426 Opinion of the Court. could have been adjudicated by a district court since it involved no question as to reasonableness of rates that called for exercise of the Commission's primary jurisdiction. The importance of this factor was emphasized by this Court in applying the Standard Oil construction of § 9 in Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Brady, 288 U. S. 448, 457-459. First pointing out that there was no question in that case "requiring the exercise of the Commission's administrative powers," the Court said: "It is to be remembered that, by electing to call on the Commission for the determination of his damages, plaintiff waived his right to maintain an action at law upon his claim. But the carriers made no such election. Undoubtedly it was to the end that they be not denied the right of trial by jury that Congress saved their right to be heard in court upon the merits of claims asserted against them. The right of election given to a claimant reasonably may have been deemed an adequate ground for making the Commission's award final as to him." And see Terminal Warehouse Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 297 U. S. 500, 507-508. Thus, a crucial support for the Court's holding in the Standard Oil and Brady cases was that the shippers in those cases could have commenced original § 9 actions in the district court. But it has been established doctrine since this Court's holding in Texas & P. R. Co. v. Abilene Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426, that a shipper cannot file a §9 proceeding in a district court where his claim for damages necessarily involves a question of "reasonableness" calling for exercise of the Commission's primary jurisdiction. The Government's claim here does involve such a question of "reasonableness." For the allowances See cases collected in Rochester Tel: Corp. v. United States, 307 U. S. 125, 139, n. 22, and Armour & Co. v. Alton R. Co., 312 U. S. 195; Skinner & Eddy Corp. v. United States, 249 U. S. 557, 562. Opinion of the Court. 337 U.S. exacted from the Government were authorized in the railroads' published tariffs and were therefore not unlawful unless "unreasonable." Consequently the Government here had no "right of election" between Commission and court that could be "deemed an adequate ground for making the Commission's award final Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Brady, supra, at 458.' " Ashland Coal Co. v. United States, 325 U. S. 840, is the only case in this Court that relied on the Standard Oil decision after we had abandoned the "negative order" doctrine. Cf. Allison & Co. v. United States, 296 U. S. 546. And it is doubtful if the shipper in the Ashland Coal Co. case could have sought reparations in a district court under the "primary jurisdiction" doctrine. In affirming without argument the judgment of a three-judge court in the Ashland Coal Co. case, this Court's per curiam opinion cited two pages of the Standard Oil opinion that support the interpretation of § 9 urged here by the Commission and railroads. It is a fair inference that the pages were cited for that interpretation although other grounds for the Court's decision also appear there. One such ground was that a three-judge court is an improper 7 The Commission argues that §9 does authorize a shipper to initiate damage claims in a district court even though the claim necessarily involves questions upon which the Commission's primary jurisdiction must be invoked. The railroads more cautiously say that such suits can be filed upon an initial showing by a shipper that it might work a hardship on a shipper for the court to refuse to entertain the case. Both contentions run counter to this Court's previous cases. Particular circumstances were held sufficient in one case to justify a court in staying further judicial proceedings to await Commission action. Mitchell Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 230 U. S. 247, 266-267. The same course was followed in another case, over the Commission's objection, where the action was in assumpsit, and the administrative problem did not emerge until the case was in course of litigation. Tank Car Corp. v. Terminal Co., 308 U. S. 422, 432. 426 Opinion of the Court. tribunal for the review of such Commission orders. Another ground was that there was "nothing to suggest that the Commission acted arbitrarily or without evidence to support its conclusions, or that it transcended its constitutional or statutory powers." The three-judge district court in the Ashland case in sustaining the Commission order had also held that a three-judge court was not a proper tribunal and that the Commission order was supported by substantial evidence and was in accordance with law. Ashland Coal & Ice Co. v. United States, 61 F. Supp. 708, 713. We cannot accept the Ashland Coal Co. per curiam holding nor the Standard Oil case on which it rested as requiring the interpretation of § 9 which the railroads and Commission here urge. Our acceptance of that interpretation would mean that a shipper who submitted to the Commission only a question of the reasonableness of rates could have an adverse order reviewed by a court, Skinner & Eddy Corp. v. United States, 249 U. S. 557, 562-563, while a shipper who asked for that administrative determination plus reparations could get no judicial review at all. Terminal Warehouse Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., supra, at 