Appendix — Campbell v. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Supreme Court brief1967

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

2 a

‘ : we . ; 23s

8 7 - Appendix

300. This is sinidiiited less than the weight ‘of the evidence,

‘and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions

from. the evidence does not prevent ‘an administrative

_-agency’s finding from being ‘supported by substantial evi- |

_ . denice. Labor Board y. Nevada Consolidated Copper Corp.,.

316 U.S. 105, 106; Keele Hair & Scalp Specialists, Ine, v., :

‘FIC, 275 F. 2d 18, 21. : wet?

es \,Congress was very deliberate in adopting this iia

a Yeview. It frees the reviewing courts of the time-consum-

ing and difficult task of weighing the evidence, it gives

proper respect to the expertise of the administrative tri- -

bunal and ‘it helps, promote the uniform application of the

= statute. These policies are particularly important when a

-- court is asked’ ‘to review an agency’s fashioning of dis-

cretionary relief. Tr this area agency determinations fre-_

'. quently rest upon a “eomplex and’ hard-to-review mix of

..© > eonsiderations. By giving the agency discretionary power.

to fashion remedies, Congress, places a premium upon

agency expertise, and, for the sake_ of uniformity, it is

usually better to minimize the opportimity for reviewing

‘courts to substitute their discretion for that ofthe agency.”

This court had occasion to make notation of the~same

limitations in Trans-Pacific Frgt. Conf. of Japan v. Fed-

eral Maritime Com’n,, 314 F. 2d 928, 935, where, citing —

decisions of the Supreme Court, “we said: “The Commission 7

-. was an administrative body set up for, the purpose ‘of deal-

* ing administratively with the problems presented from time

—— ‘to time under the Shipping Act. Its function in this respect

Er was not unlike similar functions . performed ° by the Na-

- ‘tional Labor Relations Board, the Federal Communications

es Commission, and otKer commissions created by act of Con-

gress. It has long been recognized that such an administra-

. tive vse has a broad diseretion i in. effectuating the ence

‘

° ' ‘

os .

: Appondic = ig

of the Act creating the Commission to determine whether .

certain statutory requirements apply to certain individuals _

or groups. In making those decisions such administrative

bodies are not limited by common law concepts. The ques-

. tion always is whether the determination of the board or

- commission has ‘ “warrant in the record” and a reasonable

basis in law.’ National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst

Publications, 322 U.S. 111,....” - | aes ae

In our. view the very complete and elaborate decision of «.

-the Maritime Commission discloses that its conclusions do

have warrant in the record, a reasonable basis in law, and -

are supported by substantial evidence. i

The petition. for review is denied

| 1 and the order of the.

_ Commission is affirmed. vie ae

‘&

‘10 tora _Appondis Uitenie

_ : Appendix Cc 3

pene and Order of Federal Maritime Commission

§ oe v- ‘gg oD

‘September. 24, 1965 |

Fepénat MakITIME Commission

; “Federal Maritime Commission ; yok *

> NO. 1086

~ .” -. Stockton Port District

| V

Pactric WestsouND ConFERENCE Er AL.

Respondents’ equalization rules, and practices in accord- —

.ance therewith, found to’ be. unjustly discriminatory

and unfair to termirial ports of the San Francisco

* - Bay area (which include Stockton), within the mean- ° .

ing of section 15 of the Shipping Act, 1916, to the

extent that they provide for equalization of inland

- transportation against such ports on cargo laaded

at Los Angeles and Long Beach, California. ©

Filed equalization rules of respondents operating under’ |

approved conference agreéments, and practices in . ”

accordance therewith, to the extent that they provide

for equalization of inland transportation charges be-

tween San Francisco Bay area: ports (which include

Stockton), found not to be in violation of sections 15,

16 First, 17 or 18(b) of the Shipping Act, 1916, or |

- to be unjustly ‘discriminatory or unfair, detrimental .

to the commerce of the United States, or contrary to

the. public interest, within the meaning of section

as ‘

” . ™ : ‘ e

. ad . ‘

. , Z

e f é

LSPA A LS SAREE EOE TE LIL ALE I PERE GET IEEL TEER RIGS EI

op e

ee... ere

15 of said -Act, if clarified as required; found not to

_-Violate the principles and policies of section 8 of the

_ Merchant Marine: Act,1920; and not shown to be in

violation of section 205 of the Merchant Marine Act,

1936. - ieee: |

5 Respondent Pacific Westbound ‘Conference and its mem-

bers found not to be in compliance with section 18(b)

,of the Shipping Act, 1916, by. reason of so-called

“equalization” on citrus fruit originating in Southern

_ California and shipped from San Francisco, which is"

not in accordance with or pursuant to filed equaliza-

tion rule. “3 het teed

J. Richard Townsend and Walter H. Meryman for Stock-. |

ton Port District, complainant. *s

Edward D, Ransom and Gordon L. Poole for Pacific

Westbound Conference and members, respondents. §—-—«

Leonard G. James, Robert L..Harmon and. F. Conger

“ Fawcett for Pacific Straits Conference, Pacific/Indonesian

_. Conference, and their members, respondents. )

Stanley Mosk and Miriam E. Wolff for San: Francisco

Port Authority, intervener. Pee

Wm. Jarrel Smith, Jr, and Robert-J. Blackwell for Hear-

ing Counsel, intervener. : :

REPORT . Tr

By ‘the Commission: (John Harllee, ° Chairman ; ‘Ashton

- C. Barrett and James V. Day, Commissioners)

This proceeding arose upon the: complaint of Stockton

Port District against the Pacific Westbound Conference,

the Pacific Straits Conference, and the Pacific/Indonesian

Conference. ‘The complaint alleges, in general, that the .

, ‘agreements of these conferences and the conference tar-

12 Appendix

iffs, which. permit port equalization, are prejudicial to

_ the. Port of Stockton and contrary to various statutory

provisions. Stockton urges the Commission to order the

respondent conferences to delete the port equalization

rules from the conference tariffs and to cease and desist

from the practice of port equalization. a

Port equalization, under the. respondent conferences .

” tariffs, permits conference carriers to equalize inland trans-

‘ portation costs between terminal ports. Thus, under the

tariff rules, a carrier may reimburse a shipper for the -

difference between the shipper’s inland transportation

costs to the nearest terminal port. and the shipper’s

_ inland transportation costs to. the terminal port of load-

- ing. For example, if from the point of origin of the cargo

it will cost the shipper 34 cents per hundred pounds to

ship overland: by common carrier to the Port. of Stockton

and 42 cents per hundred pounds. to ship-overland by

common carrier to the Port of San Francisco, the ocean

carrier may take the shipment at San Francisco and “equal-'

ize” the added inland cost by reimbursing the shipper fér

_the excess of 8 cents per hundred pounds which it. has cost

him to ship via San Francisco instead of Stockton.

. Stockton alleges that the-port equalization rule results —

in diversion of volumes of cargo normally tributary to -

Stockton. This is allegedly eontrary tothe purposes and —

policies of section 8, Mefchant Marine Act, 1920, and

section 205, Merchant Marine Act, 1936. Furthermore,

’ Stockton asserts that the rule and its ithplementation are

agreements unapprovable under section 15, Shipping Act,

1916; that’ the rule is discriminatory and unreasonable in

- violation of. sections 16 and 17 of the Shipping Act; and

Stockton urges that the conferences have violated section

18(b) of the. Shipping Act by departing: from their con-

ference tariffs. ~

| 3 _ FACTS Vaal Aaa

The Conference and the. Port Equalization Rule

_ The’ Pacifie Westbound Conference (PWC), organized: -

in 1923, has at present a membership of 28 common car-

_ Tiers. PWC serves the trade outbound froth the Pacific

_- Coast of the United States to destinations in the Orient,

principally Japan, the Philippines, and Hong Kong. In

1962, PWC: members made 1240 sailings, each represent-

ing a vessel calling at. one or more Pacific Coast ports and

clearing for a destination in the Orient. :

The Pacific Straits’ Conference operates from Pacific

_ Coast ports to Singapore, Malaya, Sarawak, North Borneo,

and Brunei. The Pacific/Indonesian Conference ‘operates.

from Pacific Coast Ports to Indonesia. a ies

PWC sets ocean rates which apply without reservation

fronr terminal ports. Terminal ports are those at which

PWC members accept cargo for loading at the base rates

‘named in the PWC tariff. Terminal ports in California

are Stockton, Richmond, Oakland, Alameda, San Fran-

cisco, Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Diego, and Sacra-

mento. So URE) eee ies:

‘The port equalization rules apply to terminal ports only -

~ and the rules presently in effect for respondents are set _

forth in the attached. appendix. _ e es

Whenever cargo is equalized, the shipper must submit

to the member booking the cargo the transportation bil] |

covering the movement from point of orgin. In turn, the

carrier. must submit the information to the conference for

certification of the basis for the equalization. Although the

1. Sacramento is‘ not’ a terminal port in the Pacific Straits or

Pacific/Indonesian Conferences. Service at Sacramento in these

conferences is subject to a tonnage restriction of a minimum of 500

tons from one shipper. cst Ne . =

‘

7 Bee Appendix

’ tariff requires use of. an approved form, only ane of the

PWC members uses the form:at present; the others pro-

- vide the actual source documents. ‘The documents include

information sufficient to disclose the point of origin, date

of shipment, commodity, nearest terminal port, port of

loading, information regarding the inland freight rates, —

and the.inland freight bill. The conference office endeavors.

to check the rates contained in the source documents. This

check is ‘particularly necessary on the constructive leg of

the equalization; i.e, the rate from the point of origin

to the nearest terminal port. For the actual leg of. the

equalization, the conference uses the inland transportation

bill for the actual routing of the cargo.

The conference is familiar with the rates involved in

the equalization of the more important cargoes and it

checks to see if the rates and equalization are reason-

able. Upon encountering a questionable item, the confer- -

ence refers to an inland freight tariff or telephones a

trucking company or railrogd. The conference is aware

of the trncking company that actually carried the cargo, and ~

they use the actual transportation costs. .

For the constructive leg of the equalization, the confer- »

ence uses the lowest common cafrier rates to the nearest

loading port. In this coritext, nearest means cheapest. -

The claims for equalization ‘and the supporting docu-

ments are generally submitted t6 the conference fairly soon

after the vessel has sailed, but certain of the conference

"members may accumulate equalization claims for a week

to two weeks. There is‘ no conference rule regarding the

- time within which claims must be presented. Equalization

cannot: be paid until approved by the conference.

‘In addition to the privilege to equalize, the PWC tariff

. permits transshipment. Under transshipment, the shipper

delivers the cargo to Stockton, the carrier accepts the *

eo oo eee aa

Appendix Wak ihs me oe

cargo and issues a negotiable document, and thereafter fo 2 re

_ its convenience and at its own expense the carrier may

move the cargo to San Francisco for loading on the vessel.

ie, cargo may be handled by: truck, rail, or barge; how-

ever, it is predominantly moved via truck. Generally, only

commercial general cargo is transshipped from Stockton.

‘In the case of transshipment the steamship carrier is

obliged to-pay the inland freight as well as the terminal

charges at both Stockton and San Francisco. Usually trans-

shipment is limited to smaller tonnages, particularly where

there is insufficient cargo at Stockton to justify a eall, or

some operational reasons make it impossible to make an

‘intended call. There is no cost to: the shipper for trans-

shipment. _ te

The Port of Stockton : og

-The Stockton Port District is a public corporation formed —

pursuant to the Harbors and Navigation Code of California.

The Port District operates terminal facilities owned by the

‘Port District or the City of Stockton. The port consists of

10 general cargo berths, one of which is open with two

30-ton gantry cranes, two bulk docks, and one bulk grain

dock. The general cargo berths are marginal-type wharves

on concrete pilings with corrugated steel transit sheds.

Adjoining the transit shed area, are warehouse facilities,

a cotton compress, cotton warehouse, a bulk wine terminal,

and a grain elevator. Stockton also leases from the Navy

two berths and one transit shed on Rough and Ready

Island. In the immediate area is a basin in which vessels

calling at Stockton turn around, after discharging or load-

ing cargo, to proceed. downstream. At the beginning of

1964, a total of $23,000,000 had been invested in the Stock-

ton facilities. The Port of Stockton is reached via the —

Stockton Ship Channel, a journey of some 75 nautical miles

. i °

- *

- .

. .

q Ee ee aa

EN ‘a Pt he

eee 3 Appendix ;

(or 84 statute miles) from the Golden Gate. The channel,

a Congressional project, was approved August 26, 1937.

The average transit time from San Francisco Bay to Stock-.

ton via the channel is 714 to 8 hours not taking into account

delays due to fog or bridge liftings. The channel is at least

30 feet deep at mean low water. Although there are occa-

sional groundings and delays due to fog, the conditions of

the channel are satisfactory and not a serious factor in

preventing a vessel from calling at Stockton. The largest

. cargo vessels Su PWC can call at Stockton without, unusual

difficulty. H

On August. 1, 1957, PWC made Stockton a full faicakail

port, and since this time Stockton has had a phenomenal ' |

. growth. Equalization did not affect Stockton until it hécame —

a full terminal aa

Impact of Equalization on Stockton .

Stockton claims a loss of revenue to the port by virtue

of equalization during 1962 of $232,000. The port lost reve- -

nue from its terminal charges—service and facilities charge, _

wharfage, truck: unloading, dockage, and pre-palletization.

Very little additional labor’ would be needed to accom. |

_ modate this cargo insofar as wharfage and dockage are con-

cerned, but the service and facilities charge has a con-

siderable amount of labor. Most of the charge for truck .

unloading, line handling, and pre penitionion | is labor costs.

Service at Stockton e Q

During: 1962, 85 vessels of respondent conferences made:

actual ealls at Stockton and many of these lifted general

cargo. In contrast, vessels of members: of the Pacific Coast

: x European Conference made 227 calls at Stockton in 1962:

es .

. * “Appendie WW

and lifted 260,000 tons of cargo. Of the lines calling at

Stockton only. OSK makes Stockton its last port of loading

outbound. “K” Line made its first call at Stockton in. June

_ 1962 and made fairly regular calls thereafter. Pacific Far’ .

Kast Line (PFEL) operates 9 vessels in the PWC trade and

practically all sailings have Stockton. calls, PFEL dis- |.

ant charges cargo at.Stockton on all voyages, but export cargo ee

is ordinarily not available at the time of the. inbound call.

About one-half of PFEL’s outbopnd vessels call at Stockton,

principally for bulk bottom cargoes in parcel lots. These.

bulk cargoes are at least 75 percent safflower seed, but from

time to time include. wheat and barley. They are loaded at

Stockton - Elevators. When the ‘vessel calls ‘for bulk, if.

there is sufficient, general “cargo available, the vessel will

shift to a general cargo berth to load. PFEL made 30 calls

at Stockton in 1962; however, Stockton is not the final ‘port -

of loading in the PWC trade for PFEL. PFEL does con-

sider itself to have a regular outward service at Stockton.

American President Lines (APL) had 24 calls at Stock-

~ ton in 1962, five discharged cargo only and 12‘loaded bulk

only. In the first half of 1963, APL guaranteed shippers

that vessels would call at Stockton regardless of the amount

3 of cargo offered, but the plan proved to be uneconomical .

- and was dropped. APL’s service at Stockton definitely de-

. pends upon the availability of bottom cargoes, and Stockton

is not the last loading port for APL vessels. ©

_N.Y-K. Line provides no regilar service at Stockton.

Diado Line had 4 calls at Stéckton in 1962 and United

Philippine Lines had none. States Steamship Company had

4 calls in 1963 which loaded bulk rice and some general

cargo. Sree eON ee a3 i

Of the PWC mémbers, 15 made at least one call at Stock-

ton during 1962; 13 made no calls. PWC made a total of

< See : Agpentio

133 calls, but of those no’ commercial general cargo* was -

loaded on 90 calls. .

