1 créru) Odd rerereronirorsr a ar tr phiks Ura Hirt aeriegeg unr MPU Pinu mahi fies Setar tire pis Lecegreesegetad frye fete ti Uniet tiedt ttertitee HErLr arth ofr thei HEN ahcie sbrsiaichse dabei fe re Oh ee ire eg ahaha Glenn titres Heceher HO ate ottrircr rnd ApLrePLery esc sisidh os 24 rues reas hyd saededhansay rahe pees yedaned eth 58 afe'| Siiebbintereresspaseteresticratereieh foterienr Tet ete ersierriers! rik lh ethale vals Saha Pn ayo ; dlestaediegt ear} asi Abend ae piste Hathdbsedides Sleistehiewrerssesseirstetran nea ‘ a ibe iaaiteate trp tah Sit “yal simone thea ae ana rat ; a Sle nih teiecigie abate repeat sttene leg 3 sides fastest Sa Riksta satis i saetiaetee eaie percitelsielobebotatelansis eh Em leaded ia Weseitagsc tired ieee Le le sk aL ae eee ah Daeg eo itera ea east aa Prcirierh iediseniyess Lajttherd sedge ss cass f a singel Ana taeacrit eter ie i ‘ aa Aas 4 Linh ‘e r un Thi ssn I f sat eesta ae ah i ha 4 Pritts at iho esl OTe di Beal serps eabgg aa Pe erie ere tenes ei is s | ape garne " Ashes at Seabareseaa lise line crtnie tes ierh ate MA a rae Aaa ad Me ea iseatrditaty ‘yeiy " a AAR AR Shad Reseed sata . Ad thaelade aon oh obarled raha nia spereB itgears s ser en rr tp Phaeton UE iat Sia AAS ie eed 7 % a} hed tay Riarerdin eit eiyias Peres nei { r f teral e's aie phvagi pai Brin inaiolototerer eres maneeaestan neat, crete eh a ahaa Baie, COANE ie! Behram RE a te sa Saan i : é ny K . Ache Tithe a aaa 3! i ohegphecrneb ete eadada Aesth ; Rate erattiapiren shaadi ty eanattt Tay Hema actin ibaa Biante alee ot annette a Zein bbe Seecietastde f * Bh hgh ie ha dterased Saath feel enaiit i at ; rita Betas coartrse ie oie : 3 i Hn : pe + ain re dine re feds ih seid (es a F magpie thevtat etattiaatalitetcteat toe Net EC Garis Leiria thi ahead re APP e rohehtesks I a Tesh ots tn ni : pianist be aaa ian 3 fabrenietss ‘i i = we einieieniotei cs : vat oa os 7 : : | 7 = ARS ete Hades RPO CIN gl rasan : ; i Rearoeearc ee st aS = : a ree Siebat bein renee ‘ eas iafeatybayanargietia Nigra tes tet et samme ae cn Spee ase pieipeateiat a nies fs uti Beat Pads moa Aghrtanaat t rae ar re ponte case we Bs Raed) us hebsecee oie sare “ : i aie rs eee £ - apes. , ay a det r ase ny) Stones ; ae ms : 3 ie Gielen He tA i evita iesmtenmepte fciahtia’t 7 “KE l@HO A2 352 iS Con Hl. Wo. deecte Law LIBRARY CORNELL Law SCHOOL THE GIFT OF i Tin DECREES AND JUDGMENTS IN FEDERAL ANTI-TRUST CASES JULY 2, 1890—JANUARY 1, 1918 Shale, Reyer COMPILED BY ROGER SHALE’ UNDER THE DIRECTION OF G. CARROLL TODD THE ASSISTANT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1918 BYSR 30 ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D. C. Av $1.25 PER COPY INDEX—PART I—CIVIL CASES. Appyston Pirr & Sreet Co., 78 Fed. 712; 85 Fed. 271; ep 175 U.S. 211:, Decree of Circuit Court--_--_.----------_----- 35 Decree of Circuit Court of Appeals__-_------_-- 36 Decree on mandate of Circuit Court of Appeals__ 37 Decree on mandate of Supreme Court_.--.-.__- 39 Auten & Rosrnson, 3 Dist., Hawaii, 664: Decree of District Court____----....--.--_--.-- 105 Atuminum Company or AMERICA: Decree of District Court____-__------.--.------ 341 American-Asratic Linz, 220 Fed. 230; 242 U. 8. 587: Decree of District Court_-_-----_--_.---------- 333 Decree on mandate of Supreme Court..._-__--_- 334 American Can Company, 230 Fed. 859: Decree of District Court__-------------------.- 525 American Coat Propucts Company: Decree of District Court____-.----------------- 461 American Seating Company: Decrees of Circuit Court_..-.---------------- 145,147 American TeLepHone & TrLecrapH Company: Decree of District Court____._----------.------ 483 Order modifying decree_._.--__--------------- 497 American THreap CoMPany: Decree of District Court_-_--__----------------- 449 Amertcan Topacco Company, 164 Fed. 700; 191 Fed. 871; 221 U.S. 106: Decree of Circuit Court__-_.-------------------- 157 Decree on mandate of Supreme Court_------_--- 162 Decree of dissolution by Circuit Court_-_-----.. 165 Awnperson, 82 Fed. 998; 171 U. 8. 604: Preliminary injunction of Circuit Court__-___-_-- 45 Decree on mandate of Supreme Court__-------- 47 58556—18——_1 UI Iv INDEX—CIVIL CASES. AssocraTeD Biiuposrers & DistRIBuToRS: Decree of District Court___..._---------------- Baker & Houmes Company: Decree of Circuit Court.-.------.-.----------- Boarp oF TRADE oF THE Crry oF CHICAGO: Decree of District Court__._._.--_-------------- Bowser & Company, 8. F.: Decree of District Court-..--..-..------------- Burroucus Appineg Macuine Company: Decree of District Court_.__.__-._------.------- CrenrraL-West Pusiisuine Company: Decree of District Court.________-------------- Order of District Court denying application for modification of decree____.__-----_----------- Order of Circuit Court of Appeals reversing or- der of District Court_________--.------------ Order of Circuit Court of Appeals modifying its previous: orders c.co.c loses nsasen cece es Order of District Court on mandate of Circuit Court of Appeals___--------------.--------- CursaPeaxe & Ouro Furr Company, 105 Fed. 93; 115 Fed. 610: Decree of Circuit Court___._..--..-.-_-_---_-__ Cuicaco Burrer & Eco Boarp: Decree of District Court___.-._..__-._------_-_-__ CLEVELAND STONE ComPANy: Decree of District Court____---------.--------- Coat Draters AssocraTIon or Catirornia, 85 Fed. 252: Preliminary injunction of Circuit Court._-_---- Decree of Circuit Court.._...___--____.-__-____ Cotorapo anpD Wyomine Lumber Derarers’ Assocra- TION: Decree of District Court____..--_--.---- ee Corn Propucrs Rerinine Company, 234 Fed. 964: Decree of District Court against certain defend- Decree of District Court against remaining de- DOWNING cee eae pts eis, 859 366 . 367 368 370 55 259 417 49 51 663 433 INDEX-——CIVIL CASES. Dress, Evcens V., 64 Fed. 724; 158 U. S. 564: Preliminary injunction of Circuit Court in Dli- TOS Sec ig a hte ra Order’ Of Gis 1638 | cee cetanenienegamemannnaen Preliminary injunction of Circuit Court in Indi- andy Case oie wk ei es ee eee Order of dismissal______.._.------_----------- Derawarg, Lackawanna & Western R. Co., 218 Fed. 240; 238 U. S. 516: Decree of District Court___...------_---------- Decree on mandate of Supreme Court___-------- Discuer, ET AL. AUTOMOBILE BuMPER ASSOCIATION: Decree of District Court_._---_-_-__--------.-- Du Pont pr Nemoours & Co., 188 Fed. 127: Interlocutory decree of Circuit Court___-_------ Final decree of District Court__---------------- Supplemental decree of District Court__--_-__~- Eastern States Retam, Lumper Dearers’ Assoctra- TION, 201 Fed., 581; 234 U. S. 600: Decree of District Court_-__-_----------------- Eastman Kopax Company, 226 Fed. 62; 230 Fed. 522: Decree of District Court___._-__-_-------------- Excin Boarp oF TRADE: Decree of District Court______----------------- Exiorr er au., M. J., 62 Fed. 801; 64 Fed. 27: Preliminary injunction of Circuit Court_-_--_-- Preliminary injunction of Circuit Court___----- Decree of Circuit Court___--------------------- Freprran Sarr Company: Preliminary injunction of Circuit Court__------- Permanent injunction of Circuit Court___-----_- GeneraL Execrric Company: Decree of Circuit Court___--------------------- GeneraL Paver CoMPAny: Decree of Circuit Court.-_--------------------- Great Laxrs Towrne Company, 208 Fed. 733; 217 Fed. 656: Decree of District Court_.--.------------------ Page. 13 17 19 22 421 423 645 193 195 205 281 47 401 28 26 29 67 70 267 75 2538 VI INDEX—COIVIL CASES. Page. Hamsurc-Amertcan Lrxr, 200 Fed. 806; 216 Fed. 971; 239 U.S. 466: Decree of District Court-__---_---------------- 275 Decree on mandate of Supreme Court___-----~-- 277 Harrwick et au. (Lumber Trust Case) : Decree of District Court____-_----------------- 649 Hotis er ax. (Lumber Trust Case) : Decree of District Court___...-----_----------- 619 Hopkins er at., 82 Fed. 529; 84 Fed. 1018; 171 U.S. 578: Preliminary injunction of Circuit Court__------- 41 Decree on mandate of Supreme Court_------~-- 43 InrernatTionaAL BroruHernoop oF Execrrican Work- ERS: Preliminary injunction of District Court__--_--- 427 Decree of District Court_____------------------ 430 Inrernatiox au Harvester Company, 214 Fed. 987: Decree of District Court.____----_------------- 337 Order modifying decree of District Court____-__ 339 Jetico Mountain Coat & Coxe Company, 43 Fed. 898; 46 Fed. 482: Decree of Circuit Court_.__-..-_.-.---______-__ 1 Joint Trarric Association, 76 Fed. 895; 89 Fed. 1020; 171 U.S. 505: Decree of District Court__--.----------------- 31 Decree of Circuit Court of Appeals___-_--_---_- 31 Decree on mandate of Supreme Court____--__-_ 32 Keiioce Tosstep Corx Frans Company, 222 Fed. 725: Deeree of District Court_....--.-_-.-------____ 405 Kerysrone Warcr Case Company, 218 Fed. 502: Decree of District Court_._.____.--_------_____ 829 Kuvuce er au., Woven Lapen Manuracrursrs’ Asso- CIATION : Decree of District Court______----------------- 631 Kyicut Company er av., E. C., 60 Fed. 306, 934; 156 U.S. 1s Decree of Circuit Court___-------------------- 11 Decree of Cireuit Court of Appeals__---------_ 11 INDEX—CIVIL CASES. VIL Krenrier-Arnoitp Hiner Last Company: Page. Decree of District Court_.-.-------____-________ 407 Lane Snore & Micuiean Souruern Ry. Co., 203 Fed. 295: Decree of District Court.--.-____-___-_---___ 289 LenicH Vattey Rarroap Company, 225 Fed. 399: Decree of District Court._.-_.--_--_-- ee 527 Master Horsesnorrs’ Nationat Protective Assocta- TION: Decrees of District Court_....-.-____----____- 381-393 McCasxey Recrsrer Company: Decree of District Court.....--.----.----_--__- 495 Meap er au. News-Print Mrers. Ass’n Decree of District Court._._-..--_-.--__--_-_---- 637 ApreéeMment cooousswoo 20s 22s esi ee 640 Merropouitan Mrar Company, 3 Dis. Hawaii, 110: Decree of District Court...-.-.--...--------_-- 81 Missourt Paciric Ramway Company: Temporary restraining order of Circuit Court___ 248 Order of dismissa] _.......-..-.__---_--__-_-__-_ 245 Motion Picture Patents Company, 225 Fed. 800; 230 Fed. 541: Decree of District Court__._._.-_-____.------- 377 Natrona, AssociaTION oF Master PLUMBERS: Decree of District Court__.__.__-_.._.._.--_---- 603 Nationau AssociaTIon or Reram Druceists: Decree of Circuit Court___-_.-_--_--_-_--_------ 115 Nationa Casu Recister Company: Decree of District Court.______-__------------- 315 NarionaL Pacxrne Company: Decree of Circuit Court__-___----------------- 241 NarionaL WHOLESALE JEWELERS’ ASSOCIATION : Decree of District Court__._.__.._-------------- 509 New Departure Manuracrurine Company, 204 Fed. 107: Decree of District Court__._.._----_------------- 471 New Yorx, New Haven & Hartrorp R. R. Co. (First case) : Discontinuance entered in Circuit Court._____--- 239 VIII INDEX——-CIVIL CASES. New Yoru, New Haven & Harrrorp R. R. Co. (Sec- ond case) : Decrees of District Court, S. D. of New York_--- Order appointing trustee____---.-----=-------- Order authorizing New England Navigation Co. to participate in reorganization of Eastern Steamship Corporation__-_.-.--------------- Order modifying order authorizing New Eng- land Navigation Co. to participate in reorgani- zation of Eastern Steamship Corporation____- Order continuing hearing upon trustees’ petition for extension of time in which to dispose of Shanes; ol stock sd. 05 3-50 1 seek ee ea Order extending time for sale of stock of Boston a; Meanie ih, Bi 06s. becca ee ceeasoceas Order authorizing sale of real estate in Hartford, (Cont 22 2a eee ee ea Se Order modifying order authorizing sale of real estate in Hartford, Conn., and authorizing mortgage of two barges by Hartford & New York Transportation Co----_---------------- Order modifying order authorizing sale of real estate and mortgage of barges, and authorizing grant of easement to Hartford Electric Light Order authorizing sale of hulls of steamers Puri- tan and Pilgrim ..-------------------------- Order appointing trustee____.