*1 104 way against
utes. We thus observe that the In- militates our conclusion that Shipping placed upon Commerce Act and the terstate the Order has the Peti merely respective unpermitted Act adumbrate the tioners no unreasonable integrated jurisdictions, and nature burden.12 requires of the activities here involved Affirmed. overlapping a mutual so information fully is that each Commission informed concerning reasonably matters related to jurisdiction. looking inquiry its regulation prac- toward of Petitioners’ assertedly necessary shall
tices become tariffs,
after date of the effective such is no there reason to believe that TRIBBY, Appellant, Willard G. Maritime Commission exceed its jurisdiction. Nor can we doubt that Pe- titioners will be alert to take CAMERON, Superintendent, Dale St. Eliz- steps they possible Hospital, ultimate deem abeths Commission action to exceed the Com- powers. mission’s observe that United States Court of past practice holding joint hear- ings to consider con- matters mutual 6, Argued Jan. cern to both the Interstate Commerce 14, April Commission and Federal Maritime Decided gives Commission assurance that if ac- necessary10 remedy any is to ills designed which the statutes were to eliminate, respective Commissions carefully will limit their exercise of au-
thority to those matters committed to respective agencies.
their any event, point
In at this we attempting
would not be warranted in jurisdiction
delineate the limits of such pro
before action has taken been
posed by either Commission.11 We are
satisfied that the information here
sought reasonably regu related
latory functions entrusted to the Mari challenged
time Commission that the appropriately designed
Order permissible purpose.
achieve a That the
data on or must be furnished before the
effective dates of
tariffs as filed
provides
present
10. The
abuse;
Act
itself
that action can
courts
remain
relating
open
taken
violation
for business.”
hearing.
after
full
46
822
TJ.S.C. §
Co.,
12. United States v. Morton Salt
338
(1964).
632,
357,
652,
U.S.
S.Ct.
11. Pacific Coast Conference v. Far Federal East Conference v. - Commission, Commission, U.S.App.D.C. Federal Maritime U.S. Maritime App.D.C. -, p. -, 785, p. 110, 146, (1964), 115, 376 F.2d cert. 337 F.2d 790) (1967). possibility denied, “[T]he 85 S.Ct. 379 U.S. abuse (1965). future does not establish L.Ed.2d 611 *2 hearing the preceding in the
four months psychiatrist Court he had seen a District “approximately and had three times” participated or activities not in therapeutic programs than “en- other hospital therapy.” The vironmental partici- him to no to induce made effort pate him that and did not even tell Passivity ais available. treatment was mark of his illness. Cameron, U.S.App.
In Rouse v. D.C.-, F.2d we decided which 10, 1966, the October some months after the Court its order in entered present case, person hos that we held a “right pitalized (d) under 24-301 has a § cognizable in habeas treatment” corpus. government psychia There “the appellant trist that re testified the was ceiving therapy.’ But the ‘environmental suitability adequacy and of the ‘milieu’ therapy petitioner this as not for was explored.” Rouse, true in This is also. As here “ therefore, justice require’ ‘law that and Patterson, Washington, hearing findings Perry we remand for a on Mr. and S. appellant by court), ap- receiving adequate (appointed for D. C. this not, “may pellant. treatment.” al- the court hospital opportunity low a the reasonable Atty., Terry, Mr. A. Asst. U. S. John Rouse, And, to initiate treatment.” as in Bress, U. with whom Messrs. David G. “Unconditional or conditional release Q. Atty., Frank Nebeker and William S. appears op- in if be order it that the Cohen, Attys., on M. U. Asst. S. were portunity for treatment has been ex- brief, appellee. Alt- the for Mr. Oscar inap- hausted treatment is otherwise shuler, Atty., an Asst. S. also entered U. propriate. unnecessary It is the detail appearance appellee. for possible range of circumstances in which Judge, Edgerton, Before Senior Circuit release be the reme- Judges. Robinson, Tamm and and Circuit dy.” per- The conditions under a which deprived liberty son of his the are Judge: EDGERTON, Circuit Senior Congress concern of courts as well as and Hospital. discharg- the appeal This is from an order ing corpus. Appellant a of writ habeas suggest court that the do not Elizabeths Hos- committed St. was particular can decide what pursuant pital in 1960 to D.C.Code requires. patient The treatment (1961) 24-301(d), provides that which § ours resembles function here court’s charge person on a a tried criminal agency doWe action. when we review ground acquitted he on that agency made has not decide whether offense was insane at the time only decision, make sure but best hospital. in shall be confined a mental permissible rea- a that it has made decision in view of the relevant sonable The in its brief Government concedes range of a information and within broad appellant “receiving that little or treatment; discretion. true at at least this was hearing.” During proceedings. the time Remanded for further Judge (concurring TAMM, Circuit result): acquiesce the remand this case District Court because inadequate
concern relative to the rec- *3 upon presented I
ord to us. am unable record, satisfac- determine to affirm or reverse Court, accordingly join purpose
in the remand for the obtaining adequate for this court an
complete record. CREEK, Jr., Appellant,
Enoch STONE,
William J.
United States Court of
Argued Feb. 1967.
Order Filed Feb.
Opinion May 1, Filed