Vessels loadiige’. at Stockton generally can load‘.com- —

‘mercial and military cargo at the same berth, but vessels. ~

loading bulk must. shift to a different facility to load other

_ eargo. The shift costs about $300 for pilot and tug. aaa

Steamship Costs and Operational Packets Pertaining

to Calls at Stockton. \ ge

_ As noted above, it is an 8-hour trip in each direction to

Nach Stockton from the bay area. Thus, a carrier incurs

additional expenses in’ steaming to Stockton, including

transiting time,, pilotage, tugs, and other incidental ex-'

_ penses. ‘Estimates of the total of these costs range from

$3,000 to $4,000

There may be insufficient cargo to justify a call, and that

‘cargo, for opéerational reasons, would. be equalized or trans- ~

shipped. It depends on the commodity as well as the yolume

_ to determine whether a Stockton call is justifiable. Amounts

_ Tanging from 250 tons to 750 tons might eey a call de. —

pendent on the nature of the cargo.

It is also not operationally feasible to call at every ter-

minal port. This is particularly so of lines that have Euro-

- pean or East Coast cargo ‘aboard and merely top-off on -

. the West Coast before proceeding. to the Orient. Such lines

would usually call at one terminal for relatively small

amounts of cargo. Theré is an. operational oering by con-

ne solidating cargo at one terminal.

Equalization gives the: vessel latitude. in loading ant

scheduling and the flexibility to avoid: “uneconomical calls.

Equalization rather than transshipment i is the better way,

ce)

2.° In this context, commercial general cargo means packaged,

high-rated items, not bagaet 1 ~viremaed and. other low-rated items.

it .

| Be ae Appendix ee,

. to achieve this latitude and flexibility. Equalization, which

averages about $2.00 to $2.50 per ton, is substantially

'. cheaper than transshipment. Transshipment is roughly 3

times more expensive. Nias os ied wer ahr e

Impact of Equalization on Carriersand Shippers. . +

_In spite of the operational factors encouraging equaliza- .

tion, certain carriers and shippers are opposed to the rule,

as presently practiced. PFEL feelsthe rule is detrimental

to its interest since it is one of the few PWC members calling ©

regularly at Stockton, and équalization dilutes eargo tribu-

_ tary to Stockton. Without equalization much of the cargo

would move through Stockton and, of course; PFEL would

a _ have vessels available. PFEL feels that equalization should

* only expedite vessel operations, but a carrier with no in-

tention of calling at Stockton should not be permitted to

"equalize. If a carrier does not call regularly at Stockton and.

has no intention of serving the port, then PFEL feels it ~

shoud not be able to equalize. Although equalization is

| ‘ optional under the tariff, carriers find that ¢ompetition.

compels them to equalize, ~~: - a x

Some shippers also wish ¥, Oe the Port of Stockon con-

_ tinue with adequate Bere Some shippers believe that if

they can ship cheaper via Stockton, then they should be

permitted to do so, and feel that without equalization there

~ would likely be enough cargo to generate sufficient service.

. Certain. shippers also feel that if the steamship companies

were not burdened with equalisation expenses, ‘they might

adjust the rates. At any rate, shippers like to have Stock-

ton available for use if convenient. Some shippers appar- |

_ ently experience-séme difficulty with equalization by virtue

of delay in being paid and by additional clerical expense.

Ae,

- 20 Base: es Appendiz

Other shippers, however, for several reasons, strongly

’ favor pért equalization. To them regularity of. service is

highly important as is the in-transit time of the shipment,

_ and these shippers prefer to put their cargo aboard at the..

‘last loading port. The shorter the in-transit time, the quicker «:

the shipper is paid by his customer. Minimum in-transit :

time is also critical when the commodity i is perishable? By, -

equalizing, shippers have access to more frequent. service

.at no additional expense. Of course, some ‘shippers do not

_ eare whether Stockton is the last loading port.

_ Service is unquestionably , adequate at San Francisco. . %

* However, adequacy of service at Stockton is dependent

upon the needs of particu lar shippers. Some shippers con-

‘sider. the Stockton service inadequate . to meet overseas

re * commitments. Regie dale

3 “Transshiprient, from a shipper’s s point of view, is fio

substitute for equalization because. .of aeny, and damage

A cecangaes te by rehandling.

“ Shippers in the PWC are confronted with one wile: the .

' Japanese are insistent upon nominating vessels upon which.

many-consighments.are to be shipped and, flus, if the

nominated vessel is not: calling at Stockton, then the ship- ¢.

/ment is | equalized against Stockton and: exported through’

‘some other terminal port. One raisin, supplier indicated that

~ service at. Stockton was adequate and that many shipments _

* would move from Stockton bet for the foreign nomination

of vessels,

Pwo Fidelity to the Riniliection Rule :

The record discloses a number of departures from strict

adherence to the equalization rule. However, the only ‘sub-

_ stantial disregard for the rule inyolves "equalization on

3. Tf there were no , equalization; many perishable dinkaodtites ;

Seg - would still move sacs San Francisco rather — pene:

'. fal under the Shipping Act, 1916, but that Tespondents’

IY Appendiz ee

a dira fruit. On citrus fruit the conférence approves canait.

zation of $.15 per carton irrespective of the point of origin, —

‘the. nearést terminal port, or the inland transportation -

' eosts: The $. 15 per carton equalization is the excess of the |.

quoted base ‘price at‘the dock in San Francisco over the.

dock-side price in Los Angeles. This is not in accord ia

the PWC tariff. |

Citrus fruit originates in “Central and pice ‘Cali-

fornia. Some of the citrus originates in areas tributary to

- Stockton on the basis of inland. transportation costs. How-

ever, no citrus is equalized against Stockton, although the

-$.15. payment is made on shipments eeaniing 2 in an area

ner to Stockton. ; | ieee

“Discussion and Conclusions

Vinititeie Walter T. Southworth concluded that equaliza- |

tion as practiced by respondents against Stockton was law- .

equalization on cargo loaded at Long Beach and Los An-.

geles was “unjustly discriminatory and unfair to terminal

_ -ports in the San Francisco Bay area (including Stockton):

. The examiner further found that the so-called equalization

on citrus ‘fruit failed to comply with the ° requirements. “=.

section 18(b) of the Act. The. proceeding i is before us on —

exceptions to the Initial Decision. . .

Stockton contends that insofar as the examiner found |

respondents’ equalization against: the port of Stockton law- —

ful he was in error. Exception is taken to each and every -

- finding and conclusion upon which this portion of the Initial

Decision is based and, in actuality, Stockton’s exceptions on

this issue constitute nothing less. than a reargument of its ©

position before the examiner. For the reasons set forth

herein we agree with the conclusions of the examiner and,

: . . r , . . _ ak ihe |

22 . sae | Appendiz.

-if in stating those reasons we fail to treat any “specific

; exception,” it has nevertheless been considered and. found

not justified. - ie

The equalization here in.question is said to (1) dis-

‘courage the use of the Port of Stockton in violation of the arte

principles and policies of section 8 of the Merchant Marine

Act, 1920, with resultant. violations. of sections 15 and 17

of the Shipping “Act,® (2) result in unjust discrimination. .

and undue prejudice against Stockton, and grant undue

preference to the ports where cargo is loaded: (particularly

San Francisco, Wilmington, and Long Beach) in violation

- of sections 15, 16 and 17 of the Shipping: Act. In addition,

Stockton urges so-called “other grounds of unlawfulness.”

7 These “other grounds” will be treated after disposal of ©

- what we consider to be the principal issues,

The examiner concluded (1) that the ports. of San Fran-

cisco and Stockton were of the same harbor complex or

geographical area and that equalization’ between ports in

the same geographical area was not contrary to the prin- ©

4. Section 8 of the 1920 Act directs the Secretary of Commerce

. in er ager with the Secretary of the Army— ..

. with the object of promoting, encouraging and develop-

ing ports and transportation ‘facilities in connection with

water commerce . . . to investigate territories, regions and

-—., zones tributary to stich ports, taking into consideration - the

economies of transportation by rail, water and highway and

the natural flow of commerce, and, to investigate any other

matter that may tend to promote and encourage the use by

Pe “vessels of ports adequate to care for the freight which would

naturally flow through such.ports.’’ .

+. Stockton has apparently abandoned its contention. that: re-

" spondents’ equalization constituted an‘ unjust and unreasonable

regulation and practice related to or connected with the receiving,

handling, storing or delivery of property within the meaning’ of 4

-section 17. In any event, as the Examiner correctly pointed out, — ‘

respondents’ equalization rules and practices had nothing to do

with the receiving, handling,.storing or delivering of property.

Beaumont Port Commission v. mre Innes, 3 F.M.B. te (1951).

“a

| Appendix 23

ciples and policies of section 8 of the 1920 Act, thus no

violation of sections 15 and 17 of the Shipping Act resulted .

therefrom and (2) that the territory which was naturally

tributary to Stockton was also naturally tributary to San

Francisco, and thdt under the applicable precedents the

absorption of inland freight differentials is unlawful only

if it destroys the rights of ports to traffic originating in the

areas naturally tributary to them, and (3) that respondents’ ,

equalization as practiced against Stockton was lawful under .

the applicable precedents, Stockton argues that the ex-

aminer was wrong on all three counts. — ss

Port equalization is not unlawful in principle. Beaumont -

Port Commission v. Seatrain Lames, Inc., 2 U.S.M.C. 500,

504 (1941). Equalization may be unlawful, however, if it

draws from ports traffic which originates in areas naturally

tributary. to those ports, City of Mobile v. Baltimore Insular. ~

. Line, Inc, 2 U.S.M.C. 474, 486-87 (1941); Proportional

Commodity Rates on Cigarettes and Tobacco, 6 FMB. 48,

55, 56 (1960), and if the port losing the. diverted traffic can

. Offer adequate service to shippers diverting to the°favored

port, City of Portland v. Pacific Westbound Conference,

_ 4¥F.M.B. 664, 679 (1955). Equalization may also be unlawful .

if it is practiced between ports located in different or separ-

“ate harbors or geographic areas. Beaumont Port Commis-

sion v. Seatrain Lines, Inc., 2 U.S.M.C, 699, 703 (1943).

.. With these principles in mind, we can now examine more

closely the examiner’s findings and conclusions, = «_sC |

The examiner treated Stockton as an integral part of the

San Francisco Bay “harbor. complex” and thus as being

within the same “geographical area” which has access to

the open sea through the Golden Gate. Stockton contends .

that the examirier erred because Stockton is not on the San

Francisco Bay and it is 84 miles and 5 waterways removed -

° y . : : e

24 rok | | Appendix

from San Francisco Bay. Secondly, the examiner:concluded |

that the areas naturally tributary to Stockton were equally

_ so to San Francisco. Stockton argues that here again the

examiner fell into error because inland rates from the rele- —

vant area are lower to Stockton than. they are to San Fran-

cisco. It is in this latter contention that we find the essential]

ingredient in Stockton’s attack on respondents’ equalization.

In Stockton’s view naturally tributary territory theans

simply “the area from which the inland transportation rates |

and mileages are less to a particular portthan to any other 2

port. ” oo

We agree with the examiner’s conclusion that the ports

of Stockton and San Francisco do not represent separste

and distinct geographical areas. They are both “bay area”

' ports and have been uniformly treated as such for a variety

of purposes. Thus, the California Legislature in a compre-

hensive report on the San Francisco ports issued ‘in -1951

consistently referréd to Stockton as a Bay area port. In

setting up the Bay Area Protection and Promotion Pro-

gram, now contained in Harbors and Navigation Céde, sec-

tion 1980, et seq., the San Francisco Bay Area i is defined by

the California Legislature as— .

. that region served by commercial shipping and

transportation passing through the. Golden Gate, in-

. eluding es ant areas of wae and northern Cali- ox

fornia . : Ae .

In. seeking ‘to being itself within the diabetes of section.

3 - from San Francisco Bay proper. But other factors must, be

considered in making determinations under section 8. Thus,

< : * the “economies of transportation” and wn “natural flow of

commerce” are relevant:

‘9

° ° ‘

e ? .

. . *

. “4 . -*

. . .

, é ;

- Appendia = 5

. . : section [8] requires, all other factors being sub-

stantially equal, that a given geographical area and its

ports receive the benefits of or be subject to the burdens

_ naturally incident to-its proximity or lack of proximity

to another geographical area, (City of Portland v, Pa

cific Westbound, 4 F.M.B. 664.)

The delineation of a “given geographical drea” will almost

always of necessity involve the inclusion of ports whose

location from specified inland points will vary in distance

or mileage. Thus, mileage alone is not the determinative _

factor. In Beawmont. Port Commission v, Seatrain. Lines,

'” Ine., 2 U.S.MiG. 699 (1943) our predecessor permitted a

“earrier to equalize Texas City with Houston and Galveston, —

but not with Beaumont, Texas, where the geographical ~

situation was quite similar to the one under consideration j

this case—the geographical relation of Texas City, Houston’

and Galveston is comparable to that of San Francisco, |

Stockton and other. bay area ports, and the position of Los

_ Angeles is comparable to that of Beaumont: ©

’ The geographical Telationship of the ports involved,

_ together with the peculiar characteristics of Seatrain’s

operation .were emphasized at the further hearing. .

_ Texas City and Galveston are situated on Galveston

. Bay which is ‘also the approach to Houston. Entrance

. to the Bay from the Gulf is through Galveston Harbor

which is connected by ship channels with Texas City and

’ .-Houston. In a geographical sense, the three ports may ©

be described as Galveston Bay ports. Rail distances __

from Texas City to Galveston and Houston are 14.2

and 42.2 miles respectively. Rail rates on long haul |

- export traffic are the same for the three ports which in

Rate Structure I nvestigation, Part 3, Cotton, 165 I.C.C.

595, 660, were described as “one terminal district or .

port.” Beaumont is an inland port situated: on the

Neches River and- having access to the Gulf several

’ 2 . L - ‘ a

. : 35 3 ‘ =~

wR:

BE ae eat orc tinenilie

miles east ‘of the Galveston Bay ports. It j is approxi-

mately 126 miles by rail from Texas City. @ U. S. M.C.

at 701.) ,

The natural direction of the flow of traffic from the San

Joaquin Valley, which Stockton seeks to have declared its

exclusive preserve, is through the Golden Gate to:the Pa- —

. cific Ocean. For almost a hundred years before Stockton was

made accessible to oceangoing vesséls, San Francisco was

the principal port through. which freight from the San

. Joaquin Valley would and did pass. It did not cease to be

. such a port merely upon the creation of an additional port

at Stockton,

- As we have already noted, equalization, while lawful in:

principle, maybe unlawful in practice if the éffect of the

equalization is to draw from ports traffic which originates

in areas naturally tributary to those ports. City of Mobile .

v. Baltimore Insular Lines Inc., 2 U.S.M.C. 474 (1941);

Proportional Commodity Rates on Cigarettes and Tobacco,

6 F.M. B. 48 (1960)..The exaininer concluded that respond-

ents’ equalization practices did not violate sections 16 and

‘17 on this ‘ground because the territory which is naturally

tributary to Stockton is. also naturally tributary to San

Francisco. It should be kept in mind that the discrimination

and prejudice which is prohibited by sections 16 and 17

" is that which is unjust and unreasonable. West Indies Fruit

Company et al. v. .Flota: Mercante Grancolombiana 8.A.,

7 F.M.C. 66 (1962). ;

: Stockton claims to have lost $232, 000 i in potential revenue

\ on equalized cargo on the theory that all the equalized cargo -

would have moved through:Stockton and that 50 additional .

ships would have. called at Stockton to pick up 800 tons

each.- Stockton concedes. that it would lave had additional

labor a but says that gid would not have exceeded

| Appendiz:' 27

$35,000. Actually these lost revenue fi are not valid

bedause, as Stockton argues elsewhere, no the equalized

rgo would have gone to Stockton but for equalization, —

Va the number of additional vessels which would have gone

to Stockton is highly speculative.

