Even though Sec. 4. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT EXTENDED TO EXPORT TRADE COMPETITORS-Continued. used in export trade against competitors engaged in exacts involved port trade, even though the acts constituting such unfair done without ter- methods are done without the territorial jurisdiction of tion of United the United States. ritorial jurisdic States. Export trade associations or corporations to Trade Commission show ing location of Sec. 5. OBLIGATIONS OF EXPORT TRADE ASSOCIATIONS UNDER THIS ACT. PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY. DUTIES AND POWERS OF COMMISSION. SEC. 5. That every association now engaged solely in file statement with export trade, within sixty days after the passage of this Federas Act, and every association entered into hereafter which offices, names, and engages solely in export trade, within thirty days after addresses of off its creation, shall file with the Federal Trade Commisalso articles of sion a verified written statement setting forth the locacontract of asso- tion of its offices or places of business and the names and cers, etc., and incorporation or ciation, etc. addresses of all its officers and of all its stockholders or members, and if a corporation, a copy of its certificate or articles of incorporation and by-laws, and if unincorporated, a copy of its articles or contract of association, and on the first day of January of each year thereafter it shall make a like statement of the location of its offices or places of business and the names and addresses of all its officers and of all its stockholders or members and of all amendments to and changes in its articles or certificate of incorporation or in its articles or information as to contract of association. It shall also furnish to the comorganization, mission such information as the commission may require as to its organization, business, conduct, practices, management, and relation to other associations, corporations, partnerships, and individuals. Any association which Penalties, loss shall fail so to do shall not have the benefit of the pro2 and 3, and fine. visions of section two and section three of this Act, and To furnish also business, etc. of benefit of secs. it shall also forfeit to the United States the sum of $100 for each and every day of the continuance of such failure, which forfeiture shall be payable into the Treasury of the United States, and shall be recoverable in a civil suit in the name of the United States brought in the district where the association has its principal office, or in any District attor district in which it shall do business. It shall be the duty of the various district attorneys, under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, to prosecute for the recovery of the forfeiture. The costs and neys to prosecute recovery of for forfeiture. expenses of such prosecution shall be paid out of the appropriation for the expenses of the courts of the United States. Commission to straint of trade, tional enhance tion. Whenever the Federal Trade Commission shall have Federal Trade reason to believe that an association or any agreement investigate remade or act done by such association is in restraint of artificial or inten trade within the United States or in restraint of the ex- ment or depression of prices or port trade of any domestic competitor of such association, substantial lessening of compeor that an association either in the United States or else- tition by associa where has entered into any agreement, understanding, or conspiracy, or done any act which artificially or intentionally enhances or depresses prices within the United States of commodities of the class exported by such association, or which substantially lessens competition within the United States or otherwise restrains trade therein, it shall summon such association, its officers, and agents to appear before it, and thereafter conduct an investigation into the alleged violations of law. Upon investigation, May recom mend readjustif it shall conclude that the law has been violated, it may ment in case of make to such association recommendations for the readjustment of its business, in order that it may thereafter maintain its organization and mangement and conduct its business in accordance with law. If such association fails To refer find. ings and recom to comply with the recommendations of the Federal Trade mendations to Commission, said commission shall refer its findings and if association fails recommendations to the Attorney General of the United recommendation. States for such action thereon as he may deem proper. violation. Attorney General to comply with given same pow eral Trade Com For the purpose of enforcing these provisions the Fed- Commission eral Trade Commission shall have all the powers, so far ers as under Fedas applicable, given it in "An Act to create a Federal mission Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes." 35 Approved, April 10, 1918. IN GENERAL. Act referred to in opinion in United States v. United States Steel Corporation, March 1, 1920. 251 U. S. 417, 453, 64 L. Ed. 343, 354, 40 Sup. Ct. 293, 300, in de 5 See ante, p. 1, et seq. ciding suit to dissolve United Act far as applicable. DECISIONS OF THE COURTS ON PETITIONS TO 104 UNITED STATES v. BASIC PRODUCTS CO. (District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania. September 9, 1919.) No. 2214. 1. UNITED STATES KEY No. 97-CAN NOT APPROPRIATE PATENT WITHOUT COMPENSATION. There is no reservation in the patent laws of right in the United States as against the inventor, and it can not appropriate or use the invention without just compensation in any different way than it can appropriate or use any other article owned by a private citizen. 2. COMMERCE KEY NO. 48-FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION CREATED UNDER POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE. The Federal Trade Commission Act (Comp. St., pars. 8836a8836k) was enacted by Congress in the exercise of its constitutional power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. 