94 F. Supp. 649 | N.D. Cal. | 1950
For many years certain of the steamship lines of the United States, to further their interests, and with statutory blessing,
In April of 1947 the United States Maritime Commission, now the Federal Maritime Board,
After a long investigation and many hearings, the Board concluded that the agreement of the members of the conferences not to pay brokerage was detrimental to the commerce of the United States and ordered the offending provision stricken from the conference agreements.
The petitioners, constituting the western carriers and conferences, commenced this action
The record is the same in both cases. The issue is also the same. It is difficult to understand why two actions tendering the same issue on the same record should have proceeded to judgment in two Federal statutory courts at the same time. Perhaps petitioners believed two bites of the apple might prove more nourishing.
We are of the opinion that the Maritime Board had statutory power over the subject matter and to enter the orders here made.
The only substantial question presented is whether or not the evidence before the Board was sufficient to sustain its findings and order. For the reasons stated by the New York court, 94 F.Supp. 138 we answer this question in the affirmative.
We agree with the New York court that the record sustains the conclusion that the activities of the freight forwarders have had a substantial proximate bearing upon the development of American maritime commerce and that the challenged provision of the conference agreements results in detriment to the commerce of the United States.
Accordingly a decree may enter denying the relief sought by petitioners and awarding judgment in favor of the respondents.
. Shipping Act of 1916, section 15, 46 U.S.C.A. §814.
. The Board became the successor of the Commission under Reorganization Plan 21 of 1950; 15 P.R. 3178.
. 46 U.S.C.A. § 830; 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1336, 1398, 2284, 2321, 2325 ; 5 U.S.C.A. § 1009.