On the other hand, at an average additional ount of $3,600

to send a vessel to Stockton it would have cost respondents ~

some $180,000 to send 50 ships to Stockton, or about $67,000

more than the $113,030 it @ost them to equalize. Thus, there —

ig ample economic and cost justification for the discrimina-

tion against Stockton such as it is. But even this would not

save respondents’ equalization under the applicable prece- .

derits. were it established that the practice drew cargo away

from territory which was exclusively and naturally tribu-

tary to Stockton.

Stockton’s argument for recognition of most of central |

California, including the great San Joaquin. Valley, as its

naturally tributary territory is based entirely upon mini-

mim trucking rates to Stockton, which i in turn are base

upon the “constructive mileage” between points of oritin

and Stockton.’ Stockton contends that the examiner mis-

- construed the applicable precedents in finding that Stock- .

ton’s tributary territory was also San Francisco’s. As Stock-

“ ton reads the cases “tributary territory” is that area from

- ‘which the.inland transportation rates and. mileages are less

to a particular’ port than some other port. But Stockton’s

theory is only deceptively simple and does not. comport

with the principles laid down in prior cases. Under this

’ “constructive mileage” theory the naturally tributary terri-

tory expands and contracts with. every new highway inno-

6. “Constructive mileage’? is situsl nileagi weighed by such

factors as the. number of traffic lights and bridges, the presence or

absence of mountainous terrain, the condition of the highways amd

other factors affecting tratk traffic. ,

Appendiz |

vation hecause constructive mileage changes with new

bridges, traffic lights and the like. Under Stockton’s theory

‘the territory is dependent upon which ports are named “ter-

minal ports” by the carriers practicing the equalization.

Thus, when the respondent Pacifie Westbound Conference,

but not the ‘Straits or Indonesian Conferences, named, Sac-

ramento as a terminal port, Stockton’s ‘own witness, Mr.

Phelps, stated ‘that Stockton’s tributary territory for the

_, Paeifie Westbound Conference was thereupon eut in half

because “that is the way the arithmetic comes out.”

In the Beaumont decision, supra; when it permitted Sea- °

train to absorb the difference between the cost of delivering

. eargo to Texas City and the cost of. delivering to Houston

and Galveston, the Board said at page 703:

Our decision in the previous report condemned prac-

tices: which permit a carrier to attract to its line traffic

‘which is not naturally tributary to the p&t it serves,

thus depriving other ports of their local tributary traf-

fic. ‘The testimony and argument on further hearing

emphasize the question which we think-is decisive in

this case, whether the traffic in question can be consid- _

ered as tributary to Seatrain [at Texas City] as well

as to the break-bulk lines involved. Upon the facts |

stated in three above, we conclude that the area com-

. prising the ports ‘of’ Galveston, Houston and the sur-

32 rounding~territory is centrally served by Seatrain’s

facilities at Texas City. No reason appears therefore

why that carrier may not effectively compete. for the

traffic through such ports. Beaumont is not within the

Galveston Bay Group and the traffic through such port

is not heey atone! pean? to Texas City.’

eas

Although Stockton urges that the examiner’s reliance on

the Beaumont decision i is misplaced we think it reasonable, .

well founded and proper. Moreover, the Maritime Admin-

istration, Department of Commerce, and the Corps of Engi-

neers, Department of the Army, the governmental agencies —

‘” rule is unlawful, because the actual amounts to

Appendiz . 29

charged with s cidndntptiicing section 8, in their joint: publica-

i tion” covering the port of San Fraficisco, describe San Fran- .

cisco as “one of the most impoftant ports for the vast.in- -

land territory of the Central and Pacific Coast Area and ‘

_ the Intermountain States,” under the heading. “Tributary

Territory. ” In their publication covering Stockton, the

“Tributary territory” designated as that of Stockton is

wholly within: the territory attributed to San Francisco,

_ and largely within the territory attributed to Oakland-

Alameda in the publication covering those: ports. It is obvi-

ous that these studies dictate a rejection of any “construc-

tive mileage” theory for on “naturally tributary

territory.” '

- We conclude, -that for the purposes of this préceeding,

the territory naturally tributary to Stockton should prop-

erly be considered naturally tributary to San Francisco and

other San Francisco Bay area ports. To paraphrase the

Beaumont decision, supra, the territory surrounding Stogk-

ton and the entire Bay area is centrally, economically and

naturally served by the conference facilities at San Fran-

cisco. & |

; Stockton, further urges that hisstentente’ SaeeanCte

absorbed

under it, cannot be determined from respondents’ tariffs,

but requires access to and examination of the overland

tariffs. Stockton cites several cases construing the provi-—

- sions of section 2 of the: ‘Intercoastal, Shipping Act, 1933.*

Section 18(b)(1) expressly provides for the inclusion in

. .1. “The Ports of San Francisco ate Redwood City, Calif. és

Port Series, No. 30, Rev. 1951.

8. . Cases cited by Stockton are Intercoastal Rates of Nelson

Steamship Co., 1 U. &. SB. 326 (1934) ; Intercoastal Investigation,

1935, 1 US. S.B. 400 (1935) ; Puerto Rican Rates, 2 U.S.M.C. 117

(1939) ; ; City-of Mobile v. Baltimore Insular Tine, Inc., 2 U.S.M.C..

474 (1941) ; and Matson Navigation Co.—Container r Povight Tori§s,

7 FMC. 480 (1963). ‘

tariffs filed by the Commission of “rules and regulations”

which change or affect the aggregate filed rate:

Such tariffs . . . shall state separately such.

minal or other” charge, privilege, or facility under the

control of the carriers which is granted‘ or aliowed and

‘any rules oy regulations which in anywise change,

aforesaid rates or aetEe. «.

The basic philosophy behind the tariff filint requirements

. of both the Intercoastal Act and the Shipping Act is that

the shipper can assure himself of the actual cost of trans-

portation:to not only himself but to his competitor as well,

Matson Navigation Co—Container Freight Tariffs, 7°

F.M.C 480 (1963). We do not think respondents’ tariffs run —

-eounter to this proposition. As the examiner ‘stated, “the

present rule, in practice, neither adds to nor detracts from

the shippers ability to. ‘see dad himself the exact price of —

transportation. eniie . el

* The ocean rate is, of course, specified in the respondents’

; ‘tariffs, What the respondents’ tariffs do not show is the

' the shipper’s point‘of origin to Stockton versus San Fran-

difference between the cost of overland transportation from

-- eiseo. For that the shipper (or his competitor) has to go

to the tariffs of inland carriers. But he would have to do.

* - go whether or not the equalization rule existed. With the

via San Francisco for the’ same amount, with the carrier

absorbing any excess. If he wants to get into further refine-.

equalization rule, his problem i is really simplified ; he need

only ascertain’ the common carrier rate to Stockton, and

he is assured by the ocean carrier’s rule.that he may ship

. ments, such as tlte comparative cost of shipping by eommon

. carrier versus his own truck or contract carrier, his prob-—

. Jem is no more complicated than it would be if there were

| ho — rule.

~ ‘affect, or determine any ae or the ageregate of such -

é.

_ Appendix ae 31

Stockton « argues that ‘the failure to'set forth the actual

amounts. absorbed makes the equalization rule unlawful

‘under section -18(b)(1) and detrimental to, commerce and

contrary to the public interest under section 15. But con-

sider the form respondents’ tariff would take. if the actual

amounts absorbed were included. The record does not con-

‘tain even an, estimate as to the number of “points of origin”

for which equalization is made nor does it. contain the num-

_ber of commodities. covered by equalization. But it is not

‘ ” difficult to imagine that a requirement that each and every

possible ‘absorption be Ceengan would soon render the

- tariff impossibly voluminous: °

We are of ‘the view that respondents’ ithe rules

are not unlawful under the “rules and regulations” portion

- of 18(b}{1). ’ :

Stockton contends that the determination of equalization

payments under respondents’ rules is, as‘a practieal matter,

impossible; and that therefore’the rules (1) permit undue +

“preference and prejudice between shippers, in violation of

- section 16 First, (2) constitute improper tariff publication,

. ‘in violation of section 18(b)(1), and (3) violate section 15

‘of the Act, in that they are contrary to the public interest, «

detrimental] to United States commerce, and unjustly dis?

eriminatory between shippers and exporters. | r

‘The Pacific Westbound Conference equalization rule pr

vides that “Equalization shall only: -be paid on the basis. of

. the lowest applicable common carrier or contract carrier

; rates.” The rules of the Pacific Straits and Pacthe/Indo-—

. | nesian Conferences are substantially - the same—that

: “Equalization shall only be paid on the basis_of the orient

|, applicable rates.”

‘i In practice, ‘the freight bill showing the amount actually,

: paid by the — to an overland carrier to transport the ,

~ shipment from p int_of origin to San ‘Francisco (or other

‘port of loading) is used in determ@hing the amount of equal-

_ ization to bé paid; however, the b checked against car- .

riers’ tariffs to make ‘sure it is the lowest fate. From.this

- amount is deducted the “constructive” cost of transporta- 3

tion of the same shipment from point of origin to Stockton

' (or other port equalized “against”), determined from the

same tariff.. The difference is the amount of: the equaliza- a

tion payment. The result is that the shipper pays, for over-

land transportation, a net amoutht equal to the cost of car- -

| riage at the lowest common carrier rate from point. of

origin to Stockton: As noted above there are exceptions -

where the shipper uses a contract carrier or. ‘his own truck.

If the contract carrier’s rate cannot be ascertained and in

' the case where a shipper useg, his own truck the lowest

common carrier rate is used.

Respondetits submitted to complainant schedules show-'

ing details of all shipments in 1962 on which there was iS.

; equalization against Stockton. These were examined by’ “=

tariff expert in Stockton’s “employ, over a period of about

nine months in which he spent an estimated five to six -

months in preparing exhibits based on the data. According

>” sto his research on the PWC figures, out of 1,116 shipments

_ involving a total of $107,272 in equalization payments, there

- were 314 instances of overpayment for a total .of $8,254,

and 322 instances of underpayment for a total of $2,810.

A substantial part of the $8,254 in alleged overpayments

arose out of.a practice, discontinued during 1962, of allow-

_ ing the principal shipper of raisins to equalize on the basis

_ of the rate for his less-than-truck-load shipments to San

Francisco ‘against the rate. for truckload shipment tor

Stockton. This was done. on, the theory that if the shipper

z had shipped via Stockton, the LTL shipments would have

: ‘been consolidated with shipments destined for Europe, to’

‘8

” x ° . .

ye, tale , Pee bd

feces Appendix | i's $3

forin truckload shiprhents at a substantially lower rate.

The shipper complained of the cessation of this palpably |

improper practice and testified on behalf of ar Bee.

as the sole malcontent shipper.

The Examiner concluded that,

_ ‘The inland rate situation was: indeed. shown to be com-

plicated. The inland transportation industry manages

_to operate under it, however; and the conferences ap-"

' pear-to have mastered its mysteries so as to operate -

__ their equa! zation rule fairly as a matter of practieal

—which was fonenesiee with a well-defined dispute, with ~

. . the conference ultimately taking the proper course—no

° shipper testified to any dissatisfaction with the theory

or practice. of calculating equalization under respond-

_ ents’ rule. There is no other evidence of any differ-

ences or possible preferences in the treatment of ship-

pers similarly situated. Had there been any such pat-

tern it may safely be assumed that complaimant’s ‘ex-

pert, in the course of his meticulous examination, would

have found it.

- Stockton’ s exceptions to this donclusion amount to noth- .

ing more than a reargument of the contentions urged be-

fore the Examiner and we find his conclusion well founded

and ‘proper. _

~ Stockton further argues that respondents’ equalization

practices result in unjust discrimination hetween shippers,

in violation of sections 15 and 16 First of the 1916 Act,

because varying equalization payments under the rules

result in different charges for the same ocean ‘trans-

portation, because respondents ultimately collect varying

amounts for transportirig the same commodity between the -

same ports, depending on the inland transportation charges,

which determine the amount of the. equalization payment.

. Varying charges for identical services are prima facie dis-

criminatory and thus unreasonable unless justified. Pro-

_ portional Commodity Rates on Cigarettes and Tobacco, 6 :

FMB. -48, 55 (1960). ier :

- Discrimination against a shipper is necseentily meas-

ured: by what the. shipper pays, not by what the carrier.

-ultimately collects. Shippers. who receive equalization allow- —

ances pay the same amount for through transportation,

whether they ship via Stockton or San Francisco.. No ship-

_ per has complained of discrimination, and there is no evi-

dence of any differentiation among shippers similarly situ-

ated. Under sithilar circumstances, no evidence of discrimi-

nation against shippers was found in Beawmont Port Com-.

mission v. Seatrain Lines, 2 U.S.M.C. 693, 703, where, as

- - we have already noted, Houston, Galveston and Texas City

_ ‘may be considered the respective equivalents of Stockton,

San Francisto and Oakland-Alameda, and Havana the

equivalent of conference | destinations in the Far East:

“ Complainants’ contention that Seatrain’s. practice un- |

justly discriminates against Galveston and Houston

’. will not bear analysis. The port-to-port' rates to Havana

. .’ from these .ports and Texas City are the same. The

shippers served by Seatrain pay the same through

‘transportation charges, whether they ship from Gal-

veston, Houston or Texas City. There is no complaint

af of, or evidence to show, discrimination — ship- 3

- pers by Seatrain.

» Moreover, any prima facie discrimination based “upon

- ocean carriage alone—as between, ‘say, a shipper’ located

‘af San Francisco who receives no equalization allowance ©

and one located at Fresno who receives equalization against .

Stockton when he ships via San Francisco—is justified by:

_ ing ports in the normal itinerary, the better operating re-*

-sylts the carrier will have. To eliminate equalization, there-

_ Appendive ee . s.

by requiring carriers either to call at Stockton or abandon

‘some of the cargo in that area, would be beneficial to the

Port of. Stockton and perhaps some of the shippers in that -

area. But the public interest is much larger than the needs

or desires in the Stockton area. The équalization under con- —

sideration here reflects an overall. economic good, tangible

benefit to the public at large, and ™ important ——

“tion justification.

We conclude that no unjust Gicndindbuatiag biiweit ship-

pers, or undue or unreasonable preference or advantage

to any particular person, within the meaning of sections '

15 and 16 First of the 1916 Act, may be found in respond-

_ ents’ equalization rules or their ‘practices pursuant thereto. —

goo,

Stockton also argues that the respondents unnecessarily .

" dissipate their revenues ‘through their equalization allow-

ances, sinee ( 1) the most economical way. to move cargo.

isto load it aboard a vessel which is at Stockton, and

(2) in some cases cargo which is equalized against Stock-

~-ton_would be shipped via San t'rancisco anyway. Such

' dissipation is alleged tobe contrary to the public interest

and detrimental to the commerce of the United sient

violation of section 15 of the 1916 Act.

The record does:not support. Stockton’s contentions. The —

most: economical way to move cargo was. shown‘not always |

to be to load equalized cargo aboard a vessel at Stockton.

which ‘was there to load other cargo. PFEL frequently

transships cargo by truck-(at its own expense) to San

Francisco for loading aboard a vessel which has called

at Stockton, be@ause it is cheaper to do that than to move |

the vessel, at a cost of, some $300, from a bulk cargo berth

to another berth at Stockton. Transshipment costs the car- _

. Tier a great deal more than equalization, since it not only

pays the full cost of truck 2 saihdacieamice from Stockton

we Appendix |

_ to San ‘Prencibea, but also pays ‘handling and loading

|» : charges to both ports.

'. Even Pit it is more economical. for a carrier : sellin vessel

is already at Stockton to lofd there rather than equalize,

it does not follow: that it will be cheaper for a com- _

|. petitor that does not have a ship at Stockton and does -~

~ not have: bulls cargo contracts which make it economical r

to send a ship there.® For the carrier that actually equalizes,

- there is no dissipation of revenue*through equalizing as

against sending a ship to Stockton. Ig this respect, equal-

j - ization is self-correcting. If there is sufficient | cargo avail-

able to a carrier to make it more economical to call at |

‘Stockton, the carrier will normally do. 80 rather than

equalize. :

There is no evidence. that oqidhlization is not profit-

‘able, overall, to any carrier that equalizes, nor is there

any evidence that, the public interest or commerce of the :

United States has beetr adversely affected by any dissipa-,

- tion of carriers’ revenues. The evidence indicates, rather, _

that equalization ig financially beneficial to the eq soeiaine |

carrier.

Wsesines. it ‘should be noted that even with cin

~ tion, Stockton’s growth since 1957 has put it ahead of the

ports of San Francisco, Oakland and Alameda combined, —

. in export tonnage. General cargo (via.conference and non-

‘conference vessels). to conference destinations increased

— 1962-over- 1961, aeeene: total enran to

‘Goes

9. “Respondent PFEL, the cole: carrier that was eritinad of

_ equalization against Stockton, frankly considers its position to be

‘‘more advantageous than others insofar as ealling at the Port of ©

. Stockton .. . we have contracts for bulk cargoes for justification

to put us up to the Port of Stockton which other lines do not have.”’

Thus PFEL feels it could get ‘‘the lion’s share’’ of any additional

_ fon going through Stockton. Still, PFEL now transships cargo

a and cleo equalins againet Stockton.

: - Appendio | | ee

conference destinations declined from *1 308 558. tons. to.

_ 1,108,726 tons. Thus; equalization has not seriously affected

Stockton’s competitive position. Stockton .also | argues that

there is a violation of section 205 of the Merchant Marine

Act, 1936, which provides:

- SEC. 205. Without limiting the power and authority

i * hea vested in the [United States Maritime]

‘rier by water, either directly or indirectly, through

the medium of. an agreement, conference, association,

its Y understanding, or otherwise to prevent or attempt to

Pe prevent any other such carrier from. Serving any port -

designed for the accommodation of ocean-going vessels

' located on any improvement project authorized by the

Congress or through it by any other agency of the Fed-

eral Government, lying within the continental limits —

of the United States, at the same rates which it charges

at the nearest _ anrenay er served by it.

No functions with respect to ‘this ‘gestion of the 1936 Act

———“were were transferred to the Federal Maritime Commission by

Reorganization Plan No. 7 of 1961, which established .the -

Commission. However, complainant suggests that section

205 remains the ‘law of the land, and must be considered

by the Commission. in exercising its delegated functions.

Stockton is a port designed for the accommodation of

ocean-going vessels, tocated on a an improvement author- =

———————

ized by ‘the Congress, and is. therefore entitled to ‘the

protection of section 205, as our predecessor: said of the

- Port of Stockton and other bay area ports in Encinal Tey

mindls -v. Pacific. Westbound Conference, 5 FMB. 316,

320 (1957). But gection 205 i is not violated by respondents

equalization rules-@8 observed in practice; ie., with the’

_ elimination from: “the rules of the phrase purporting to

- restrict its operation to cargo “which would normally -

‘Commission, it shall be unlawful for any cgfmon car- |

move” from a given point. This apparent restriction has. .

. no pinctiiak relation the theory or aigeesiien of the

- rule, Perhaps it was originally intended to make it clear. -

- that cargo may be equalized even though it might “nor-

mally” Andye from another port, thus: anticipating any

objection « on. tKat ground. The rule should be drafted to .

exclude what - is clearly not intended as a restriction.

'_. The rules, as‘ applied, permit equalization in favor of -

Stockton to exactly the same extent as against it. Respond-

: ents comply literally with the statute by serving Stockton

at the same rates which ‘they charge at the nearest port —

regularly served by them, since rates: e same for

all bay area terminal ports. ‘f-equalisation is considered

to change the base rates from any such port, respondents

“are in compliance with the statute because they offer

the .same equalization to shippers who wish to load at

Stockton. -

-Finally, Stockton argues that equalization. aoa as a~

eloak for malpractice.” In support of this proposition

PFEL’s representative referred to one case of unidenti-

fied “malpractice” which he said had resulted in a Com-

- mission investigation. The répresentative further testified

that upon. two occasions PFEL had been offered a ship-

ment if it would equalize on the basis of a ‘trucker’s bill of

lading showing a point of origin more remote from the

loading port than the actual point of origin. As respond-

‘ents suggest, it. would appear that if a shipper and carrier

conspire to engage in crime, they can find simpler: and

safer methods than getting a third party to produce a

false bill of lading. Giving full credence to PFEL’s testi-

oY mony, however, it cannot be concludéd that respondents’

equalization rules and practices offer such a peculiar temp-

tation or facility for malpractice as to make it desirable —

oto eradicate equalization. completely. There was no evi-

dence in the record of any malpractice affecting Stockton,

eee

ee ee

. Stockton also points to a practice of the PWC r

ents with respect to citrus fruit, allegedly affecting Stock-

“ton. For a number of years it has been‘ the practice of

‘respondent PWC and its members. to: allow an “equaliza-

~ tion” payment of 15- cents per. ‘carton on citrus fruit

shipped fr an Francisco if it originated in “South- -

*_ern- California.” Southern - California is defined as the.

_-—~ territory south of a line drawn east from Santa Barbara,

: south of the area in: -whith constructive mileage, and car-

rier rates, are. lower to. Stockton than to San Francisco. :

This 15-cent allowance is not based ‘upon any excess over-

~ land transportation cost as such, but rather on the fact

_ that citrus shippers located south of the Santa Barbara ;

line quote exporters a price delivered to-a dock in “North- |

ern California”—particularly San Francisco—which is 15.

-eents per carton 1 higher, than their price delivered to dock

in Los ie ‘Harbor. For feasons not apparent from -

the record the ocean carrier allows the exporter (the ship- _

per from tha standpoint of ocean carriage) an amount

a! - . equal to this difference in the. price of fruit delivered

: 3 i. a.s. San Francisco. as against f.a.s. Los Angeles. There -

ae practice no other equaliztion with respect to citrus

‘ fruits. The conference is not asked to equalize against

. ‘ Stockton or otherwise on ‘fruit originating north of the ‘i

Santa Barbara line, and in practice citrus fruit is never eee

‘shipped from Stockton. G tae ea

Thus, ‘there .is an allowance against ocean freight on

- citrus fruit; shipped from’ “Northern Calfornia” ports’ as

against. shipments from “Southern California” ports at '

the rate of 15 cents per carton, : ‘based upon an‘arbitrary

price differential of 15: cents, with respect to fruit: ay

nating south of the Santa Barbara line. -

- The PWC chairman necessarily conceded that this

“equalization” is not found i in the PWC —— rule,

bis

Bt er OS ” spline’ ; : f:

- but PWC argues ‘that it ‘accords’ with the -prinéiple of :

-equalization, which it contends is -the absorption by the .

_ carrier of the difference between the’shipper’s cost at the.

. Nearest terminal port and the loading port. But this is.

' too loose and inaccurate a definition. As the rule itself.

states, equalization is the absorption by the carrier of the

shipper’s excess cost of delivery to the loading port: That

_is quite different from absorbing a differential in the ship-

_ per’s exporter’ s”) purchase price, resulting from a sort

of: basing-point system by the growér-seller. The .

_ exporter, who is the shipper as far as the ocean carrier

is concerned and: the one who bills the conference for

-. equalization, in. fact has no cost of delivery to ship’ mit

tackle’; he buys at a flat price. f.a.8. .

The conference has reported. to the Commission data .

with respect to citrus fruit equalization, purportedly. as «

- equalization under its tariff rule, showing point of origin °

as “Southern California” and rate. of equalization at 15- ~

cents pér carton. This does not validate the practice, but -

‘neither does it invalidate respondents’ published rule, nor

- eontaminate the rule so as to require its disapproval.

However, this so-called equalization on citrus fruit is

not in accordance with or pursuant to. Tespondents’ filed’ -

tariff. Thus, respondents PWC and its members have failed ©

to:comply with» paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 18(b)

-of the 1916 Act, i in that they have not filed a rule or regu- —

lation which affects a part or the aggregate of their. filed

. rates, and have-charged a diffefent compensation for trans- -

- portation from their rates and charges on file. ‘Moreover,

_in our View, the absorption of an arbitrary amount based -—

upon a differential in delivered “price” of a commod-

ity is unjustly discriminatory between ports’ within the

st ere - section | 15, since the. ‘amount absorbed has. no

"EK

: = \, dppendis. pete, ‘Al :

: transportation basis or justification. It is further found, -

however, that such practices have not diverted — — aos 7

and do not affect, the Port\ of Stockton. :

_. While the ctnaieds concluded that the rules and prac-

tices with respect to- equalization between terminal ‘ports

within the San Francisco Bey area, were not +t unlawfal, Ee

. he sonst that: :

. to the extent that they permit general equaliza-

“Aion upon. cargo loaded at the ports of Los “Angeles

and Long Beach, California, based upon the excess

. cost of inland transportation from point of origin to -

such ports over such cost to San Francisco, Stockton

or.any other port.within the San Francisco Bay har- .

bor complex, are unjustly discriminatory and unfair |

between ports, within the meaning of section 115 of the

1916 Act; and to such extertt the said rulee,, and prac;

‘tices parent thereto, are disapproved. °

PWC excepts to this holding on the grounds that the

on which this finding could be premised.

'- examiner made no findings to support this conclusion con-.

. trary to the requirements of section 8( a) of the Adminis-: -

trative Procedure Act: (5 U.S.C. 1007) and that there is :

no evidence j in the record, ‘not to say substantial ait :

Wefiold . that the examiner decided this issue outeectly

: and on the basis of adequate proof. The initial’ decision ee

correctly set forth the legal test, to be used: If the absorp-

-. tion of inland. rate differentials destroys the right of ports

to traffic originating ‘in, the areas naturally: tributary to.

_ them, the absorption is “unduly prejudicial to such ports

~ where service. from the port equalized against is adéguate.

The examiner noted that the number of shipments equalized

O-.

against Stockton i in favor of Southern California ports in

1962 was small, but of substantial tonnage. The. examiner

_ found that the Golden Gate i is 423 statute miles north of can

“42 ace is eels pe ‘

‘hina and ‘that. the territory tributary, to the Southern

_~ . California area is not tributary to San Francisco Bay area.

_ "ports. He further found that service from. Bay area porta 4+

‘was adequate. : PS

_, The record shows details of shipments eeualiatl against

Stockton where the cargo actually moved from Los An-

geles and Long Beach. The record also shows details of

. inland. transportation costs between interior points and

, terminal ports, including Los Angeles . and Long Beach,

» and the adequacy of service at Stockton and. ‘other Bay

_ area ports. °°

Therefore, we agres with the’ examiner that siquatizdtion ;

of-cargoe via: Southern: California ports destroys the right ©

“of Bay area. ports to traffic originating in the area natu-

rally tributary to them. It is obvious that this type of

: _ equalization diverts traffic away from the natural direc-

tion of the flow of traffic. This situation is, as found by

ee the examiner, contrary to our decisions in Proportional .

Commodity Rates on Cigarettes and Tobacco, 6 F.M.B. 48

. (1960), and City of Portland v. Pacific Westbound Con-

_, ference, 4 F.M.B. 664 and 5 F.M.B. 118 (1956).

The examiner made those findings, supported by evi-

_ dence, which are prerequisite to the application of the legal _ 5

a. test of équalization. We, spend reject this exception .

of PWC.,

PWC efntends further that” the equalization against -

Bay’ area ports where cargo moved through a. Southern

California, port is not pertinent to ‘the’ issues in this pro-

ceeding. We reject this argument. We will. not ignore —

| » unjust: discrimination even though it was not raised with

_' respect to Bay area ports other than Stockton in the com-

cae We ee of a similar argument i in eg of Port-

Kee ets { sn he

\ land v. Pacific Westbound Conference, 5 F.M.B. 118, 129°

(1956), where we stated: Eres, | ohana

PFEL’s view appears to require a conclusion that.

that we are rigidly limited in our findings and con- ~

‘clusions bythe precise language of a complaint or»

order of remand, régardless of the facts which may

. be developed and argued by the parties to the pro-

ome | ee

We do not share this view of our duties under the

‘Shipping Act, 1916 (“the Act”). In our view, we would -

be remiss in our’ duties if, assuming ‘détual direct

service by Java Pacific, we did not, acting on this

record, prevent continued unlimited ‘equalization on

dynamite by PFEL. As stated in Chesapeake.d O. Ry.

Co. v. United States, 11 F..Supp. 588, 592. (1935), in.

- discussing an Interstate Commerce Act provision sim-

ilar to our section 22: : SL epee eet

** * after a complaint is filed before the Commis-

sion, it bécomes the duty of the Commission, to in- -"

vestigate the complaint and take proper action upon

_ its own motion * * * its power is not restricted by -

.« the issues raised on the complaint, provided * * *

that the (respondent) * * * had full opportunity to.

_ make (its) defense. — eta

. It is the duty of the Commission to look to the

substance of the complaint rather than its form and

it is not limited in its action by. the strict rules of

_ pleading and practice which govern courts of law.

This Board, uke other administrative agencies, has

an affirmative duty to investigaté as well as to decide,

in consonance with its position as trustee of the public

interest in matters within its jurisdiction. :

‘The conference further argues that the examiner's .

finding sin’ this respect should’ be qualified to take into.

'. consideration which of the San Francisco Bay area ports

have adequate service. In fact, PWC contends that equal- —

ization should. be proper where: service at’ San Francisco.

44 a ‘Appendiz ~ |

Bay area ports is unsatisfactory i in any respect. We reject

this test of equalization in favor of that previously ex-

pounded—-that equalization is unlawul if it destroys the —

“ right of ports to. traffic originating in the area naturally

: tributary to them where service from the San Francisco .-——

Bay area ts adequate. And the likelihood of inadequacy = 4

- sat San Francisco Bay aréa ports is remote indeed. We, - |

_.therefore, will not qualify the examiner’s holding.

We reaffirm that: respondents’ equalization rules to the

extent that they permit equalization upon cargo loaded

_ ‘at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, California, _

_ based upon the excess costs of inland transportation from

: point of origin to such ports over the cost of inland trans-

_ portation to Bay area ports, are unjustly discriminatory :

and unfair between ports within the meaning of section

15. We will disapprove the equalization rules to this extent.

An appropriate order will be entered. ~

Commissioner Vearn Dissenting:

I agree with the majority opinion in that the shapletnen-4

tation of respondents’ equalization rules in favor of Los

Angeles and Long Beach are unjustly discriminatory and

- utifair. I find the discrimination so ‘far as it relates to

_ cargo which is naturally tributary to Stockton to be a

discrimination against. Stockton. only, which for reasons

. given below can in no way be considered a San Francisco

Bay area port. . | 3

I disagree, however, with the results reached by the ma-

jority and am convinced that the subject equalization rules

against Stockton’ are violative of Section 16 First of the

1. The stateinent at page 23 of the majority opinion that ‘‘The =f

_Tules, as applied, permit equalization in favor of Stockton io exactly -

the same extent as against i ’? betrays a certain naivete in coming

to grips with the issue. While the word ‘‘permit’’ lends authenticity

to the statement, in the nature of things, the equalization must

always work against Stockton vis-a-vis. San Francisco _— area

: Appendix. _— sees Me 45

‘Shipping Act, ‘contrary to the public interest standard of

- Section 15, and in contravention of the principles and —

policies of Section 8-of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920,

and Section 205 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936.

