Far East Conference v. United States, No. 15

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtFRANKFURTER
Citation96 L.Ed. 576,72 S.Ct. 492,342 U.S. 570
PartiesFAR EAST CONFERENCE et al. v. UNITED STATES et al. isc
Decision Date10 March 1952
Docket NumberM,No. 15

342 U.S. 570
72 S.Ct. 492
96 L.Ed. 576
FAR EAST CONFERENCE et al.

v.

UNITED STATES et al.

No. 15, Misc.
Argued Jan. 30, 1952.
Decided March 10, 1952.

Page 571

Mr. John W. Davis, New York City, for petitioner Isthmian S.S. co.

Mr. Elkan Turk, New York City, for the petitioners Far East Conference, et al.

Mr. Arthur M. Boal, New York City, for intervenor-respondent Federal Maritime Board.

Mr. J. Roger Wollenberg, Washington, D.C., for the United States.

Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a suit in the District Court for New Jersey to enjoin violations of the Sherman Law.1 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1, 2. The defendants were the Far East Conference, a voluntary association, and its constituent members, steamship companies engaged in what is known as the 'outbound Far East trade.' The Conference was organized in 1922, and the Conference Agreement under which it operates was approved by the United States Shipping Board,2 exercising authority under the Shipping

Page 572

Act of 1916, as amended.3 Under this Agreement there has been established a dual system of rates, called the contract and noncontract rate system.4 Shippers who agreed to use exclusively bottoms of Conference members paid one rate; those who did not bind themselves by such exclusive patronage contract paid a fixed higher rate. Shippers who adhered to the exclusive patronage contract were not tied to a particular carrier; they were free to choose among Conference carriers. The Conference members, however, were obligated to supply facilities sufficient to handle freight destined for the Far East. This system of two levels of freight rates constituted the gravamen of the Government's suit.

Admitting the dual-rate system, the defendants justified on the merits but moved that the complaint be dismissed on the ground that the nature of the issues required that resort must first be had to the Federal Maritime Board before a District Court could adjudicate the Government's complaint. The Board, as intervenor, joined in this motion. It was denied by the District Court, 94 F.Supp. 900, and we brought the case here, under § 262 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651(a), because there are in issue important questions regarding the relation between the Sherman Law and the Shipping Act. 342 U.S. 811, 72 S.Ct. 59.

Page 573

At the threshold we must decide whether, in a suit brought by the United States to enjoin a dual-rate system enforced in concert by steamship carriers engaged in foreign trade, a District Court can pass on the merits of the complaint before the Federal Maritime Board has passed upon the question. We see no reason to depart from United States Navigation Co. v. Cunard Steamship Co., 284 U.S. 474, 52 S.Ct. 247, 76 L.Ed. 408. That case answers our problem. There a competing carrier invoked the Antitrust Acts for an injunction against a combination of carriers in the North Atlantic trade which were alleged to operate a dual-rate system similar to that here involved. The plaintiff had not previously challenged the offending practice before the United States Shipping Board, the predecessor in authority of the present Maritime Board. This Court sustained the two lower courts, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 39 F.2d 204 and 2 Cir., 50 F.2d 83, dismissing the bill because initial consideration by the Shipping Board of the circumstances in controversy had not been sought. After a detailed analysis of the provisions of the Shipping Act and their relation to the construction theretofore given to the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., this was the conclusion:

'The (Shipping) act is restrictive in its operation upon some of the activities of common carriers by water, and permissive in respect of others. Their business involves questions of an exceptional character, the solution of which may call for the exercise of a high degree of expert and technical knowledge. Whether a given agreement among such carriers should be held to contravene the act may depend upon a consideration of economic relations, of facts peculiar to the business or its history, of competitive conditions in respect of the shipping of foreign countries, and of other relevant circumstances, generally unfamiliar to a judicial tribunal, but well under-

Page 574

stood by an administrative body especially trained and experienced in the intricate and technical facts and usages of the shipping trade, and with which that body, consequently, is better able to deal. Compare Chicago Board of Trade v. United States, 246 U.S. 231, 238, 38 S.Ct. 242, 62 L.Ed. 683; United States v. Hamburgh-American S.S. Line, (D.C.) 216 F. 971.

'A comparison of the enumeration of wrongs charged in the bill with the provisions of the sections of the Shipping Act above outlined conclusively shows, without going into detail, that the allegations either constitute direct and basic charges of violations of these provisions, or are so interrelated with such charges as to be, in effect, a component part of them; and the remedy is that afforded by the Shipping Act, which to that extent supersedes the anti-trust laws. Compare Keogh v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co., supra, 260 U.S. (156) at page 162, 43 S.Ct. 47, 49, 67 L.Ed. 183. The matter therefore is within the exclusive preliminary jurisdiction of the Shipping Board. The scope and evident purpose of the Shipping Act, as in the case of the Interstate Commerce Act, are demonstrative of this conclusion.' 284 U.S. 474, 485, 52 S.Ct. 247, 250.

