Summary

Frank Murphy McAllister Lighterage Line v. United States…

The major claim, without supporting evidence, was that the traffic in the New York harbor was so great during the war as to necessitate intensive utilization of every available tug, barge, lighter and scow in the movement of war cargoes. It was also alleged without proof that the Office of Defense Transportation beyond 'the slightest doubt' would have frustrated any attempt by appellant to utilize a substantial portion of its fleet in freight service along the Atlantic coast and, if necessary, would have requested the War Shipping Administration to requisition appellant's vessels.
Source: Wikisource

Frank Murphy McAllister Lighterage Line v. United States…

The undisputed evidence submitted to the Commission revealed that appellant or its predecessors have been engaged in marine transportation since 1864 and that the business has been continuously owned by its founder or his descendants through four generations. Past activities have been extensive and varied and have included the freight services forming the subject matter of the application in issue.
Source: Wikisource

Frank Murphy McAllister Lighterage Line v. United States…

After reviewing the evidence, the Commission made the following conclusions: 'The evidence of record establishes the fact that applicant for a period of over ten years has performed only an inconsequential amount of transportation of a kind that is now subject to the act and that it is not holding itself out at the present time to perform such transportation. Obviously the remote operations heretofore described do not establish bona fide operations on January 1, 1940, and since.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature