who do not practice misrepresentation, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.

Disposition: Dismissed, respondents having gone out of business. Complaint No. 1327. In the matter of Rose Bros. Co. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondent, engaged in the manufacture and sale of umbrellas, advertised and represented that the handles of certain of its umbrellas were composed of or trimmed with bakelite, when in fact said handles were made of or trimmed with celluloid and other products having the appearance, or being a colorable imitation, of bakelite as made by the Bakelite Corporation, thereby tending to deceive the trade and purchasing public and to injure competitors who do not practice misrepresentation, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.

Disposition: Dismissed after hearing.

Complaint No. 1337.-In the matter of John C. Herman and Edward S. Herman, copartners, doing business under the trade name and style of John C. Herman & Co. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondents label certain of their cigars with the words "Tampa" or "Sumatra Wrapped," thereby tending to mislead the public to believe that the said cigars are made in the Tampa district, and that the wrappers are of tobacco grown on the Island of Sumatra, when in fact the respondents' products are manufactured in the State of Pennsylvania and the wrappers of its cigars are of tobacco grown elsewhere than on the island of Sumatra, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.

Disposition: Dismissed after hearing, practices charged having been discontinued at the time the investigation was instituted.

Complaint No. 1347.-In the matter of Joseph Goodman, doing business under the trade names and styles Niagara Shirt Co. and Nyra Shirt Co. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondent, engaged in the manufacture of shirts from material composed entirely of cotton, but having a high luster and resembling silk in appearance, labels said shirts with the word "Nyrasylk," thereby misleading the purchasing public to believe that the respondent's shirts are made of silk and tending to injure competitors who do not practice misrepresentation, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.

Disposition: Dismissed.

Complaint No. 1348.-In the matter of Finishing Products Co. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondent, engaged in the sale of wood stains, fillers, varnishes, and allied products, offers and gives sums of money to employees of customers and prospective customers, without the knowledge or consent of the principals, as an inducement to influence said employees to purchase from the respondent, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.

Disposition: Dismissed after hearing.

Complaint No. 1353.-In the matter of Always Ready Products Co. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondent, engaged in the manufacture and sale of a solution for use in electric storage batteries. makes numerous deceptive and misleading assertions as to the quality of said solution, indicating falsely that it will charge electric storage batteries with electricity and will not freeze. thereby tending to mislead the purchasing public and to injure competitors who do not practice misrepresentation, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.

Disposition: Dismissed. respondent having been adjudicated a bankrupt. Complaint No. 1355.-In the matter of Joseph Lampl and Carl Lampl, partners, doing business under the trade name and style Lampl Knitting Co. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondents. engaged in the sale of knitted garments to retailers, indicate by the use of their trade name that they are manufacturers, when in fact the respondents do not control or operate any mill or factory and purchase their garments for resale, thereby tending to mislead the trade into the erroneous belief that the profits of middlemen are eliminated when purchases are made from the respondents, and tending also to injure competitors who do not practice misrepresentation, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition: Dismissed.

Complaint No. 1358.-In the matter of Continental Baking Corporation. Charge: Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondent

holds and controls the whole or substantially all of the stock of a number of corporations engaged in the baking business in the several States of the United States, thereby tending to substantially lessen competition, to restrain commerce in bread, biscuits, cakes, pies, crackers, and other food products in the sections or communities in which such corporations were engaged in commerce at the time of the acquisition of their stock and to create a monopoly in said food products, in alleged violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act.

Disposition: Dismissed after hearing, action having been taken in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

EXHIBIT 7

COMPLAINTS PENDING JULY 1, 1926, AND STATUS

NOTE. On or immediately before June 30, 1926, the commission mailed one order to cease and desist and four orders of dismissal, terminating five 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.-In the matter of 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. (Consolidated with docket 928.) Status: In course of trial.

Complaint No. 266.-In the matter of 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 three-fourths of the cost thereof, 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 purchases 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 outcome of court action in Butterick Co. case (Docket 594.)

Complaint No. 455.-In the matter of 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 busi ness 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 of 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: Before the commission for final determination.

Complaint No. 457.-In the matter of 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. 775.-In the matter of 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: Before the commission for final determination.

Complaint No. 785.--In the matter of 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. 835.-In the matter of Famous Players-Lasky Corporation, the Stanley Co. of America, Stanley Booking Corporation, Black New England Theaters (Inc.), Southern Enterprises (Inc.), Saenger Amusement Co., Adolphe Zukor, Jesse L. Lasky, Jules Mastbaum, Alfred S. Blank, Stephen A. Lynch, Ernest V. Richards, jr. Charge: Unfair methods of competition in that the respondents Famous Players-Lasky Corporation, Adolphe Zukor, and Jesse L. Lasky have combined and conspired to secure control of and monopolize the motion-picture industry, and to restrain, restrict, and suppress competition in the distribution of motion-picture films by (a) acquisition of all the corporate stock of Bosworth (Inc.), Jesse L. Lasky Feature Play Co. (Inc.), Famous Players Film Co., and by coercion, Paramount Pictures Corporation; (b) affiliation with certain independent producers; (c) the creation and exploitation of the Realart Pictures Corporation which the respondents held out to the general public as wholly independent and not affiliated with or controlled by said respondents; (d) acquiring, with the aid of the other respondents, the control of numerous theater corporations operating motion-picture theaters throughout the United States; and (e) building or acquiring numerous theaters for the exhibition of respondents' motion pictures, exclusively, all in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act, and, as to respondents Famous Players-Lasky Corporation, Adolphe Zukor, and Jesse L. Lasky, in alleged violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act. Status: Awaiting the taking of additional testimony.

