar of the-Supreme Court of the United States, herebs certify that I have served copies of the foregoing document on counsel for the several parties to this pr oceeding ~ , indicated below. , oe This, the 7th day of June, 19 ong SES ee a j Francis W. MeTnerny Copies nevved in duly addressed envelopes with first- class postage prepaid: Honorable Simon E. Sobeloft Drew L. Carraway, Esquire a ‘ege ‘itor General Rice, Carpenter ag Carraway . S. Department of Justice ‘1111 E Street, W. ¥ ashington 25, D. C. . Washington 4, 5 C. James E. Kilday and : Edward .M. Reidy and Charles 'S. Sullivan, Jr., Leo H. Por, Esquires 4 Esquirés | Office of the General Counsel Special ‘Assistants’ to the- _ Anterstate Coinmerce Attorney General _ Commission ° ; U. 8. ts: cane of Justice Washington’ 25, D. C.. Washington -2 » D.C. , “‘t. ( charles WwW. Sur) and ©. Charles Ps Reynolds, Esquire F Walter M. Matson, Esquires '. Shoreham Building ». 7 yy of the Solicitor — . Ww ashington 5 5: D.C, _S. Déepartnient of perenne ¥ ashington 25, D. C. ; Carl Helmetag, Esquire Pennsylvania Railroad Company | 1740 Suburban Station, Building ye Philadelphia, Pennsy Iva ania 2b : a Copies served j in duly addressed envelopes with air- mail” postage prepaid: e Maleolm R. Wilkey, Renuire *. Edwin’ N. Bell, nada “Vnited States Attorney > Esperson, Building =~ Houston, Texas ate Houston, Texas Carl L. Phinney, Esquire W. H. Vaughan, Jr., Esquire Phinney and Hallman ; * Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman, 617 Kirst National Bank Rates and Jaworski’ Building eee .. .Secoitd National Bank Building Dallas, Texas .. - - eA ds Houston 2, Texas. James W. Nisbet, Esquire . J. C. Hutcheson, IIT, Esquire Association of Western . - Espersen Building’ x Railways’ - Houston, Texas . _280\Union Station Building Chicdgo 6, Mlinois Se sg “Marcus Whiting, Esquire _ Armour and Company . . , ra @ §v > ALL if DOOEOE te ANG AAAs REBT EN Ee Bias ch ASO OUI St ’ --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386408_0187%3A03. Public record. Not legal advice.