___-------------- Order extending time for sale of stock of Eastern Steamship Corporation____------------------ Order authorizing lease of real estate in Stoning- tons: Conizeccscesessceecccede eek eeenceees Order authorizing loan of $100,000 by New York, New Haven & Hartford Ry. Co. to Berkshire Street Ry. Co. with which to pay mortgage Order authorizing New England Steamship Co. to discontinue service by steamer Block Island to and from Block Island__-_---.----.-._____- Pago. 529 562 563 567 568 569 570 +13 576 5TT 578 579 580 INDEX—CIVIL CASES. New Yorx, New Haven & Harrrorp R. R. Co.—Con. Order further extending time for disposition of shares of stock of Boston & Maine Railroad__- Order extending time for disposition of stock and securities of Eastern Steamship Corpora- Nome Retam Grocery Men’s Association: Preliminary injunction of District Court_______- Decree of District Court_._.._______-.-.-____.. NorrHern Securitmes Company, 120 Fed. 721; 193 U.S. 197: Decree of Circuit Court___..--.-_-_-.---_--_-_- Otis Exevator Company: Decree of Circuit Court__._._..---__-__-__-_-- Paciric Coast Puumpine Surety ASSOCIATION: Decree of Circuit Court____.-_--__-_--_--__---_ Paris Mepicinr CoMPany: Decree of District Court__________-__--_-__---- PerrropicaL CLearine House: Decree of District Court__.___..__-..__.-__-_--- PHIADELPHIA JOBBING CONFECTIONERS’ ASSOCIATION : Decree of District Court____.___._____-____-__.- Prince Lins, Lrurrep, 220 Fed. 230; 242 U.S. 537: Decree of District Court_..-__._--_.-_--_--_--_ Decree on mandate of Supreme Court___-_-_---- QuaxKeErR Oats CoMPANY: Decree of District Court__._____-_..---.----_--_ Reaping Company, 182 Fed. 427; 226 U. S. 324; 228 U. S. 158; 226 Fed. 229: First case— Decree of Circuit Court.-._----__--------- Decree on mandate of Supreme Court____~-- Second case— Decree of District Court___.....----------- Memorandum to accompany decree___------ SrLcKEN ET AL., Brazu. Corren VALORIZATION : Decree of District Court.._.._---.------------- Souruern Paciric, Centrat Pacrric Ramway Co. ET AL: Decree of District Court_.......---.----------- 1X Page. 583 57 107 323 635 287 397 353- 354 481 151 155 501 504 351 x INDEX—CIVIL CASES. Page. SouTHERN WHOLESALE Grocers’ Association, 207 Fed. 434; Decree of Circuit Court__--------------------- 247 Stanparp Ort Company or New Jersey, 152 Fed. 290; 173 Fed. 177; 221 U.S. 1: Decree by Cirewib Judie so. os dee ean 129 Decree on mandate of Supreme Court._-----_--- 136 Stranparp Sanrrary Manvuracrorine Co., 191 Fed. 172; 926 U. S. 20: Decree of Circuit Court____--- eee 263 Sranparp Woop Company: Decree of District Court...----____-_--_--_-__-- 311 Swirr & Company, 122 Fed. 529; 196 U. S. 375; 188 Fed. 92: Preliminary injunction of Circuit Court--__-_--- 61 Decree of Circuit Court__---------------------- 63 TrrminaL Association or St Lours, 148 Fed. 486; 154 Fed. 268; 197 Fed. 446; 215 U. S. 595; 224 U.S. 383; 236 U.S. 194; 226 U.S. 420: First case— Order of dismissal by Circuit Court___---__- 89 Interlocutory decree by District Court on mandate of Supreme Court__-_----_----- 90 Interlocutory decree by District Court on mandate of Supreme Court__------_--_-- 93 Decree of District Court_.-_------------_-- 96 Memorandum re decree__---_-------------- 100 Final order and decree by District Court.... 103 Second case— Order of dismissal by District Court__._____ 469 Trans-Missourt Freicut Association, 53 Fed. 440; 58 Fed. 58; 166 U.S. 290: Decree of Circuit Court-___---------------.--_- 5 Decree of Circuit Court of Appeals__--_-_______ 5 Decree on mandate of Supreme Court___-______ 6 Union Pacrric R. Co., 188 Fed. 102; 226 U. S. 61; 226 U.S. 470: Decree of dismissal by Circuit Court_._--_______ 207 Decree on mandate of Supreme Court__________- 208 Supplemental decree of District Court____._____ 217 INDEX—CIVIL CASES, XI Page. Unrrep Suor Macntnrry Co. (Massachusetts case), 227 Fed. 507: Decree of District Court___--_--.-------------- 321 Unitep Syor Macuryery Co. (Missouri case) : Temporary injunction of District Court_----__-- 593 Preliminary injunction of District Court--_-.--. 594 Order of Circuit Court of Appeals setting aside preliminary injunction -_-._------------------ 598 Unirep Srares STEEL Corporation, 223 Fed. 55; 240 U-.S,. 442: Decree of District Court____._.____-__--__--_-- 318 Worxkinemen’s AmaLcamMateD Councin, 54 Fed. 994; 57 Fed. 85: Decree of Cireuit Court.___-__-._--------------- 9 INDEX—PART II—CRIMINAL CASES. Acar, 62 Fed. 824: Page. dudument Of utlty j2ndoucceccelssseskessensm 681 AILEEN Coan Co, ET AL.: Verdict of not guilty____-_--_----..----------- 853 Asia Paper & Box Co.: Judgment imposing fines on pleas of guilty_____- 736 Axtcoma Coat & Coxe Co.: Nolle prosequt-s 2225 25.25 doe) 2b see ces. 855 AMERICAN Ice Co. Er AL.: Nolle prosequi_..2_--..--..--.-----.---------- 692 AMERICAN SeatTine Co, ET AL! Judgment imposing fines on pleas of guilty______ 709 Order of dismissal as to defendant Stafford Mfg. CO SE a dele Ae ede 712 AMERICAN Sucar ReFinine Co.: Nolle prosequi__----.-------------------------- 735 AMERICAN WRINGER Co.: Judgments imposing fines on pleas of nolo conten- ere 22 252322 oe er eee ane 822, 823 AMBsDEN LuMBER Co., ET AL.: Memorandum of plea of guilty and imposition of fines. 22s ce toi 2e becsces ele senbecs Beesades 693 Armour & Co. rt AL., 142 Fed. 808: Nolle prosequi_-___-_--_---------------~------- 687 Baxer-WHITELEY Coat Co.: Order sustaining plea in bar__.---------------- 856 Nolle prosequi.._-2-.s 22 ses--csceessscese ce 856 Bare Copper Wire AssociaTION : Docket entry showing fines imposed on pleas of nolo contendere.__....-_--_--.--.-..--.---.- 760 BARTON ET AL: Verdict of not guilty_....~-..--.~...-5.-<.4- 859 XIV INDEX—CRIMINAL CASES. Bopp &T Au.: Page. Judgments imposing fines and terms of imprison- ment on verdicts of guilty_-_------------~-- 840-845 Boye ET AL.: Judgment imposing fines on verdicts of guilty... 886 Cassipy ET AL., 67 Fed. 698: INolle “prosequi_ i. 225.025: esac eee ae 682 Cuanpier Ice & Corp Srorace PLANT ET AL.: Memorandum of dismissal_-_------------------ 694 CHAPMAN ET AL: Note of demurrer sustained___----------------- 834 COLLINS ET AL! Nolle. prosequi xs to defendants Golden and CGS eS a es EA ee ee 824, 825 Judgments imposing fines as to remaining defend- ants on pleas of nolo contendere______------ 826-827 CoNSOLIDATED RENDERING Co.: Judgments imposing fines on pleas of nolo con- POMOC OS 23 ye ee es ee ee ek eee 754 CorBETT STATIONERY Co.: Order denying motion for directed verdict_______ 718 Verdict of not guilty_._------------------____- 719 CorNnING ET AL., 51 Fed. 205: Order refusing warrant for removalofdefendant__ 676 Corton, Jou, EY AL.: Order remanding case to files___-..-.__________ 783 COWELL ET AL.: Judgments imposing fines against certain defend- ants on pleas of guilty-__--______________e 849, 851 Cupauy Packixe Co. £T aL: Wollé present. ke scaeee 750 Dremunp LuMBER Co. ET AL: Order sustaining plea in bar of defendant Ryder. 700 Order sustaining pleainbarofdefendantDemund_ 700 Verdict of not guilty as to Demund Lumber Co__ —_709 Verdict of not guilty as to Valley Lumber Co____ 70” Order of dismissal as to ChamberlainLumber Co. 703 Feperat Sart Co.: Judgment imposing fine on plea of guilty________ 685 INDEX—CRIMINAL CASES. Fine Macner Wire Association : Docket entry showing fines imposed on pleas of nolo contendere_____-_-----___-__-__-_----- ee GEER ET AL: Nolle prosequi as to certain defendants____---__- Docket entry showing fines imposed on pleas of nolo contendere___________--_-._._____-__-- GLOYD ET AL.: Memorandum of dismissal__-_-.____------------- Greene, In Re, 52 Fed. 104: Order discharging defendant _.__-----------__- GREENHUT ET AL., 50 Fed. 469: Indictment quashed ____-_--_------------___--_- HAIneEs ET AL.: Dockef entry showing judgment of imprisonment on pleas of guilty_--------_-_____-----_-____ Hayes EY AL.: PUTING Pais CUE gt eee HIprEN ET AL.: Order sustaining demurrer and dismissing indict- Hoce er At.: Memorandum of dismissal___.-______._----______ HOouMEs ET AL.: Nolle prosequl cs oc coce seks Soke HorsesHor ManuFacrurers’ Ass’N: Docket entry, showing fines imposed on pleas of nolo contendere__.--_--_-----------__-______ Hunter Miuurne Co.: Judgment imposing fines on verdict of guilty____ ImperraL Window Guass Co. ET AL.: Judgment imposing fines on pleas of nolo conten- IRVING ET AL.: XV Page. 770: 758 758 695 678 675 ‘ 784 779 748 Judgments imposing fines on verdicts of guilty_ 829, 831 Jackson ET AL. (Wire Rope Ass’n) : Docket entry, showing fines imposed on pleas of nole contendere ____--------------------~----- 5&556—1 4-2 XVI INDEX—CRIMINAL CASES. Kine Et AL, 229 Fed. 275: Docket entry, showing fines imposed__---------- KNAUER ET AL., 237 Fed. 8: Judgment imposing fines against certain defend- ants on verdict of guilty_.--_---__----------- Judgments imposing fines after decision by Cir- cuit Court of Appeals_---------------------- Leap Incasep Russer INSULATED CABLE Ass’N: Docket entry, showing fines imposed on pleas of nolo contendere __--------------------------- Lount, W. B. (U.S. v. People’s Ice & Fuel Co.) : Order sustaining plea in bar___-_--------------- MacAnprews & Forses Co. er ar., 149 Fed. 823; 149 Fed. 836; 212 U.S. 585: Docket entry, showing vertict of jury and fines lmnNposed ss. oo ase es sect e sess ae McCoact ET AL.: Judgment imposing fines on pleas of nolo conten- Meap, Geo. H. 5v At.: Docket entry showing fines imposed on pleas of nolo contendere____._--.-.---_------...---- MILLER ET AL.: Order sustaining demurrer and dismissing indict- Moore Et au. 85 Fed. 465: Verdict of guilty_-._-_-_--__--_------------------ Note of mandate of C. C. A. to dismiss indict- Natronau Pacwine Co. ET AL: Order sustaining demurrer and dismissing indict- Narionau Retain Monument Dearers’ Ass’N oF AMERICA ET AL.: Judgment imposing fines on pleas of nolo conten- Narionat Umsretia Frame Co, ET AL: Docket entry showing fines imposed on pleas of 688 828 860 INDEX-—CRIMINAL CASES. XVI1 Page. Navau Stores Co, er av. 186 Fed. 592; 172 Fed. 455; 229 U.S. 38738: Plea of not guilty__._-____--_.---.-------__-- 729 Verdict of guilty coscesoco ses oaesscsueeececee 729 Judgments imposing fines and imprisonment__ 729-732 Nolle prosequi as to defendant. Boardman, subse- quent to reversal by U. 8. Supreme Court.____ 732 Verdict of not guilty on retrial_________--_____- 732 Netson, 52 Fed. 646: Order sustaining demurrer to indictment________ 679 New Departure Mre. Co., 204 Fed. 107: Docket entry showing fines imposed on pleas of Oty oe a ee 785 Nort Paciric Wuarves & Trapine Co. 4 Alaska 583; 4 Alaska 552; 228 U.S. 87: First case— Order sustaining demurrers________-------- 787 Second case— Pleas of guilty of corporate defendants and order of dismissal of certain individual defendants25.2--22-- U2 3st See 788 Judgment imposing fines against corporate defendants on pleas of guilty__._.-_--__- 789 Onr Hounprep AND SEVENTY-FIVE Casrs or CrGa- RETTES: Order of dismissal______---------------------- 717 Paciric & Arcric Ry. & Navigation Co. 4 Alaska 574; 4 Alaska 5380; 228 U.S. 87: First case— Order of dismissal____-------------------- 791 Second case— Pleas of guilty of corporate defendants and order of dismissal of certain individual defendants___-------------------------- 792 Judgment imposing fines against corporate defendants on pleas of guilty____-_--_--- 793 Pap ET AL.: Judgment imposing fines on pleas of guilty_____ 801 XVII INDEX—CRIMINAL CASES. Parmer et AL. (Wire Pool Cases) : Page. Docket entry showing fines imposed on pleas of nolo contendere___------------------------ 760-769 Parxs, Joun H. xr at.: Judgment imposing fines on pleas of guilty___ 783-734 Parren, Jamrs A. 187 Fed. 664; 226 U.S, 525: Docket entry showing fine imposed on plea of Patterson, JoHN H. kv At.: First case (Circuit Court, D. Mass.), 55 Fed 605; 59 Fed. 280— Nolle: prosequi__----+-.----+--- ss. --2+++ Second case (Dist. Court, 8. D. Ohio), 201 Fed. 697; 205 Fed. 292; 222 Fed. 599; 2388 U. S. 635— Order denying motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment______-------------_- Judgment imposing fines and imprisonment__-__ Order of nolle prosequi and dismissal_.