Disposition: Dismissed, practices complained of having been discontinued before the issuance of the complaint; Commissioners Nugent and Thompson dissenting.

Complaint No. 1287.-Federal Trade Commission v. Deer Park Lumber Co., a corporation. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that respondent, engaged in the manufacture and sale of lumber and lumber products, advertises and sells western yellow pine and western soft pine (Pinus ponderoso) as "Western white pine," thereby tending to mislead the purchasing public to believe that the said product is the same as or comparable with the favorably known white pine (Pinus strobus), and tending to injure competitors who market white-pine lumber and lumber products, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.

Disposition: Dismissed, practices complained of having been discontinued previous to the issuance of the complaint; Commissioners Nugent and Thompson dissenting.

Complaint No. 1288.-Federal Trade Commission v. The Shevlin-Hixon Co., a corporation. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondent, engaged in the manufacture and sale of lumber and lumber products, advertises and sells western yellow pine and western soft pine (Pinus ponderosa) as "western white pine," thereby tending to mislead the purchasing public to believe that the said product is the same as or comparable with the favorably known white pine (Pinus strobus), and tending to injure competitors who market white pine lumber and lumber products, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition: Dismissed, practices complained of having been discontinued previous to the issuance of the complaint, Commissioners Nugent and Thompson dissenting.

Complaint No. 1296.-Federal Trade Commission v. Melchior Ulmer and Milton Ulmer, copartners, trading as Lincoln & Ulmer. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondents, engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigars, label their product with the word No-Nic-O-Tine" and advertise and represent said cigars as made of tobacco from which the nicotine has been removed, when in fact nicotine is not completely absent, thereby tending to mislead the purchasing public and injure competitors who do not misrepresent their products, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.

Disposition: Dismissed, practices charged in the complaint having been discontinued and respondents having promised same will not be resumed, Commissioners Nugent and Thompson dissenting.

EXHIBIT 13

PROCEEDINGS PENDING JULY 1, 1925

NOTE. On or immediately before June 30, 1925, the commission mailed orders to cease and desist terminating two of the proceedings shown as pending. This action is properly reflected in the statistical tables, but not individually indicated because service upon parties at interest had not been effected at the close of the fiscal year.

Complaint No. 82.-Federal Trade Commission v. Photo-Engravers' Club of Chicago. Charge: Adopting a standard scale of uniform prices at which the members sell their products, with the intent of stifling and suppressing competition in the manufacture and sale of photo-engravings, the respondent having entered into an agreement with the Chicago Photo-Engravers' Union No. 5, I. P. E. U., by the terms of which the respondent's members employ only union labor in their manufacturing plants and the members of the union do not accept employment from any manufacturing photo-engraver not a member of the respondent club. In furtherance of such agreement the union has adopted a rule whereby union labor is to cease working in photo-engraving plants which do not maintain such standard scale of prices, and has initiated a series of fines and threats to withdraw labor, thereby compelling members to maintain such prices against their will, all in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition: In course of trial. (Consolidated with docket 928.)

Complaint No. 163.-Federal Trade Commission v. Armour & Co. Charge: Stifling and suppressing competition in the manufacture and sale of dairy products by concealing its control of and affiliation with Beyer Bros. Co., a creamery company, while directing the efforts and business of said company; discriminating in prices paid for butterfat or cream; and by purchasing and offering to purchase butterfats or cream in certain localities at prices unwarranted by trade conditions and so high as to be prohibitive to small competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: On suspense pending close of dockets 455 and 531.

Complaint No. 266.-Federal Trade Commission v. Pictorial Review Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of paper dress patterns, consisting of selling patterns to dealers under a contract permitting the dealer to return all unsold patterns on the termination of contract at threefourths of the cost hereof, upon the condition that during the continuance of such contracts they have sold no patterns except those manufactured by respondent, or shall have sold such patterns at the prices fixed by respondent, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act; selling and making contracts for sale of its paper dress patterns on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the purchasers thereof shall not use or deal in the patterns of competitors, the effect of which is to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in violation of section 3 of the Clayton Act. Status: On suspense, awaiting the outcome of the Butterick Co. case

(Doc. 594.)

