Federal Maritime Board v. Isbrandtsen Company/Dissent Harlan

Mr. Justice HARLAN, dissenting.

Except in one respect, I agree with the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER. I do not think that this Court's decisions in United States Navigation Co. v. Cunard S.S.C.o., 284 U.S. 474, 52 S.Ct. 247, 76 L.Ed. 408, and Far East Conference v. United States, 342 U.S. 570, 72 S.Ct. 492, 96 L.Ed. 576, have the effect which that opinion attributes to them. Despite the logic of the argument flowing from the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, and the lack of any substantial factual distinction between the agreements in those cases and in this one, I am unable to read Cunard and Far East Conference as having determined, without any discussion, the far-reaching question which has been decided today. See especially Cunard, 284 U.S. at pages 483-484, 487, 52 S.Ct. at pages 249-250, 251.

On the merits, however, I dissent for the reasons set forth in Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER's opinion.