The Free Ski Case

In his nine years as dean of the Harvard Law School, Aztec-faced James M. Landis acquired a certain ponderosity of language. As director of the Office of Civilian Defense in 1942, Landis ordered federal buildings to obtain "obscuration . . . either by blackout construction or by termination of the illumination." President Roosevelt laughingly rewrote this as ". . . put something across the window ... or turn out the lights."

Last week, the Civil Aeronautics Board, which Landis now heads, had Colonial Airlines puzzling through some more gobbledygook. Colonial, which does a profitable business hauling skiers on its U.S.-Canada run, had been carrying skis free, under a ruling permitting each passenger to carry a certain amount of "visible sporting equipment." Last month, CAB ordered the service suspended. When Colonial appealed, Landis' CAB decided:

"It is ordered: that the board institute an investigation to determine whether provisions for the transportation without additional charge of one pair of skis in addition to 40 lbs. of free baggage allowed each passenger, contained in Paragraph (f) (5) (a) of Rule 16 appearing on fourth revised Page 18 of Redfern's Local and Joint Passenger Rules Tariff No. PR-2, CAB No. 12, may be unjust or unreasonable, or unjustly discriminatory, or unduly preferential, or unduly prejudicial, and whether and to what extent the board shall take further action with respect thereto."

Last fortnight, Colonial asked CAB if it wouldn't just skip the hearing and issue an order one way or the other. In support of its free-ski policy, Colonial added: "Skis are standard apparel for many people during many months of the year. To charge extra for a pair of skis would be tantamount to charging extra for a pair of overshoes." But at week's end, ponderous CAB had not yet terminated or illuminated its obscuration.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.