__-__-_- PAYNE ET AL: i Order of dismissal______---------------------- Prarce, J. B., pr au: Verdict of not guilty_-.__-______----_--_-___- Prorie’s Ice & Fuen Co.: Verdict of not guilty__------..---------------- Pumirs et au. (Telephone Cable Ass’n) : Docket entry showing fines imposed on pleas of nolo contendere___________---------------__- PHorenrx Wuovesate Meat & Propucer Co. er At.: Order of dismissal as to defendant Hurley.____- Verdict of not guiltv as to corporate defendant and guilty as to defendant Tribolet__________ J adement: imposing fine pon defendant Tribolet_ PURINGTON EY AL.: Nolle prosequi Ray er AL.: Verdict of guilty as to defendants Byrnes, Pear- SAW, ae Switls Se a ee Verdict of not guilty as to remaining defendants_ 751 680 795 795 798 800 TTT 697 704 705 705 T5T 724 724 Orders discharging defendants found not guilty_ 724,725 Order imposing fines on defendants found guilty_ 725,727 Order on mandate of affirmance._-...---.--.-_- 727 INDEX——CRIMINAL OASES. XIX Page. Rearvon & Sons Co, ANd Consoraparen Ranperine Co. eT Ax., 191 Fed. 454: Note of demurrer sustained_____------ 753 RINTELEN FT AL.: Docket entry showing judgment of imprisonment on verdict of guilty.------------------------ 839 RockereLuer EV AL: Docket entry showing verdict of not guilty__-__ 833 Roeeying vr au, (Fine Magnet Wire Ass’n) : Docket entry showing fines imposed on pleas of nolo contendere._.-...----_--.--_----------- 770 Russer Coverep Wire Ass’n: Docket entry showing fines imposed on pleas of : nolo contendere______-.--------------------- 764 Santa Rrra Store Co., 113 Pac. 620: Order denying motions for new trial and in arrest Of Jud gIiNeNt 22528 oe ee ee ee tec 713 Order granting appeal__.-.-------_----------- 714 Note of reversal ____-_.----------------------- 714 SHOTTER Co, BT AL: Pleatcof vomilty 22205 eo ee eae soe eS 707 Judgment imposing fines___-_--_--------------- 707 Nolle prosequi as to certain defendants___.-.---- 708 Simmons, Cuarves L., wr AL: Judgment imposing fines on pleas of guilty____- 722 Smiru er av. (Underground Power Cable Ass’n): Docket entry showing fines imposed on pleas of nolo contendere___-------------------------- 7712 SourHsrn Wnhotmsate Grocers Ass’N Wr AL, 207 Fed. 484: Judgment imposing fines for contempt of in- JUNCHON So See ote deen oe See a ene 802 Srarrorp Mre. Co.: Order of dismissa]l__..---.----..-------------- 716 Sranparp Sanitary Merc. Co. rr au., 191 Fed. 172; 226 U.S. 20: Judgment imposing fines on verdict of guilty_..__. 755 Sreers rr ax., 192 Fed. 1; 196 U.S. 875: Judgments imposing fines_...__-..---------- 739-744 Note of mandate of affirmance___--.-_--------- 745 Order remitting fines pursuant to pardon___--_- 745 xx INDEX——CRIMINAL CASES. STIEFVATER ET AL.: Page. Nolle prosequi.c.coscsccec Geeks ein 728 SWIFT ET AL.: Verdict of not guilty__------------------------ 752 TELEPHONE CABLE ASSOCIATION: Docket entry showing fines imposed on pleas of nolo contendere___--------------~----------- 174 TERRELL, IN RB, 51 Fed. 213: Order discharging defendant from custody____-- 677 Tuompson, Rost. M., ef AL.: Docket entry showing fines imposed on pleas of nolo contendere____.------------------------ 807 UnpercrounpD Power CaBiLe ASSOCIATION : Docket entry showing fines imposed on pleas of nolo contendere_____.----------------------- 770 Union Pactric Coan Co., 173 Fed. 737: Judgment imposing fines on verdict of guilty____ 720 Order of dismissal after reversal by C. C. A_--_- 721 Virernra-Carorina CuEmicaL Co. er au., 163 Fed. 66: Order discharging all defendants__--__---_-- 689-691 ‘WEATHERPROOF AND Macnet Wire Association : Docket entry showing fines imposed on pleas of nolo contendere_________-----------__--_---- 762 WHITE FET AL.: West Virginia case, nolle prosequi_____-__-__-_- 804 Colorado case, nolle prosequi___--_____-_--_-___ 808 WInsLow er Au., 195 Fed. 578; 227 Fed. 202: Note of demurrer sustained and discharge of de- feridantsas = 45:2 Gen 28 tah ge ea 782 Wire Rope ASsociaTion: Docket entry showing fines imposed on pleas of nolo contendere______.-_---------__-----___- 715 PART I. CIVIL CASES. XxI UNITED STATES v. JELLICO MOUNTAIN COAL & COKE CO. 43 Fed. 898; 46 Fed. 482. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE. At a regular term of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Middle District of Tennessee, begun and holden at Nashville, in said district, upon the third Monday of April, 1891, piesent and presiding the Hon. D. M. Key, judge of the district court, the following, among other, pro- ceedings were had, to wit: Upon the 17th day of June, 1891, during said term, a decree was rendered as follows, to wit: Tue Unirep States Vs. JeLitico Mountain Coan & CoxE Co. No. £820. Circuit Court. Came the United States and the defendants by counsel: Whereupon this cause came on to be heard before the honor- able the judges of the United States:Circuit Court for the Mid- dle District of Tennessee, sitting in equity, His Honor D. M. Key presiding, owing to the incompetency of the Honorable Howell E. Jackson, judge, etc., on this the 17th day of June, 1891, as well as upon a former day of the term, upon the petition heretofore filed on behalf of the United States by John Ruhm, Esq.; United States attorney, under direction of the Attorney General, on the answers, the proof, the exhibits, the former proceedings,.and upon argument of counsel; whereupon it appeared from the proof that the following defendants, to wit: ° '58556—18——3 te 1 2 UNITED STATES UV. JELLICO MOUNTAIN COAL CO. The Central Coal & Iron Company, a corporation char- tered and organized under the laws of Kentucky and having its principal office at Louisville, in the district of Kentucky, and operating coal mines at Central City, Kentucky ; The Memphis Coal & Mining Company, a Tennessee cor- poration, having its principal office in Memphis, Shelby County, i in the Western District of Tennessee, and operating coal mines in Kentucky; The Empire Coal & Mining Company, a Kentucky cor- poration, operating mines at Empire, Kentucky, and having an office in Nashville, Tennessee, and at Empire, Kentucky ; The St. Bernard Coal Company, a Kentucky corporation, . having its office at Earlington, Kentucky, and operating mines at Earlington, Kentucky; The Cooperative Coal Mining & Manufacturing Com- pany, a Kentucky corporation, having its office at Earling- ton, Kentucky, and operating mines at Earlington, Kentucky; The Mud River Coal, Coke & Iron Company, a Kentucky corporation, having offices at Nashville, Tennessee, and Earl- ington, Kentucky, and operating coal mines at Empire, Kentucky; The Providence Coal Company, a Kentucky corporation, operating coal mines at Providence, in Kentucky, and having its office at Providence, Kentucky; The Hecla Coal & Mining Company, a Kentucky cor- poration, having its office at Earlington, Kentucky, and operating mines at Earlington, Kentucky; The Cumberland Valley Colliery Company, a corporation operating mines at Pineville, in ee and having its office at Louisville, Kentucky ; ~The Southern Jellico Coal Company, a Tennessee cor- poration, having its office and operating mines at Campbell County, Tennessee; The Green River Coal Company, a Kentucky corporation, operating mines at Drakesboro, Kentucky, and having its principal office at Drakesboro, Kentucky; and W. H. Howe, E. W. Hill, J. M. Love, and A. M. Carroll, partners trading as Love & Carroll; J. B. Love and E. S. Randle, partners trading as Love & Randl.; J. D. Sharp and J. S, Phillips, partners trading as Sharp & Phillips; Jesse M. Overton, J. E. Allison, and E. E. Duncan, partners UNITED STATES UV, JELLICO MOUNTAIN COAL CO, 3 trading as Overton, Duncan & Co.; James Wyatt, and P. G. Breen, partners as Wyatt & Breen ; L. T. Stull, John D. Anderson, and J. E. Sessner, partners as John D. Anderson & Co.; J. Dodson, trading as J. Dodson & Co.; J. H. Hales; J.N. “Conquest J. H. Hales and E. W. Hill, partners as Hales & Hill; all residing and doing business at Nashville, Tenn. ; Thomas R. Finney and William P. Finney, partners doing "pieinses under the firm name of Finney Bros.; and W. H. Allen, C. P. Allen, and A. D. Allen, partners doing business under the firm name of Allen Bros; all doing. busi- ness at Nashville, Tennessee ; Are engaged, respectively, in carrying on the business of mining coal in Kentucky and selling and dealing in coal in Nashville under an agreement entered into by and between them, by the terms of which they have organized the Nash- ville Coal Exchange; a copy of said articles of agreement has been filed as an exhibit to the petition and has been properly proved and made part of the record; and the court was of opinion and so ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that the said defendants by their operations under the articles of agreement aforesaid, have been and were at the time of the filing of the petition in this cause, guilty of a violation of the act of Congress approved July 2, 1890, entitled “An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful re- straints and monopolies.” It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the said defendants, jointly and severally, and they are hereby perpetually enjoined and restrained as prayed in the petition from violating the provisions of said act of Con- gress of the United States in the manner and in effect and in any of the particulars in which they are charged in the petition. And they are hereby enjoined and restrained from further carrying on the coal trade under the terms, stipulations, and conditions of said articles of agreement, by which articles they did organize the Nashville Coal Ex- change and under which they had been prior to, and were at the time of the filing of the petition, carrying on their trade; and that they be enjoined from further meeting to transact business under the provisions of said articles of agreement; and that they be, jointly and severally, per- emptorily enjoined from carrying out the objects of and 4 UNITED STATES UV. JELLICO MOUNTAIN COAL CO. acting under the terms and conditions of said articles of agreement governing the “ Nashville Coal Exchange.” It is further ordered by the court that the defendants pay two-thirds of the costs of the cause for which let fieri facias issue as at law. The court files a written opinion, which is ordered to be made part of the record of the cause. The defendants, the Tennessee Coal & Iron Company, the Standard Coal & Coke Company, the Jellico Mountain Coal & Coke Company, the Woolridge Jellico Coal Company, the Cumberland Valley Colliery Company, J. H. Kendrick, Bradfield & Houston Coal Company, and Frank Ferris, have answered that they are not members of the coal exchange and the proof does not establish that they are. As to them the cause will be dismissed. Whereupon, the United States Attorney asks the court to modify the decree so as to charge the defendants with all the costs, except those occasioned by making those of the defendants parties, as to whom the petition was dis- missed; but the court was satisfied with the disposition of the costs as herein made and it is ordered accordingly. I, H. M. Doak, clerk of the District Court of the United States for the Middle District of Tennessee, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, perfect and complete copy of the final decree in the above-styled cause, as it is of record in the minutes of the Circuit Court, minute book “U,” page 495 et seq. In witness whereof I have hereunto signed my name and affixed the seal of the court, at office in Nashville, Tennessee, this the 18th day of January, 1912. H. M. Doax, Clerk. UNITED STATES v. TRANS-MISSOURI FREIGHT ASSOCIATION. 53 Fed. 440; 58 Fed. 58; 166 U. S. 290. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. Unirep States or AMERICA vs. Tue Trans-Missourt FreicHT ASSOCIATION ET AL. No. 6799. This cause having been heretofore, to wit, on the Ist day of August, 1892, submitted on bill and the answers of the several defendants thereto, and argued by counsel for the respective parties and taken under advisement by the court; Now, therefore, on consideration thereof, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the complainant’s bill of com- plaint be, and the same is hereby, dismissed. Joun A, Riner, Judge. Filed November 28, 1892. UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. MAY TERM, 1893. Tur Unrrep Srares or AMErica, APPELLANT, Vs. Tue Trans-Missourr Freicur ASSOCIATION ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas, and was argued by counsel. On con- 5 6 UNITED STATES UV, TRANS-MO. FREIGHT Ass’N. sideration whereof, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court that the decree of the said Circuit Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, afiirmed without costs to either party in this court. October 2, 1893. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DISTRICT OF KANSAS. At a term of the Circuit Court of the United States of America, for the District of Kansas, began and held at the city of Leavenworth, in said district, on Monday the 7th day of June, A. D. 1897, proceedings were had and appear of record in words and figures as follows, to wit: Monpay, June 7, 1897. Tue Unirep States or AMERICA, COMPLAINANT, vs. Tue Trans-Missourt Freicut Association, THe ATCHISON, Torexa & Santa Fe Ramroap Company, THE Cuicaco, Rock Isuanp & Pacrric Rarsway Company, THe Curcaco, Sr. Paurt, Minnearouis & Omana Rartway Company, Tue Buriineton anv Missourt River Ramroap Com- PANY IN Nepraska, THE Denver & Rio Granpre Rarroap Company, Tur Denver & Rio Granpe WESTERN RarLway Company, Tur Freemont, ExkHoRN AND Missourr VaAtL- Ley Rartroap Company, THe Kansas Crry, Fort Scorr AND Mempuis Rarroap Company, THe Kansas Crry, Sr. JosEPH AND Councm Buurrs Ramroap Company, THE Missouri Pacirric Raruway Company, Tux Sioux Crry & Pacrric Ramroap Company, Tue St. Joseph & GRAND Istanp Ramroap Company, Tue Sr. Louis & San Fran- cisco Rarnway Company, THe Union Paciric Ramway Company, Tur Uran Centran Ramway Company, Tue Missourt, Kansas & Texas Rariway Company, Tue Car- caco, Kansas & Nepraska Rarroap Company, AND THE Denver, Texas & Forr Worta Ratzroap Company, DE- FENDANTS. UNITED STATES V,. TRANS-MO. FREIGHT A88’N. 7 DECREE, This cause came on to be heard at this term, and was argued by counsel, and thereupon, upon consideration thereof, it was ordered, adjudged, and decreed as follows, viz: ‘That the defendants, the Missouri, Kansas &.Texas Rail- way Company, the: Chicago, Kansas & Nebraska Railway Company, and the Denver, Texas & Forth Worth Railroad Company having filed answers denying that they were mem- bers of the Trans-Missouri Freight Association and said answers not being controverted, the:bill as to said defendants last named is dismissed: . It is further ordered, adjudged, and. decreed that the Trans-Missouri Freight Association be, and the same hereby is, ‘dissolved, and the contract or memorandum of agree- ment of March 15, 1889, partially: set out in the bill, and full copy of which is attached to the answer of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company, be, and the same hereby is, annulled: and-held for naught; and the said de- fendants, the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Com- pany; the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Com- pany; the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Rail- way Company; the Burlington & Missouri River Railroad Company in Nebraska; the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad Company; the Denver & Rio Grande Western Railway Company; the Fremont, Elkhorn & Missouri Valley Rail- road Company; the Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis Railroad Company; the Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs Railroad Company; the Missouri Pacific Railway Company; the Sioux City & Pacific Railroad Company; the St. Joseph & Grand Island Railroad Company; the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company; the Union Pacific Railway Company; and the Utah Central Railway Com- pany, and all and each of them, be, and they hereby are, forever enjoined and prohibited from further agreeing, combining, conspiring, or acting together to maintain rules, regulations, and rates for carrying freight upon their several lines of railroad so as to hinder trade and commerce between the States and Territories of the United States, and that 8 UNITED STATES UV. TRANS-MO, FREIGHT ASS’N. said defendants last named, and each of them, be, and they hereby are, perpetually enjoined and prohibited from enter- ing into, or continuing in, any combination, association, or conspiracy to deprive the people engaged in trade and com- merce between and among the States and Territories of the United States of such facilities and rates and charges of freight transportation as will be afforded by free and un- restrained competition between the several lines of railroad owned or operated by said last-named defendants; and that said last-named defendants, and each of them, be, and they ‘hereby are, perpetually enjoined and prohibited from agree- ing, combining, conspiring, or acting together to monopolize the freight traffic arising from the trade and commerce be- tween the States and Territories of the United States; and from agreeing, combining, conspiring, or acting together to prevent either or any of their codefendants or any other carrier of freight traffic from carrying and transporting freight and commodities in the trade and commerce between the States and Territories of the United States at such rates as shall be voluntarily fixed by the officers and agents of each of said defendants acting independently and sepa- rately in its own behalf. And it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the complainant have and recover from the defendants its costs in this behalf expended, taxed at dollars, and that unless the same be paid within 90 days from this date that an execution issue therefor. Casstus G. Foster, Judge. UNITED STATES v. WORKINGMEN’S AMALGAMATED COUNCIL. 54 Fed. 994; 57 Fed. 85. CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, EASTERN DIS- TRICT OF LOUISIANA. Tur Unirep Srates vs. WorkInGMEN’s AmMataaMaTep Counci, or New Orieans, Strate or Louisiana, ET aL. No. 12143. In equity. This cause came on to be heard at this term upon an ap- plication for an injunction on behalf of the complainant and after arguments from the solicitors for the parties, re- spectively, was submitted on the bill of complaint, answer, affidavits, and exhibits: On consideration thereof, for the reasons assigned in the written opinion of the court on file, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that an injunction issue, enjoining the de- fendants, as prayed for in the bill, from combining by violence or intimidation or in any other manner to inter- rupt the trade or commerce among the States of the United States or between the United States and foreign nations and from combining by violence and intimidation to interrupt or hinder those who are at work in conducting or carrying on the interstate and foreign commerce or who are engaged in moving the goods and merchandise which is passing through the city of New Orleans from State to State or to and from foreign countries, until the further order of this court. March 27, 1893. (Signed ) Epwarp C. Bituinas, Judge. 9 UNITED STATES v. E. C. KNIGHT CO. 60 Fed. 306, 984; 156 U. S. 1. CIROUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, BASTERN DIS- TRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Tue Unrrep States or AMERICA vs. E. C. Knieur et au. No. 38. April session, 1891. And now, to wit, this 2d day of February, A. D. 1894, this cause having been brought to final hearing upon the pleadings and proofs, and counsel for the parties, respec- tively, having been heard thereupon, and the same having been duly considered by this court, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the bill of complaint in this cause be, and the same is hereby, dismissed with costs to the defendants. By the court. UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 6. March term, 1894. Tue Untrep Srares or America, APPELLANT, vs. E. C. Knieut Company ET Au. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and was argued by counsel. 11 12 UNITED STATES UV. E. C. KNIGHT CO. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered, ad- judged, and decreed by this court that the decree of the said Circuit Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, affirmed with costs. Philadelphia, March 26, 1894. By the court. M. W. AcHEson, Circuit Judge. UNITED STATES v. DEBS. 64 Fed. 724; 158 U. S. 564. CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, NORTHERN DIVI- SION. The United States of America to Eugene V. Debs and others, Greeting: Whereas it hath been represented to the judges of our Circuit Court of the United States for the northern division of the Northern District of Illinois, in chancery sitting, on the part of the United States of America, complainant in a certain bill of complaint, exhibited in our said Circuit Court, on the chancery side thereof, before the judges of said court, against you, the said Eugene V. Debs and others, to be relieved touching the matters complained of. In which said bill it is stated, among others things, that you are com- bining and confederating with others to injure the com- plainant touching the matters set forth in said bill, and that your actings and doings in the premises are contrary to equity and good conscience. And it being ordered that a writ of injunction issue out of said court, upon said bill, enjoining and restraining you, and each of you, as prayed for in said bill; we, therefore, in consideration thereof, and of the particular matters in said bill set forth, do strictly command you, the said defendants above named and de- scribed, your counselors, attorneys, solicitors, trustees, agents, clerks, employees, servants, and workmen, and each and every of you, that you are hereby restrained, com- manded, and enjoined absolutely to desist and refrain from in any way or manner interfering with, hindering, obstruct-. ing, or stopping any of the business of any of the follow- ing-named railroads, to wit: Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad, Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, a 13 14 UNITED STATES Vv. DEBS. Chicago & Alton Railroad, Chicago & Eastern Illinois Halvond, Chicago & Erie Railroad, ita. Chicago & Grand Trunk Railway, Chicago & North Western Railway, Chicago & Western Indiana. Railroad, Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad, Chicago Great Western Railway, Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway, Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway, Illinois Central Railroad, Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway, Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway, Michigan Central Railroad, New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad, Pennsylvania Company, Wisconsin Central Lines, Wabash Railroad, and Union Stock Yards and Transit Company, as common carriers of passengers and freight between or among any States of the United States, and from in any way or manner interfering with, hindering, obstructing, or stopping any mail trains, express trains, or other trains, whether freight or passenger, engaged in interstate com- merce, or carrying passengers or freight. between or among the States; and from in any manner interfering with, hinder- ing, or stopping any train carrying the mail; and from in any manner interfering with, obstructing, or stopping any engines, cars, or rolling stock of any of said companies en- gaged in interstate commerce, or in connection with the carriage of passengers or freight between or among the States; and from in any manner interfering with, injuring, or destroying any of the property of any of said railroads engaged in or for the purposes of, or in connection with, in- terstate commerce or the carriage of the mails of the United States or the transportation of passengers or freight between or among the States; and from