44.

45.

46.

United States v. New England Fish Exchange et al. Petition filed June 21, 1917, in the District Court, D. of Massachusetts, charging defendants with combining to restrain and monopolize interstate commerce in the products of the New England fish industry. Among other things it is alleged that practically all the fish brought in on the North Atlantic coast is marketed through the defendants and that they have entered into agreements involving the fixing of maximum prices for buying and minimum prices for selling fish. A decision favorable to the Government was handed down July 11, 1919. A final decree carrying out the method of dissolution suggested in the opinion of the court was entered December 4, 1919.

United States v. St. Clair et al. Indictment returned July 6, 1917, in the Supreme Court, District of Columbia, charging defendants, St. Clair, Dulin, and Cook, agents for the Havener Baking Company, and defendant Greene, agent for the Corby Baking Company, with combining and conspiring to arbitrarily fix and raise the price of bread and with refusing to sell bread to certain dealers who decline to maintain the established price of 10 cents per loaf. Nolle prosequi entered February 21, 1918.

United States v. National Retail Monument Dealers' Association of America et al. Indictment returned July 24, 1917, in the District Court, D. of Maryland, charging defendants with combining and conspiring to restrain trade and commerce in monuments and memorials by the compilation and circulation of so-called "honorary lists" of producers, manufacturers, and wholesalers who refuse to sell to so-called illegitimate retailers and to ultimate purchasers, and by inducing members of the association not to purchase monuments and memorials from any producer, manufacturer, or wholesaler not on such lists. On September 12, 1917, the court accepted pleas of nolo contendere by the several defendants and fined them amounts aggregating $6,255.

47.

48.

49.

United States v. Nash Brothers et al. Indictment returned July 30, 1917, in the District Court, D. of North Dakota, charging defendants with combining and conspiring to restrain and monopolize interstate trade in fruit in certain States in the Northwest. Among other things, the indictment charges that the defendants sought to prevent their competitors from purchasing fruit from growers and distributors, and cut prices to cause them to sustain losses in the sale of any fruit so purchased. A demurrer to this indictment was overruled in September, 1917, but on consideration of the opinion of the court it was deemed advisable to seek a new indictment. A new indictment was returned on February 27, 1918, and a demurrer thereto was sustained. An appeal has been taken to the Supreme Court.

United States v. Webster et al. Indictment returned August 30, 1917, in the District Court, S. D. of New York, charging defendants with engaging in a conspiracy to restrain and monopolize trade and commerce in automobile accessories through the instrumentality of the National Association of Automobile Accessory Jobbers, the membership of which comprises the principal manufacturers and jobbers of automobile accessories in the United States. The alleged object of the association is to control the entire trade in automobile accessories and eliminate all competition therein, and to that end it adopted comprehensive operative resolutions to be observed by all members in the conduct of their business; issues a list of so-called legitimate jobbers which is intended and understood to blacklist all jobbers whose names do not appear thereon, etc.. A demurrer was overruled in May, 1918, and the case went to trial. In February, 1919, a verdict of acquittal was returned.

United States v. Kluge et al. Petition filed October 8, 1917, in the District Court, S. D. of New York, charging defendants with organizing the Woven Label Manufacturers Association, which comprised practically all woven label manufacturers in the United States, and

50.

51.

which adopted rules, regulations, and policies designed to control, dominate, and direct the entire trade in labels, hangers, tabs, and like articles, from the manufacturer to the consumer. Among other things, the association adopted arbitrary and fictitious schedules of costs, established uniform list and resale prices, and terms of sales, and issued what was in effect a black list. The case was not contested, and on October 8 a decree was entered covering the dissolution of the association and enjoining the formation of a similar association or the further observance of the unlawful practices of the old association.

United States v. Paris Medicine Co.

