Document: 342 U.S. 570 72 S.Ct. 492 96 L.Ed. 576 FAR EAST CONFERENCE et al.v.UNITED STATES al. No. 15, Misc. Argued Jan. 30, 1952. Decided March 10, Mr. John W. Davis, New York City, for petitioner Isthmian S.S. co. Elkan Turk, the petitioners Far East Conference, Arthur M. Boal, intervenor-respondent Federal Maritime Board. J. Roger Wollenberg, Washington, D.C., United States. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered opinion of Court. 1 This is a suit in District Court Jersey to enjoin violations Sherman Law.1 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. §§ and 2, U.S.C.A. 1, 2. The defendants were voluntary association, its constituent members, steamship companies engaged what known as 'outbound trade.' Conference was organized 1922, Agreement under which it operates approved by States Shipping Board,2 exercising authority Act 1916, amended.3 Under this there has been established dual system rates, called contract noncontract rate system.4 Shippers who agreed use exclusively bottoms members paid one rate; those did not bind themselves such exclusive patronage fixed higher rate. adhered tied particular carrier; they free choose among carriers. however, obligated supply facilities sufficient handle freight destined East. two levels rates constituted gravamen Government's suit. 2 Admitting dual-rate system, justified on merits but moved that complaint be dismissed ground nature issues required resort must first had Board before could adjudicate complaint. Board, intervenor, joined motion. It denied Court, 94 F.Supp. 900, we brought case here, § 262 Judicial Code, 28 1651(a), because are issue important questions regarding relation between Law Act. 811, 59. 3 At threshold decide whether, enforced concert carriers foreign trade, can pass passed upon question. We see no reason depart from Navigation Co. v. Cunard Steamship Co., 284 474, 52 247, 76 408. That answers our problem. There competing carrier invoked Antitrust Acts an injunction against combination North Atlantic trade alleged operate similar here involved. plaintiff previously challenged offending practice predecessor present sustained lower courts, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 39 F.2d 204 Cir., 50 83, dismissing bill initial consideration circumstances controversy sought. After detailed analysis provisions their construction theretofore given Interstate Commerce Act, 49 seq., conclusion: 4 'The (Shipping) act restrictive operation some activities common water, permissive respect others. Their business involves exceptional character, solution may call exercise high degree expert technical knowledge. Whether agreement should held contravene depend economic relations, facts peculiar or history, competitive conditions shipping countries, other relevant circumstances, generally unfamiliar judicial tribunal, well understood administrative body especially trained experienced intricate usages with body, consequently, better able deal. Compare Chicago Trade States, 246 231, 238, 38 242, 62 683; Hamburgh-American Line, (D.C.) 216 F. 971. 5 'A comparison enumeration wrongs charged sections above outlined conclusively shows, without going into detail, allegations either constitute direct basic charges these provisions, so interrelated be, effect, component part them; remedy afforded extent supersedes anti-trust laws. Keogh & N.W. Ry. supra, 260 (156) at page 162, 43 47, 49, 67 183. matter therefore within preliminary jurisdiction scope evident purpose demonstrative conclusion.' 485, 250. 6 thus applied principle, now firmly established, cases raising fact conventional experience judges requiring discretion, agencies created Congress regulating subject over. even though after have appraised specialized competence serve premise legal consequences judicially defined. Uniformity consistency regulation entrusted agency secured, limited functions review judiciary more rationally exercised, ascertaining interpreting underlying equipped than courts specialization, insight gained through experience, flexible procedure. 7 significant mode accomodating complementary roles enforcement law originally situation where face statute gave Commission concurrent jurisdiction. pioneer work Chief White' Texas Pacific R. Abilene Cotton Oil 426, 27 350, 51 553, his successor characterized it, 257 xxvi, creative labors whereby modern being developed traditional law. In merely applying philosophy put memorable words (as he then was) Stone: '* * court regarded wholly independent unrelated instrumentalities justice, each acting performance prescribed statutory duty regard appropriate function securing plainly indicated objects statute. means adopted attain end, far duties defined statute, construed end co-ordinated action. Neither repeat day mistake made when equity struggling recognition ameliorating justice; neither rightly alien intruder, tolerated if never encouraged aided attainment aim.' Morgan, 307 183, 191, 59 795, 799, 83 1211. 8 sole distinction private shipper Anti-Trust Government. difference does touch factors determined case. same considerations expertise apply, whoever initiates Laws apply system. To define orbits action 9 But Government argues forced go deemed 'person,' 22 file Board.5 Surely large question ought turn debating point. almost frivolous suggest would deny standing complainant. consistently treated 'person' rule intervention. dally longer objection, considering knowledge, today largest shippers trade. seems disposed Commission, 337 430, 69 1410, 1413, 93 1451 involving 10 Having concluded submission required, order retained docket pending Board's action, General American Tank Car Corp. El Dorado Terminal 308 422, 432—433, 60 325, 331, 84 361; Works 328 12, 17, 66 843, 846, 90 1053; 465, note 1430, dismissal proceeding As distinguished presented case, only incidentally proper decision, general 14, 728, 733, 46 812, 814, 814. An will Appeals, opportunity further writ certiorari. Pub.L.No.901, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 64 1129, 1132. If favorable rpocess Attorney General's application. 737, 828, 828. believe served hold abeyance while subsequent pursued. A easily initiated later, appropriate. Business-like procedure counsels dismissed, supra. 11 judgment reversed. 12 Reversed. 13 CLARK took decision 14 DOUGLAS, whom BLACK concurs, dissenting. amended me reach result majority. agreement, provides adoption tariff charges. states shall unjust discrimination rebates them. provision rates—no arrangement allowing give all retaliations nonsubscribing exacting them Nevertheless barring outbound lines combination. least complaint, motion dismiss. 16 expressly violate immunity since amended, gives approve agreements fixing effect makes 'lawful' approved, exempts every concerning exemption acquired manner 15. Here effort obtain it. Hence large, restraints 17 Why Department remitted remedy? enforce Act.1 filed, course restricted. Section Third, example, unlawful retaliation any discriminatory unfair tactics patronized another carrier. And seem plain monopoly uses member retaliated shopping around 18 Petitioners, therefore, outside failed submit schedule also would, illegal.2 companies, flout used disapproved public interest needs protection enforced—whether represented criminal prosecution or, civil 19 commence point, unless amend granting filed which, approved. I read written require antitrust precise way provided. based Law: several district invested prevent restrain 1—7 title *.' 4, 4. 1916 729, 804 note. Through steps come successor, By Executive Order 6166, June 1933, 132 note, transferred Bureau Commerce. 1936 1985, 1987, 1114, 1114; 1950 established. Reorganization Plan 21 1950, Fed.Reg. 3178 3180, 1111 801 seq. irrelevance failure laid bare 486—487, 251, 408: 'If section act, fully authorized 22, afford relief own Its orders, respect, respects, then, 31, time, open enforce, suspend, set aside accordance, generally, rules limitations announced like orders Commission.' 736, 821, 821. provided 'any violation Act.' charge less room unfiled rates. Cf.

Category: 8