Court Opinion

ID: 4475705
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-01-16 21:11:39.423943+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:53:53.736232
License: Public Domain

TURNER, J., dissenting: I Rave studied and considered what is said in the opinion of the Court in explanation of its conclusion that the United States was not a party to the charter contract herein. But when all is said and the theorizing is ended, the facts as I read them still show, regardless of the formalities indulged in, that it was the United States, rather than Great Britain, which contracted with the ship owners. The British Government asked the United States to furnish to it a substantial amount of much needed merchant cargo space and the United States, through its Maritime Commission, contracted for and delivered the merchant shipping requested. It is, of course, true that the paper record took the form of space charter contracts directly between various ship owners and the British Government, but I do not believe that even the petitioner, and others likewise resisting renegotiation of similar contracts, could with straight face and countenance seriously contend that the consideration flowing to them under the contracts in question was not the obligation of the United States, rather than that of Great Britain. Certainly, as I understand the evidence, that was the position taken by the British Government when it was asked to sign the charter contracts. It accepted the form taken by the contracts only when it was assured that it would not be so obligated, and it was only after receiving assurances to that effect that its Ministry of War Transport signed the papers in question. It is true that the charter fees were to be paid from moneys appropriated by the Congress of the United States, under its so-called Lend-Lease legislation, and under that legislation accounts were kept which on their face pictured the expenditures as loans and indicating an obligation on the part of Great Britain to make repayment thereof at some indefinite time in the future. That such, however, was not the commonly accepted meaning and intent of the legislation, is too well known to require discussion. The common understanding based on the public utterances of the President, other Government oficiala and Members of Congress was that such portions of Lend-Lease funds as might be regarded as having been directly expended and consumed in the prosecution of the war were to be regarded as having been spent by this Government as its contribution thereto and that countries receiving the benefit in their fighting of the war of such expenditures would never be called on to account for or repay such moneys. Thar such was the purpose and intent of the Lend-Lease legislation is corroborated, as shown by evidence in the record in this case, by what was done when the representatives of the United States and the British Government sat down together after the end of hostilities to balance their accounts. The attitude taken by the British Government at the time it was requested to sign the charter contract herein was accepted and it was agreed that the moneys so paid out by the United States were moneys paid by it in pursuance of its participation in the war. The Court has not, in my opinion,-.squarely faced and dealt with the purposes and results of the Lend-Lease legislation as it bears upon and affects transactions of the kind involved herein. But rather, it allows itself to be drawn into a consideration and discussion of a question of agency, which, in my opinion, might never be reached if a more realistic approach is made to the question before us.