Opinion of the Court. 337 U.S. of this Act is replete with evidence of the care taken by Congress to keep the power over the production and gathering of gas within the states.16 This probably occurred because the state legislatures, in the interests of conservation, had delegated broad and elaborate power to their their responsibility? If we turn this over to the Interstate Commerce Commission, essentially what they do will be reflected all over the country, because the interstate rates will be superimposed on the State commissions and they must necessarily be governed by them. Did not that happen to the railroads? "Mr. WHEELER. There is no doubt about that, but this is an entirely different situation. "Mr. CONNALLY. Yes; one involves the railroads and the other involves gas. "Mr. WHEELER. No. There is no attempt and can be no attempt under the provisions of the bill to regulate anything in the field except where it is not regulated at the present time. It applies only as to interstate commerce and only to the wholesale price of gas." 81 Cong. Rec. 9313. "Mr. AUSTIN. Then, it would leave to the future the right to meet any effort on the part of the central government to acquire the natural resources of the State of Montana, or the State of Vermont, or any other State? "Mr. WHEELER. Oh, yes. It does not touch it in any way, shape, or form, except to require the furnishing of information. "Mr. AUSTIN. I have great fear of these occult methods of acquiring the natural resources of our several States." 81 Cong. Rec. 9314. 16 While Congress was considering the passage of the Natural Gas Act, a bill (H. R. 5711 and S. 1919, 75th Cong., 1st Sess.) was introduced in both houses of Congress on March 17, 1937, which provided that "this Act shall apply to the procurement of natural gas for the purpose of its transmission through pipe lines and its sale, exchange, transmission, or distribution in interstate commerce. . . ." The jurisdiction of the Federal Power Commission was defined as follows: "The [Federal Power] Commission shall have jurisdiction over all facilities for the procurement of natural gas for its transmission through pipe lines and its sale, or for exchange, or distribution in interstate commerce, and over the transmission of natural gas in pipe lines in interstate commerce and over the sale, or exchange of natural gas in interstate commerce, and over all facilities connected 498 Opinion of the Court. regulatory bodies over all aspects of producing gas." The Natural Gas Act was designed to supplement state power and to produce a harmonious and comprehensive regulation of the industry.18 Neither state nor federal regulatory body was to encroach upon the jurisdiction of the other." Congress enacted this Act after full consideration of the problems of production and distribution. It considered the state interests as well as the national interest. It had both producers and consumers in mind. Legislative adjustments were made to reconcile the conflicting views. The District Court found as a fact, and the finding is undisputed by the Commission, that, "It has been the practice in the natural gas industry for companies to trade freely in gas leases, and the Commission has never heretofore asserted the right to regulate transfers of such leases." Thus for over ten years the Commission has never claimed the right to regulate dealings in gas acreage. Failure to use such an important power for so long a time indicates to us that the Commission did not believe the power existed.20 In the light of that history we should therewith as parts of a system of natural-gas transmission operated in more than one State." The provisions of this bill, however, failed of adoption; instead Congress enacted § 1 (b) with its specific exemptions from the coverage of the Act. 17 See, for example, Kansas Gen. Stat., §§ 55-701 to 55-713 (1947 Supp.); Mich. Stat. Ann., c. 97, §§ 13.138 (1)-13.140 (10) (Supp. 1947); Okla. Stat. Ann., tit. 52, c. 3, §§ 81-247; Texas Rev. Civ. Stat., tit. 102, Art. 6008 et seq. (Vernon, 1925, with Supp. 1948); La. Gen. Stat. §§ 4766-4826.2. 18 Public Utilities Comm'n v. United Fuel Gas Co., 317 U. S. 456, 467. 19 Interstate Natural Gas Co. v. Federal Power Comm'n, 331 U. S. 682, 690. 20 Federal Trade Comm'n v. Bunte Brothers, 312 U. S. 349, 352; Norwegian Nitrogen Prod. Co. v. United States, 288 U. S. 294, 315. Opinion of the Court. 337 U.S. not by an extravagant, even if abstractly possible, mode of interpretation push powers granted over transportation and rates so as to include production. If possible, all sections of the Act must be reconciled so as to produce a symmetrical whole." We cannot attribute to Congress the intent to grant such far-reaching powers as implicit in the Act when that body has endeavored to be precise and explicit in defining the limits to the exercise of federal power.2 22 The Commission sought by injunction to enforce its order halting the transaction between Panhandle and 21 Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Federal Power Comm'n, 324 U. S. 581, 602. 