ditioners, as a damn good example that we looked at. We handle a lot of air conditioners, and there is no uniformity to them what

soever.

One air conditioner, as opposed to another-you can't tie it down to an individual shipper, because the same shipper, same manufacturer, will make air conditioners of different densities and constantly change his models, year by year, anyhow; and the same is true for so many other commodities.

Mr. SCHMELTZER, Don Norris.

Mr. DON NORRIS. Is there such a thing as an ocean freight forwarder who is not a Part IV forwarder?

Mr. BLANCK. Yes, indeed.

Mr. DON NORRIS. You don't compete with these fellows at all, do you?

Mr. BLANCK. No. I am surprised that it took so long for this question to come up. No; the ocean freight forwarder is a very different animal from the domestic freight forwarder. I am not going to presume to be an authority on ocean freight forwarders or foreign freight forwarders, which I assume is what you are talking about.

The foreign freight forwarder, as I know it, has an entirely different function than the domestic freight forwarder. I don't understand the foreign forwarder to be an actual carrier of goods.

He is, as I know it and understand it, an arranger for shipments; whereas we actually handle the shipments themselves.

So that they are a very different species.

Mr. DON NORRIS. I just wanted to determine whether or not there was any competition between the two.

Mr. BLANCK. No. As a matter of fact, we utilize or perhaps I should say it in the reverse, or both-foreign forwarders utilize our service.

In other words, a foreign forwarder handling the shipment, having to arrange booking and routing for a customer, searching aroundhow can I ship that? He may use our service. And, as a matter of fact, we solicit that.

Mr. SCHMELTZER. Mr. Norris, let me suggest you have lunch with Mr. Gilson tomorrow.

Mr. SCHMELTZER. Mr. Weill.

Mr. WEILL. Do you limit, in any way, the type of cargo you will accept in this service; and if so, would you tell me what the limits are? Mr. BLANOK. Yes, we limit it in a practical sense. For example, we do not hold ourselves out to transport telegraph poles in a 20-foot container. Obviously you can't. We will not put in there corrosive acids. We will not put in the diamonds that Mr. Page talked about before-things of that nature, and only of this nature.

Mr. WEILL. Any weight limits in your tariff?

Mr. BLANCK. No; not to my knowledge.

Mr. SCHMELTZER. Dr. Mater.

Dr. MATER. He answered my question. I want to know the size of his containers. He has just now said it.

Mr. BLANCK. I spoke of 20-foot containers. We have used mostly 20-foot containers. We have used some 40's, and we will continue probably to use both of them.

Mr. SCHMELTZER. Do you ever use the containers of the ocean carriers?

Mr. BLANCK. No; we use our own.

Mr. SCHMELTZER. That means you never ship via Sea-Land or Matson?

Mr. BLANCK. To my knowledge we have not; no.

Mr. SCHMELTZER. Do you have a service to Japan?

Mr. BLANCK. Not at this moment, but I would certainly like to have one.

A VOICE. You have reefer containers?

Mr. BLANCK. We have.

A VOICE. Are they intermodal containers that can be put into slots! Mr. BLANCK. Yes.

Mr. SCHMELTZER. Mr. Blum.

Mr. BLUM. One question. Do you also operate as an ocean freight forwarder, to clarify Mr. Norris' question?

Mr. SCHMELTZER. I think the question should be: Do you own any ocean freight forwarders?

Mr. BLUM. Do you own any?

Mr. BLANCK. Yes.

Mr. SCHMELTZER. Do you want to say how many?

Mr. BLANCK. To my knowledge, two.

Mr. SOHMELTZER. Mr. Fetter.

Mr. FETTER. Since you are getting afield from the North Atlantic, I would like to ask about your Central American service. Are you still operating that, and is it trailers or containers?

Mr. BLANCK. We are still operating it, and they are trailers.
Mr. FETTER. Trailers.

Mr. SCHMELTZER. Can I ask you why you don't use an ocean carrier's container if he is willing to tender them to you?

Mr. BLANCK. It goes back to our concept of through containerization and the freight-all-kinds philosophy.

We think that we as the forwarder should offer to the steamship line all the essentials of carriage, except carriage itself; that if we free the carrier from all these frills, all these extras that go into the makeup of the high cost, that the ocean carrier himself is in the best position.

