Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

516 FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
may reflect only those shipping problems Congress recognized at that
time this alone does not show a legislative intent to foreclose the Act s
application to future technological changes The Committee testimony
cited by the Presiding Officer cannot support a restrictive interpretation of
section 1 At best it shows thatcertain opinions were brought before the
Congress Similarly the judicial decisions relied on by the Presiding
Officer merely indicate that in 1916 shipping lines in fact operated to and
from U S ports These cases do not even address the question ofwhether
foreign commerce carriers not physically calling at United States ports
are immune from Shipping Act regulations
The Conference contends that the status of ACE s service must be
decided by considering the remedial purposes of section 1 and the breadth
of the language employed and then construing the statute liberally to
achieve that purpose Activities Tariff Filing Practices and Carrier
Status of Containerships Inc 9 F M C 56 59 1965 Important
regulatory objectives will be frustrated if ACE is held to be outside the
Commission s jurisdiction Ace will continue quoting rates which cannot
be verified shippers will remain unsure whether the same rates or
services that are available to them are also available to their competitors
and shippers and ports will have no forum to voice complaints of
discrimination or prejudice
The Conference further claims that if section 1 is not limited to water
carriers touching U S ports then a fortiori section 18 b I is not so
limited It states that the words transportation to and from United States
ports and foreign ports do not themselves evince a Congressional intent
that the water carrier must call at a U S port and were not meant to
preclude the filing of tariffs by services such as ACE Moreover the
Conference believes the to and from U S ports language does not
modify the subsequent words and all through routes which have been
established so that rates for through transportation must be filed evenif
the through route does not feature a vessel call at a U S port
The Presiding officer s analogy between section 18bl and section 2
ofthe Intercoastal Shipping Act 1933 is also disputed by the Conference
worded does not mean their
The fact that the sections are similarly
purpose and intent are the same In this instance the analogized statutes
are said to cover vastly different trades and have vastly different breadth
and purpose The Presiding Officer s reliance on language from the
Transshipment Agreement cases supra is challenged because those
cases were not directly concerned with tariff filing pursuant to section
18b 1
Finally the Conference argues that section 536 16 embraces ACE s
service since General Order 13 requires all section 1 common carriers to
me rates governing through transportation between ports or points in the
United States and ports or points in a foreign country If Detroit is not a
port it is at least a point for purposes of section 536 16
19 F M C