I read the majority’s action today as (1) frustrating :

the will of. Congress in developing new and modern ports

_and (2) turning over to conference carriers, the right to

determine.which of our ports shall prosper and which shall

suffer. Further, the establishment of Stockton as a “ter- |

minal port” by all of the Conferenees, i in 1957 by the Pacific

» Westbound Conference, becomes insofar ‘as the port of

_ Stockton is concerned, a meanjngless gesture.” The ma-. ;

. jority has recognized that the port of Stockton “has had .

phenomenal growth” since fhe Port of Stockton attained

“terminal port” status. I. fear that the majority decision

here’ will seriously impair that. growth. Millions of dol-

lars, both pee: and private, have - been Invested in the

port.® )

At least one conference ¢ carrier ihe iodide substantial

scheduled service at the port of Stockton. The majority’s

action today will bless the efforts of those carriers who

have no intention of giving direct service to thé port, and

‘those carriers who have traditionally bypassed the port,

with the opportunity to drain its general cargo. As the’

Commission stated recently “In The Matter of Agreement.

Nos. 6200-7 etc., Docket 1166 (served June 24, 1965),

“Tt seems elemental that. the carriers best able to

establish fair and — rates for a given trade

2. . This status was pesabelay as a side of Encinal Terminals v.

/ “Pacific Westbound Conference, 5 F.M.B. 316-(1957).

3.. At the beginning of 1964 the capital outlay in the Port ‘of

Stockton was 23 million dollars, This investment included $9,800,000 - .

by the port district ; $3,200,000-by the city of Stockton ; $3,800,000

by. the Federal Government; $500, 000 by the. State 5 California

_ and $5,700, 000 ond private investors..

46 Appendix

are those carriers. which are adinally > serving the o

trade . . . we. believe the. vesting of rate-making

_ decisions in carriers who do not serve the area’ in

whose rates they have a voice to be far more dan-

se gerous to the commerce of the United States than. -

the existence of rate competition between two com-

peting areas.” ,

The. majority notes at page 8, reasons why shippers

favor equalization: regularity of service and.shorter in-

transit time. It goes without saying, I think, that shippers

_ Bniversally favor superior service and shorter transit time

where these benefits can be secured without additional cost

to. them.‘ eh Air

: In my view, the majority’s reference that:

|. “For almost a hundred years before Stockton’ was

made accessible ‘to oceangoing vessels, San Francisco

was the principal port through which freight from the

San Joaquin Valley would and did pass. It did not

cease to be such‘a port merely upon the creation of an ie |

Ie additional port at Stockton.”

belieg‘an unconscious adherence to the “fundamentally en- f

; titled” theory which has ceased to have any value since Pa-

cific Far East Lines, Inc. v. Federal. Maritime Board, 275 .

F ad 184 (1960).

> @

4. A curious statement appears on page 8::

“rf there were no equalization many perisable cummodition would

-» gstill- mov San Francisco rather than Stockton.’’ The ma-

‘jority, of , do not state why any of the overland costs to San

_ Francisco on commodities shipped through San Francisco for the

convenience of the cargo should be absorbed by the carriers. This

particular instance reveals the chink in the majority’s decision:

equalization is permitted against Stockton, os se euanuniy. 30 the 3

carrier where the cargo would be shipped ex-Stockton, and ha — |

| this, a rebate measured by the difference by the ov

eost to Stockton and overland. cost to San Francisco on cargoes ordi- _

- marily and traditionally shipped ex-San Francisco follows because .

“the cargoes intended for the different terminal ati ean not -

— re,

; Appendia SE Ea

My dissent, however, a not be re Upon: vis broad

- generalities. P

The central point here is rr EA tariff rules which

“permit” carriers to equalize against Stockton. The ma-

" jority. has correctly assessed the thrust of the. “permissive-

ness” of these rules: “. . . carriers find that competition

compels them to equalize”. Thus a conference carrier is not

free to serve or not serve Stockton as its sound managerial

. judgment dictates, consequently the effect of the equaliza-

tion rules is to restrict. competition. between the ports.

_In reaching its ultimate conclusion, the majority found

that (1) the port of Stockton is a port in the San Francisco ..

Bay area, and (2) cafgoes naturally tributary to Stockton

are also naturally tributary to San Francisco. While I think

neither of these, findings i is correct, I believe they skirt and.

confuse the central issue, which is: Do these tariff rules ee

result in- an unjust discrimination | to the port-of Stockton?

The findings, moreover, are not supported ni the sae and

have no valid basis in law. eree |

_ First, the port of Stockton. is not a San Francisco Bay

port within the meaning of any statute administered by this

Commission, and the cited: “comprehensive report” of the

California Legislature in. 1951 referring to Stockton as a

-Bay Area port certainly ‘is not controlling here, if: indeed

it has any relevance at all. The incontrovertible facts are

that Stockton is «some 107. constructive miles and’ several

distinct waterways removed from San Fr ancisco Bay. It |

is unthinkable that the Port of Stockton. should be -con-

sidered as juxtapdsed to San Francisco, Oakland, Alameda

and Richmond. The finding that Stockton should be treated -

as a Francisco Bay port must hang as an ‘unwarranted

fiction upon which no legal conclusion’ can be based.

_ Secondly, to say, as does the majority, that the “natural

direction of the flow of traffic from the San ‘ oaquin Val-

ae, cae i -Appendiz ss

. ley...is eee the Golden Gate to the Pacific Ocean” iis g.

‘the question: The point at issue is whether the “natural

direction of the flow. of traffic — be San J oaquin Val- .

ley ... through the Golden Gate .. .” is through San Fran-

cisco or through Stockton. I hola. to the belief that this

" natural flow i is ,through Stockton, and succinctly stated, but

for the equalization, an admittedly artificial- device, San

.. Joaquin exports ‘would normally flow through the Golden

‘Gate via Stockton, except where, for the convenience of the

cargo, shippers are not only willing: ‘to but should pay -their

fair share of costs of the ere service offered at San.

Francisco. : :

_. The majority places some slice upon 1951 Port Series® —

reports to show that the San Joaquin cargoes are as “natur-

ally” tributary to San Francisco as they are “naturally”

tributary to Stockton. A perusal of the cited works fails to ©

uncover the adverb “naturally”. Hence the “obviousness”

‘ that “these studies dictate a rejection of any ‘constructive

mileage’ theory for determining ‘naturally winery ter-

-Titory’ ie is indeed wanting.

The only valid test, in this case, for deterinining whether

- or not the effectuation of the equalization rule, and conse-

quently for determining whether respondents are giving .

“any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any

Si ticular person, locality, or description of traffic” or sub-

Jecting “any. particular person, locality, or description of .

. traffic to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disad-

vantage” in. violation of Section 16 First, is whether the

traffic would move via San Francisco but for the equaliza-

- tion, Here, certainly, most of it would not and to the-extent:

- §, “The Ports of Han Praieleno and Redwood City, California.”

. Port ais spt fa, Rev. ed by th a mcg foe covering Stock-

ton, in — e Corps o — and the

Maritime Administration.

. oo 8 omendia aaee 49.

that the artificial device draws traffic from Stockton it is

unlawful.* eee coke : at AC

In this véin; I am convinced that the precedents support ©

my view, There can .be no doubt here that the equalized. ~-

“cargoes originate in areas “naturally and geographi eee

tributary [to Stockton] because of inland transportation —

* rates favorable to [Stockton]-as well as through closer

« proximity”. City-of Portland v.- Pacific Westbound Confer-

ene, 4 F.M.B. 664 (1955). Similarly, what was said in City

.. Of Mobile v. Baltimore Insular Line, Inc., 2 U.S8.M.O: 474

(1941), is appropriate here: : e FOS ees

y “To permit continuation of unrestricted solicitation by

fi carriers for business through condonation of a prac-

‘ tice whereby unfavorable inland rates are overcome —

would wholly ignore the right of a port to-traffic which

it.may be entitled by reason of its geographical loca-

tion. Such right appears fundamental. under statutes

designed to establish and maintain porar S

Again, in the Portland case, swpra, our predecessors inter-

preted section 8 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920, as re-- .

quirlag::- . @ << bi aU er tse ae |

“... that a given geographical area and its ports should

receive: the benefits of or be subject: to the burdens

naturally incident to its proximity or lack of proximity:

- to another geographical area”, :

6, An unforeseen consequence, perhaps, of the majority’s deci-

sion, as I read it, would permit respondents to later equalize against

Oakland, Alameda, Richmond and Redwood Gity in favor of San

* Francisco: They ‘are all within the same “‘geographical area’’;

” their traffic must move-through the Golden Gate ; carrier economies

' would be established ; and, since the user shippers do,no pay for it,

directly, they would be satisfied. ’ Res 3

7. Cited favorably as‘recently as 1960 in Proportional Rates on

Cigarettes and Tobacco, 6 F.M.B. 48 (1960). Sa eae

50 ; ae _Appendio

Moreover, the second Beaumont. case at 2 U. SM. C. 699.

(1943), so heavily relied upon by the majority, is inap-

propriate here. As complainant aptly pointed out, the

second Beaumont case turned, in large méasure, on the |

peculiar ‘characteristics of ‘the equalizing carrier’s opera-

tion.’ There the: carrier, Seatrain, required, in addition to ©

railroad tracks on the pier, “a supporting yard for sorting

, and holding cars, and ear lifting facilities for transferring

'~ ears from the pier tracks to its vessels” which -were not.

_ available at the ports equalized against. Such is not the case

. heré. Stockton, the record shows, can accommodate ‘all of |

_. the vessels of repondent conferences.

- The striking down of the instant equalization rules, I A

oS eonvineod, would be in furtherance of. the will of Congress

expressed by™ the Shipping Acts, section 205 ‘of the Merchant

Marine Act, 1936, and its several enactments™ respecting, the

port of Stockton itself. The absence of the équalization

rules, moreover, would leave carriers free to serve or not

serve Stockton -as they desire, unencumbered by artificial *

. devices designed to frustrate the growth of the port and °

calculated to check-mate the establishment of any carrier

giving Stockton regular, scheduled service.

: ‘eee by. Chinmabiiioner Patterson:

Commissioner Patterson concurs in the result, but will -

issue later a supplemental report including a statement of _

. his decision showing his findings and conclusions. and the ~

: a or Sa therefor. fe

-/8/ OS List

_. Thomas Lisi |

Secretary .,

Appendizg «oe sg

= LATTA De Rang ah SERVED

rarer —., . September 24, 1965

; .Feperat Marrrime Commission

_ Federal Maritime Commission 5

“+. + No, 1086

Stockton Port Disrricr

- Pacrric Wesreounp CoNFERENCE BY Az. -* %. /

° s 2 : /

ORDER

Full investigation of the matters and things involved in.

this proceeding has been had, and the Commission on Sep-

', tember 24,.1965, has made and entered of record a report

stating its conclusions and decisions thereon, which report

is hereby referred to and made a part hereof. The ‘Commis-

_ sion found i in said: ‘report, inter alia: . |

t: That the. equalization rules of the icnsiiddebses:

(Pacific #Westbound Conference, Pacific Straits Con-

ference and Pacific/Indonesian Conference, and the ae

members. of these conferences), to the extent that they

provide for or permit equalization of intand transpor-

tation: from shipper’s point of origin to any terminal

port located on the harbor of San-Francisco Bay and

its connecting waters (the existing: ports-so designated

and described being the ports of San Francisco, Oak-

land, Alameda, Richmond, Stock n, Sacramento), on

\ .cargo loaded at Los Angeles or Long Beach, Califor-

nia, are violative of section 15. of the Shipping Act,

1916; Oy:

2, That the equalization rules of the shew confer-

‘ease and their members providing for or permitting —

7 ee Appendix, Cae oe

sideedtiantic of inland transportation from ‘aipped? 8

_ point of origin to any of the said terminal ports located }

__ in the harbor of San Francisco Bay and its connecting ‘

waters on cargo loaded at any other of said terminal.

ports are unclear ix their references to cargo “which | |

would normally move”; and _

“hey That Pacific Westbound Conferenes and its mem-

ber lines have engaged in practices with respect to

_ payment of purported: “equalization” in connection

- with citrus-fruit not provided for in their tariff in

violation “4 section 18 i of the Shipping Act, 1916.

Tamivie, Ir Is ORDERED, | ey

1. That the respondents cease nd desist from ap-

plying their equalization rules to cargo loaded at Los

. Angeles or Long Beach, and that modifications of their

' equalization rules to exelude their application to cargo

loaded at such ports be filed within .. .. days of service ©

of this order;

, 2 That the respondents, in 80 modifying their rules,

omit the characterization of cargo.as that “which would

' normally move” from certain ports; and.

3. ‘That respondent, Pacific Westbound Conference’

and its member lines cease and desist from their pres-

ent practices with respect to payment of purported

“equalization” in connection with citrus fruit in viola-

tion of their tariff.

By the Commission.

(SEAL) ©

Rule No. 2 ef Pacific Westbound Conference = st

| (The. “Equalization rule”, so far as it relates particularly -

', to the Port of Stockton, is underlined.)

Subject to Rules 5, 7 & 9, rates are based on direct loading

at Conference terminal loading ports or-docks,. However,

individual member lines may, in lieu of a direct call, absorb “

Tete ile a a

the cost of transhipment between terminal ports; or between

terminal ports and non-terminal ports; also between non-

terminal ports. Reference to non-terminal port absorption

applies only if the non-terminal ports have the required .

minimum tonnage as specified in Rule No. 9, or elsewhere -_

“in this tariff. Carriers may equalize between terminal ports

only from point of. origin, &s provided and subject to the

_ limitations set forth herein.) Equalization is the‘absorption

_ by

‘delivery to ship’s tackle at Terminal-Dock at nearest con-

_. ference .terminal port and the cost of delivery to ship’s

tackle at terminal dock and port of equalizing line. Confer-

e carrier of the difference between ship per’s cost. of _

ence terminal ports and docks are those named in Rule No. -

' 5. Conditions and limitations as to equalization follow:

(a). Equalization shall not exceed an absorption in’ ex:

- cess of 35 percent of the ocean freight, including handling

charges and wharfage. | 7 bi

_ (b) A carrier may not equalize between terminal ports

and non-terminal' ports, or. between non-terminal ports or

- between docks within a port. ,

1. In the Pacific Straits Conference rule and the Pacific/

. Indongsian Conference rule, the following appears in Kieu of the ..

foregoing four sentences:

or docks, either by transhipment or by equalization from point

| of origin. : : : |

: ee -> :

Otherwise the‘rules of the. three conferences are substantially the :

same, insofar as they relate to the Port of Stockton.

e a ‘ . : on . :

& Peery : / GS |

oe : : 7 eats

(ce) Whén the inland cost. of transportation ious point

ate of origin is lower to terminal ports in Oregon, Washington;

or: British Columbia than via California terminal ports,

equalization may be applied via California terminal ports

_ only on shipments of deciduous fruits and dairy products

- (See Note below covering Explosives) and such equalization .

‘shall be permitted only so long as there is not:adequate serv-

ice from the terminal port in Oregon, Washington, or British

Columbia, to which the cargo is tributary, to mieet the noone

of shippers of these: commodities.

NOTE:

‘ Naualination on explosives is not permitted except that

in the event a shipper-is unable to obtain space for a

- specific shipment of explosives by a direct sailing from

a terminal through which explosives would normally

move at a date which reasonably will meet the needs

- of such shipper or his consignee, equalization shall be

- permitted on such shipment, Provided, that the shipper.

‘certifies to the Conference the need for space on such .

date and allows 48 hours after receipt of such certifi- *

jeation: for the Conferefice to indicate the conference

- carriers who can provide space on a direct sailing which

‘reasonably will meet the shipper’ . needs.

