# Alcoa Steamship Company, Inc. v. Federal Maritime Commission and United States of America, (Two Cases)

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · June 15, 1965 · 348 F.2d 756

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9450941

## Case

- **Full name:** ALCOA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, Inc., Petitioner, v. FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents (Two Cases)
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** June 15, 1965
- **Citations:** 348 F.2d 756
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Wright
- **Judges:** Wright, Bazelon, Washington, Weight
- **Cited by:** 18 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9450941

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that, “[w]here Congress has consistently made express its delegation of a particular power, its silence is strong evidence that it did not intend to grant the power”

## Opinion text

*762 J. SKELLY WRIGHT, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
It appears to me that the court’s opinion runs counter to the developing jurisprudence 1 under Section 21 of the Shipping Act of 1916. 39 Stat. 736 , 46 U.S.C. § 820 . To suggest authoritatively, as the court does, that the Commission may not have access to the books and records of the carrier to verify the carrier’s financial report filed with the Commission is to interfere with the regulatory power conferred on the Commission by Congress. One wonders what use the Commission can make of a financial report it is not allowed to verify. It would appear, to me at least, that if Section 21 provides legal authorization for requiring the report, it should likewise be legal authorization for verifying it. I would not attribute to Congress, as the court apparently does, a purpose to require the Commission to accept the report on faith alone.
I respectfully dissent.
. See Isbrandtsen-Moller Co. v. United States, 300 U.S. 139 , 57 S.Ct. 407 , 81 L.Ed. 562 (1937); Far East Conference v. Federal Maritime Commission, 119 U.S. App.D.C. 110, 337 F.2d 146 (1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 991 , 85 S.Ct. 704 , 705, 13 L.Ed.2d 611 (1965); Pacific Westbound Conference v. United States, 9 Cir., 332 F.2d 49 (1964); Montship Lines, Limited v. Federal Maritime Board, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 160 , 295 F.2d 147 (1961); Hellenic Lines, Limited v. Federal Maritime Board, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 151 , 295 F.2d 138 (1961); and Kerr Steamship Company v. United States, 2 Cir., 284 F.2d 61 (1960), appeal dismissed as moot, 369 U.S. 422 , 82 S.Ct. 874 , 7 L.Ed.2d 847 (1962).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9450941. Public record. Not legal advice.