1 With the exception of two cases, the period covered is from July 1 1920, to June 30, 1921. The two exceptions referred to are the case of the Basic Products Co. and the case of the Maynard Coal Co. (see p. 117, infra, for latter case), printed in full at this time as a matter of convenience because not heretofore so included in the Commission's Reports. Decisions on petitions to review handed down before the period above referred to will be found in Appendix II of Vol. II of the Commission's decisions. Cases in which injunctions have been sought to restrain the Commission from proceeding under sec. 5 or in which it has been sought to defeat such a proceeding by appealing for a writ of certiorari to review the action of the Commission in denying motions to dismiss the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction, as of this writing (Oct. 15, 1921) are as follows: By injunction-Federal Trade Commission v. Nulomoline Co., in which the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on August 16, 1918, refused to interfere with the Commission's taking testimony, on the ground that the Commission's order requiring the same was interlocutory (memorandum opinion in 254 Fed. 988); T. C. Hurst & Son v. Federal Trade Commission, decided August 2, 1920, in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (268 Fed. 874; see p. 127, infra), and Butterick Co. et al. v. Federal Trade Commission, in which the bills of four respondents in a proceeding before the Commission (Dock. 594) to enjoin the Commission from proceeding under sec. 5 were dismissed by 3. COMMERCE KEY NO. 57-TRADE-MARKS AND TRADE NAMES KEY No. 80, NEW, VOL. 8A KEY NO. SERIES-POWERS OF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION WHERE INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR UNFAIR TRADE ARE NOT INVOLVED. The Federal Trade Commission held without power to demand access to the books and papers of a corporation which manufactured a patent article by secret process, not alleged to be engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, nor charged with unfair competition, for the purpose of obtaining information for the Navy Department as to the cost of manufacture, annual production, capital invested, etc. 4. MANDAMUS KEY NO. 10-RIGHT TO DEMAND AND DUTY TO PERFORM NECESSARY. Mandamus issues where, and only where, there is a right to demand, and a corresponding duty to perform, the act required. (The syllabus is taken from 260 Fed. 472.) At Law. Mandamus by the United States against the Basic Products Co. On demurrer to answer. Overruled. R. L. Crawford, United States district attorney, of Pittsburgh, Pa. Reed, Smith, Shaw & Beal, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant. ORR, District Judge: To a petition filed by the Attorney General of the United States, at the request of the Federal Trade Commission, for a writ of mandamus upon the Basic Products Co., the latter has made answer at considerable length. the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia on August 12, 1921 (no opinion), and in which case an appeal has been taken to the Court of Appeals of the District. On writ of certiorari-Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce et al. v. Federal Trade Commission, in which respondents in a proceeding before the Commission (Dock. 694) appealed to the Court of Appeals of the Eighth Circuit for writ of certiorari to review the Commission's action in denying motions to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction, and which is pending in that court. Cases in which injunctions have been sought to restrain the Commission from enforcing compliance with requests made under sec. 6 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, or in which mandamus proceedings have been instituted at the request of the Commission to enforce compliance with a request made under said section, are as follows: Injunctions-Maynard Coal Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, in which the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia on April 19, 1920, granted a preliminary injunction (see p. 117, infra), now awaiting trial, and Claire Furnace Co. et al. v. Federal Trade Commission, in which the same court on June 19, 1920, likewise granted a preliminary injunction (no opinion) and which is likewise awaiting trial. Mandamus proceedings-United States v. Bethlehem Steel Co., petition filed June 4, 1920, in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and United States v. Republic Iron and Steel Co., petition filed June 7, 1920, in the District Court for the District of New Jersey, proceedings in both of which cases were stayed by the injunction secured in the Claire Furnace case, in which the two defendants in the mandamus proceedings were among the petitioners, and which proceedings consequently await decision of that case. To that answer the plaintiff has demurred. It is upon the demurrer that this case is now before the court. While all the material averments of the answer, which are well pleaded, must be taken as true, yet the important questions in the case can not be clearly outlined without reference to the petition as well, and without a statement of the particular grounds upon which the demurrer is based. The court therefore sets forth the substance of the pleadings, with quotations from the same, and with the use of italics where deemed proper for special emphasis. With respect to the petition, it is to be noticed: That there is no averment of any facts which show that the defendant is engaged in interstate commerce. The recital in the resolution of the Federal Trade Commission, which is hereinafter set forth, is not such averment. The petition sets forth that on the 8th day of March, 1917, the Federal Trade Commission passed a resolution, and on the 11th of March following caused notice thereof and its demand in pursuance thereof to be served on the defendant, which notice and demand are both set forth at length in the petition. They are embodied in one paper duly executed by the Federal Trade Commission. The part of said paper which contains the notice recites the date of the passage of the resolution as aforesaid, that it was passed at a regular session of said Commission, and contains the resolution itself, which is as follows: Resolved. That pursuant to the provisions of subdivision (a) of section 6 of the act of Congress entitled "An act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes," approved September 26, 1914, the Commission proceed forthwith to gather and compile information concerning, and investigate the organization, business, conduct, practices, and management of the Basic Products Co., a corporation engaged in interstate commerce, and the relation of said Basic Products Co. to other corporations, individuals, associations, and partnerships: And be it further Resolved, That pursuant to the provisions of section 9 of said act of September 26, 1914, L. W. Plowman and H. L. Maxey are hereby designated as duly authorized agents of the Federal Trade Commission to examine and copy any and all documentary evidence of whatsoever character concerning the organization, business, conduct, practices, and management of said Basic Products Co., and its relation to other corporations, individuals, associations, and partnerships: And be it further Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be served on the said Basic Products Co., with a demand on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission that the said L. W. Plowman and H. L. Maxey, its agents, be permitted access to the books, papers, records, memoranda, and data of the said Basic Products Co. for the purpose of carrying out the direction of this resolution. The part of that paper containing the demand is as follows: Pursuant to the terms of said resolution the Federal Trade Commission hereby formally demands of you an opportunity to examine any documentary evidence in your possession which |