507-508. On any ground except the now discarded "negative order" doctrine, this would appear to be an unsupportable and totally illogical limitation of the congressional command for judicial review. See Chicago The "negative order" doctrine was first adopted by this Court in Procter & Gamble v. United States, 225 U. S. 282, decided in 1912. A shipper there brought action in the Commerce Court to set aside a Commission order dismissing the shipper's complaint. The complaint was that the charges were unjust and unreasonable. The Commerce Court was asked to annul the Commission's order of dismissal, to enjoin future collection of the charges, and to require the railroads to repay sums alleged to have been wrongfully collected from the shipper. The Commerce Court reviewed the action of the Commission and on the merits declined to grant the shipper the re Opinion of the Court. 337 U.S. Junction Case, 264 U. S. 258, 269-270; Southern R. Co. v. Tift, 206 U. S. 428, 440. Accordingly we hold that § 9 does not impair the right of shippers to obtain judicial review of adverse Commission orders under § 41 (28) merely because the order is sought as a basis for reparations. Fourth. For reasons already stated we hold that a Commission order dismissing a shipper's claim for dam quested relief. This Court held that this "negative" order was not reviewable at the instance of the shipper. The Court's ruling brought sharp criticism in Congress. Corrective legislation was proposed, exhaustive committee hearings were held, debate was taken to the floor of Congress. In spite of the strenuous efforts to get Congress to repudiate the "negative order" doctrine, Congress in 1913 declined to act. But in all of the congressional hearings and debates on the subject, the critics of the Procter & Gamble "negative order" rule urged without contradiction that repudiation of the "negative order" rule would afford shippers the same judicial review of reparation and other orders then afforded to railroads. Not once do we find the argument suggested that 49 U. S. C. § 9 would bar shippers from judicial review of adverse reparation orders by the Commission, although this section was at the time part of the original Interstate Commerce Act, enacted in 1887, more than a quarter of a century before this congressional consideration. This Court nevertheless abandoned the "negative order" doctrine in 1938, and in doing so effectively overruled a host of prior decisions. See cases collected in footnote to Mr. Justice Butler's opinion in the Rochester case, 307 U. S. 146, 148. The effect of today's decision is merely to recognize that the Standard Oil doctrine, barring judicial review to shippers, cannot stand consistently with the Rochester case which itself overruled the Procter & Gamble and other "negative order" decisions. It was therefore the Rochester case, not today's decision, that overruled a line of cases and granted relief where Congress had declined to afford any. H. R. Rep. No. 1012, 62d Cong., 2d Sess. 1-4 (1912); Hearings before the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Appropriations on H. R. 7898, 63d Cong., 1st Sess. 140-148 (1913); Hearings before the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Appropriations on H. R. 7898, 63d Cong., 1st Sess. 305-343 (1913); Hearings béfore the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce on H. R. 25596 and H. R. 25572, 62d Cong., 2d Sess. 1-298 (1912); 50 Cong. Rec. 4532-4537, 4542-4545 (1913). 426 Opinion of the Court. While the Government here does not seek enforcement of a Commission order for the payment of money, the root of the controversy concerns the payment of money damages under 49 U. S. C. §§ 8, 9. Had the Commission made an award to the Government it could have filed a civil suit to recover money damages under the provisions of 49 U. S. C. § 16 (2). That section provides that such a suit "shall proceed in all respects like other civil suits for damages . . ."—that is, before one district judge. And an appeal from a judgment in such a case goes to the Court of Appeals. The same one-judge trial and appeal procedure available for enforcement of an award order would appear to be an equally appropriate and adequate tribunal for adjudication of validity of a Commission order denying reparations. For actions to enforce Commission orders awarding reparation, and actions to challenge Commission orders denying reparations, basically involve the same parties, the same disputes, the same claims for money damages, and the same statutes. We think the orders in both instances should be reviewed in the same one-judge tribunal. We have frequently pointed out the importance of limiting the three-judge court procedure within its expressly stated confines.18 We are confident that in holding that one judge rather than three should entertain cases challenging Commission reparation orders we interpret the congressional expediting procedure and the Interstate Commerce Act in accordance with their basic purpose. Fifth. There remains the question of the proper disposition of this case. Three judges heard it. This, however, is no reason for dismissal of the cause. See Stain 16 United States v. Griffin, supra, 234-237; Ayrshire Corp. v. United States, 331 U. S. 132, 136-137; Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Lok Po, 336 U. S. 368, 378, n. 19; Phillips v. United States, 312 U. S. 246, 250. |