The Public Service Commission of Oregon filed a complaint with the Interstate Commerce Commission, against eleven railroads, including the Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Company, asserting they had failed and refused to provide reasonable and adequate transportation facilities to an area of some 33,000 square miles within the state. The prayer was that one or more of them be required to extend or build a line of railroad from a point near Crane to Crescent Lake or some adjacent point. Several municipalities and commercial organizations, and the Public Utilities Commission of Idaho, were given leave to be heard in support of the petition. The respondents answered that public necessity and convenience would not be served by the proposed construction, and that there was no authority in law for granting the requested relief. After hearing, the Commission entered an order requiring Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Company to 'extend its line of railroad, now terminating near Burns, Oreg., from, or near, a station thereon designated as Crane, Oreg., to a connection with the Cascade line of the Southern Pacific Company at, or near, Crescent Lake, Oreg.'
The Oregon-Washington Company thereupon filed a petition against the United States, in the District Court, to set aside, annul, and suspend the order, and to enjoin the government, its officers and agents, from enforcing the Commission's mandate. The Southern Pacific Company intervened in support of the petition, and the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Public Utilities Commissioner (the successor of the Public Service Commission) of Oregon, and the Public Utilities Commission of Idaho, were permitted to intervene, and participated in the defense of the suit. From a decree setting aside the order and granting an injunction, the three intervening defendants appealed. The United States refused to join in the appeal, and a summons and severance was duly served upon it. The appellees insist that if we should reverse the decree as to the appellants the United States would remain bound by its terms; that we may not pass upon the merits in the absence of the government, a necessary party, and should therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We shall first dispose of the question thus presented.
Before the Commerce Court was established, suits to enjoin orders of the Commission were brought against that body, and appeals from the judgments rendered were prosecuted by it, in its own name. The Act of June 18, 1910, created the Commerce Court, defined the jurisdiction and regulated the procedure of that tribunal, and authorized a direct appeal to this court. The Urgent Deficiencies Act, under which this suit was instituted, abolished the Commerce Court, transferred the jurisdiction theretofore vested in it to the several District Courts, and made the procedure therein the same as that previously followed in the Commerce Court. Existing statutes were repealed only in so far as inconsistent with the new jurisdiction conferred on district courts.
Section 4 of the Commerce Court Act (36 Stat. 542, see 28 USCA § 48) directed:
'That all cases and proceedings in the commerce court (now District Court) which but for this Act would be brought by or against the Interstate Commerce Commission shall be brought by or against the United States, and the United States may intervene in any case or proceeding in the commerce court (District Court) whenever, though it has not been made a party, public interests are involved.'
Other sections permit the Commission, or complainants before the Commission, or any party in interest in a proceeding before that body, or any other interested party, to become parties to a suit involving the validity of an order of the Commission; forbid the Attorney General to control, dispose of, or discontinue the suit against the objection of any one as becoming a party; allow the intervener to prosecute, defend, or continue the proceeding unaffected by the action or nonaction of the Attorney General; and accord to any aggrieved party the right of appeal to this court.
The Commission, by entering its appearance in the District Court, became a party defendant, as did the two State Utilities Commissions. The court below decided adversely to all these bodies. They are aggrieved parties granted a review by section 2; the Interstate Commerce Commission for the reason that the decree set aside its order, the state commissions because they officially represent the interest of their states in obtaining adequate transportation service.