Petition filed November 12, 1917, in the District Court, E. D. of Missouri, charging defendants with procuring the adherence of dealers in its products throughout the United States to resale prices fixed by it, the principal means employed being the furnishing of certain quantities of free goods to dealers who signed an agreement to resell the products at the prices indicated by the defendant. On November 13, 1917, a decree was entered by consent enjoining defendant from further attempting to control the resale price of its products by any of the following means: (a) Indicating to dealers such prices; (b) securing from dealers agreements to adhere to such prices; (c) refusing to sell to dealers who fail to adhere to such prices; (d) refusing to sell to dealers who fail to adhere to such prices upon the same terms as to dealers who do so adhere; (e) furnishing additional quantities of defendant's products, at. no additional cost, or affording any other advantage, to dealers who adhere to such prices, while refusing similar treatment to dealers who do not so adhere.

United States v. Barton et al. Indictment returned November 14, 1917, in the District Court, W. D. of Virginia, charging certain wholesale and retail dealers in groceries. at Danville, Virginia, with combining and conspiring to interfere with the business of the Piedmont Cash Grocery Company of Danville, Virginia. It alleged that the defendant retail dealers agreed to purchase goods from

52.

the defendant wholesale dealers only on condition that they would not sell goods to the Piedmont Company and the defendant wholesale dealers agreed not to sell goods to the Piedmont Company on condition that the defendant retail dealers would continue to purchase goods from them. On the trial of certain of the defendants the court directed the jury to find for those defendants on the ground that the commerce involved was intrastate rather than interstate. In view of this ruling the United States attorney was authorized to enter a nolle prosequi as to the remaining defendants.

United States v. Mead et al. Petition filed November 26, 1917, charging defendants with combining through the instrumentality of the News-Print Manufacturers Association and by other means to control the manufacture and sale of news-print paper. On the same date a decree was entered adjudging the combination unlawful, and ordering that the association be dissolved and that the defendants be enjoined from entering into or engaging in any like combination having for its purpose or effect (a) the elimination or restriction of competition in newsprint paper, or (b) the working for materially higher prices for news-print papers, or (c) the establishment of uniform prices, terms, or conditions for the sale of newsprint paper, or (d) the working to discourage others from manufacturing news-print paper.

The defendant manufacturers, who produce more than half of the total tonnage of news-print paper consumed in the United States, also entered into an agreement with the Attorney General of the United States as trustee that beginning April 1, 1918, and continuing during the period of the war and three months thereafter, they will abide by prices and terms of sale to be fixed by the Federal Trade Commission (subject to review by the circuit judges for the second circuit as arbitrators), and that in the meantime while the commission is making the necessary investigations they will charge not in excess of $3 per hundred pounds in carload lots and $3.25 per hundred pounds in less than carload lots. The commission fixed the price for roll news print at $3.10 per

53.

54.

hundred pounds in carload lots and. $3.224 per hundred pounds in less than carloads lot, and the manufacturers asked that this price be reviewed by the circuit judges. On September 25, 1918, the circuit judges ordered that the finding or award of the Federal Trade Commission be modified so as to make the price $3.50 per hundred pounds in carload lots and $3.624 per hundred pounds in less than carloads lot.

United States v. Discher et al. Petition filed December 4, 1917, in the District Court, S. D. of New York, charging defendants with seeking to control, dominate, and direct the principal part of the trade and commerce in automobile bumpers from the manufacturer to the consumer, and to hinder, prevent, and eliminate all competition therein. To accomplish these objects the defendants organized the Automobile Bumper Association, to which were assigned all letters patent or applications for letters patent owned or controlled by the several members, and identical manufacturing licenses were then issued to each member with restrictive provisions by which prices. and practically all details of their business were effectively controlled. On December 4, 1917, a decree was entered by consent, ordering the dissolution of the association, and prohibiting the further observance of its unlawful practices or the formation of any similar association.

United States v. Belfi et al. Indictment returned December 6, 1917, in the District Court, E. D. of Pennsylvania, charging defendants with combining and conspiring to prevent other persons than themselves and the concerns which they represent from engaging in business as retailers of tiles. Among other things, the defendants became officers and members of the Philadelphia Tile, Mantel & Grate Association; refused to admit as members concerns desiring to engage in the tile business in competition with them; refused to buy from manufacturers who sold to nonmember concerns; induced members of the Tile Layers' Union to threaten manufacturers to refuse to set their tiles if sold to nonmem