Court Opinion

ID: 9420695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:55:43.033327+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:26.641999
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Douglas,
with whom Mr. Justice Black ' concurs, dissenting.
The Shipping Act would have to be amended for me to reach the result of the majority. The Conference agreement, approved by the Board in 1922, provides for the adoption by the Conference of a tariff of rates and charges. *578.It 'states that there shall be no unjust discrimination against shippers and no rebates paid to them.- There is no provision in the agreement for dual rates — no arrange-merit for allowirig one. rate to shippers who give all their business to the members and for retaliations against non-subscribing shippers by exacting from them a higher rate. Nevertheless petitioners have prescribed this dual rate system for the purpose of barring from the outbound Far East trade steamship lines that are not members of the combination. At least these are the facts if we are to believe the allegations of the complaint, as we must on the motion to dismiss.
If the Board had expressly approved the dual rate system, and the dual rate system did not violate the Shipping Act, then there would be immunity from the Sherman Act, since § 15 of the Shipping Act, 39 Stat. 733, as amended, 46 U. S. C. § 814, gives the Board authority to approve agreements fixing or regulating rates, in effect makes “lawful” the rates so approved, and exempts from the Sherman Act every “lawful” agreement concérning them' But that exemption from the Sherman Act can be acquired only in the manner prescribed by § 15. Here no effort was made to obtain it. Hence the petitioners are at large, subject to all of thé restraints of the .Sherman Act.
Why should the Department of Justice be remitted to the Board for its remedy? - The Board has no authority to enforce the Sherman Act.1 If the rates were filed, of course the Board would have exclusive jurisdiction to pass' on them.' But'even-then it is restricted.' Section 14, Third, for example, makes unlawful retaliation against any shipper by resort to discriminatory or unfair tactics because a shipper has patronized another carrier. And it *579would seem plain that when a shipper is charged one rate if he gives the Conference a monopoly of his business and another and higher rate if the shipper uses a carrier not a member of the Conference, the shipper is being retaliated against for shopping around among carriers. . - •
Petitioners, therefore, operate outside the law not only because they have failed to submit their schedule of rates to the Board but also because the rates adopted would, if approved, be illegal.2 The steamship companies, therefore, flout the law as plainly as if they used rates that' had been disapproved by the Board. In either case the public interest needs protection if the Sherman Act is to be enforced — whether it be represented in a criminal prosecution or, as here, in a civil proceeding brought by, the United States.
The jurisdiction of the Department of Justice must commence at this point, unless we are to amend the Act-by granting an anti-trust exemption to rate fixing not only when the rates are filed by the companies and ap-C proved by the Board but also when they are not filed at all or are rates which, if filed, could not be approved. I would read the Act as written and require the steamship companies to obtain the anti-trust exemption in the precise way Congress has provided. . .

 The remedy provided by § 22 of the Shipping Act is for “any violation of this Aet.” The. charge in the present case is a violation -bf the Sherman Act.

 There is less room for expertise where the rates used by the steamship companies are unfiled rates or unlawful rates. Cf. U. S. Navigation Co. v. Cunard S. S. Co., 284 U. S. 474.