CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.
Hughes, McReynolds, Stone, Roberts, Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Douglas; Butler took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.
October 23, 1935, opened another chapter in the long history of the vicissitudes of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company.*fn1 By filing a petition for reorganization under § 77 of the Bankruptcy Act (47 Stat. 1474, as amended by 49 Stat. 911 and 49 Stat. 1969,
U. S. C. § 205), the New Haven invoked the shelter of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. There it has since remained. An episode in this new chapter, already four years old, is presented by this case. We brought it here, 306 U.S. 627, because it raises important questions under the railroad bankruptcy law, particularly where it intersects the regulatory systems of the states. The District Court assumed power to supplant the relevant authority of the state -- an authority which, apart from proceedings under § 77, has not been conferred by Congress either upon the federal courts or the Interstate Commerce Commission. The Circuit Court of Appeals, one judge dissenting, reversed the District Court, Converse v. Massachusetts, 101 F.2d 48.
A summary of the facts will lay bare the legal issues. On December 28, 1937, the bankruptcy Trustees of the New Haven, acting under the requirements of Massachusetts law,*fn2 applied to that Commonwealth's Department of Public Utilities for leave to abandon eighty-eight passenger stations.*fn3 Twenty-one hearings were held by
the Department on the questions raised by this application. During the pendency of these hearings and before the Department had taken any action, the present litigation was initiated in the New Haven bankruptcy proceedings by creditors of the debtor for an order directing the Trustees to abandon these local services. The Trustees joined in the prayer, while the Commonwealth denied the jurisdiction of the District Court and asked that the proceedings before the Department be allowed to reach fruition. The District Judge ruled that § 77 gave him the responsibility of disposing of the petition on its merits and, having taken evidence, gave the very relief for which the Trustees had applied to the Department and which was still in process of orderly consideration.
Plainly enough the District Court had no power to deal with a matter in the keeping of state authorities unless Congress gave it. And so we have one of those problems in the reading of a statute wherein meaning is sought to be derived not from specific language but by fashioning a mosaic of significance out of the innuendoes of disjointed bits of a statute. At best this is subtle business, calling for great wariness lest what professes to be mere rendering becomes creation and attempted interpretation of legislation becomes legislation itself. Especially is wariness enjoined when the problem of construction
implicates one of the recurring phases of our federalism and involves striking a balance between national and state authority in one of the most sensitive areas of government.
To be sure, in recent years Congress has from time to time exercised authority over purely intrastate activities of an interstate carrier when, in the judgment of Congress, an interstate carrier constituted, as a matter of economic fact, a single organism and could not effectively be regulated as to some of its interstate phases without drawing local business within the regulated sphere.*fn4 But such absorption of state authority is a delicate exercise of legislative policy in achieving a wise accommodation between the needs of central control and the lively maintenance of local institutions.*fn5 Therefore, in construing legislation this court has disfavored inroads by implication on state authority and resolutely confined restrictions upon the ...