47.

United States v. Nash Brothers et al. Indictment returned July 30, 1917, in the District Court, District 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.

48.

United States v. Webster et al. Indictment returned August 30, 1917, in the District Court, Southern District 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 Auotmobile 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.

49.

United States v. Kluge et al. Petition filed October 8, 1917, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, charging defendants with organizing the Woven Label Manufacturers Association, which comprised practically

70681-23- -9

50.

51.

all woven label manufacturers in the United States, and 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, Eastern District 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) refusfng 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, Western District of Virginia, charging certain wholesale and retail dealers in groceries at Danville, Va., with combining and conspiring to interfere with the business of the Piedmont

52.

Cash Grocery Co., of Danville, Va. It alleged that the defendant retail dealers agreed to purchase goods from the defendant wholesale dealers only on condition that they would not sell goods to the Piedmont Co. and the defendant wholesale dealers agreed not to sell goods to the Piedmont Co. 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 Newsprint Manufacturers' Association and by other means to control the manufacture and sale of newsprint 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 newsprint 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 newsprint paper.

The defendant manufacturers, who produce more than half of the total tonnage of newsprint 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

53.

54.

per hundred pounds in less-than-carload lots. The commission fixed the price for roll newsprint at $3.10 per hundred pounds in carload lots and $3.224 per hundred pounds in less-than-carload lots, 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-carload lots.

United States v. Discher et al. Petition filed December 4, 1917, in the District Court, Southern District 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, Eastern District 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 manufacterers who sold to nonmember concerns;

55.

56.

induced members of the Tile Layers' Union to threaten manufacturers to refuse to set their tiles if sold to nonmembers; and entered into an oral agreement and understanding with representatives of the Tile Layers' Union not to set the tiles for nonmembers. On April 8, 1818, a verdict of guilty was returned against all of the defendants. The court granted a motion for a new trial as to 11 of the defendants and the Government dismissed the case as to them; the court imposed fines aggregating $9,000 against the 10 remaining defendants and they appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal was heard in November, 1918. On June 18, 1919, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of 8 of the 10 defendants who had appealed, and ordered a new trial for the 2 other defendants. On May 10, 1920, the fines imposed were commuted by the President.

United States v. Colgate & Company. Indictment returned December 18, 1917, in the District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, charging defendant with combining with wholesale and retail dealers in its products to procure adherence to resale prices fixed by it. It is alleged that defendant indicated to wholesale and retail dealers by letters and circulars and orally the prices it desired to have maintained and that dealers failing to maintain such prices were placed on so-called "suspended lists" and refused further supplies until they gave assurance that the prices indicated would be observed. Argued on demurrer in March, 1918, and demurrer sustained in an opinion handed down on October 29, 1918. The Government appealed to the Supreme Court, which held, on June 2, 1919, that the interpretation of the indictment by the court below could not be reviewed, and, upon that interpretation, affirmed the order sustaining the demurrer. (See No. 71, infra, p. 130.)

United States v. Booth Fisheries Company et al. Petition filed March 13, 1918, in the District Court, Western District of Washington, charging defendants with combining to restrain and monopolize interstate trade and