293 JACKSON, J., dissenting. However, if the Court refuses to do that, I cannot agree that the requirements contract is per se an illegal one under the antitrust law, and that is the substance of what the Court seems to hold. I am not convinced that the requirements contract as here used is a device for suppressing competition instead of a device for waging competition. If we look only at its effect in relation to particular retailers who become parties to it, it does restrain their freedom to purchase their requirements elsewhere and prevents other companies from selling to them. Many contracts have the effect of taking a purchaser out of the market for goods he already has bought or contracted to take. But the retailer in this industry is only a conduit from the oil fields to the driver's tank, a means by which the oil companies compete to get the business of the ultimate consumer-the man in whose automobile the gas is used. It means to me, if I must decide without evidence, that these contracts are an almost necessary means to maintain this all-important competition for consumer business, in which it is admitted competition is keen. The retail stations, whether independent or company-owned, are the instrumentalities through which competition for this ultimate market is waged. It does not seem to me inherently to lessen this real competition when an oil company tries to establish superior service by providing the consumer with a responsible dealer from which the public can purchase adequate and timely supplies of oil, gasoline and car accessories of some known and reliable standard of quality. No retailer, whether agent or independent, can long remain in business if he does not always, and not just intermittently, have gas to sell. Retailers' storage capacity usually is limited and they are in no position to accumulate large stocks. They can take gas only when and as they can sell it. The Government can hardly force someone to contract to stand by, ever ready to fill 837446 O-49-25 337 U.S. JACKSON, J., dissenting. fluctuating demands of dealers who will not in turn undertake to buy from that supplier all their requirements. And it is important to the driving public to be able to rely on retailers to have gas to retail. It is equally important that the wholesaler have some incentive to carry the stocks and have the transport facilities to make the irregular deliveries caused by varied consumer demands. It may be that the Government, if required to do so, could prove that this is a bad system and an illegal one. It may be that the defendant, if permitted to do so, can prove that it is, in its overall aspects, a good system and within the law. But on the present record the Government has not made a case.1 If the courts are to apply the lash of the antitrust laws to the backs of businessmen to make them compete, we cannot in fairness also apply the lash whenever they hit upon a successful method of competing. That, insofar as I am permitted by the record to learn the facts, appears to be the case before us. I would reverse. 1 The Government can derive no comfort for this sort of thing from International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U. S. 392. There the defendant started with a patent monopoly of the machine for utilization of its product. The customers, canners, were in effect the ultimate consumers of salt as such. But they could get the advantages of the invention only if they tied themselves to use no other salt therein. Syllabus. UNITED STATES v. CORS. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 132. Argued February 4, 1949-Decided June 13, 1949. In March, 1942, respondent purchased from the Coast Guard a 47-year-old worn-out tug. He repaired and improved it and, in April, 1942, obtained a permit to operate it as a towing steam vessel in the coastal trade for one year. His total expenditures were $8,574.78, plus his own labor. The War Shipping Administration requisitioned the tug in October, 1942, under § 902 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended, 46 U. S. C. § 1242, and it was used to heat fuel oil and pump it from barges into naval combat vessels. The Court of Claims found that, prior to the taking, its market value had been enhanced $5,000 due (1) to the great increase in shipping and harbor traffic because of the war, and (2) to the Government's need for vessels in the prosecution of the war. It awarded him a judgment based upon a fair market value of $15,500, holding that he was entitled to no less than he could have received on the market from others than the Government. Held: It erred in doing so. Pp. 325–336. 1. On the facts of this case, the requirement of § 902 (a) of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended, 46 U. S. C. § 1242, that the owner of any vessel requisitioned thereunder shall be paid "just compensation . . . but in no case shall the value of the property taken or used be deemed enhanced by the causes necessitating the taking or use," is coterminous with the just compensation requirement of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 331-334. 2. Under the provisions of § 902 (a), any enhancement of value must be deducted where it is due (a) to the Government's need of vessels which has necessitated the taking, (b) to the previous taking of vessels of similar type, or (c) to a prospective taking reasonably probable. P. 334. 3. The enhancement which is excluded is that which arose before as well as after the declaration of a national emergency on May 27, 1941. P. 334. 4. The findings of the Court of Claims are not sufficient to enable this Court to determine whether any part of the $15,500 which it found to be the fair market value at the time of taking includes any deductible enhancement in value, since they do not Opinion of the Court. 337 U.S. show with sufficient particularity what was the effect of the Government's activities in the particular market. Pp. 334-336. 5. Respondent plainly would be entitled to any increase in value due to his expenditure of money for labor and materials and his performance of part of the labor. P. 336. 110 Ct. Cl. 66, 75 F. Supp. 235, reversed. The Court of Claims awarded respondent a judgment for a vessel requisitioned by the War Shipping Administration after the declaration of an emergency by the President. 110 Ct. Cl. 66, 75 F. Supp. 235. This Court granted certiorari. 335 U. S. 810. Reversed, p. 336. Oscar H. Davis argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Perlman, Assistant Attorney General Morison, Paul A. Sweeney and Paul D. Page, Jr. John Lord O'Brian argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Frank C. Mason, Harold A. Kertz, John G. Laylin, Charles A. Horsky and Donald Hiss. Charles B. McInnis filed a brief for the R. T. C. No. 11 Corporation et al., as amici curiae, in support of respondent. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a suit in the Court of Claims under § 902 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, 49 Stat. 2015, as amended, 53 Stat. 1255, 46 U. S. C. § 1242, to recover the balance of "just compensation" alleged to be due respondent from the United States for requisitioning his steam tug, the MacArthur, in October, 1942. The tug was a Coast Guard boat built in 1895 and used by it in harbor duties at Baltimore until 1939. It was then transferred to the Coast Guard base at Portland, Maine. 325 Opinion of the Court. In September, 1941, the Coast Guard advertised it for sale to the highest bidder. Respondent was the highest bidder, purchasing the tug in Maine on March 19, 1942, for $2,875. Thereafter he expended $5,699.78 on labor and materials in repairing and improving the vessel, an amount which would have been substantially greater had he not performed part of the work himself. In April, 1942, respondent received from the Department of Commerce a certificate designating the vessel as a towing steam vessel and authorizing him to employ it in the coastal trade for one year. Respondent then brought the tug to Staten Island, New York, where it remained until requisitioned by the War Shipping Administration on October 15, 1942. A survey by the Navy had indicated it was suitable as a steam-heating plant for heating and pumping fuel oil from oil barges into naval combat vessels. Its condition was said to be "fair to good"; and its original cost was estimated to be $45,000; its replacement cost, $56,000; and its present value $9,000. It was used as a steam plant to heat oil for use in combat ships. The War Shipping Administration determined that $9,000 was "just compensation" for the tug and offered that amount to respondent. Respondent accepted 75 per cent of the award, as he was permitted to do by § 902 (d) of the Act, and brought suit to recover the balance of the $20,000 which he alleged was the "just compensation" to which he was entitled, plus interest. Section 902 (a) of the Act,' after providing that the owner of any vessel requisitioned by the Commission shall 1 Section 902 (a) provides: "Whenever the President shall proclaim that the security of the national defense makes it advisable or during any national emergency declared by proclamation of the President, it shall be lawful for the Commission to requisition or purchase any vessel or other watercraft owned by citizens of the United States, or under construction within the United States, or for any period during such emergency, |