Summary

Portrait of Harlan F. Stone Harlan F. Stone Swayne Hoyt v. United States — Opinion of the Court

There was thus evidence before the Secretary which tended to show that the contract rate system, by reason of the conditions prevailing in the traffic, had established a practical monopoly of cargoes moving from the Gulf ports to ports on the Pacific coast, from which competing carriers were excluded by the provisions of the Conference agreement, except on terms which were practically prohibitive, and that, since the adoption of the Intercoastal Shipping Act of 1933, stability of service, which appellants urge as justification for the system, could be secured without a contract rate.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Harlan F. Stone Harlan F. Stone Swayne Hoyt v. United States — Opinion of the Court

The differential between appellants' rates on commodities transported under contract and the rates on the same commodities for non-contract shippers was prima facie discriminatory since the two rates were charged for identical services and facilities, and the narrow issue presented to the Secretary for decision was whether, in the conditions affecting the traffic involved, the discrimination was undue or unreasonable.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature