The New York herald., 1922-05-02
FLEET CORPORATION
HELD TO BE SUABLE
Chief Justice and Two Ass0ci.
ates Dissent From Opinion
of Supreme Bench.
TAFT FEARS CONFUSION
Majority Decides Although
q. S. Held All Stock 1T Was
a Private Concern.

WASHINGTON, May 1.-The Emergency
Fleet Corporation OF the United States
Shipping Board. a corporation organized
under the laws OF the District OF CO.
lumbia. is suable In the Federal and
State courts. without its consent and
does not have the immunity Of Gov
ernment department or board. the Su-
prenle Court held to-day In an opinion
delivered by Justice Holmes. to which
the Chief Justice and Justices Van De-
vanter and Clark dissented, in an opin-
ion delivered by Mr.. Taft.
The question was presented to the
court in three cases. in two of which, the
Sloan Shipyards Corporation and others
Of the State of Washington. and the AS
toria Marine Iron Works OF Oregon, the
Government won In the lower courts. In
the third case. that brought by the
United States against the trustee In
bankruptcy OF the Eastern Shore Ship
building Corporation, the Government
lost in the United States Federal courts
of New York city. In the latter case,
which involved the question Of the prior
claim Of the Emergency Fleet Corpora
ton on the assets Of a bankrupt, the
court was unanimous in holding against
the contentious or the Government.
"The shipping act contemplated
corporation in which persons might be
stockholders and which was to be
formed like any business corporation
under the laws Of the District OF Coluni-
b!a, with capacity to sue and be sued."
Justice Holmes stated. '-The United
States took all the stock, but that did
not affect the legal position OF the
company"
Discussing the enormous powers
ultimately given to the feet corpora
tion," Justice Holmes said 1t had been
suggested, that 1t was so far put in
place Of the sovereign as to share the
immunity Of the sovereign from suit
otherwise than as the sovereign allows. "
But such a notion" he added, lis
very dangerous departure from one
of the frst principles Of our system
Of law. Supposing the powers OF the
feet corporation to have been given to
single man we doubt II any one
would contend that the acts OF Congress
and the delegations OF authority from
the President left him any less liable
than other grantees OF the power OF
eminent domain to be called upon to
defend himself in court While in
general the United States cannot be
sued for a tort. the opinion stated, Its
immunity does not extend to those that
acted In it's name."
Chief Justice Taft for the minority
stated that Congress intended that the
Fleet Corporation should be subject to
suit only as its principal IS" Suits
against the Fleet Corporation ARE In
fact against the United States" he con-
tinued, land cannot be brought except
| in the manner and under the procedure
provided by the statute for claims for
compensation for acts done by authority
of the President under the act vestine
him with IT,
| The acts OF the Fleet corporation COM
| planned of were done under authority
delegated by the President, the Chief
Justice explained, referring to the
enormous total" involved in suits pend
ing and likely to arise, asserting thai
| Congress could not have intended that
such suits should be brought In forty
eight different States before State courts
| Judgments against the Flee. Corpora
ton will be valueless except as Congress
shall conclude to pay them, he added
stating that Congress had taken over all
| its assets. Because Of the variety o!
views which probably will obtain in the
! judgment against the fleet corporation
The Chief Justice said Congress may
be slow to recognize its obligation to
pay them, "and we shall have a repeti-
ton Of the history or the French spolia-
ton claims which for many decades
occupied the attention Of Congress"
| The decision of the court would, the
Chief Justice feared, make the exist
ing confusion as to the claims against
the fleet corporation worse confounded.'
and should that be the result he hoped
| that Congress would grant remedial
legislation to "avoid such a undesirable
condition. unfavorable both to the
T, United States and the litigants."