(d) Equalization is permitted on shipments of trea,

fruits, which would. normally be shipped via California ter-

minal ports’ when shipped via terminal -ports. in Oregon,

ees Washington, or British Columbia, whengthere is not ade-

quate service from the California port, to which the cargo

is tributary, to meet the needs of shippers of these ¢ com-

¥ sf é ¢ ;

Fe, - oe

‘fe

P | Appendix | : 65°

(e). Cargo which would normally move from one terminal

port in Oregon, Washington, or British Columbia, may be

shipped under equalization*through another terminal port

in Oregon, Washington, or British Columbia, and cargo

which would normally move from one- ‘California terminal |

port, may. be shipped under equalization via another Cali-

fornia, terminal port. . a

*(f) Equalization. Shall only be paid on the basis of the

lowest applicable common carrier @. contract carrier rates.

’ (g) In support of each claim for equalization the shipper |

must furnish the carrier a copy of transportation bill cover-

ing movement from point of origin.

(h) Prior to payment of equalization bills, a es must

"submit to the Conference on prescribed form a certified

statement for confirmation and approval of applicable inte-

rior rates and/or the basis for equalization.

£3

a”

; SERVED

: FeperaL Maritime CoMMIssION

_ Federal Maritime Commission |

~ NO. 1086

-Srocxtron Port District

’ PaciFic Westaouxn’ CONFERENCE ET AL.

_ AMENDED ORDER

. P

This amended order is to be attached to the report in this

proceeding in lieu of the order served September - 24, 1965,

in this proceeding.

Full investigation of the nities and things involved in

this proceeding has been had, and the Commission on Sep- °

. tember 24, 1965, has made and entered of record a report ..

‘stating its conclusions and. decisions thereon, which report

_ is hereby referred to and made a ‘part hereof. The Commis- —

_ sion. found in- said report, inter alia: | .

an -

1. That. the equalization rules of the respondents

(Pacific Westbound Conference, Pacific Straits Con-

ference and Pacific/Indonesian Conference, and the

| members: of these conferences), to the extent that they

provide for or permit equalization of inland transpor-

tation from shipper’s point of origin to any terminal:

port located on the harbor of San Francisco Bay and

’ _ its connecting waters (the existing ports so designated

-and deseriped being the ports of San Francisco, Oak-

land, Alameda, Richmond, Stockton, Sacramento), on .

cargo loaded at Los Angeles or Long Beach, Califor-

- nia, are violative of section 15 of the Shipping Act, |

1816; — : .

i ee

‘September 28, 1965-.

; at ‘ .

> ‘ . °

Tea " ; oa) .

. ‘ ° Pt 4

“ . ie % > oq

‘aie: Roe oT

3 £ “That the equalization rulés of the above confer-

ease ences and their members ‘providing for or permitting

ee oe equalization of inland transportation from shipper’ 8

point of origin to any of the said terminal ports located

in the harbor of San Francisco Bay and its connecting

_. waters on cargo loaded at any other of said terminal

ports are.: unclear in their references to cargo “which

would normally move” ; Yara, ee Poe

‘:-«3. That Pacific Westbound Conference and its mem-

’ ber -lines haye engaged in eer with respect to

payment of “purported “equalization” in: connection

with citrus fruit not provided for in their tariff. in

violation of section 18(b) ai the Shipping Act, 1916.

- Tuererorr, It Is Onprrep, 3

1. That the respondents cease and desist from ap-

plying their equalization rules to cargo loaded-at Los

Angeles or Long Beach, and that modifications of their

- equalization ruleg;to exclude their application to cargo

loaded at such ports be filed within 30 days of service

of this order’;

2: That the waitin: in so sneditvigg their rules,

omit the characterization of cargo as that “which would .

normally move” from certain ports; and = ie

3. That respondent, Pacific Westbound Conference .

- and its member lines cease and desist from their pres-

ent practices with respect to payment of ‘purported

“equalization” i in connection with citrus fruit in viola-

tion of their tariff. |

By the Commission. .

(SEAL) » aah

./8/ Tomas List’

i } Thomas Lisi

Rg ae ee age as vey Secretary

58 . Appendix,

Report of Commissioner J ohn S. Pattersqn:

The reasons for'a separate report of my decision are that ~

the ‘majority, in my opinion : ns

(1): has gone beyond the Commission’s functions as-

' signed under section 103 of Reorganization Plan

No. 7 of 1961 by interpreting section 8 of the

Merchant Marine Act, 1920, and section, 205 of

the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, and

(2) did not make the record show. the ruling on ‘th 3

i exception presented.

: Fanetions relative to the authorizations in sections 8 and

205 were not transferred to-us by the President with the

approval ‘of Congress pursuant to the Reorganization Act

- of 1949 but were vested in the Secretary of Commerce. The _

Secretary of Commerce is the federal official responsible for .

| deciding what these sections mean under various circum-—

stances, and we sjiould not, in.my opinion, prejudice his —

decisions nor create the possibility of unwarranted con-

flicting decisions among government. agencies. ,

Section 8(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act ‘ainesta

‘agencies to make their records show the ruling upon each

exception presented prior to decisions upon agency review.

The subsequent decisions. must also include a statement of

the reasons or basis for all conclusions upon all the mate-

rial issues of fact, law, or discretion presented on the record.

This report of my decision is: believed -to comply with these

. mandates. My colleagues’ report states: “if i in-stating those

reasons we fail to treat any ‘specific exception’, it has never-

theless been considered and found not justified.” It seems -

to me an adjudicator should not relieve himself of a re- .

sponsibility to pass on compjainant’s well-thought-out ex- —

Appendizn 59

ceptions with such general statements. The statements are.

ee unsupported assertions without basis or reason.

‘The facts stated in the majority report are een ¢ for

cs dee purposes of this report.

if Complainant Stockton made eight requésted findings and

conclusions with respect to sections: 15, 16, 17, and 18(b) of

- the Act. The findings are summarized in the next paragraph

as items 1 through 8, and the conclusions of Stockton are

Stated with respect to each section as noted.

Section 15. The equalization rules — disapproval

: as agreements because : :

1. The amount of the payment cannot be ditebininas by

examination of the tariff in detriment to the commerce and —

contrary, to the public interest.

2. The determination of the correct payment i is impos-

sible, also involving unjust ceentemtnnan between ee.

and exporters.

~ 3. Use of the Port of Stockton for freight “which re

naturally pass through that port” is discouraged and de-

creased in detriment to the commerce and in conflict with |

‘public interest.

. 4 The rules result in discrimination. po prejudice to

the Port of Stockton and preference to other California

yom |

' 5. Différent sliippeis are treated differently i in making

equalization ‘payments, causing detriment ‘to the commerce ~

and contrariety with public interest. \

6. Carriers’ revenues are unnecessarily dissipated in.

detriment to the commerce and pests to the public in- .

_, terest. ; ;

af Carriers serving Stockton are déprived of cargo

against the public interest and in detriment to the com-

_meree. eee

. a

J _ ees re ‘deeedia: - Ee

Section 16.. The equalization rales are,unlawful because

the e acts enumerated with respect to section 15 in

items 2, 5, and 8 above also permit undue preference and

Saeteadioe or unjust “discrimination” (section 16 does not

- use the word) between | shippers; and in item 4 result in

; undue prejudice to Stockton and undue preference to other

California ports in violation of section 16, second ° para- :

~ graph, subparagraph “First”. ,

Section 17. The equalization. rules are prohibited be- -

_ cause the same actions enumerated with respect to section

15 in items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 above constitute unjust

_and ynreasonable regulations conntcted with the receiving,

handling, and storing or.delivering of property.

_ Section 18. The equalization rules violate subsection

(b)(1) because the same actions with respect to section

15-in item 1 fail to meet the:tariff filing requirements, ‘and

in item 2 above constitute an improper tariff publication.

For the reason that the Commission has no authority to

administer sections 8 and 205, these laws are not discussed.

The Examiner made a: decision on each request, found

none of the claims proven, and rejected all of the requested

findings and conclusions. Exceptions followed.

The exceptions of A. Stockton Port District and B. Pacific

Westbound to which we must adress. ourselves are as

follows:

A. Stockton Port District. Complainant excepts:

‘1. To all of the Examiner’s ultimate findings and con-

clusiogs contained in the second: paragraph on page 31 of

the Initial Decision. The Examiner’s ultimate conclusions .

and findings require subdivision for the purpose of rational

: 8. Improper equalization practices’ are coricealed, con-

vase trary. te.the public. interest and-in. detriment to the com-

‘ meree. :

WV ams

Meg

Hen: Appendiz +» — Pe 61

discussion about the distinct provisions of law which he

finds not to. be violated, so the exception becomes one to-the

‘conelusion that the equatinetion 4 rules and panetians — .

ant thereto:

“a. are not in violation of section 15,

”

b. are not in violation of section. 16, second pare- "

graph, subparagraph First, 7

¢. are notin violation of section 17, and

_d.. are not i in violation of section 18(b).

For the reasons noted above, references to section 8 of the

Merchant Marine Act, 1920, and section 205 of the Merchant

Marine Act, 1936, also referred to by the Examiner, are

disregarded as not within our functions.

2. To statements regarding the geographical location of

the ports of Stockton and San Francisto.

3. To statements~ regarding the geographical relation-

ship of Texas City, Houston, and Galveston, ‘Texas, in ¢om-

_ parison with San Francisco, Stockton, and other Bay ports,

and to the position of Beaumont, Texas, in relation to'that .

of Los Angeles, California. |

4. To a statement regarding the territory Sanreny

tributary to Stockton. «

5. Toa statement that under existing decisions the con- |

: clusions regarding naturally tributary territory are deter-

minative of the question as to whether equalization as be-

tween Stockton and other. San A renciaon Bay ports should .

be disapproved. 6)

‘6. To the conclusion that the filed equalization rules.

comply with section 18(b)(1) without filing any inland car-

rier rates. Sed

- 7, To the conclusion | that the Palit does not support a

"finding and conclusion that as a practical matter the deter-

mination of payments i is impossible.

sae i . . “ = .

62. Appendix : '

| 8. To the statement that the rules as ; applied. do not

- discourage or decrease the aggregate use of Stockton and

other Bay area ports or divert arenas from its patural direc- -

tion of flow.

_ 9... To the statement that Stockton does not ada ade-

_ quate service for general cargo shipments to which equali-

~ aa ion is applicable. a

0. To the statement that the ryles and practices. are not .

, found to be unjustly discriminatory or unfair between ports.

y - 1. To the statement that there is no unjust discrimina- -

tion between shippers or undue or unreasonable preference

or advantage to any particular 7 under sections 15 and

16 (First) of the Act. .

12. To the statement that there is ‘no evidence veiainin:

- tion is \not profitable to any equalizing carrier, nor any

: evidence that the public interest or commerce of the United

States has been adversely affected hy any en of

carriers’ revenues.

18. To the’ statement it can not ‘be concluded that the °

rules are a facility for malpractice. . - 3 Biri

fruit insofar as they approve equalization practices with

respect to such commodity if'a rule is put in the tariff.

An exception as to the violation of section 205 Has been

disregarded. °

- B. Pacific Westbound Dultenaiée: Respondent iiieinte

to the conclusion that the rules, to the extent that they per-

mit general equalization upon cargo. loaded at the ports of

Los Angeles and Long Beach based upon the excess cost

of inland transportation from point of origin to such ports ;

over such cost to San Francisco, Stockton, “or any other

port within the San Francisco Bay harbor complex”, are

unjustly diseriminatory and unfair between ports under

Appendix > oP ee 63

section 15 and ‘to such extent, the rules and Practices are

disapproved.

-The Examiner’ s ultimate findings and concltnions. “con-

tained in paragraph 2 on page 31 of the Initial Decision”

are that no provision of the Act has been violated by re-

spondents ‘as a result of the facts summarized in the eight

requested findings and conclusions i in Complainant’s open-

ing brief. The generalized nature of Stockton’s first excep- -

tion requires going back over complainant’s éight requested.

findings, particulatly in response to Stockton’s further re-

quest that “our Opening Brief and our Reply be considered

‘in connection: with si argument in support of our excep-

" tions.”

"My rulings would as follows: ,

. The rules and practices are authorized by agreements

filed pursuant to section 15. These agreements have here-

tofore been approved as a result of the approval: of Agree-

ments Nos. .57, 5680, and 6060. The authorized rules and -

practices are those in. Rule. No. 2 in Tariff No. 1-X. of —

Pacific Westbound; Rule No. _1(b) in. Tariff No. 6 of

Pacific Straits; and Rule No. lin Tariff ‘No. 7 of Pacific

Indonesia. There is no issue. that the: agreements relate

to the subjeets. listed i in the first paragraph of section 15.

We have held that an equalization: rule is one‘of such sub-

‘jects and must be filéd unless the practice set forth in the

rule is authorized by the basic Conference Agreements.

Pacific: Coast Port Equalization Rule, 7 FMC 623 (1963) _

(see pages 630, 631). Our order was affirmed and found

valid in American Export & Isbrandtsen Lines, et al vs. -

. Federal Maritime. Commission et al, 336 F. 2d, 650°(C.A.

9th 1964)’ The tariff Tules are an implementation of the

filed, agreements Nos. 57, 5680, and 6060 provisions for-

bidding payment in respect of freight and absorption at :

loading ports of rail freights or other . ra ‘except as

- 64 oe: Agpentie:

ask to by two-thirds ‘of the beirtlea” and thereafter -

shown in tariffs. Two-thirds of the members have bound

all the members to perform the equalization absorption

rules. ; 7 TH eee nd ak

The issues are ‘whether (i) past approval should be

withdrawn and disapproval substituted as authorized by

Section 15 because of the eight reasons presented, (ii):

misdemeanors should be found for violation of section

16, or (iii) ‘unlawful ac halted for violation of sec-

tion 17, or (iv) ri vie awean for violation of section |

-18(b):. .

‘A. Stockton’s exceptions:

1, The ultimate conclusions ‘and findings.

(a) Exceptions related to ore of agreements un-

der section 15. :

(1) The amount to be absorbed ‘~ a carrier - through

‘payments . equalizing inland shipping costs to Stockton.

- and San Francisco is as determinable as any general |

fale can-make it in view of the various situations to ‘be

‘eovered. The amount is measured “on the basis of the

~ lowest applicable” rates, must-be substantiated by “a copy

of transportation. bill covering movement from point of

origin”, and by a statement of “applicable interior rates

. 9 and/or:the basis of equalization”. These requirements are

preceded by a definition of what equalization is, such as .

the definition i in Rule 2 appended to-the Examiner’s Deci-

: sion’ In other respects, pages 7 and 8 of the Examiner’ 8

Decision explain adequately how the absorption is .a& sep- |

arate transaction after the established ocean freight is

paid, and is computed on the basis of tariff-established

_ inland transportation costs. This agency’ ’s precedents cited

in opposition all concerned cases where ‘the ocean freight --

. rate was subject to adjustment depending on inland costs.

Here aie’ is a separate payment in vesponied to shipper

application after objectively establishing inland costs and

a public. record is kept of all payments. The rule and

computation of all amounts are known to everyone. No.

detriment to. commerce nor contrariety with public inter-

est has been proven.

| (2) For’ the reasons given above sible the amount

is ascertainable and known, the payments pursuant, to

the rule are equally easy to establish “on the basis |

’ of the lowest applicable common carrier or contract car-

_. rier rates” (or “lowest applicable rates” under the Pacific/

Indonesia rule) and: may not exceed “35 .percent, of the

ocean freight”. An established trade practice was shown

.. involving inspection of the shipper’s freight, bill ‘showing

the amount actually paid to the inland carrier. From such

amount the calculated cost of shipment to Stockton “is

subtracted and the difference is paid. Variations are

reflected in appropriate revisions, as described by the

_.Examiner. The determination of the “lowest” amount was

ne" shown in some cases to be difficult, or complicated, but

not. impossible. Complainant . illustrated these circum-

stances, but never “showed -exactly how ‘discrimination.

between shippers and exporters resulted from the diffi-

culties or complexities, and no discriminatien is discerned

‘from «inspecting the record, Detriment to commer¢e or

contrariety with. public interest are -pot proven by. the

fact of difficulty or complexity alone.