For this reason we say we use our containers. He just carries it.
Mr. SCHMELTZER. Do you lease or own the containers?
Mr. BLANCK. Both.

Mr. SCHMELTZER. It is 7 o'clock. I think it is a good time to break.
Thank you very much for a very enlightening evening.

Mr. BLANCK. Before you do, is it cricket to ask you a question, because I have been saving one up for about 2 months to ask you. At the seminar in New York, I wanted to ask you a question, when you spoke. I had a question, I kept raising my hand and waving it like mad, and I never got recognized; and I have been waiting all this time to ask it.

Mr. SCHMELTZER. Please ask the question.

Mr. BLANCK. My question is, as best I remember it: You spoke on the subject of the transmodalist, and you made some reference to a desire to see hundreds, in effect, or even thousands of so-called trans

modalists, and I believe you mentioned you would like to see one in every town.

As I say, I was trying to ask you how in the world you thought anybody was going to be able to start a container in every town when we have got all we can do to load them out of the major cities.

Mr. SCHMELTZER. I hadn't heard at that time, but I was counting on some reply from you such as I got tonight, that is, "the potential was limitless.

It seems to me that as containerization advances, it will be perfectly appropriate for truck lines in every town to arrange through service systems to a port. Now, the containers that are loaded, whoever loads them, may have to be broken down in port. It may be that you can load enough in Des Moines to send straight through to Rotterdam for distribution at Rotterdam to all European cities. It may be that that container from Duluth would have to stop at Port Elizabeth and be broken down to various destinations-Mediterranean, Europe.

Mr. BLANCK. You are not talking about through containerization. Mr. SCHMELTZER. The third thing-maybe I have got them in reverse the third thing would be through containerization.

The most efficient, I think I said, would be a through container

movement.

And if a truck operator could find shippers in his town; if in Des Moines the truck operator could find the Rath Co. with a full load of bacon to go all the way through; fine, let the trucker make that arrangement. Maybe the ship lines could develop the Rath traffic and make the through arrangements.

The trucker could also add to this cargo from the town he serves to the town in Europe, where the containers would be shifted around. Mr. BLANCK. I would like to hold out and add: If you can consolidate a containerload of freight out of Des Moines, why, you have a standing offer of a sales job in my organization.

SEMINARS ON THE CONTAINER REVOLUTION

Monday, November 27, 1967

VIII. ANTITRUST LAWS AND THE CONTAINER REVOLUTION

(By Peter J. Nickles, Esq., Covington & Burling)

Mr. SCHMELTZER. Good evening. Before I introduce Peter Nickles, I would like to announce the speakers for the next 2 weeks. Don Wierda, Vice President of U.S. Lines, will be with us next week. Mr. Wierda will speak on "A Subsidized Line Looks at the Container Revolution."

The week after that, Norman Scott, the Executive Vice President of Matson Line, will speak on "A Nonsubsidized Line Looks at the Container Revolution."

I think at this point we will have covered the waterfront, and it will be the end of the seminars for this year.

Tonight we have with us Peter J. Nickles of the law firm of Covington & Burling in Washington. Mr. Nickles attended some illustrious universities Princeton, Harvard Law School, and the University of Munich in Germany. I can't figure out what the University of Munich is doing in his experience. Maybe he can tell us.

His principal experience in the maritime field was the Ludlow case. I must say he fought a most effective battle in that case. I think I suggested last week that he won the Ludlow case, and I have had a lot of phone calls saying No, he really didn't win a real victory. But that remains to be seen.

Mr. Nickles is one of the bright young lawyers on the Washington scene. I think the thrust of his talk will be the direction of regulation and antitrust laws in the container revolution.

I would like to present Peter Nickles.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. Schmeltzer, gentlemen, I think I will leave the question of what was won or lost in the Ludlow case to the question and answer period and begin with the subject as I have titled it: "The Antitrust Laws and the Container Revolution."

Let's begin with the easy part: the antitrust laws. The theory of the antitrust laws, as you all know, is that competition is a good thing; that if the businessman is free to decide for himself what price he will charge and whether or not to invest his capital in a particular industry-whether or not to enter, whether to leave the industry--that the public will get the best bargain and that the Nation's resources will be allocated in the most satisfactory manner.

The antitrust laws, in essence, say to the private businessman: "Thou shalt not regulate the market; let the market operate freely, and the public good will be served."