entering upon the grounds or premises of any of said railroads for the purpose of inter- fering with, hindering, obstructing, or stopping any of said UNITED STATES UV. DEBS. 15 mail trains, passenger or freight trains engaged in inter- state commerce or in the transportation of passengers or freight between or among the States, or for the purpose of interfering with, injuring, or destroying any of said prop- erty so engaged in or used in connection with interstate commerce or the transportation of passengers or property between or among the States; and from injuring or destroy- ing any part. of the tracks, roadbed or road, or permanent structures of said railroads and from injuring, destroying, or in any way interfering with any of the signals or switches of any of the said. railroads; and from displacing or ex- tinguishing any of the signals of any of said, railroads and from spiking, locking, or in any manner fastening any of the switches of any of said railroads and from uncoupling or in any way hampering or obstructing the control by any of said railroads or any of the cars, engines, or parts of trains of any of said railroads engaged in interstate com- merce or in the transportation of passengers or freight be- tween or among the States, or engaged in carrying any of the mails of the United States; and from compelling or inducing, or attempting to compel or induce, by threats, intimidation, persuasion, force, or violence, any of the em- ployees of any of said railroads to refuse or fail to perform any of their duties as employees of any of said railroads in connection with the interstate business or commerce of such railroads or the carriage of the United States mail by such railroads or the transportation of passengers or property between or among the States; and from compelling or in- ducing, or attempting to compel or induce, by threats, intimi- dation, force, or violence, any of the employees of any of said railroads who are employed by such railroads, and engaged i in its service in the conduct of interstate business, or in the operation of any of its trains carrying the mail of the United States, or doing interstate business, or the trans- portation of passengers and freight between and among the States, to leave the service of such railroads, and from pre- venting any persons whatever, by threats, intimidation, force, or violence from entering the service of any of said railroads and doing the work thereof, in the carrying of the mails of the United States, or the transportation of passengers and 16 UNITED STATES V. DEBS. freight between or among the States; and from doing any act whatever in furtherance of any conspiracy or combina- tion to restrain either of said railroad companies or receivers in the free and unhindered control and handling of inter- state commerce over the lines of said railroads, and of trans- portation of persons and freight between and among the States, and from ordering, directing, aiding, assisting, or abetting in any manner whatever, any person or persons to commit any or either of the acts aforesaid. And it is further ordered that the aforesaid injunction and writ of injunction shall be in force and binding upon such of said defendants as are named in said bill from and after the service upon them severally of said writ by de- livering to them severally a copy of said writ or by reading the same to them and the service upon them respectively of the writ of subpena herein, and shall be binding upon said defendants whose names are alleged to be unknown from and after the service of such writ upon them respec- tively by the reading of the same to them or by the publi- cation thereof by posting or printing, and after service of subpeena upon any of said defendants named herein, shall be binding upon said defendants and upon all other persons whatsoever who are not named herein and after the time when they shall severally have knowledge of the entry of such order and the existence of said injunction. Wma. A. Woops. P. S. Grosscup. To the marshal of the Northern District of Illinois, to execute and return in due form of law. Witness, the Hon. Melville W. Fuller, Chief Justice of the United States of America, at Chicago, in said district, this second day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-four and of our Independence the one hundred and eighteenth year. | S. W. Burnuam, Clerk. [Seal of Circuit Court of U. S. Northern Dist. 1855. Nllinois. ] UNITED STATES VU. DEBS. 17 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. No, 23421. Thursday, July 27, 1899. Unirep Starrs or AMERICA v8. Kucent V. Debs, Groror W. Howarp, L. W. Ropgers, Syi- vesteR Kerrier, Tue American Rarwway UNION, ANp OTHERS. : On motion of 3. H.-Bethea, United States district at- torney, It is ordered by the court that above-entitled cause be, and the same is hereby, dismissed. 58556—18——4 UNITED STATES v. DEBS. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF INDIANA. May term, 1894. July 3, 1894. [Before the Hon. William A. Woods, judge.) Tue Unitep States or AMERICA vs. Evueene V. DEgs ET AL. No. 9058. In Chancery. This cause coming on now to be heard on the motion of complainant for a preliminary injunction in accordance with the prayer of the bill of complaint herein, and the com- plainant having exhibited its only verified bill of complaint to the court, and the court having read the same and being fully advised in the premises, it is now ordered by the court that a writ of injunction issue out of this court and under the seal thereof commanding the said defendants and all other persons combining and conspiring with them and all other persons whomsoever absolutely to desist and re- frain from in any way or manner interfering with, hinder- ing, obstructing, or stopping any of the business of any of the following named railroads: The Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Rail- way, The Pennsylvania Company, The Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railway, The Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Rail- way, The Lake Erie & Western Railway, The Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway, The Cincinnati, Hamilton & Indianapolis Railway, The Evansville & Terre Haute Railway, The Terre Haute & Logansport Railway, The Wabash Railway, The Lakeshore & Michigan Southern Railway, 19 20 UNITED STATES UV. DEBS. The Michigan Central Railway, The Chicago & Erie Railway, The Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railway, The Indianapolis Union Railway, The Belt Railroad and Stock Yards Co., The Grand Rapids and Indiana Railroad, The New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad, The Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad, The Indianapolis, Decatur & Western Railway, The Baltimore & Ohio and Chicago Railway, The Chicago & Grand Trunk Railway, The Louisville & Nashville Railroad, as common carriers of passengers and freight between or wmong any States of the United States, and from in any way interfering with, hindering, obstructing, or stopping any mail trains, express trains, whether freight or passenger, engaged in interstate commerce, or carrying passengers or freight between or among the States; and from in any manner interfering with, hindering, or stopping any train earrving the mail, and from in any manner interfering with, hindering, obstructing, or stopping any engines, cars, or rolling stock of any of said companies engaged in inter- state commerce, or in connection with the carriage of pas- sengers or freight between or amcng the States; and from in any manner interfering with, injuring, or destroying any of the property of any of said railroads engaged in or for the purposes of, or in connection with, interstate commerce or the carriage of the mails of the United States or the transportation of passengers or freight between or among the States; and from entering upon the grounds or premises of any of said railroads for the purpose of interfering with. hindering, obstructing, or stopping any of said mail trains, passenger or freight trains engaged in interstate commerce or in the transportation of passengers or freight between or among the States; or for the purpose of interfering with, injuring, er destroying any of said property so engaged in or used in connection with interstate commerce or the trans portation of passengers or preperty between or among the States; and from injuring or destroying any part of the tracks, roadbed or road, or permanent structures of said railroads; and from injuring, destroying, or in any way UNITED STATES UV. DEBS. 21 interfering with any of the signals or switches of any of said railroads; and from displacing or extinguishing any of the signals of any of said railroads and from spiking, locking, or in any manner fastening any of the switches of any of said railroads, and from uncoupling or in any way hampering or obstructing the control by any of said rail- roads of any of the cars, engines, or parts of trains of anv of said railroads engaged in interstate commerce or in the transportation of passengers or freight between or among the States, or engaged in carrying any of the mails of the United States; and from compelling or inducing or attempt- ing to compel or induce by threats, intimidation, persuasion, force, or viclence, any of the employees of any of said rail- roads to refuse or fail to perform any of their duties as em- ployees of any of said railroads in connection with the inter- state business or commerce of such railroads, or the carriage of the United States mail by such railroads, or the trans- portation cf passengers or property between or among the States; and from compelling or inducing or attempting to compel or induce by threats, intimidation, force, or violence any of the employees of said railroads who are employed by such railroads and engaged in its service in the conduct of interstate business, or in the operation of any of its trains carrying the mail of the United States, or doing interstate business, or the transportation of passengers and freight between and among the States, to Jeave the service of such railroads, and from preventing any persons whatever, by threats, intimidation, force, or violence from entering the service of any of said railroads and doing the work thereof, in the carrying of the mails of the United States or the transportation of passengers and freight between or among the States; and from doing any act whatever in furtherance of any conspiracy or combination to restrain either of said railroad companies in the free and unhindered control and handling of interstate commerce over the lines of said rail- roads, and of transportation of persons and freight between and among the States; and from ordering, directing, aiding, assisting, or abetting, in any manner whatever, any person or persons to commit any or either of the acts aforesaid. And Eugene V. Debs and all other persons are hereby enjoined and restrained from sending out any letters, mes- 22 UNITED STATES UV. DEBS, sages, or communications directing, inciting, encouraging, or instructing any persons whomsoever to interfere with the business or affairs, directly or indirectly, of any of the railway companies. herein above named, or from persuading any of the employees of said railway companies while in the employment of their respective companies to fail or refuse to perform the duties of their employment. And it is further ordered that the aforesaid injunction and writ of injunction shall be in force and binding upon such of said defendants as are named in said bill from and after the service upon them severally of said writ by de- livering to them severally a copy of said writ, or by reading the same to them, and the service upon them, respectively, of the writ of subpcena herein, and shall be binding upon said defendants whose names are alleged to be unknown, from and after the service of such writ upon them, respec- tively, by the reading of the same to them, or by the publi- cation thereof by posting or printing, and after service of subpeena on any of said defendants herein named shall be binding upon said defendants and upon all other persons whatsoever who are not named herein from and after the time when they shall severally have knowledge of the entry of such order and the existence of said injunction. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF INDIANA. May term, 1898. September 19, 1898. [Before the Hon. John H. Baker, Judge.] Tue Unirep Srates or AMERICA vs. Evcene V. Deps eT AL. No. 9058. In Chancery. Comes now Albert W. Wishard, Esq., attorney for the United States, and upon his motion it is ordered that the above-entitled cause be, and the same is hereby, dismissed. UNITED STATES v. ELLIOTT. 62 ed. 801; 64 Fed. 27. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN AND YOR THE EASTERN DIVISION OF SAID DISTRICT. Tue Unrrep Srates or AMERICA vs. M. J. Exxiorr er au. No. 3811. INJUNCTION. The President of the United States of America to M. J. Elliott, Eugene V. Debs, and others. You and each and every of you, Greeting: Whereas it has been represented to the judges of our Circuit Court of the United States for the Eighth Circuit, in the Eastern District of Missouri, in chancery: sitting, on the part of the United States of America by its certain bill of complaint against you and each and every of you, that you are combining and confederating with others in interfering with, hindering, obstructing, and stopping the business of the following-named companies, to wit: Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company. Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis. Missouri Pacific Railway Company. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company. St. Louis-Southwestern Railway Company. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company. St. Louis, Keokuk & Northwestern Railway Company. Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad. Louisville & Nashville Railroad. 23 24 UNITED STATES U. ELLIOTT. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railroad. Merchants’ Bridge Terminal Railway. Chicago & Alton Railroad. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway. Wabash Railroad. Mobile & Ohio Railroad. And it being ordered that a writ of injunction issue out of our said court, upon said bill of complaint, enjoining and restraining you and each and every of you as prayed in said bill, We, therefore, in consideration thereof, and the particular matters in said bill set forth, do strictly command you and each and every of you and all persons acting in concert with you under your direction and control, and until the further order of the court. absolutely to desist and refrain from in any way or manner interfering with, hindering, obstructing, or stopping the business of any of the above-named com- panies as common czxrriers of passengers and freight between or among any States of the United States, and from in any way or manner interfering with. hindering. obstructing, or stopping any mail trains. express trains, or other trains, whether freight or passenger, engaged in interstate com- merce, or carrving passengers or freight between or among the States; and from in any manner interfering with, in- juring, or destroying any of the property of any of said railroads engaged in or for the purpose of interstate com- merce or the carriage of the mails of the United States or the transportation of passengers or freight between or among the States; and from entering upon the grounds or premises of any of said railroads for the purpose of interfering with, hindering, cbstructing, or stopping any of said mail trains, passenger or freight trains engaged in interstate commerce, or in the transportation of passengers or freight between or among the States, or for the purpose of interfering with, injuring, or destroying any of said property so engaged in or used in connection with interstate commerce or the trans- portation of passengers or property between or among the States: and from injuring or destroying any part of the tracks, roadbed or road, or permanent structures of said UNITED STATES UV. ELLIOTT. 25 railroads, and from injuring, destroying, or in any way interfering with any of the signals or switches of any of said railroads, and from displacing or extinguishing any of the signals of any of said railroads, and from spiking, locking, or in any manner fastening any of the switches of any of said railroads, and from uncoupling or in any way hamper- ing or obstructing the control by any of said railroads, of any of the cars, engines, or parts of trains of any of said railroads engaged in interstate commerce, or in the trans- portation of passengers or freight between or among the States, or engaged in carrying any of the mails of the United States; and from compelling or inducing, or attempt- ing to compel or induce, by threats, intimidation, force, or violence, any of the employees of any of said railroads, to refuse or fail to perform any of their duties as employees of any of said railroads in connection with the interstate business or commerce of such railroads, or the carriage of the United States mail by such railroads, or the transpor- tation of passengers or property between or among the States; and from compelling, inducing, or attempting to compel or induce, by threats, intimidation, force, or violence, any of the employees of any of said railroads, who are em- ployed by such railroads, and engaged in its service in the conduct of interstate business or in the operation of any of its trains carrying the mail of the United States, or doing interstate business or the transportation of passengers and freight between and among the States, to leave the service of such railroad; and from preventing any person whatever, by threats, intimidation, force, or violence, from entering the service of any of said railroads and doing the work thereof in the carrying of the mails of the United States, and in the transportation of passengers and freight between or among the States; and from doing any act whatever in furtherance of any conspiracy or combination to restrain either of said railroad companies, cr receivers, in the free and unhindered control and handling of interstate commerce over the lines of said railroads, and in the transportation of persons and freight between and among the States; and from ordering, directing, aiding, or assisting any person or persons to commit any or either of the acts aforesaid which have been specifically enjoined. 26 UNITED STATES UV. ELLIOTT. Hereof fail not, under the penalty of what the law directs. Witness the Hon. Melville W. Fuller, Chief Justice of Supreme Court of the United States, the sixth day of July, A. D. eighteen hundred and ninety-four. Issued at office, in the city of St. Louis, under the seal of said Circuit Court the day and year last aforesaid. A. P. Sexsy, Clerk, By Joun J. Conway, Deputy. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DIVISION OF SAID DISTRICT, Tue Unitep Starrs or AMERICA vs. M. J. Exxiorr er at. No. 3811. INJUNCTION, The President of the United States of America to M. J. Elliott, Eugene V. Debs, and others. You and each and every of you, Greeting: Whereas it has been represented to the judges of our Cir- cuit Court of the United States for the Eighth Circuit, in the Eastern District of Missouri, in chancery sitting, on the part of the United States of America by its certain bill of complaint against you and each and every of you, that you are combining and confederating with others in interfering with, hindering, obstructing, and stopping the business of the following-named companies, to wit: Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company. Baltimore & Ohio Sonthwe-tern Railroad. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis. Missouri Pacific Railway Company. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company. St. Louis-Southwestern Railway Company. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company. UNITED STATES U., ELLIOTT. 27 St. Louis, Keokuk & Northwestern Railway Company. Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad. Louisville & Nashville Railroad. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railroad. Merchants’ Bridge Terminal Railway. Chicago & Alton Railroad. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway. Wabash Railroad. Mobile & Ohio Railroad. Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis Railroad. And it being ordered that a writ of injunction issue out of our said court, upon said bill of complaint, enjoining and restraining you and each and every of you as prayed in said bill, We, therefore, in consideration thereof, and the particular matters in said bill set forth, do strictly command you and each and every of you and all persons acting in concert with you under your direction and control, and until the further order of the court, absolutely to desist and refrain from in any way or manner interfering with, hindering, obstructing, or stopping the business of any of the above-named com- panies as commen carriers of passengers and freight between or among any States of the United States, and from in any way or manner interfering with, hindering, obstructing, or stopping any mail trains, express trains, or other trains, whether freight or passenger, engaged in interstate com- merce, or carrying passengers or freight between or among the States; and from in any manner interfering with, in- juring, or destroying any of the property of any of said railroads engaged in or for the purpose of interstate com- merce or the carriage of the mails of the United States or the transportation of passengers or freight between or among the States; and from entering upon the grounds or premises of any of said railroads for the purpcse of inter- fering with, hindering, obstructing, or stopping any of said mail trains, passenger or freight trains engaged in interstate commerce, or in the transportation cf passengers or freight between or among the States, or for the purpose of inter- fering with, injuring, or destroying any of said property so engaged in or used in connection with interstate com- 28 UNITED STATES U. ELLIOTT, merce or the transportation of passengers or property be- tween or among the States; and from injuring or destroving any part of the tracks, roadbed or read, or permanent struc- tures of said railroads, and from injuring, destroying, or in any way interfering with any of the signals or switches of any of said railroads, and from displacing or extinguishing any of the signals of any of said railroads, and from spiking, lecking, or in any manner fastening any of the switches of any of said railroads, and from uncoupling or in any way hampering or obstructing the control by any of said rail- roads of any of the cars, engines, or parts of trains of any of said railroads engaged in interstate commerce, or in the transportation of passengers or freight between or among the States, or engaged in carrying any of the mails of the United States; and from compelling or inducing, cr attempt- ing to compel or induce, by threats, intimidation, force, or violence, any of the employees of any of said railroads, to refuse or fail to perform any of their duties as employees of any of said railroads in connection with the interstate busi- ness or commerce of such railroads, or the carriage of the United States mail by such railroads, or the transportation of passengers or property between or among the States; and from compelling, inducing, or attempting to compel er in- duce, by threats, intimidation, force, or violence, any of the employees of any of said railroads, who are employed by such railroads, and engaged in its service in the conduct of interstate business or in the operation cf any of its trains carrying the mail of the United States, or doing interstate business or the transportation of passengers and freight be- tween and among the States, to leave the service of such railroad; and from preventing any person whatever, by threats, intimidation, force, or violence, from entering the service of any of said railroads and doing the work thereof in the carrying of the mails of the United States. and in the transportation of passengers and freight between or among the States; and from doing any act whatever in furtherance of any conspiracy or combination to restrain either of said railroad companies, or receivers, in the free and unhindered control and handling of interstate commerce over the lines of said railroads, and in the transportation of persons and freight between and among the States; and from ordering, UNITED STATES /. ELLIOTT, 29 directing, aiding, or assisting any person or persons to commit any or either of the acts aforesaid which have been specifically enjoined. Hereof fail not, under the penalty of what the law directs. To the marshal of the Eastern District of Missouri to execute and return in due form of law. Witness the Hon. Melville W. Fuller, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, the seventh day of July, A. D. eighteen hundred and ninety-four. Issued at office, in the city of St. Louis, under the seal of said Circuit Court, the day and year last aforesaid. A. P. Serey, Clerk. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THK EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. Unireo Srares vs. M. J. Evwiorr ev a. No. 3811. FINAL DECREE. It appearing to the court that the following-named de- fendants are in default, to wit: M. J. Elliott, Eugene V. Debs, and others, and that a decree pro confesso has been heretofore entered herein as to them; therefore, on motion of W. H. Clopton, United States attorney, made upon the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, It is ordered. adjudged, and decreed by the court that the temporary injunction heretofore granted in this cause be made perpetual as against the said defendants above named, and that the complainant recover of said defendant+ its costs. Eyer B. Apass, Judge. Aprr 6, 1896. UNITED STATES v. JOINT TRAFFIC ASSOCIATION. 76 Fed. 895; 89 Fed. 1020; 171 U. S. 505. AT A STATED TERM OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, HELD IN AND FOR THE SOUTHERN DIS- TRICT OF NEW YORK, AT THE ROOMS OF SAID COURT IN THE POST-OFFICK BUILDING, IN THI CITY OF NEW YORK, ON THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 1896. (Hon. Hoyt H. Wheeler, Judge. } Tue Unirep States or AMERICA vs. Tue Joint Trarric ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS. In Equity. The above-entitled cause having been set down by the complainants for hearing upon the bill of complaint and the answers thereto, as amended, and having come on to be heard at this term upon the said bill of complaint and the answers thereto, as amended, and having been argued by counsel and due deliberation having been had thereon, it is Ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the said bill of com- plaint herein be and the same is hereby dismissed. Horr H. Wueeter. AT A STATED TERM OF THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, HELD AT THE UNITED STATES COURT ROOMS, IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ON THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINETY-SEVEN. {Present : The Hon. Wm. J. Wallace, E. Henry Lacombe, circuit judges. | Tue Unitep Sratres or AMERICA vs. Tue Joint Trarric ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS. The appeal from the decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, 31 32 UNITED STATES UV. JOINT TRAFFIC ASS’N. entered herein on the 12th day of June, 1896, having come on to be heard, and due deliberation having been had thereon: Now, on motion of Carter & Ledyard, attorneys for the defendants, appellees, it is Ordered that the decree aforesaid be, and the same hereby is, in all things confirmed; and it is further Ordered that a mandate issue to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York direct- ing that court to proceed in accordance herewith. Marca 26, 1897. AT A STATED TERM OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR THE SOUTHERN DIS- TRICT OF NEW YORK, IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT, HELD AT THE UNITED STATES COURT ROOMS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ON THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH, IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD, ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINETY-NINE. (Hon. B. Henry Lacombe, circuit judge.) Tay Uniren States or America, PLarntirr, vs. Tre Jorsy Trarric ASSOCIATION ET aLs., DEFENDANTS. This cause having been heretofore duly tried in this court, and a judgment ‘and decree having been entered in the said eanse on the 12th day of June, 1896, in favor of the de- fendants. and dismissing the bill of complaint, and the said plaintiffs, the United States of America, having filed as- signment of errcrs and appealed te the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the said Cir- entt Court of Appeals having after due consideration of said appeal in all things affirmed the judement of this courr by decree entere’ on the 26th day of March, 1897, and the said plaintiffs, the United States of America, having there- after filed assignment of errors and appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the said Supreme Court having transmitted to this court its mandate bearing date the ¢4th day of October, 1898, by which mandate it appears that at the October term, 1898, said cause erme on to be UNITED STATES UV. JOINT TRAFFIC Ass’N, 33 heard before the said Supreme Court, and was argued by counsel. And on consideration whereof it was ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York and the judgment of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in this cause be reversed, and it was further Ordered, adjudged, and decreed that this cause be, and the same hereby was, remanded to this court, with instructions to take such further proceedings therein as may be in con- formity with the opinion of the said Supreme Court of the United States. Now, on reading and filing the said mandate, and on the motion of Henry L. Burnett, the attorney for the plaintiffs, and Carter & Ledyard, and others, attorneys for the de- fendants, appearing and not opposing, it is Ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the said judgment of the said Supreme Court be, and the same hereby is, made the judgment of this court; and that the judgment aforesaid of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York be, and the same hereby is, reversed ; and it is further Ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the said defendants, and each and every of them, and their representatives, offi- cers, agents, and servants, and each and every of them, be perpetually enjoined from acting under, enforcing, or execut- ing the agreement or “articles of organization” more par- ticularly set forth in the bill of complaint, said agreement being adopted November 19, 1895, to take effect January 1, 1896; and, further, that the said defendants, and each and every of them, and their representatives, officers, agents, and servants, and each and every of them, be perpetually en- joined from operating their said railroads under the said agreement or “articles of organization” and from further proceeding in any manner to carry the said agreement into effect and operation. E. H. Lacomss, United States Circuit Judge. Marca 3, 1899. 58556—18——5 UNITED STATES v. ADDYSTON PIPE & STEEL CO. 78 Fed. 712; 85 Fed. 271; 175 U. S. 211. IN THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DIVISION OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE. [February 12, 1897. Present and presiding: Hon C. D. CuarK, Judge. ] Unirep States vs. Appyston Pires & Sreent Co. ET AL. FINAL DECREE. This cause came on to be heard on the 25th day of Janu- ary, 1897, when the district attorney moved the court for leave to dismiss the amended petition filed in this cause, which motion was granted, and it was thereupon ordered that said amended petition be dismissed. The district attorney further moved the court to strike from the file the demurrer of the defendants because filed after obtaining leave of the court for further time in which to answer, and no leave of the court was given to file the demurrer. The motion was overruled, to which exception was taken. The district attorney also moved the court to strike from the file the demurrer of defendants because overruled by the answer, as they had answered as to the same matters contained in their demurrer. This motion was also overruled, to which exception was taken. The cause was thereupon heard upon application for injunction as prayed in the original bill, which hearing was by stipula- tion of the parties treated as to a hearing upon the merits, and the cause was thereupon heard upon the petition of the United States, the demurrer and answer of the defendants, the affidavits filed by plaintiff and defendants, from all of which the court was of opinion that the plaintiff was not entitled to the injunction prayed for; that the merits of the 35 36 UNITED STATES V. ADDYSTON PIPE & STEEL CO.- petition were fully met and denied by the answer, and were not sustained by the proof, the court being of the opinion that the association between defendants was not a contract or combination in restraint of trade, or monopoly of trade and commerce, under the act of Congress of July 2, 1890. It was therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the petition filed against the defendants be dismissed, and that petitioner pay the costs of this cause. In the event this case be appealed, the clerk will copy the affidavit of M. L. Holman into the record, with the other evidence of the petition, the same having been read on the hearing but not attached as an exhibit to the petition for contempt. Petitioner, by James H. Bible, the district attorney, then and there excepted to the decree of the court denying it relief against the defendants and denying it an injunction according to the prayer of its petition. UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. Unritep States or AMERICA vs. Appyston Pree & Sreen Co. ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Hastern District of Tennessee. Before Judges Harlan, Taft, and Lurton. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered, ad- judged, and decreed by this court that the decree of the said Circuit Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, reversed, with instructions to enter a decree for the United States, perpetually enjoining the defendants from main- taining the combination in cast-iron pipe described in the bill, and from doing business thereunder. {Frpruary 14, 1898.] UNITED STATES UV. ADDYSTON PIPE & STEEL OO. 387 Unirep States or AMERICA vs. “Appyston Pier & Sree, Company, Dennis Lone & Com- PANY, Howarp-Harrison Iron Company, ANNISTON Prrg & Founpry Company, Souru Pirrssure Prez Works, snp Cuatranooca Founpry & Pres Works. No. 539. In this cause came William D. Wright, United States attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and pre- sented to the court a mandate from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which has been regularly filed in this court, which mandate is in the follow- ing words and figures, to wit: “United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. “United States of America, Sixth Judicial Circuit, ss. “The President of the United States to the honorable, the the judge of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeting: “Whereas, lately in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Tennessee, before you, or some of you, in a cause between the United States of America, complainants, and the Addyston Pipe & Steel Company et al., respondents, wherein a decree was entered in favor of said respondents and against said complainants, as by the inspection cf the transcript of the record of the said Circuit Court, which was brought into the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit by virtue of an appeal, agreeably to the act of Congress in such cases made and provided, fully and at large appears. “ And, whereas, in the present term of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety- seven, the said cause came on to be heard before the said United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Cir- cuit, on the said transcript of record, and was argued by counsel : “On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered, ad- judged, and decreed that the decree of the said Circuit Court in this cause be and the same is hereby reversed with in- structions to enter a decree for the United States perpetually enjoining the defendant from maintaining the combination in cast iron pipe described in the bill and from doing busi- ness thereunder. 