Complaint No. 857.-In the matter of S. F. Shepard. Rockwood Brown, A. L. Todd, R. Allyn Lewis, R. J. Wiswell, D. M. Leopold, H. P. Hanson, E. H. Eshleman, F. L. Moorman, and E. H. McArthur. Charge: The respondents are trustees for or associated in the promotion of the Burkley Oil Co., Burk Crest Oil Co., Burk Bethel Oil Co.. Gypsy Burk Oil Co., Burk Imperial Oil Co., and Burk Consolidated Oil Co. Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondents, to further the sale of the share stock of said unincorporated associations, issued and published numerous false and misleading statements and concealed or withheld other material information relative to the organization, business, and properties of the said companies, thereby deceiving and misleading the purchasing public, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: Awaiting respondents' brief.

Complaint No. 865.-In the matter of Henry H. Hoffman, R. C. Russell, J. H. Cain, R. V. Wilson, B. Baernstein, the Ranger-Burkburnett Oil Co., the RangerComanche Oil Co., and the Union National Oil Co. Charge: The respondent individuals are promoters of the respondent corporation. Unfair methods of

competition are charged in that they, in order to further the sale of the share stock of the said corporation, issued and published numerous false and misleading statements and concealed or withheld other material information relative to the organization, business and properties of the said corporation, thereby deceiving and misleading the purchasing public in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: Awaiting respondent's brief.

Complaint No. 871.—In the matter of A. W. Perryman, doing business under the name and style Perryman Investment Co.; A. W. Perryman, F. P. Penfield, C. S. Thomas, individually and as trustees and officers of the Houston Oil & Refining Co., a trust; W. L. Diehl, individually and as second vice presiIdent of the Houston Oil & Refining Co., a trust; and William M. Huff, individually and as third vice president of the Houston Oil & Refining Co., a trust. Charge: The respondents are the promoters of the Houston Oil & Refining Co., a Texas trust. Unfair methods of competition are charged in that the respondents, for the purpose of furthering the sale of the share stock of the said oil company, issued and published numerous false and misleading statements and concealed or withheld other material information relative to the organization, business, property, and prospects of said corporation, thereby deceiving the pur"chasing public, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: Awaiting respondents' brief.

Complaint No. 873.-In the matter of Hewitt Bros. Soap Co. Charge: Unfair methods of competition in that the respondent advertises, brands, and labels its soap as "white naphtha," stating that it is made by a new process and of a combination of naphtha, coconut oil, and other cleansing ingredients, when, in fact, the said soap contains no naphtha, but contains instead a petroleum distillate other than naphtha, originally only to the extent of 1 per cent or less of the whole constituent ingredients, and substantially all lost by volatilization or evaporation before such soap reaches the ultimate consumer, thereby misleading and deceiving the purchasing public, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: At issue.

Complaint No. 902.-In the matter of The Chicago Tobacco Jobbers' Association, its officers and members, and the American Tobacco Co., respondents. Charge: The charge is unfair competition in that the association and its members agreed upon a schedule of fixed prices at which the members should resell tobacco products to their customers and that the American Tobacco Co. entered into an agreement with the association and its members to assist them in maintaining the prices fixed and agreed upon, all in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: Awaiting court decision in the matter of Wholesale Tobacco & C gar Dealers Association of Philadelphia, Pa.; docket No. 886.

Complaint No. 925.-In the matter of Mid-American Oil & Refining Co. and J. H. Crites. Charge: The respondent individual is the promoter of respondent Mid-American Oil & Refining Co., a Texas trust. Unfair methods of competition in commerce are charged in that respondents, with the aid of certain subsidiaries known as Mid-American Syndicate, Mid-American Mexia Syndicate, and Mid-American Stevens County Syndicate, published numerous false and misleading statements and representations relative to the organization, bus ness, property, and prospects of respondent company and said syndicates, to further the sale of the share stock of the respondent, and thereby deceived the purchasing public, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: Awaiting respondent's brief.

Complaint No. 928 (in consolidation with 82).-In the matter of The American Photo-Engravers' Association and others, and the International PhotoEngravers' Union of North America, and others. Charge: Unfair methods of competition in commerce are charged in that the respondents conspired and agreed to adopt and maintain a scale of uniform prices for the sale of all photoengraving products. The respondent, International Photo-Engravers' Union of North America and its local organizations threatened to call strikes or withdraw union employees from photo-engraving establishments that would not maintain said uniform scale of prices, it being understood between the respondents that the members of the respondent association would employ none but members of respondent union's local organization, thereby and with the aid of other methods of enforcement of said agreement, regulating, controlling, and suppressing competition between manufacturers of photo-engraving products, making possible the establishment and maintenance of enhanced prices