Matson Navigation Company v. Federal Maritime Commission and United States of America

Matson Navigation Company has petitioned this court for review of an order and decision of the Federal Maritime Commission in docket No. 66-45, Agreement for consolidation or merger between American Mail Line, Limited, American President Lines, Limited, and Pacific Far East Lines, Inc. Matson seeks by review to have that order and decision set aside and suspended. 1

By the order under challenge the Commission, acting under § 15 of the Shipping Act of 1916, 46 U.S.C. § 814 , 2 ap *798 proved the merger of the three named steamship lines. Those lines have intervened in the proceedings before us in support of the Commission’s order. Matson, a competitor of the three lines in the Far East trade, intervened in the proceedings before the Commission, contending that the Commission lacked jurisdiction under § 15 to approve a merger, attacking the agreement as lacking in finality, and also presenting arguments opposing the merger on the merits. It renews its contentions in all respects, on this review. The United States, statutory respondent under 28 U.S.C. § 2344 , joins Matson in urging that the Commission was without jurisdiction but takes no position in other respects.

Matson’s…

(dissenting in part, concurring in part).

Judge MERRILL has written a workmanlike opinion in a difficult case. But I cannot agree that under Sec. 15 of the Shipping Act of 1914, 46 U.S.C. § 814 (1964), Congress has given the Federal Maritime Commission jurisdiction over mergers or merger agreements of the type involved in this case. The majority has set forth in the opinion, (pp. 3-4) the contentions of Matson as to lack of jurisdiction and has footnoted the authorities and material on which Matson relies in notes No. 3 to No. 7 inclusive.

The United States also asserts that F.M.C. lacks merger jurisdiction. It argues that where Congress has carved out an exemption from the antitrust laws, the exemption should be strictly construed, United States v. McKesson & Robbins, 351 U.S. 305, 316 , 76 S.Ct. 937 , 100 L.Ed. 1209 (1956); that the Supreme Court will “not assume that Congress having granted only a limited exemption from the antitrust laws, nonetheless granted an overall inclusive one,” California v. Federal Power Commission, 369 U.S. 482, 485 , 82 S.Ct. 901, 904 , 8 L.Ed.2d 54 (1962); and to like effect Carnation Company v. Pacific Westbound Conference, 383 U.S. 213, 218 , 86…

405 F.2d 796 MATSON NAVIGATION COMPANY, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents. No. 22604. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. December 18, 1968. Alvin J. Rockwell (argued), John E. Sparks, Thomas A. Welch, of Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison; Willis R. Deming, David F. Anderson, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. Donald F. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Irwin A. Seibel (argued), Howard E. Shapiro, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Robert N. Katz, Solicitor, (argued), FMC, Ramsey Clark, Atty. Gen. of the U. S. Washington, D. C., for respondents. Warner W. Gardner, Benjamin W. Boley, Washington, D. C., for intervening appellees. Before MERRILL and CARTER, Circuit Judges, and WHELAN, District Judge. * MERRILL, Circuit Judge: 1 Matson Navigation Company has petitioned this court for review of an order and decision of the Federal Maritime Commission in docket No. 66-45, Agreement for consolidation or merger between American Mail Line, Limited, American President Lines, Limited, and Pacific Far East Lines, Inc. Matson seeks by review to have that order and decision set aside and suspended. 1 2 By the order under challenge the Commission,…