Complaint No. 449.-Federal Trade Commission v. Wilson & Co. (Inc.). Charge: That the respondent purchased all the property of the Morton Gregson Co., a Nebraska corporation, theretofore engaged in the same line of business as respondent and in active competition with it, and thereafter organized under the laws of the State of Delaware a subsidiary corporation called the “Morton Gregson Co.," which proceeded to take over the property thus purchased and to operate the business of the said Nebraska corporation, with the effect of eliminating competition previously existing between Morton Gregson Co., the Nebraska corporation, and the respondent, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act and section 7 of the Clayton Act. Status: At issue.

Complaint No. 450.-Federal Trade Commission v. Wilson & Co. (Inc.). Charge: That the respondent acquired the whole of the common or voting stock of the Paul O. Reyman Co., a corporation, the effect of such acquisition being

to enable respondent to completely dominate the business and policy of said Paul O. Reyman Co., to restrain competition between said respondent and said Paul O. Reyman Co., and to tend to create a monopoly in the sale of meats and like products, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act and section 7 of the Clayton Act. Status: Awaiting examiner's findings. Complaint No. 451.-Federal Trade Commission v. The Cudahy Packing Co. Charge: That respondent acquired 55 per cent of the shares of capital stock of the Nagel Packing Co., a competitor; 95 per cent of the capital stock of the D. E. Wood Butter Co., a competitor; and that a subsidiary corporation, the Dow Cheese Co., purchased the business and good will of a competitor, the A. C. Dow Co., with the effect that respondent has dominated the business of the Nagel Packing Co. and the D. E. Wood Butter Co., and has eliminated competition theretofore, existing between the three above-mentioned companies and the respondent, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act and section 7 of the Clayton Act. Status: Dismissed in part; awaiting briefs.

Complaint No. 452.-Federal Trade Commission v. Morris & Co. Charge: That the respondent acquired approximately 75 per cent of the capital stock of the Crescent City Stock Yard & Slaughter House Co., a competitor; that it acquired stock in the Bluefield Produce & Provision Co.; that it acquired the whole of the capital stock of the Holland Butterine Co., and held the same out to the public as wholly independent and without connection with respondent; that it acquired 66 per cent of the common stock of the Providence Churning Co., a competitor, and organized a corporation to take over and succeed to the business and property of said Providence Churning Co.; that it acquired onehalf of the entire capital stock of the Eskerson Co., a competitor; that it acquired one-half of the capital stock of the Jacob Marty Co., a competitor; that it acquired one-half of the capital stock of the C. A. Straubel Co., a competitor; and acquired $64,300 of the capital stock of the Sherman, White Co., whose entire stock was $123,700; and that the result of such acquisition is the domination by respondent of some of the above-mentioned companies, the elimination of competition therefore existing between the above-mentioned companies and the respondent, and the creation of conditions which tend to create a monopoly, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act and section 7 of the Clayton Act. Status: Awaiting briefs.

Complaint No. 454.-Federal Trade Commission v. Swift & Co., and United Dressed Beef Co. Charge: That the respondent caused its subsidiary, United Dressed Beef Co., to acquire all of the capital stock of J. J. Harrington & Co. (Inc.), which acquisition resulted in the control by Swift & Co. of the business theretofore conducted and controlled by said J. J. Harrington & Co. (Inc.), elimination of competition between respondents, Swift & Co. and United Dressed Beef Co. and J. J. Harrington & Co. (Inc.), and a tendency to create for respondent, Swift & Co., a monopoly in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act and section 7 of the Clayton Act. Status: Awaiting briefs.

Complaint No. 455.-Federal Trade Commission v. Armour & Co. Charge: That respondent acquired three-fifths of the capital stock of Harold L. Brown Co. (Inc.), a competitor, which company had previously acquired the capital stock and business of Beyer Bros. Commission Co., and also the capital stock and business of Beyer Bros. Co.; that it acquired as vendee and pledgee a controlling amount of the capital stock of the Eau Claire Creamery Co.; that it acquired through its agents 503 of the 1,000 shares of the capital stock of the Louden Packing Co., an Ohio corporation, which corporation transferred all its business and property to the Louden Packing Co., a Delaware corporation, in consideration of all of the stock of the Delaware corporation, consisting of 1,000 shares, 503 of which are held by the agents of respondent in trust for respondent; that it acquired one-half of the capital stock of the A. S. Kinimmoth Produce Co.; that it acquired the entire capital stock of the Pacific Creamery, which company the respondent held out and advertised as wholly independent without connection with respondent; and acquired 501 shares o the capital stock of Smith, Richardson & Conroy, a Florida corporation, and that the result of such acquisitions by respondent is the domination by respondent of the business of some of the above-mentioned companies, the elimination of competition between the above-mentioned companies, and the creation

of conditions which tend to create a monopoly, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act and section 7 of the Clayton Act. Status: Commission's testimony in chief completed.

Complaint No. 457.-Federal Trade Commission v. Western Meat Co. and Nevada Packing Co. Charge: That respondents have violated section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act and section 8 of the Clayton Act by having F. L. Washburn, a director of both the Western Meat Co., and the Nevada Packing Co. (between which companies competition existed), and illegally acquiring by the Western Meat Co., the capital stock of the Nevada Packing Co., which acquisition suspended between respondents competition which theretofore existed between them and tended to create a monopoly. Status: Held pending decision in docket 456, which is now pending in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Complaint No. 531.-Federal Trade Commission v. Armour & Co. Charge: Organizing apparently independent companies for the purpose of taking over the business and property of the Lookout Refining Co. and the Chattanooga Oxygen Gas Co. and the Harris Tannery Co., competitors of respondent, the capital stock of the independent companies being held by officers and employees or agents of respondents with the purpose or effect of restraining and eliminating competition and tending to create a monopoly, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act and section 7 of the Clayton Act. Status: Before the commission for final determination.

Complaint No. 540.-Federal Trade Commission v. Royal Baking Powder Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by unfairly representing and charging that its competitors' products contain alum, to wit, sodium aluminum sulphate (SaS), and are harmful, unhealthful, deleterious, and dangerous to users and consumers of such baking powders, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: In course of trial.

Complaint No. 578.--Federal Trade Commission v. Swift & Co., Libby, McNeill & Libby (of Illinois) and Libby, McNeill & Libby (Ltd.) (of Honolulu). Charge: That the respondent, Libby, McNeill & Libby, in effect a subsidiary of the respondent, Swift & Co., acquired all of the share capital of the Thomas Pineapple Co.; the share, capital, property, and business of the Honolulu Pineapple Co.; Kahaluu Pineapple & Range Co. (Ltd.); and Koolau Fruit Co. (Ltd.), with the effect of substantially lessening competition in the sale of pineapples in the Territory of Hawaii and creating a condition which tended to create for respondents a monopoly in the growing and sale of pineapples, in alleged violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act and section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: On suspense pending court decisions in dockets Nos. 351 and 453, being the commission's proceedings against Armour & Co. and Swift & Co., respectively, both of which are on appeal in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the seventh circuit.

Complaint No. 726.-Federal Trade Commission v. Constantine Calevas, Joseph Garcia, and E. A. Piller, partners, styling themselves Garcia, Piller & Co., and Calevas Bros. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of ship chandlery, including stewards' supplies, deck, engine, and cabin supplies, by giving to captains and other officers of vessels valuable gifts, cash commissions, and gratuities to induce them to purchase supplies from the respondents, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: Awaiting briefs.

Complaint No. 746.-Federal Trade Commission v. W. J. Chapman. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by offering and giving to captains of vessels cash gratuities to induce them to purchase ship chandlery, stewards' supplies, deck, engine, and cabin supplies from the respondent, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: Awaiting hriefs.

