of vessels in competitive services, routes, or lines. The burden of showing undue
prejudice or advantage under section 605 (c) is on those opposing the award.
Section 605 (c) does not interpose a bar to granting a prospective increase in
the number of Export's subsidized sailings on Trade Route 10. American Ex-
port Lines, Inc.-Increased Sailings, Route 10, 568 (572, 573).

Findings of inadequacy of United States-flag service in both inbound and
outbound segments of applicant's proposed service make it unnecessary to deter-
mine whether the effect of granting the application would be to give undue
advantage or be unduly prejudicial as between citizens of the United States
in the operation of vessels in competitive services. American President Lines,
Ltd.-Calls, Round-The-World Service, 681 (694).

-Vessels, suitability of

In determining the types, sizes, speeds and other requirements of vessels to be
operated on a route, the Board, under section 211, cannot be content only to
meet the immediate competitive situation, but, like the prudent businessman,
must also consider the reasonable probabilities of the future. Review of Grace
Line Subsidy, Route 2, 40 (47).

Where the foreign-flag operator is a substantial competitor for traffic on the
route, be it for cargo or passengers. the policy of the Act, both as to the selecting
of the best types of ships to meet the competition and as to subsidizing the types
of ships when selected, does not require the existence of foreign-flag competition
in each category (passenger and freight) any more than in each specialized
category of freight service. If the American operator can engage and excel in
the battle of competition, if, as in the case of Grace on Trade Route 2, he has an
integrated fleet of 6 combination freight and passenger ships plus 3 freighters,
rather than a fleet of 9 freighters, it would be strange to make it a condition of
subsidy support that he shall have a less effective fleet with inadequate passenger
accommodations because the foreign-flag operator is only so equipped. The
objectives of section 211 of the Act would thereby be defeated. Id. (47, 48).

The preamble to the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, section 101, section 211 (a)
and (b) setting forth the purposes and policy of the Act require, given the
existence of substantial foreign-flag competition on an essential foreign trade
route, support of that United States-flag service best calculated to meet the flow
of commerce thereon, i.e., a service composed of the best-equipped, safest, and
most suitable types of vessels. Where it has been determined that separate
passenger-freight (carrying a large number of passengers) and freight services
are necessary to provide such a service, although physical traffic requirements
might be met, as in the past, by a large number of combination vessels carrying
a limited number of passengers, it would not be in accordance with the policy of
the Act to subsidize only one service (freight). Thus the Board will renew
subsidy for passenger-freight vessels on a trade route, to be operated in connec-
tion with freight vessels, although foreign-flag passenger competition, standing
alone, may not have been substantial. American President Lines, Ltd.-Subsidy,
Route 29, 51 (59-61).

In establishing a subsidized United States-flag service on an essential foreign
trade route, the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 does not require or contemplate
that this service should be identical with or even substantially similar to that
offered by foreign-flag competitors; such requirement would not only be contrary
to the purposes and policy of the Act but would allow foreign-flag competitor to
dictate determinations under section 211 as to what services should be established
and number and types of vessels. by compelling United States operation at level
of foreign. Id. (60, 61).

Applicant for subsidy for operation of a certain vessel fails to meet the
requirements of section 601(a) where, (1) the vessel (an austerity passenger
ship used as a troop ship during the war and placed into service as a temporary
measure to meet an emergency situation) is not suitable for the transportation of
commercial passengers, and, admittedly, would not meet foreign-flag competition
by better equipped ships; and (2) there is no showing of applicant's ability to
acquire a suitable vessel other than that in question. Whether or not the vessel.
was the best-equipped, safest, and most suitable vessel available at the time it
was put into service is immaterial. Oceanic S.S. Co.-Subsidy, "Marine

Phoenix," 288 (291, 292).

TARIFFS. See Brokerage.

TERMINAL FACILITIES. See also Free Time.

"Arranging berth for vessel" is clearly an administrative expense connected
with dockage or berthage and should be eliminated from terminal "service
charge." Intercoastal Steamship Freight Assn. v. Northwest Marine Terminal
Assn., 387 (391).

Item of terminal service charge for "providing terminal facilities," if not inci-
dental to the receiving and checking of cargo, is a charge for administrative
expense or for special services, and should not be included as a part of the
"service charge." Id. (391).

"Ordering Barges and Lighters" and "Giving Information to Shippers and
Consignees Regarding Cargo Sailing and Arrival Dates of Vessels, etc.," cover
services neither requested by nor beneficial to the ship. The ship's supercargo
himself orders barges and lighters alongside when lumber is brought in that
manner. The ship's own office or agent has all information as to ship's move-
ments where authoritative information is available, thus making item "Giving
Information . . ." of terminal service charge unnecessary to the ship. Id. (391,
392).

While carriers' obligations include the receiving of cargo from shippers and
the giving of a receipt therefor, together with the handling of necessary papers.
the imposition by a terminal company of a service charge against a carrier for
items such as checking and receipting cargo is an unjust and unreasonable
practice where the particular cargo (lumber) is accepted and carried by the ship
without check as to amount, the terminal actually checks the lumber and gives
a receipt for the shipper's benefit, and the only receipt given by the carrier are the
mate's receipt and the bill of lading which are expressly based on the shipper's
count, so that the service is for the use of the shipper and not the carrier.
(393, 394).

Id.

While ordering railroad cars under ship's tackle is a service performed for the
benefit of the vessel, such service does not justify the imposition by terminal
operators of a service charge against the vessel when other services, not for the
benefit of the vessel, are included in the charge. In the interest of uniform and
clear definitions, the services included in a service charge should be limited to
those concerned with or incidental to the receiving and checking of cargo and if
terminal operators desire to make a charge against the vessel for ordering
railroad cars, they should set up a special charge therefor. Id. (394).