Champlin Refining Company v. United States/Dissent Reed
Mr. Justice REED, with whom Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER, Mr. Justice DOUGLAS and Mr. Justice BURTON join dissenting.

This appeal brings into question the extent to which the Interstate Commerce Act covers pipe lines by virtue of the provisions of § 1 and § 19a.  Acting under the authority of these sections, the Interstate Commerce Commission called upon the appellant, Champlin Refining Company, for reports deemed appropriate for it to make, if it is a common carrier under the act. The appellant challenged the Commission's order on the ground that it was not covered by the sections.

Champlin owns a pipe line for the carriage of oil or other similar commodity from its refinery in Oklahoma to various distributing points in other states. It carries no commodities except its own produced in its own refinery and delivered at the ends of the pipe line into its own storage or holding tanks for sale to its customers. It also is sole owner of the stock of the Cimarron Valley Pipe Line Company, admittedly an intrastate common carrier, that supplies the Champlin refinery with its crude oil. The Commission's orders for valuation reports do not treat Champlin and Cimarron as a unitary operation. The Commission, at this bar, disclaimed expressly any intention to test the subjection of Champlin's distributing pipe line to Commission power by Champlin's ownership of the Cimarron stock. As the Court treats the situation as though Champlin's distributing pipe line, between the refinery and the sale tanks only, were involved, we accept for the purpose of this dissent the Commission's view of the test to be applied to Champlin.

Section 1 of the act applies its provisions to 'common carriers engaged in-* * * the transportation of oil' or similar commodities. In The Pipe Line Cases, 234 U.S. 548, 34 S.Ct. 956, 58 L.Ed. 1459, and Valvoline Oil Co. v. United States, 308 U.S. 141, 60 S.Ct. 160, 84 L.Ed. 151, this Court interpreted the term 'common carrier' to include all interstate pipe line companies that are engaged, within the purview of the act, in the transportation of oil. In these cases, pipe line companies that carried only their own oil, although all or a large part of it was purchased from producers prior to its carriage in the pipe lines, were held common carriers within the meaning and purpose of the act, though not common carriers in the technical sense of holding one's self out to carry indiscriminately all oil offered, because the act's evident purpose was to bring within its scope all pipe lines that would carry all oil offered 'if only the offerers would sell' at the carrier's price. In the Valvoline case, this interpretation of the 1906 Act, 34 Stat. 584, was found to have been carried into the act, as amended in 1920, 41 Stat. 474, despite certain changes in language. 308 U.S. at page 145, 60 S.Ct. at page 162, 84 L.Ed. 151.

It is to be noted, however, that the Pipe Line and Valvoline cases did not bring within the scope of the Interstate Commerce Act all pipe lines that carried oil interstate. If the companies were common carriers in substance, the act made them so in form. Those pipe lines held covered by the act in The Pipe Line Cases and Valvoline were found common carriers in substance because they purchased and carried all oil offered. The Interstate Commerce Act continually has required such carriers to be engaged in the transportation of oil or other commodities. In The Pipe Line Cases, a company, Uncle Sam Oil Company, though a pipe line carrying oil, was held beyond the act's reach because not engaged in the transportation of oil as a common carrier within the purpose of the act.

'When, as in this case, a company is simply drawing oil from its own wells across a state line to its own refinery, for its own use, and that is all, we do not regard it as falling within the description of the act, the transportation being merely an incident to use at the end.' 234 U.S. at page 562, 34 S.Ct. at page 959, 58 L.Ed. 1459.

There has been no change bearing on this question in the applicable acts since The Pipe Line Cases. As a matter of statutory construction, we see no reason to change from this Court's long standing interpretation. If Congress desires to undertake regulation of the transportation of an interstate carrier, in substance a private carrier, it understands the method of approach. 49 U.S.C. § 304(a)(3), 49 U.S.C.A § 304(a)(3). There is no pertinent legislative history to support so broad an interpretation of pipe line legislation. The evil sought to be remedied was the mastery of oil through control of the gathering facilities.  If a line does not carry oil of others, it is not transporting within the contemplation of the act.

In the Uncle Sam case it was said that the transportation of oil from well to refinery was 'merely an incident to use at the end.' We see no difference between the use contemplated by the Uncle Sam Company and this company. Each carries its own oil for the same ultimate purpose-to reach the market.

Nor can we see any significant distinction from the Uncle Sam case in the practice of Champlin to use frequently the freight rate from Enid to the final destination as a measure of the addition to Enid refinery, f.o.b. price that it will charge at its distributing tanks. This practice is departed from to meet competition. Naturally some transportation cost must be added to the refinery price for deliveries elsewhere. How much it is or how it is calculated does not seem to us to bear upon the question of whether Champlin is a 'common carrier engaged in-* * * the transportation of oil' within the scope of the act.

We would have a very different case than the one before us if Congress had provided that all owners of pipe lines carrying oil in interstate commerce should give appropriate information to the Interstate Commerce Commission. This is not what § 19a does. It requires reports only from 'every common carrier subject to the provisions' of the act. When an enterprise is 'subject to the provisions' of the act is defined by § 1(1)(b) and § 1(3). Therefore, it is not § 19a but § 1 that must be construed. The definition of § 1 flows not only into § 19a but also into various other sections. Once an enterprise is found to be included in § 1, the Interstate Commerce Act subjects it to § 19a and other provisions dealing with common carriers 'subject to' the act. Thus, to give several instances, it must provide equal and reasonable transportation to all comers, (§ 1(4-6)); and it must file a schedule of rates (§ 6(1). If, therefore, any doubt is felt about the applicability of some of these requirements, the doubts are properly to be taken into account in determining the scope of § 1. The range of servitudes to which this pipe line is subjected by including it in § 1 bears vitally upon whether such a construction should be given to § 1.

For the reasons detailed above, we do not think that Champlin is covered by the act and we would reverse the decree of the District Court. 

Notes