In 1911 the US Department of Justice initiated two actions against conferences under the Sherman Law.

Plaintiffs also alleged that one German, eight British, and two American steamship lines had combined in restraint of trade between the United States and the Far East.

A more recent decision of the same district court dismisses the government's Sherman Anti-trust Act suit against the Prince line and others comprising the so-called Brazilian Steamship Conference, and against lines comprising the Far Eastern Steamship Conference

Between 1890 and 1916 when the Sherman Act was in force and the Shipping Act of 1916 had not become effective, there were several antitrust proceedings brought against conferences

HARDY: Your only reason for not using the rebate system on the downward voyage is because you take it to be contrary to our antitrust law? "MR. HOLm: Quite true."

—a four circuit judge district court, composed of Judges Lacombe, Coxe, Ward and Rogers, upheld agreements between competing steamship lines fixing uniform rates on the ground that such agreements were reasonable, specifically rejecting the contention that "the agreements themselves" violated the Act.

—although it was recognized that "The combination against which this proceeding is directed, composed of two British and two German steamship companies, has been practically dissolved as a result of the European War," and the questions presented "have become largely academic," the court nevertheless proceeded to consider and dispose of the case on the merits …

Agreement between all the shipowners engaged in the same trade as to the number of vessels each should operate, the dates of sailings, exchange of freight between lines, and rates of freight. The court said: "At the time it was formed the parties were in the trade and handled all the trade there was. No one was frozen out by their combination and there was no greater …

Nor were there any strictures against dual-rate systems in the survey of recommendations of witnesses at the hearings for corrective legislation

—despite agreements among shipping companies on the number of ships each should operate, dates of sailing and even rates (including an evidently uninvoked provision for the use of fighting ships), the court found for the shipping companies because there was no "actual unreasonable interference with the natural course of trade."

[CITATION] Isbrandtsen Co. v. United States

[PDF] Shipping Conference Dual-Rate Contract Arrangements as a Competitive Weapon

[BOOK] Federal Statutory Exemptions from Antitrust Law