(3) The freight that would “naturally” pass through’

_- Stockton mostly would be freight that exporters could

send to Stockton, cheaper than to ahy other port since

ocean freight rates are the same as from San Francisco; _

consequently, “naturally” is taken to be a euphemism

for more cheaply or at less cost. Use of Stockton is

- unquestionably discouraged or decreased if any economic

66 - <dppendio er a

sibesiitenen in using. ‘Stockton are cancelled “s paying”

- shippers their added expenses of shipping somewhere else.

_ If the issue were the effect of equalization. payments on

7 Stockton alone,? the case would end right here, but the

; effect on shippers and carriers must be considered too..

The record showed that the effect of the expenses ab}

sorbed by the carriers and payments to shippers pursuant

NS the rule were for their mutual economic advantage. - |

Shippers benefit from access*to. frequent, regular, and reli- | j

Bes ablé.service at San Francisco. Many are put on competi- =

tively” more dqual terms with shippers of similar products

' as government inspections required for export are avail-

able at San Francisco but aot at Stockton. Inspections

-by the. Department.of Agriculture related to the Public

Law 480 program involving primarily bulk cargoes are

undertaken, however: For ‘1961, for example, 200,357 tons

of commercial bulk cargo weré-loaded to or transshiped

' for conference ships as compared with.51,045 tons of com- .

‘mercial general eargo. Carriers benefit by- not having a

4 make the extra 75-nautical-mile journey to Stockton for :

‘amounts of cargo insufficient to. snpport regular berth.

‘service. The trip costs from $3,200 to’ $5,000 a round trip. a

The journey-is to some extent hazardous, involving delays

° for bridge lifting at several points, ‘fogs, turns in the

river. impeding radar perception, and there have been

through September 1961 a total ‘of 110 groundings. since ay

- the opening of the charinel, of which 44 have occurred

Since Deceniber 1947. Stevedoring i is more efficient at San

ships’ loading parcel cargoes in some cases ,must move’

- from a bulk loading berth~to a general cargo loading

aie at extra expense. (Note: ‘Phe illustration accom-

4 " /.

. sending: merchandise to San‘Francisco and having part of

Appendix | 67

panying. my dissent in Docket No, 1084 makes eae’ how.

such ship movement mi made necessary.) The Examiner

_ correctly analyzed this evidence as establisHing, on bal-

ance between Stockton’s interest and those of carriers and

shippers, no detriments to commerce or: conflict with 98

lic interest. =

(4): Undue, unjust, or unreasonable discriminatign, prej-

udice, and preference involve choices creating inequality

of treatment of similafly situated persons for no reason.

There are legitimate egonomic reasons for the carriers’

rule based on’ the different situations -at the two ports.

The carriers’ choice of making equalization payments to

avoid a trip to Stockton and the shippers’ choices: in

the inland transportation costs paid by the carriers in--

volve. legitimate business advantage to each. The advan-

tages and disadvantages are described i in (3). above. The —

these ‘mutual advantages. Invalidation of the rule to ad-

vantage Stockton would leave the carriers three other

choices: (i) to-go to Stockton and load available cargo re-

gardless of expense, (ii). transship from Stockton by land’or

intermediate water transportation and ‘pay the entire cost

including -terminal and handling costs, or (iii) give up

the cargo-and ‘not serve Stockton. The first two would

‘not disadvantage the shipper but would cause the carrier

expenses which would have to be recovered in high

rates.. The third choice would harm shippers. who .eould

transport overland more cheaply to Stockton than to San .

-Francisco. The situations of the parties are in no respects

comparable. As long as the purpose and effect of the.

rule’are mutual economic advantage of the carriers and

shippers, ports and localities are not unreasonably dis-

68 Appendiz See

. advantaged. if the rule diverted traffic from Stockton with

' no advantage to’ shippers or carriers, the situation would:

be differént from what this record shows. ‘This record

shows economies in carrier operations and more efficient:

service as a result of equalization. I concur in the Exam-.

iner’s discussion of this evidence. _

(5) There was no evidence that the rule’ inevitably causes

different shippers to be treated differently in making ‘equal- —

ization payments. The point. is made largely Dby argument

that variations in payments were inevitable because of vari-

atidns in the inland transportation charges caused by varia-

tions in weight and origin of shipments. It was also shown

that raisin growers do not receive payments equal to the

different costs to. ports, because of the application of less-

‘ than-truckload rates or of regular truck tariff rates where.

the shipper uses his own truck, and citrus fruit is not dealt

with under the rule. These facts do not invalidate the rule,

but may show violation of the law in the administration

_ of the rule. If there is cheating by discriminatory adminis-

tration of the rule or by disregard of the rule for.favored

shippers, another case is ‘presented not capable of resolu-

tion on this record. The rule itself is not at fault in such a

case, but rather the conduct of carrier officials.

_ (6) Dissipation of carrier revenues is not evidence of

illegat conduct. Those carriers which spend more money ,;

to serve Stockton do so for reasons of self-interest, but

voluntary expenditures do not invalidate the rule merely

by describing them by the pejorative “dissipation”. On the

. whole, the record showed that for most of the carriers it

was less expensive to absorb part of theinland shipper costs

than to make the trip to Stockton. No detrinient to com-

> ‘merce or contrariety with public interest is shown by these

facts. ee or

” .% Lg

ea neat : . Appendix . so 5; 69 :

| (7) Caytiers serving Stockton are deprived of -Stockton

} oe cargo as a result of the absorption of the excess inland

: ee freight to San Franeiseo over Stockton, but, equally,. car-

) riers serving San Francisco would be deprived of cargo

- under any other arrangement, and Stockton has not estab-

lished any superior right to offset the.conveniences of the

shipping public and carriers. No detriment to commerce or |

contrariety with public interest is shown by these facts. |

(8). Concealment of improper practices by the rule pre-

supposes the existence of improper practices being eon-

cealed, but none was proven. All that was produced were 3

speculative possibilities and testimony of what one witness

called “improper practices”. Opinions are not proof, There

‘has been no adjudication of the illegality asserted by the

opinions, even assuming the rule itself were proven inevit-

_ ably to cause illegal conduct. If conduct is shown to be

illegal, it will have to’be punished by some other means than -

invalidation of the rule which will harm all carriers follow-

ing the rule, but leave the guilty party unpunished.

The exceptions related to section 15 should be overruled.

(b) Exceptions related to violations of section 16.

(1) The determination of the correct amount of the equal-

- ization payment under the rules was found as a practical .

_ matter to be possible and no individual carrier’s guilt in

_cheating. on computations was proven. Complainant, by in- °

ferencé and argument, has only sought to ‘prove ‘that “it

- leaves the door open to undue - preference and prejudice

between shippers” and has argued that the possibility is

inevitable. Complainant treats the rules. themselves as the

matefactor. (See par. XIII, subparagraphs 3 and 4,-Com- ' nea

plaint.) Section 16 applies to common carriers either alone

or in conjunction with any other person directly or in-

directly, and the -prohibited acts in specific instances by

named persons must be proven to establish-a misdemeanor.

‘ 5 ies

ei es : ®

TEENS ARN NIT ENE CTSNET SR A st aR aS iti Lomas id nisi one Sedan bee

70 Appendiz :

-,No such acts have been linked up with any respondent on -

this record. If the instances: involving the raisin growers,

or truckers using their own trucks,’ or citrus fruit shippers

are thought to prove misdemeanors, the testimony without -

documentary proof in this record is inadequate. We should

have: exhibits showing similar transactions and disparate ;

treatment deviating from what the rule purports to do.

(2) For the same reasons the testimony regarding differ-

: ent treatment of shippers was inadequate because not con-

a nected with«any instances of specific wrongdoing.

(3) The charges that i improper equalization practices are

“concealed” or that the rule serves as a “cloak” for im- ‘>

_ proper practices are innuendoes and equally faulty as sub-

’ stitutes for proof of misdemeanors. 3

- No violation of any provision of section 16 has been

, een. and the exceptions related thereto should be over-

(e) Exceptions related to vidistuna of section 17.

Under the first paragraph of section 17, complainant,

after stating it is “in competition as a port and a terminal

with San Francisco . . .”‘(Complaint, par. XII), alleges the

rule causes “charging and collecting . . . rates and charges

that. are unjustly discriminatory between shippers and

; port .” (Complaint, par. XII (5)).

The eneending repart answers, first, on precedent such —

payments were authprized in Beaumont Port Commission’

v. Seatrain Lines, 2 USMC 699 ( 1943) and, second, on .

definition the “natural” flow. of everseas traffic from the

San Joaquin Valley has always been through -the Golden

Gate. Neither precedent nor definition, however, explains

why the standards of the statute are not disregarded by

charging the same ocean transportation rates from both

ports, ‘and ‘then by paying those shippérs who might other- .

wise choose — a part of their inland semgeenine

Appendix | 71

cost as an- inducement to choose San Francisco instead.

There is no doubt Stockton is going to be ‘discriminated -

against by this practice and is entitled to a reasonable ex-

planation of why any discrimination is or is not unjust other

than that the’ act has been done before in Texas. or that,

before Stockton Spent its money for a port, traffic went _

’ through the Golden Gate anyway, and that traffic is just as

- “naturally tributary” to San Francisco as to Stockton.

Stockton makes the very reasonable and compelling argu-

ment that if a port invests millions of dollars in develop-

ment largely with public money, it is entitled to all the cargo

that may be sent.to the port cheaper than to any other port.

Certain formulas using constructive mileages to delineate

areas are used to establish inland transportation costs. The

cargo that may be sent to the port easier than. to, any other |

port is- then called local tributary traffic, as I understand

- the argument. Stockton says other ports may not. take away

this local tributary traffic, nor take away the advantages of

getting cargo to Stockton by equalization paynients to ship-

pers. My answer is Stockton has no such rights by virtue of -

expenditures or the existence of a “natural” flow or local

tributary traffic and, absent such rights, the discrimination

induced by the carriers’ refunds eas exercised by shippers

is not unjust:

The justification for public investment in port construc-

tion comes before, not after, the investment. The investment

depends on commercial potentialities, not on future rights.

-. Once made; the investment does not thereafter create legal

‘Tights to.a flow of business or entitle anyone to anything,

but only creates opportunities to exploit. The only creator

of opportunity or business values now claimed by Stockton

as a matter of right or entitlement is the peculiarity of the

same ocean freight rates from Stockton as from San Fran-

—

ages —— Appendiz

- _eiseo in spite of ‘longer travel time and distances. The

peculiarity of such rates from Stockton: ‘was created by the

carriers, not by Stockton. It is not unjust.that the rate |

equality is eliminated by the absorption of partial inland

mane transporting costs because the carriers have only eliminated

what they created in the first place. Nothing.is taken away

that Stockton was entitled to, such as values it created. The

consequences to public investment im ports are the conse-

quences of past decisions to locate a port where ‘business

potentialities may never be fully realized rather than by

denial of rights resulting in unjust discrimination. - —

Natural flow of traffic and local tributary traffic argu-

_. ments are equally unfounded, being based on a supposition —

of vested: rights to traffic*based on mileages to ports regard-

less of economic considerations. Such rights have no‘rela- |

tion to commerce which, ‘as I see it, may not exclude mone-

tary factors. Shipper choices and port and carrier benefits

depend on savings. to shippers. There is no such thing as a

local tributary measure based on. mileage formulas alone

translated into rights to certain business regardless . of

cost. A local tributary measure must be related to trans-

portation costs and there is no unjustness i in offering ship-

pers a saving in ghoosing one port over another, the

_ geography of this case being what ad is, as long as all: are

There is no unjust discrimination between shippers and

ports, and the exception as to.a violation: of the first para-

graph of section 17 should be overruled.

No consequence of the rule on the absorption of part of

inland freight costs relates to a regulation or practice con-

nected with the receiving, handling, storing, ‘or delivering

of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of

section 17. Beaumont Port Com’n v. Seatrain Lines, 3 FMB

= *

a devedle aes 73

556 (1951). Neither the payment to the digete sacelasia

by inland freight nor a reduction in rates-involves receiv-_

ing, handling, or storing of property, but involves trans-.

portation. The exception as to a violation of the. second

_ paragraph of section 17 should be- ‘overruled. — |

(d). Exceptions related. to’ violations of section. 18(b) ( 1).

(1) The amount of the payment was found above to be

determinable from a reading of the rule and this is all that

‘section. 18(b)(1) requires. Section 18(b)(1) requires filing

only of “rates and charges .. . for transportation to and

from United States ports and foreign ports and hpricot

all points on its own route .

(2) Determination of ounces: while difficult, is pos- .

sible. The objective of the rule and the guiding measurés

are stated’ and testimony disclosed précisely how payments

were calculated in ‘given instances. The unworkability of -

. the rule was not proven. Three situations were alleged

where payments may not have followed the rule, but there

was*no specific evidence. As noted earlier, if specific in-

stances of. discriminatory treatment or dishonesty in the —

application of the rule are shown, adjudication and punish-—

ment, if guilt is found, may be undertaken in separate Pro-

ceédings.

The exceptions related to section 18(b) o should be

overruled. : ‘

2. The statements: regarding geogenphiteal loeation.

The Examiner’s statements regarding the geographical

location of Stockton and San Francisco are that we are

‘dealing “with a single port as against another port in the

same geographical area—in fact in the same harbor com-

plex” and that “. . . both ports . ... may be described as San

' Francisco Bay urls .. .”. Stockton is up the Sacramento .

. . Appendiz Sel

River and a long way from San Francisco Bay. The state-

ment may be inaccurate, but the entire statement conclud-

ing with “Stockton simply does not exist as an ocean port

separate from the Golden Gate” serves the useful purpose

of highlighting the dominating geographical fact of this

ease, and of recognizing the geographical fact which pre-

vents Stockton from having superior rights over San Fran-

cisco. The fact is that, to serve Stockton once, a carrier — 3

must zo through’ the Golden Gate and pass San Francisco .

- at least twice. If Stockton is served, so inevitably is San

Francisco. Both carrier. and shipper efficiency result by one.

stop and a shorter ocean journey. The total journey by land

_ and sea is the same for the shipper in either case. The port

in this journey at which commerce is best served'on the

facts of this case is, partly at least, where there is.a con-

centration of services, particularly if it is a large port that

has to be passed i in any event. Arguments 9 “hatural”’.

flow of commerce or tributary territory prove little because 4

success of the arguments depends on from where you meas-—

uré the flow. I understand the Examiner, to be saying in

effect that detriments to commerce have to take this domi-

nating fact into consideration, and the measuring point for

territory “naturally” tributary or the point where the “nat-_

ural” flow ends is not Stockton, but the Golden Gate. Unless

_ carriers and shippers can avoid San Francisco by going to

Los Angeles or somewhere else on the Pacific Coast, they

should be able to make the most efficient arrangements pos- _

sible to get cargo past the Golden Gate. Any inaccuracy in

| the statement does not negative the eorrectness of the essen-

tial point. The second exception should be overruled.

3. The statements regarding geographical relationships.

The statement regarding Texas City, Houston, Galveston, -

‘ and Beaumont, Texas, is appropriate because ships serving

Appendix. , : 15

Texas City and Houston must pass Galveston coming in

or going out to sea or may avoid Galveston by. going to

Beaumont north’ up the Gulf Coast to. obtain inland ship-

ments. The comparison with San Francisco and Galveston .

and Beaumont and Los Angeles is‘accurate. The third ex-

~ _ ception should be. overruled -

4, The statement regarding naturally tributary tétkitory.

The fourth exception should be overruled for the reasons

given in 2 above. :

5. The statement that existing decisions determine dis-

approval. :

The existing decistean h d that Beaumont, Pei not.

being “within the Galveston Bay group” and. Texas City

being in such group, a carrier might compete for traffic by

means of an absorption of inland freight without violating

the law because traffic through Beaumont: was not “natu-

. rally tributary to.Texas: City” which’ was served by the

absorbing carrier. Beaumont Port Commission-v. Seatrain

e Lines, Inc.; 2 USMC 699 ( 1943). The precedent i is applicable

and supports: the ruling in 3 above. The ane en

should be overruled.

6. .The conclusion that the rules comply without filing .

inland rates,

The conclusion that the filed equalization rules sands

with section 18(b)(1) without filing any inland carrier rates . -

is supported by the reasoning that the amount of the pay-

ment is determinable from a reading of the rule. Section

18(b) ( 1): applies to “the rates and charges” of a carrier

" “for transportation to and from United States ports and _

foreign ports”. Respondents fixed their ocean rates and the —

same rate applies from every terminal port. The equaliza-

tion is another’ transaction’ involving a ‘payment based on

inland costs pursuant to a prescribed formula. The sixth

exception should be overruled.

"16 Sete : domain. ;

7. The ‘sueidin that the record does’ not ‘support °

findings. | ;

For ‘the Meare reasons ya er dees a « finding

and conclusion that as a practical matter the determination ;

: of nent is possible. The seventh exception should be

overruled. * — :

« §. The-statement that the rules do not disedurage use.

of Stockton.

, The Examiner’s statements that the ssiplication of the

equalization rules does not discourage use of Stockton or

divert traffic from its natural flow are not determinative of

the issues. The rules undoubtedly discoutage.use of Stock-

ton by those nearer Stockton who have lower inland trans-

portation costs to a port, but can ship just 'as cheaply from.

San Francisco as a result of the rule. Such discouragement,

however, does not establish violation of a y laws giving

Stockton any protected rights to be used instead of San

Francisco. Diversion of traffic from “natural flow” supposes

a predetermined natural flow which does not exist. ‘The -

direction of traffic is determined from moment to moment

and operates in the future as-each shipper decides where

his self-interest i is best served. The so-called-natural flow

is something only seen in retrospect as the collective results

of decisions, not a preordained condition that dictates rights

to have business. Complainant’s reliance on diversion of a

natural flow as a ‘Violation of rights apart from, other mal-

practices is misplaced on the facts of this case, regardless

of the Examiner’ ~ statements. The eighth exception should

be overruled. ‘ .

9. The statement that Stockton does not provide ade-

quate service.

‘The facts showed that at Stockton certain general cargo

operations were inconvenient and involved added expense,

ee liga” 2 | 7

transit and berthing difficulties exist, and government. in- |

spections required for export were not available, substan-

tiating -the statement that Stockton does not provide ade-

quate service for some general cargo shipments. The uneco-

nomic nature of cargo available at. Stocktén:is shown by the

fact that the commodities: affected by equalization rules

average 40 tons per shipment, and in 1961 71% of all-‘Trans-

Pacific Conference ships calling at Stockton loaded asilittle

-as from 0 to 50 tons of general cargo per departure (Exh.

52). The commodities concerned are largely condensed milk,

_ raisins, instant coffee; hides,.and lumber (Exh. 11). Wit-

"nesses agreed there was not a cargo to support regu-

lar berth service. Ps - &,

The ninth exception nia be oveevaied,

.10., The statement that the rules are’ not discriminatory. )

The statement that the rules and practices are not dis-

criminatory is substantiated by. the reasoning in support

of the conclusion there has been no violation of section 16.

~ The tenth exception should be overruled, ; |

‘11. The statement that there is no discrimination be-

tween shippers. en

‘The eleventh exception concerning unjust discrimination

* «should be overruled for. the reasons given in 10 preceding.

12. The statements kaaanthacs ‘the _— of oe

ization. -

The statements ene a ding ‘the profitability of on

tion are not determinative of any issuées, The ¢laims Te-

garding “dissipation” of carrier revenues as having an

_ adverse; effect on commerce were not substantiated by fact

any more than the Examiner’s statement. abiess?

. The twelfth exception should be overruled. _ iat

13. The statement that the rules no ‘not facilitate mal- |

atest

~ aan

78 rE na Pam ; i

_/* Bach malpractice occurring as a result of the rules must |

be adjudicated by proof of specific acts with guilt individu-_

_ ally assessed, Any malpractices are the-results of actions

"by people, not the rules. The rules equally permit legitimate

practices. If the rules facilitate malpractices, the perpetra-

tors of the malpractice, not the enactors of the rule, ‘must’

be blamed,, The diversion-of-cargo ‘part of the statement

excepted to” has been discussed above and ruled not con- -

trolling. . : sat: e °

"The thirteenth exception should be: siaeneiil a a

14, The. Badings and qeneeecne with respect, to citrus

"trait. | | Bey sites < |

’ Thé Examiner’ s findings and. conchasiiis with Siesiat ras

‘to citrus fruit: are that certain allowarices are, made at the

‘rate of 15¢. per carton for fruit originating in “Southern

California”. and shipped from San Francisco. This allow-

ance has nothing to do with Stockton and i is not pursuant | ;

ance with or. pursuant to the tariff. The Examiner correctly

“found section 18(b) of the Act was being. violated, but the

. violation is outside the scope of the Complaint: Neither the

_ Examiner’ 8 nor the majority’s report herein contains any

express recognition of the provision of law that whoever.

violates any provision of section 18(b) shall be liable to'a

penalty for each day a violation’ eontinues. The omission, _

however, does not mean that there is approval of the “equal-

’ jzation. practice” with respect to such commodity’ even if |

_a tule is -put inthe tariff. The finding of law violation is =

enough. ‘The issue of future validity will still have to be |

aie alitinted. The fourteenth exception should: be overruled.

ee a Pacific Westbound’s exception:. _ Ee:

The basis of the respondent’s exception i is that the Exam-

| iner. made no. ‘agocmendd to support his conclusion as hei is :

| Brides Appendiz SS Pe ee

leat requiréd to do under section 8(b) of the Administrative

aes Procedure Act, and there is no evidence on which to. base

- the conclusion, Other than a factual statement that the -4

number of: shipments was small but the onnage substantial

a and that the Golden Gate is 423 miles north of Los Angeles, ate

| _ there are no findings. These particular facts are neither

‘analyzed as findings nor connected by any reasoning what-

ever with the abrupt_conclusion that the record does not -

support a conclusion the territory: tributary to.Los Angeles

_ (Wilmington and Long Beach) overlaps. “that of the San-

Francisco Bay area ports”. It does not “follow”, nor do

the findings support the announced conclusion. Statements

of fact followed by the announcement of conclusions are not

enough. Reasoning is needed to connect the two. Accord-

ingly, the exception might have been sustained. My col- —

_leagues, however, supplied the reasoning* by. stating that

(a) where the “absorption destroys the right of ports to

traffic originating in naturally tributary areas”, (b) where

service at the ports equalized against is adequate, and (c)

where the record: shows: the substantiating details, there is

an unlawful diversion. Neither this reasoning nor the fac- |

tors in (b) and (c) were in the Examiner’s. decision, and

it is not supplied by any correct setting forth of “the. legal

test”. Accordingly, the deficiency is adequately remedied

and. the exception may be ruled no sneer material to ‘the

" decision.

Based on ‘the forbgoing ralings, I would conclude on the.

issues: :

1. -Past approval of enh filed by Lespoedehts

should not be withdrawn and disapproval substituted pur-

suant to section 15. The agreements should remain ap-

. _& Me misdemeanors should be found for violation of

| section’ 16 because of lack of proof. |

80 Appendia

3. No violation of section 17 has been proven.

plaint herein, has been proven. FEE hit 5,

“8

> é

e \

: \

‘

° o

> “

2 t

“

i o

ra : ‘

Y .

be 1

; << s

ial “?

‘?

, ; ,

CD Meee DIT,

ait 4 Pal ea a Zs es Wages ?

Appendiz en

Appendix D ;

Conference Member Lines Who Are Respondents Herein

| 1. ‘Members. of Pacific Westbound Conference

AMERICAN MAIL LINE? LTD.

AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD.

ISTHMIAN LINES, INC.

JAPAN LINE, LTD.

KAWASAKI KISEN KAISHA, LTD.

KLAVEN ESS LINE—

_. skibsaktieselskapet Solstad

, ” Skibsaktieselskapet Siljestad

Universal Trading & Shipping Agency Aksjesclskap

KNUTSEN LINE—

Dampskibsaktieselskapet Jé eanette oasaner

Skibsaktieselskapet Pacific —

Skibsaktieselskapet Marie Bakke

Dampskibsaktieselskapet Golden Gate

Dampskibsaktieselskapet Lisbeth

Skibsaktieselskapet Ogeka

Hvalfangstaktieselskapet Suderoy e

| DAMPSKIBSSELSKABET AF 1912 AKTIESELSKAB

_ AKTIESELSKABET DAMPSKIBSSELSK ABET SVENDBORG

(A.P. Moller, Maersk Line)

MARITIME COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES

NEDLLOYD & HOEGH LINES | ; ‘

N.V. Nedlloyd. Lijnen : : aes

Skibsaktieselskapet Arizona

Skibsaktieselskapet Astrea

‘Skibsaktieselskapet Aruba -

Skibsaktieselskapet Noruega

Skibsaktieselskapet essen

A/S Atlantica

“

“NIPPON YUSEN KAISHA, LTD. (N.Y.K. LINE)

OSAKASHOSEN MITSUISENPAKU KAISHA, LTD.

(Mitsui 0.8.K. Lines, Ltd.)

— 82 i PE _ Appendix

PACIFIC FAR EAST LINE, INC.

SHOWA SHIPPING CO., LTD.

(SHOWA KAIUN KAISHA, LAD.)

“SHOWA LINE” -

STATES MARINE ‘LINES, INC.

(Global Bulk Transport Incorporated)

STATES STEAMSHIP COMPANY

. UNITED PHILIPPINE LINES, INC.

WATERMAN STEAMSHIP CORPORATION

YAMASHITA-SHINNIHON STEAMSHIP CO., LTD.

(Yamashita-Shinnihon Line) i . 2

FERN LINE

: Skibsaktieselskabet Varild.

an Aksjeselskapet Marina

' Aktieselskabet Glittre : ey

Dampskibsinteressentskabet Garonne at

Aktieselskapet Standard

: ‘Fetenkey & Eger Befragtningsforretning A/S.

_(As one member or party only) Poors

; Fearnley & Eger

P & O ORIENT LINES

heise eae DAMPSKIBSAKTIESELSK AB

A/S Den Norske oper iat Australielinie

A/S Tonsberg: .

A/S Tankfart I

_A/s Tankfart 7 ae.

A/S Tankfart IV ;

A/S Tankfart VI pie friday ee

2" ‘Members of Pocifie-Straits Contipeana ie

AMERICAN MAIL LINE, LTD. eas

AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD.

_ ISTHMIAN LINES, INC. 7 so uee ee

KLAVENESS LINE Bees hte oe

| Gkibsaktieselskapet Sangstad | .

Skibsaktieselskapet,Solstad

caren pame te ees

Appendix ieee : aoe, 2

- Dampekibeaktieselskabet International ;

Skibsaktieselskapet Mandeville

_Skibsaktieselskapet Goodwill

Universal Trading & Shipping Agency Akajesclekap,

KNUTSEN LINE *

Dampskibsaktieselskapet Jeanette Skinner

Skibsaktieselskapet Pacific

‘ ft Skibsaktieselskapet Marie Bakke’

- Dampskibsaktieselskapet Golden Gate

Dampskibsaktieselskapet Lisbeth

Skibsaktieselskapet Ogeka_—-

Hvalfangstaktieselskapet Suderoy |

DAMPSKIBSSELSKABET AF 1912 AKTIESELSKAB -.

AKTIESELSKABET DAMPSKIBSSELSKABET SVENBORG

(A.P. MOLLER-MAERSK LINE):

NEDLLOYD & HOEGH LINES

N.V. Nedlloyd Lijnen

Skibsaktieselskapet Arizona ¥

. Skibsaktieselskapet Astrea: - eplcaee Be

. . Skibsaktieselskapet Arubo . ;

. Skibsaktieselskapet Noruega

Skibsaktieselskapet Abaco. .

A/S Atlantica - anes r

; SHOWA SHIPPING CO., LTD.

(SHOWA. KAIUN KAISHA, ETD.

“SHOWA LINE’’) ‘

WILHELMSENS DAMPSKIBSAKTIESELSKAB > 2

A/S Dén Norske Afrika—Og Searels Sale

A/S Tonsberg —

‘A/S Tankfart I~ | TL Drm ieee Te Se es }

- A/S Tankfart V , ¢

A/S TankfartIV’ - | ae ig ca Saf Mires

Tankfart VI a wie ee, Be

FERN LINES. |

Fearnley & Eger and ’ a et

A.F. Klaveness & Co., A/S are

_-Gkibsaktieselskapet Varild ws ay Gara

Skibsaktieselskapet Marina Z

eee Appendia

Aktieselskabet Glittre

- Dampskibsenteressentskabet Garonne a

Skibsaktieselskapet Standard —

‘ * Fearnley & Eger sey samen

* A/A/S |

Skibsaktieselskapet Solstad .

. Skibsaktieselskapet Siljestad

Dampskibsaktieselskabet International .

§kibsaktieselskapet Mandeville

'Skibsaktieselskapet Goodwill «

Universal Trading & Shipping Agency Se

KAWASAKI KISEN KAISHA, LTD.

| PACIFIC FAR: EAST LINE, INC.

P& O ORIENT LINES

ae SEATED STEAMSHIP COMPANY

ae sini od Winn /tininitlis estleeais

AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD. fat

P.N. DJAKARTA-LLOYD. BREA Tn sh i s &

ISTHMIAN LINES, INC. =

%s KLAVENESS LINE __.

Skibsaktieselskapet Sangstad i a le

Skibsaktieselskapet Solstad Bee

Skibsaktieselskapet Siljestad

Dampskibsaktieselskabet International

Skibsaktieselskapet Mandeville

Skibsaktieselskapet Goodwill -

Universal Trading & Shipping Agency Aksjeselskap

DAMPSKIBSSELSKABET AF 1912 AKTIESELSKAB —

' AKTIESELSKABET DAMPSKIBSSELSKABET SVENBORG

se (AP. MOLLER-MAERSK ee

FERN LINES

Fearnley & Eger and

A.F. Klaveness & Co., A/S -

Skibsaktieselskapet Varild

Skibsaktieselskapet Marina .

Rot ie et ee ae ~

: acai

Re a Pe NE Garonne

Skibsaktieselskapet Standard

Fearnley & Eger Befrgtningatoetaing

A/A/S

Skibsaktieselskapet Sangstad =,

Skibsaktieselskapet Solstad

Skibsaktieselskapet Siljestad-

Dampskibsaktieselskabet International

+ +Skibsaktieselskapet Mandeville -

__ Skibsaktieselskapet Goodwill

Universal Trading & Shipping Agency Akjeselskap ue

PACIFIC FAR EA®T LINE, INC.

WILHELMSENS DAMPSKIBSAKTIESELSK AB

A/S Den Norske Afrika—Og ee

A/S Tonsberg

A/S Tankfart I

A/S Tankfart V bones

A/S Tankfart IV ‘

A/S Tankfart VI :

(BARBER LINE)

tare

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.