The Court thus applied a principle, now firmly established, that in cases raising issues of fact not within the conventional experience of judges or cases requiring the exercise of administrative discretion, agencies created by Congress for regulating the subject matter should not be passed over. This is so even though the facts after they have been appraised by specialized competence serve as a premise for legal consequences to be judicially defined. Uniformity and consistency in the regulation of business entrusted to a particular agency are secured, and the limited functions of review by the judiciary are more rationally exercised, by preliminary resort for as-

Page 575

certaining and interpreting the circumstances underlying legal issues to agencies that are better equipped than courts by specialization, by insight gained through experience, and by more flexible procedure.

It is significant that this mode of accomodating the complementary roles of courts and administrative agencies in the enforcement of law was originally applied in a situation where the face of the statute gave the Interstate Commerce Commission and the courts concurrent jurisdiction. 'The pioneer...

To continue reading

Request your trial
651 practice notes
  • All Am. Tel. Co. v. AT & T Corp., 07cv861
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • September 10, 2018
    ...Cf. VoiceStream Wireless Corp. v. All U.S. Commc'ns, 149 F.Supp.2d 29, 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (citing Far E. Conference v. United States, 342 U.S. 570, 574, 72 S.Ct. 492, 96 L.Ed. 576 (1952) ) ("Referral is appropriate ‘even though the facts after they have been appraised by such specialized co......
  • Sw. Org. Project v. U.S. Dep't of Air Force, No. CIV 20-0098 JB/JFR
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • March 15, 2021
    ...the scheme." MTD at 13 (quoting United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U.S. at 353 (citing Far East Conference v. United States, 342 U.S. 570 (1952); Great Northern R. Co. v. Merchants Elevator Co., 259 U.S. 285 (1922)). In turn, as the Air Force continues, the Tenth Circuit enume......
  • INTERNATIONAL ASS'N, ETC. v. UNITED CONTRACTORS, ETC., No. 71-1947.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • July 17, 1973
    ...agencies created by Congress for regulating the subject matter should not be passed over,\' Far East Conference v. United States, 342 U.S. 570, 574, 72 S.Ct. 492, 96 L.Ed. 576 and `requires judicial abstention in cases where protection of the integrity of a regulatory scheme dictates prelim......
  • Ricci v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange, No. 71-858
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 9, 1973
    ...v. Western Pacific R. Co., 352 U.S. 59, 64—65, 66, 77 S.Ct. 161, 165 166, 1 L.Ed.2d 126 (1956); Far East Conference v. United States, 342 U.S. 570, 574—575, 72 S.Ct. 492, 494—495, 96 L.Ed. 576 (1952). They are matters typically lying at the heart of an administrative agency's task and here ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
649 cases
  • All Am. Tel. Co. v. AT & T Corp., 07cv861
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • September 10, 2018
    ...Cf. VoiceStream Wireless Corp. v. All U.S. Commc'ns, 149 F.Supp.2d 29, 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (citing Far E. Conference v. United States, 342 U.S. 570, 574, 72 S.Ct. 492, 96 L.Ed. 576 (1952) ) ("Referral is appropriate ‘even though the facts after they have been appraised by such specialized co......
  • Sw. Org. Project v. U.S. Dep't of Air Force, No. CIV 20-0098 JB/JFR
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • March 15, 2021
    ...the scheme." MTD at 13 (quoting United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U.S. at 353 (citing Far East Conference v. United States, 342 U.S. 570 (1952); Great Northern R. Co. v. Merchants Elevator Co., 259 U.S. 285 (1922)). In turn, as the Air Force continues, the Tenth Circuit enume......
  • INTERNATIONAL ASS'N, ETC. v. UNITED CONTRACTORS, ETC., No. 71-1947.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • July 17, 1973
    ...agencies created by Congress for regulating the subject matter should not be passed over,\' Far East Conference v. United States, 342 U.S. 570, 574, 72 S.Ct. 492, 96 L.Ed. 576 and `requires judicial abstention in cases where protection of the integrity of a regulatory scheme dictates prelim......
  • Ricci v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange, No. 71-858
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 9, 1973
    ...v. Western Pacific R. Co., 352 U.S. 59, 64—65, 66, 77 S.Ct. 161, 165 166, 1 L.Ed.2d 126 (1956); Far East Conference v. United States, 342 U.S. 570, 574—575, 72 S.Ct. 492, 494—495, 96 L.Ed. 576 (1952). They are matters typically lying at the heart of an administrative agency's task and here ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Nbr. 58-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...not require agency experience because they are “within the conventional experience of judges” (quoting Far E. Conference v. United States, 342 U.S. 570, 574– 75 (1952))). 1398 AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 58:1371 to be helpful.”211 Thus, in practice, federal courts rarely apply the pr......
  • Monopolization by Regulated “Monopolies”: The Search for Substantive Standards
    • United States
    • Antitrust Bulletin Nbr. 22-3, September 1977
    • September 1, 1977
    ...note10;Handler,supra note 10.17 Ricci v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange, 409 U.S. 289, 305 (1973).18 See Far East Conf. v. United States, 342 U.S. 570, 574(1952);Um'ted States NavigationGo.v. Cunard S.S. Co., 284 U.S. 474, 481-83(1932);Northern California Power Agency v. FPC, 514F.2d184(D.C. C......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT