# Brief in Opposition — Arnold Tours, Inc. v. Camp > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385001_1407%3A4 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Brief in Opposition - **Published:** January 1, 1970 - **Citation:** 397 U.S. 315 ## Text ze rt of the Ue a Sat | a 122 : — TOURS, INC, sal a CS, : wa2.an R CAMP er a, OX PETITION Por a wR fi cungenane w rae UNUTRD SrATHR De ectlis bad Areaes FOR TRE FIRAT ROUT, Ries BRIEF OF ate ian NATIONAL, ey: ‘Table of Contents. | . Question presented me me “Statement; ¢- | ae ie AP: SR ‘Argument 7 3 , Ty ee oe 4 Conclusion | : ) Bere | Table of Authorities Cited. ‘i CASES. - Alabama Power Co. ‘v. Tekes, 202 US. 464 (193s) 7 Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S, 83 (1968) Oe. Hardin v. Kentucky U tilities. Co., 390 U.S. 1 (1968) 10 Inland Waterways Corp. v. eames, 309 U.S. 517, (1940) ; 9 M’Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819) 9 Railroad Co. v. Ellerman, 105 U.S. 166 (1881) 7 Saxon v. Georgia Association of Independent Tnsur- _ance Agents, Inc., 399 F. 2d 1010 (1968) Psy pee Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. Tennessee Valley — : Authority, 306 US. 118 (193 9) on 7 7 STATUTES. ee : 5 U.S.C. § 702 ON ta oe 3 12 US.C. §§ 21, 22 and 26 ape 8 Cte a are 8 12 U.S.C. (c) (1) and (2) ot Ss 12 U.S.C. an es | ies. egy a Use 49m° ¥ 8 ii _ TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED _ Glass-Steagall Act, 1938, 12 U.S.C. §§ 24, 78, 877 and 378 S. Bank Service Corparation Act, 76 Stat. 1132 | ee Aa » MISCELLANEOUS. 12 CPt. § 7.1 (1959), 24 Fed. Reg. 1900 re 2 Comptroller’s Manual for National Banks, par. 7475 # 2 28 Eneyclopedia Americana 621 (Int. Ed. 1967) > Qh. 1957, H.R. 5415 ae ee 5 1959, H.R. 2424 , 5 NR ee 5 “1965, ELR. 112 Pl ic ene 1967, H.R..11077- 2 ae Sete 1969, H.R. 6778 nit 5 e : Supreme Court of the United States. Ocroper Term, 1968, - we Mapa ae ues : ARNOLD TOURS, INC. er at, Petitioners, . 2 Vv. y WILLIAM-B. CAMP er an, °° Respondeuts. / ON PETITION FOR. A WRIT OF CERTIORARL TO THE UNLPTED STATES © COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE BIRST CIRCUIT, BRIEF’ OF SOUTH SHORE. NATIONAL BANK IN OPPOSITION. | Question Presented. ‘ Does alleged economic injury which results from competi-: tion, in and of itself, confer standing on the alleged injured business to question the legality of any aspect of its com. petitor’s operation? a Statement. The gist of the, broad sweep of the complaint is that the Comptroller of the Currency illegally authorized: national banks to engage in the travel-agency business and that national banks therefore engage in iHegal competition in furnishing travel services. ; 5 .2& : . . = ie Barnstiag Qavel somioos has heon a part of banking tor Mey EX ee WRT vais CA Mdleivit of MacLeod, Roo Ms)! Raenishing (aval series is stmthar ia nature to many OLROE UE EER EAL Servis Comminonty performed by banks in footnote, 7 of its opinion (Pet. 19). Applying the first category for’standing, the petitioners — fail te show that the act or manner of competing by the respondenty is illegal’? Plaintit’s de net suggest that the Comptroller has sanctioned, or that the bauk has under- taken, ay unfair, conspiratorial, or criminal methods ot competition, or that there has been any violation of: the antitrust laws’? (Opinion, Pet. 15), Related to this legal-ap prdae ‘hea simil: ur line also leads to the eonelusion that the petitioners ado not have standing. - By their admissions, the petitioners have shown that there ean be vo legal competition, tn and of itself, in the travel business, Thyy try te manufacture ‘illegal competition’ out of their eckims that nation’ banks engage in the travel business without authority, that is, acting. wind vires, , They do not distinguish between ‘illegal competition’? and ‘acting ultea vires" as the courts have done, Ht has been conclusively Weld that competitors in a none xelusive tield have no right toe seek protevtion from competition from others, even though the acts of the others ate ullra vives ‘ - & 7 cand not properly authorized. This was set forth in cila- bama Power Co. v. lekes, 802 USS, 464 (19: Ss), quoting at page 482 from Raitroa PCoy, Ele rman, 105°US. 166: . ] “. all suc ih incidental powers as: shall he necessary to carry on the business \of banking BLT _ passing that the Supreme Court definition of ‘*necessary,”’ first enunciatéd by Chief Justice Marshall (JM 'Calloch y It is interesting to note in — é ’ e State of Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 413 (1819), and sti in effect, is: “If reference be had to its use, in the common affairs of the world, er in approved authors, we find that i frequently imports no more than that one thing’ is con: venient, or useful, or essential to another,”’ The petitioners cite 10 case in which a national hank has , heey prohibited from any field of competition solely wpon ‘this part of the statute. They cite nothing to show a ‘cons gressional intent under this statute or any other statute to protect the travel business from cofnpetition ly national banks or to limit such activity by national banks. As the Court below pointed og (Pet..17-18), Congress intended these limitations to be hen purpose of insuring the stability, liquidity and safety of the banks—not to pro- tect competitors, : 7 When in doubt asx to whether or not the particular in- “hibitive statute was intended to protect others from com- petition. from national banks, the courts have looked to’ congressional history and other ‘statutes to judge the intent of. Congress. See Saron y. Georgia Association of lnde- pendent Insurance Agents, Inc., 399 F. 24.1010, 1017 (5th Cir. 1968). Congress has been faced+with real, organized «ffort to amend the statute. And as previously set fortli- (supra,.p. 5), Congress, has had ample opportunity to act , — has remained ee - In any event, ‘‘. .. when legality itself j is in 1 dispute Saee Congress has spoken at best w ith ambiguous ‘silence —a long continued practice pursued with the knowledge of the Comptroller of the Currency is more persuasive than considerations of abstract conflict between such a practice and purposes attributed to Coitgress.”’ : setdplsed Water- ways Corp. Vv. Young, 309 U JS. 9017, 924 (1940). The petitioners haying failed to fit in any of the tliree eri- teria’*mentioned, the words of tliis Court in 1968'in Hardin | * 10° v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 390 US. i, 5 5- ia answer the ques: tion presented: : +6 [E]conomic injury which results from lawful competition caunot, in and of itself, confer standing on the injured business to question the legality of any — ‘aspect of its competitor? s operations. sie (Emphasis supplied. Bes | Finally, this respondent submits that this ease and these facts offer no cause for review by this Court, unless, under the guise of the petitioners” hoped-for new doctrine of “competitor standitig,”’ this Court desires to consider that the ‘*standing categories’? should be abolished. Were this to happen, every competing business; large or small, would have the right to complain in ‘the. courts against’ the aets’ of its competitors, and existing limitations on witramime ted litigation would disappear. * Conclusion. _ The petitions for a writ of certiorari should be denied. -Respeetfully submitted, ; DOUGLAS L. LE q, / . ELLIOTT V. GRABILL, - ARTHUR H. BLOOMBERG, Attorneys for Respondent | ig ae Sovtu Si0RE NationaL Bank. GrasiLi, Ley & Burrerwortn, Of Counsel. = » ted ake Se ss rs --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385001_1407%3A4. Public record. Not legal advice.