The Box - Marc Levinson [158]
24. The ICC ruling requiring commodity-based rates can be found at 173 ICC 448. The North Shore Line’s rates are discussed in ICC Docket 21723, June 6, 1931. On the implications of the ICC case, see Donald Fitzgerald, “A History of Containerization in the California Maritime Industry: The Case of San Francisco” (Ph.D. diss., University of California at Santa Barbara, 1986), pp. 15–20.
25. On Australia, see photo in Lockwood, Ship to Shore, p. 379. On early containerization in Europe, see Wilson, Dockers, p. 137, and René Borruey, Le port de Marseille: du dock au conteneur, 1844–1974 (Marseilles, 1994), pp. 296–306. Examples of North American ship lines carrying containers are in H. E. Stocker, “Cargo Handling and Stowage,” Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, November 1933. Information about the Central of Georgia comes from George W. Jordan, personal correspondence, November 15, 1997. See also “Steel Containers,” Via—Port of New York, July 1954, pp. 1–5.
26. Containers: Bulletin of the International Container Bureau, no. 5 (June 1951): 12 and 68; Fitzgerald, “A History of Containerization,” p. 35; Padraic Burke, A History of the Port of Seattle (Seattle, 1976), p. 115; Lucille McDonald, “Alaska Steam: A Pictorial History of the Alaska Steamship Company,” Alaska Geographic 11, no. 4 (1984).
27. Pierre-Edouard Cangardel, “The Present Development of the Maritime Container,” Containers, no. 35 (June 1966): 13 (author’s translation). Container census data appear in Containers, no. 13 (June 1955): 9, and no. 2 (December 1949): 65. Belgian example appears in Containers, no. 19 (December 1957): 18 and 39.
28. Peter Bell interview discussed handling of early containers. The “hindrance” comment by Waldemar Isbrandtsen of Isbrandtsen Company is in International Cargo Handling Coordination Association, “Containerization Symposium Proceedings, New York City, June 15, 1955,” p. 11, and the comment about forklifts by Frank McCarthy of Bull-Insular Line is on p. 19. See also presentation by A. Vicenti, president, Union of Cargo Handlers in the Ports of France, Containers, no. 12 (December 1954): 20. Levy address appears in Containers, no. 1 (April 1949): 48 (author’s translation). Customs duties posed an obstacle as well: until an agreement in 1956, receiving countries frequently levied duties on the value of an arriving container as well as its contents. Containers, no. 33 (June 1965): 18. The military study is reported in National Research Council, Maritime Cargo Transportation Conference, Transportation of Subsistence to NEAC (Washington, DC, 1956), p. 5.
29. National Research Council, Maritime Cargo Transportation Conference, The SS Warrior (Washington, DC, 1954), p. 21.
30. National Research Council, Maritime Cargo Transportation Conference, Cargo Ship Loading (Washington, DC, 1957), p. 28.
Chapter 3
The Trucker
1. Fitzgerald, “A History of Containerization,” pp. 30–31.
2. North Carolina: A Guide to the Old North State (Chapel Hill, 1939), p. 537; Robesonian, February 26, 1951.
3. Malcolm P. McLean, “Opportunity Begins at Home,” American Magazine 149 (May 1950): 21; News and Observer (Raleigh), February 16, 1942, p. 7; Robesonian, February 26, 1951.
4. McLean, “Opportunity,” p. 122.
5. For detail on McLean Trucking’s early history, see “Malcolm P. McLean, Jr., Common Carrier Application,” ICC Motor Carrier Cases (hereafter MCC) at 30 MCC 565 (1941). McLean’s attempt to block his competitors’ merger was decided in McLean Trucking Co. v. U.S., 321 U.S. 67, January 14, 1944. McLean’s new service was approved in September 1944; 43 MCC 820. McLean’s first purchase, of McLeod’s Transfer Inc., occurred in 1942 and was approved over the objections of three protestants; 38 MCC 807. He acquired another trucking company, American Trucking, late in the war; 40 MCC 841 (1946). Revenue figure for 1946 appears at 48 MCC 43 (1948).
6. Intercity truck lines handled 30.45