We Emphatically Deny..,
An important statement from Mr. G. W. Skinner discussing
the charges brought against the Alaska Steamship Company.
\
. ' V
0 N June 9, 1950, the Antitrust Division of the U. S. Attorney
General’s Oflice filed a civil injunction suit in Anchorage against
the Alaska Steamship Company, myself as President, Mr. R. C.
Anderson, Executive Vice President, Mr. H. N. Peterson, General
Traffic Manager, and Mr. J. D. Nelson and Mr. Walter J. Manahan,
Assistant Traffic Managers. At the same time the Antitrust lawyers
procured a criminal indictment against us, apparently designed to
serve two purposes—(a) to bolster up their civil suit, and (b) to
intimidate us.
The criminal indictment and civil complaint are identical except
with respect to the penalties demanded. The criminal indict*
ment asks that we be declared criminals, and the civil complaint
seeks to compress us into a legal “straight-jacket” which would
paralyze us but leave our competitors free to operate as, if, and
when they please.
The suit, if successful, could mean the end of water
transportation to all the Territory by private enterprise. It
is the next step toward socialized government operation of steam*
ship service to the Territory, the commercial operation of the
government-owned and operated NORTH STAR being the first. It
is an unwarranted attack upon our company and is simply another
strand in the noose being prepared by certain elements in govern
ment to hang so-called “big” business.
The Antitrust policy makers have employed the same sly
technique against us that they have used against other and
much larger business enterprises. While certain local Alaska
businessmen are also to be “punished” by criminal indictments,
only Alaska Steamship Company has been singled out for extinc
tion by civil injunction.
Our operations, practices and rates are subject to rigid
regulation under the Federal Shipping Acts. These Acts are
clear and definite and provide heavy penalties upon proof of im
proper business practices. On the other hand, the present Antitrust
laws are not a cleancut body of rules; they have been distorted into
a confused welter of words in which sharp lawyers can find excuses
for charging almost anyone with almost anything that suits the pur
pose at hand. I was frankly told by one of the Antitrust lawyers
in a high position that a violation of the Antitrust laws at the
present time is anything that their staff can dream up and
induce the courts to sustain.
Let me proceed with a brief examination of this
bulky indictment. It reveals the now familiar pat
tern of recent Antitrust prosecutions. Lacking evi- ^ -
dence of clearcut violations of the law, a multitude .y•
of charges are thrown at us in hope that one or
more of them will stick.
The indictments and complaints are predicated on some
amazing charges. For example: The government says that only
the Alaska Steamship Company has undertaken to furnish service
to all areas and points in the Territory; only the Alaska Steam
ship Company has offered a full line of shipping service; only the
Alaska Steamship Company has been able to offer passenger serv
ice; only the Alaska Steamship Company has provided facilities
for carrying perishables and refrigerated cargo. Apparently be
cause we have undertaken to serve all of the Territory, because we
have offered a full line of freight and passenger service—because
we have done all these “bad” things, we are branded as criminals
and our service is to be “hamstrung” by injunction.
It is charged that Mr. Anderson, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Nel
son, Mr. Manahan and I have “conspired” to acquire a “vir
tual monoply of the business of transporting persons and com
modities by water for hire in the Alaska Trade” by merging the
operations of Northland Transportation Company and Alaska
Steamship Company. The plain facts are:
At the termination of the 1948 maritime strike, both Northland
and Alaska Transportation Company were compelled to cease
common carrier operations because of the heavy operating losses
being sustained in attempting to serve Southeastern Alaska under
existing rate levels, and by the payment of full charter hire to
the Maritime Commission. At that time Northland possessed hut
one vessel, namely, the Liberty ship CHIEF WASHAKIE, now the
CHENA, which it was buying from the Maritime Commission under
contract. The alleged “merger” consisted of Alaska Steam’* pur
chase of Northland’s equity in that purchase contract, plus certain
items of oflice furniture. The so-called “merger” was approved by
the Maritime Commission. Previously, Governor Gruening and
other Territorial officials had often publicly demanded that Alaska
Steam and Northland be merged.
The suit charges that we had prevented others from
Chartering vessels for the purpose of entering the Alaska
trade in competition with ourselves. This charge is completely;
unfounded. A most cursory study of laws regulating the charter
of government-owned vessels would prove that we have no, such in
fluence. The Maritime Commission charters vessels to those ship
operators qualified under the provisions of the Merchant Ship
Sales Act, 1946.
We are further charged with failing to cooperate with the
Alaska motor truck carriers. The plain facts are that the govern
ment-owned and operated Alaska Railroad complained bitterly
when we made through rates with all connecting motor truck car
riers serving interior points; they insisted that by so doing we
were encouraging competition for the government railroad. Now
the government Antitrust lawyers from Washington, D. C., charge
that we criminally refused to cooperate with the truck carriers.
The suit demands that we cease operating in a competitive
manner and it would enjoin us from carrying out in general the
established business procedures and practices which are known and
accepted by the entire American transportation industry. Thus, our
competition would be the sole ones to gain, at our expense, while
the Territorial economy would be seriously and adversely affected.
The investigation of our operations by the Antitrust
lawyers and economists was shrouded in secrecy. We were
never confronted with any alleged complaints with respect to our
activities as is usual in Antitrust cases. When we learned that our
activities were under investigation we wrote the head of the Anti
trust Division offering full and complete access to all of our books,
records and files, both in Seattle and in Alaska, and made our
executives and personnel available for interrogation. Immediately
a swarm of Antitrust lawyers and economists began a study of the
company’s voluminous files which continued for more than thirty
days. We also prepared and submitted to the Antitrust Division a
detailed factual outline of the history and activities of the com
pany from 1908 to date. Despite this, the Antitrust lawyers still
refused to advise us the nature of the alleged charges until the
filing of the criminal indictment and civil complaint and their
simultaneous “Press Release”.
We emphatically deny each and all charges of violation
of law made against us. We deny that we have conspired to
destroy competition or to monopolize the Alaska transportation
industry. We deny that our business practices have been unlawful
in any sense of the word.
The great threat of monopoly hanging over the Territory
of Alaska is that which day by day is threatened by govern
ment itself. This threat is now defined more clearly than ever by
this assault from the Antitrust Division undertaking to break the
back of the only company which as they admit is “able” to offer
complete water transportation service to all Alaska.
We pledge to you that we will wage this fight honorably
with our fullest energy and with every resource at our com
mand. We accept this challenge with our conscience clear and with
the conviction that we have striven to operate tfithin the law and
to serve the people of Alaska to the best of our abilities. BUT, we
do not underestimate the heavy odds and the heavy expenses which
face us.
I ask your support and understanding in this common cause.
G. W. Skinner, President
ALASKA
STEAMSHIP COMPANY
Serving
All
Alaska