Court Opinion

ID: 9664561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:21:24.076154+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:06.501587
License: Public Domain

McGOHEY, District Judge
(dissenting).
In my opinion the Commission’s conclusion “that the present and future public convenience and necessity require the proposed operation by applicant” (Pan-Atlantic) is not supported as it is required to be 1 by the basic findings which the Commission has made.
The Commission has found:
(a) “Considering only the volume of coastwise tonnage currently moving to and from Texas, an additional line in this trade clearly would be unwarranted”
(b) “a break-bulk -service paralleling that now provided by Newtex may be expected to divert a part of the-traffic now moving by that line”
(c) Newtex had “substantial deficits” in 1947 and 1948. It had “modest profits” in 1949 and. 19S0.
(d) “unless a substantially larger ' overall volume of coastwise tonnage can be developed, extension of applicant’s [Pan-Atlantic’s] ' operations probably would force Newtex into a deficit and conceivably retirement from the trade.”
These findings clearly show that “present” public convenience and necessity do not require “the proposed operation by applicant.” ■ Just as clearly, I think, they show that “future” public convenience and necessity will not require it, “unless a substantially larger overall volume of coast-wise tonnage can be developed,” which will be sufficient to insure that Newtex will not be forced “into a deficit and conceivably retirement from the trade.” This, then, is the Commission’s standard for determining “future” public convenience and necessity in this case. Accordingly, the conclusion reached would be warranted only if the Commission found that the new operation *393would develop or would, at least, be likely to develop tonnage sufficient to meet this standard.
The only findings as to the future that I am able to discover are these:
1. “that protestant’s services do not fully meet the needs of shippers and that extension of applicant’s operations as proposed would improve the situation;" (Emphasis supplied.)
2. that “a break-bulk line providing regular dependable and reasonably frequent sailings will * * * attract additional traffic,” (Emphasis supplied.)
3. that “a vigorous solicitation program will aid materially in building up substantial traffic volume.”
This last finding is based on the testimony of Pan-Atlantic’s representative. In context it seems to me to mean only that Pan-Atlantic’s “solicitation program” will produce “substantial traffic volume” for itself. This, of course, could be accomplished by merely taking over the traffic now handled by Newtex and thus driving it out of business; — a result which I understand, the 'Commission to hold “would be unwarranted.”
These findings, which I think fall .far short of the Commission’s standard, do not support its ultimate conclusion.
I would reverse the order.

. Florida v. United States, 282 U.S. 194, 51 S.Ct. 119, 75 L.Ed. 291.