22 Section 5 (b) reads: "(b) The Commission upon its own motion, or upon the request of any State commission, whenever it can do so without prejudice to the efficient and proper conduct of its affairs, may investigate and determine the cost of the production or transportation of natural gas by a natural-gas company in cases where the Commission has no authority to establish a rate governing the transportation or sale of such natural gas." When the provisions of the bill which became the Natural Gas Act were being read for amendment on the floor of the House, § 5 (b) was amended by inserting the italicized words. Mr. Boren, a member of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, who submitted this amendment, explained the purpose of it as follows: "Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment has been agreed to by the committee. I offer the amendment in order to keep the jurisdiction of the Federal Government as clearly defined as possible from the jurisdiction of the State government in cases arising under the provisions of this bill. "During the hearings I offered this amendment and made the following statement: "Mr. Chairman, I would like to make this observation for the record and as a challenge to the proponents of this bill: That subsection B of section 5 provides for a growth and for the extension of the influence of a Federal bureau, or commission, in a realm 498 Opinion of the Court. Hugoton pending the outcome of its investigation. The Commission argues that, at any rate, the transfer should be enjoined until it can determine its own power and the necessity of using it. Injunctive aid was requested under § 20 (a) 23 of the Act and the general equity power of the District Court. To be entitled to judicial assistance, however, the order issued by the Commission must be valid and based on a statutory grant of power to the Commission. As we have held above that the transfer of undeveloped gas leases is an activity related to the production and gathering of natural gas and beyond the coverage of the Act, the authority of the Commission cannot reach the sales. A proposed transfer cannot be stopped by the Commission. It should not be permitted to delay what it cannot prevent." If the Commission is of the opinion that it should have power to control the wherein this proposal submits on its own acknowledgment that the Federal authority and responsibility does not rightfully exist.' "Mr. Chairman, this amendment clarifies the jurisdiction as between the Federal and State governments, and assures us that the Federal Government will not go into a realm where the State government already has proper authority to handle the problem. "The committee has approved the amendment, and I have nothing further to say." 81 Cong. Rec. 6728. 23 "SEC. 20. (a) Whenever it shall appear to the Commission that any person is engaged or about to engage in any acts or practices which constitute or will constitute a violation of the provisions of this Act, or of any rule, regulation, or order thereunder, it may in its discretion bring an action in the proper district court of the United States, the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, or the United States courts of any Territory or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, to enjoin such acts or practices and to enforce compliance with this Act or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder, . . . .' 24 Cf. Public Utilities Comm'n v. United Fuel Gas Co., 317 U. S. 456, 468. BLACK, J., dissenting. 337 U.S. disposition of leases by natural-gas companies, it is authorized to call the attention of Congress to that fact.25 The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly Affirmed. MR. JUSTICE MURPHY took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. MR. JUSTICE BLACK, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE concur, dissenting. The Court's judgment and opinion in this case go far toward scuttling the Natural Gas Act. 52 Stat. 821, as amended, 56 Stat. 83. In that Act Congress declared it "necessary in the public interest" for the Federal Government to regulate natural-gas companies engaged in 25 In an analogous situation before the institution of this litigation, there had been uncertainty of opinion in the Commission as to the reach of the Act toward sales by independent producers and gatherers to natural-gas companies for transportation in interstate commerce. See reports of the Federal Power Commission on its Natural Gas Investigation (Docket No. G-580), transmitted to Congress on April 28, 1948. In Part IV of the report subscribed to by Commissioners Smith and Wimberly, it is concluded at pp. 38 and 40: "No reasonable basis is found in the Act or its legislative history for a conclusion that, although the 'activities' of production and gathering are exempt under Section 1 (b), sales of natural gas which are made at arm's length by producers and gatherers who do not thereafter transport it in interstate commerce may be regulated. Unless such a distinction is specifically disclaimed, doubts and uncertainties will continue to be felt and expressed regarding the possible jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act of those who only produce and gather natural gas and then sell it to others transporting such gas in interstate commerce." Pp. 38-39. "In view of the present unsettled state of this matter, it is desirable, as the Commission has heretofore recommended, that the Congress should adopt-appropriate amendatory legislation to make it clear that independent producers or gatherers of natural gas, and their sales thereof to interstate pipe lines, are not subject to the provisions of the Natural Gas Act. Such action will confirm what clearly an |