Complaint No. 775.-Federal Trade Commission v. Swift & Co., National Leather Co. Charge: That the respondent Swift & Co., by reason of its acquisition of a controlling interest in England, Walton & Co. (Inc.) and its subsidiaries, and the subsequent organization by Swift & Co. of respondent National Leather Co. and the transfer thereto of the Swift & Co. interest in England, Walton & Co., and in numerous other corporations engaged in tanning and the manufacture and sale of leather and by-products, the corporate stock of which had been acquired by Swift & Co., has been for the purpose and effect of substantially lessening competition and of creating a combination in

restraint of trade in the manufacture and sale of leather, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act and section 7 of the Clayton Act. Status: Awaiting briefs.

Complaint No. 785.-Federal Trade Commission v. J. H. Crites, John G. Dee, W. J. Ross, M. W. McQuaid, and M. L. Chandler. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of share stock of the O-tex Production Co., by the use of numerous false and misleading statements as to the said company's drilling operations and the productivity of its properties, to the effect of misleading and deceiving the purchasing public, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: Awaiting respondent's brief.

Complaint No. 786.-Federal Trade Commission v. Kelly Dry Dock & Ship Building Co. (Inc.). Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by offering and giving to officers and other employees of vessels, without the knowledge and consent of their employers, cash commissions and gratuities as an inducement to have their vessels repaired and repair parts furnished by the respondent, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: Awaiting briefs.

Complaint No. 798.-Federal Trade Commission v. Osa J. Smyths and S. W. Levy, partners, styling themselves Smyths & Levy. Charge: Unfair methods of competition in that the respondent, engaged in the sale of ship chandlery, has given cash commissions and gratuities of various kinds to captains, officers, and employees of ships to induce them to purchase ship-chandlery supplies from the respondents, all in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: Awaiting briefs.

Complaint No. 800.-Federal Trade Commission v. Herbert W. Brand, Harry C. Oppenheimer, and Edwin W. Brand, partners, doing business under the name and style of Brand & Oppenheimer. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that respondents, engaged in the manufacture and sale of cotton lining material, advertise and label their product as "Silkette," thereby deceiving and misleading the purchasing public into the belief that their linings are partly or wholly composed of silk, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: Order of dismissal issued May 18, 1923, was revoked; an order dated May 14, 1924, reopening the case for further consideration.

Complaint No. 804.-Federal Trade Commission v. Maritime Co. (Inc.), Charge: Unfair methods of competition in offering and giving to captains, engineers, and other officers of vessels, without the knowledge of their employers, as an inducement to have their vessels cleaned, painted, and repaired by the respondent, lavish entertainment, including automobile, dinner, and theater parties, lodging accommodations, and for other forms of entertainment, are in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: (Awaiting briefs.)

Complaint No. 821.-Federal Trade Commission v. Liberty Iron & Wire Co. (Inc.). Charge: Unfair methods of competition in offering and giving to captains, engineers, and other officers of vessels, without the knowledge of their employers, as an inducement to have their vessels repaired and repair parts furnished by the respondent, money and lavish entertainment, including automobile parties, dinner and theater parties, lodging accommodations, and forms of amusement, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: (At issue.)

Complaint No. 828.-Federal Trade Commission v. A. D. Davis Packing Co. Charge: Unfair methods of competition in offering and giving to officers and employees of vessels without the knowledge of their employers, as an inducement to have their vessels provisioned by respondent, lavish entertainment, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: (Awaiting briefs.)

Complaint No. 833.-Federal Trade Commission v. John J. Morrill and Louis Halvarson, partners, styling themselves A. H. McLeod & Co. Charge: The respondents have offered and given cash commissions and gratuities to captains, engineers, and other officers or employees of vessels without the knowledge of their employers to induce the purchase of sails, rigging, and canvas equipment from respondent, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: Awaiting briefs.

Complaint No. 835.-Federal Trade Commission v. Famous Players-Lasky Corporation, the Stanley Co. of America, Stanley Booking Corporation, Black