38 UNITED STATES UV. ADDYSTON PIPE & STEEL CO. “You, therefore, are hereby commanded that such pro- ceedings be had in such cause in conformity with the opinion and decree of this court as according to right and justice, and the laws of the United States ought to be had, the said appeal notwithstanding. “ Witness the Hon. Melville W. Fuller, Chief Justice of the United States, the 22d day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight. “ Costs of appellant, $20, “ Frank O. Lovenann, “ Clerk of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Siath Circuit.” Upon motion of complainant’s solicitor this cause is rein- stated upon the docket of this court for the purpose of carrying out the orders of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Thereupon the cause came on again for hearing on this the 6th day of June, 1898, before the Hon. C. D. Clark, judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, etc., upon the entire record in the cause and more especially upon the opinion rendered by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, and the directions therein contained, on February 8, 1898, and the order remanding the same. And the same having been duly considered, it is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the de- fendants, the Addyston Pipe & Steel Company, Dennis Long & Company, Howard-Harrison Iron Company, Anniston Pipe & Foundry Company, South Pittsburg Pipe Works, and Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works, on or about the 28th day cf December, 1894, entered into an unlawful com- bination, agreement, and conspiracy in restraint of inter- state commerce in violation of the so-called antitrust law passed by Congress July 2, 1890, in the sale of cast-iron pipe as charged in the bill in this cause. It is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that each and all of the defendants herein named be and are hereby perpetually enjoined from maintaining the com- bination in cast-iron pipe described in the bill and substan- tially admitted in the answer, and from doing any business thereunder. It is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the complainant have and recover of the defendants all the costs of this cause and_the encte in tha TInited Qtataa UNITED STATES UV. ADDYSTON PIPE & STEEL CO. 39 Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, for which an execution will issue. [Jone 6, 1898.] Tue Unrrep Srares or AMERICA vs. Appyston Pier & Steen Company ET AL. This cause came on to be further heard on this the 5th day of April, 1900, before the Hon. C. D. Clark, judge of the District and Circuit Courts of the United States for the Eastern District of Tennessee, upon the record at large and the mandate of the honorable Supreme Court of the United States of America, which mandate is in words and figures as follows: “Unirep Srates or AMERICA, 88: “The President of the United States of America to the honorable the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Tennessee. “ GREETING: “Whereas lately in the United States Circuit of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in a cause between the United States, appellant, and The Addyston Pipe and Steel Company, Dennis Long & Co., Howard Harrison Iron Co., Anniston Pipe & Foundry Co., South Pittsburg Pipe Works, and Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works, appellees, wherein the decree of the said Circuit Court of Appeals entered in said cause on the 14th day of February, A. D. 1898, is in the fol- lowing words, viz: “This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and was argued by counsel. “ cae cerporation) which s! ‘shall be capitalized as hereinafter pro- vided, or_reorganize the Laflin and Rand Powder Company and the, Eastern Dynamite..Compan ~elthe be used instead of 0 one or r both of said two corporations, in case the said Eastern Dynamite Company is so selected, then it need not be dissolved as hereinbefore provided. In case the Laflin and Rand Powder Company is not used under this paragraph dissolve said company and distribute its property among its stockholders. To the first of said corporations transfer the following acai or anufacture of dynamite: “<“Drant at Kenville, New Jersey. Plant at Marquette, Michigan. Plant at Pinole, California. For the manufacture of black blasting powder : ~~Biant at Rosendalé, New York. "“""“ Two (2) plants at Ringtown, Pennsylvania. Plant at Youngstown, Ohio. Plant at Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin. Plant at Turck, Kansas. Plant at Santa Cruz, California. For the manufacture of black sporting powder : “Plant at Ha I Plant at Schaghticoke, New York. ‘Lo..the second of said corporations transfer the following lants ; a For, the manufacture of dynamite S “Plant at Hopatcong, New Jersey. Plant at Senter, Michigan. Plant at Atlas, Missouri. Plant at Vigorit, California. UNITED, STATES U. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO. 199 For the manufacture of black blasting er: ant at Riker, Pennsylvania. ee Plant at Shenandoah, Pennsylvania. Plant at Ooltewah, Teniasces, Plant at Belleville, Tlinois. Plant at Pittsburg, Kansas. And permit the said defendant E. I. duPont, ‘Powder Company to retain the 10 owing plants: . For the manufacture of dynamite; PT SEARO Meola. Plant at Barksdale, Wisconsin. Plant at duPont, Washington. Plant at Emporium, Pennsylvania. Plant at Hartford City, Indiana. Plant at Louviers, Colorado. Plant at Gibbstown, New Ps ersey. Plant at Lewisburg, Alabama. For the manufacture of black blasting powder : Plant at Augusta, Colorado. ; Plant at Connable, Alabama. Plant at Oliphant Furnace, Pennsylvania. Plant at Mooar, Iowa. Plant at Nemours, West Virginia. Plant at Patterson, Oklahoma. Plant at Wilpen, Minnesota. For the manufacture of Dlack sporting powder : ~ Plant at Brandywine, Delaware. Plant at Wayne, New Jersey. For the manufacture of smokeless sporting powder : Plant at Carney’s Point, New Jersey. rs Plant at Haskell, New Jersey. For the manafactine of G -ermmel seless pow, Tan farney’s Point, New Je ersey. Plant at Haskell, New Jersey. Eighth: Transfer to or furnish the nee of said two cor- be located at ae ew Jersey, or some other suitable 200 UNITED STATES V. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO. Eastern point, and to be of a capacity sufficient to manu- facture 950,000 pounds per annum of smokeless sporting powder of the brands to be assigned to the first of said cor- porations. Ninth: Furnish said two corporations respectively with sufficient working capital and the necessary cash and facili- ties to enable them to efficiently carry on the business which will attend the properties so to be transferred to them. Tenth: Transfer said properties to said two corporations respectively upon_a_ valuation thereof based on inventory of said properties, to include a fair valtatiow for brands and good will, and issue to said~E. I. duPont de Nemours Powder Company in payment therefor securities Of-satd-two cotporations respectively at par value as Tollowss— Rempumcmr ms? * FO et ae age te te y se Fifty per cent. (50%) of said purchase price in bonds not secured by mortgage which shall bear interest at the rate of six per cent. (6%) per annum, payable if earned by the company during said year, or to the extent thereof earned, but not otherwise; nor cumulative; payable not less than ten years from date; the form of said bonds to be approved by the Attorney-General or the Court, which bonds shall be subject to call at one hundred and two (102); and the other fifty per cent. (50%) of said purchase price in the stock of said two corporations respectively, which for the time being shall be their entire stock issues. Upon the receipt of said stock and bonds by E. I. duPont de Nemours Powder Company, distribute the said stock and one-half of said bonds or the proceeds of the sale of said bonds among the stockholders of E. I. duPont de Nemours Powder Com- pany. In the organization or reorganization of said two corporations to which said properties are to be transferred, provide two issues of stock in said two corporations respec- tively, one of which shall have voting power and the other of which shall have no voting power. So distribute said stocks among the stockholders of E. I. duPont de Nemours Powder Company that any amounts thereof which upon said distribution shall go to any one of the twenty-seven defend- ants hereinbefore mentioned shall consist one-half of said stock with voting power and one-half of said stock without voting power, and provide that upon the transfer through death or by will from any one of said twenty-seven defend- UNITED STATES V. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO. 201 ants of any stock which has no voting power, to some person or persons other than one of said twenty-seven de- fendants herein, or upon the sale by any one of said twenty- seven defendants of any stock which has no voting power, to some person or persons other than one of said twenty- seven defendants herein, or their respective wives or chil- dren, said stock so sold or transferred may be exchanged for stock with voting power. Eleventh: Transfer to said two corporations, respectively, so far as practicable, a fair proportion of the business in explosives now controlled by E. I. duPont de Nemours Powder Company under time contracts. Twelfth: During a period of at least five years furni each of said two corporations respectively, under, sins r- rangements as may be reasona oe such in ormatio n from. records of the Trade btréau maintained . duPon de Nemours Powder Company as may be desired. Thirteenth: During a perio five years furnish ompany may operate 0 or possess in reference to purchase of materials, experimentation, development. of the art and scientific research, as said two corporations may desire from time to time, in the interests of their business, and upon some reasonable terms as to the cost thereof to said two corporations. i ‘ “ as = at “4 re sed th | ae dere ; a a ete oe aga ake = respectivel directed to proceed forthwith to carry said plan into effect, and it is np 1 see ae ae decreed, t rear eny _ Shall | ae out Pot this in, parngreeh two of sta Boyle Ot or such other relief shall be granted by the appointment Ota receiver or otherwise as this Court may determine. 202 UNITED STATES Vv. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO. 4. That should the defendants find it impossible to per- fect the details of said plan on or before the said fifteenth day of December, 1912, they may have leave to apply to the Court for further time to carry out said plan. 5. That until said plan is carried into operation and effect, the said twenty-seven defendants hereinbefore named in paragraph two of this decree, are, and each of them is, and the agents and servants of them are jointly and severally hereby enjoined from doing any acts or act which shall in any wise further extend or enlarge the field of operations, or the power of the aforesaid combination. It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the said twenty-seven (27) defandinntsy their stock-holders, officers, directors, servants, agents and employees be and they are hereby severally enjoined and restrained as follows: From continuing or carrying into further effect after said fifteenth day of December, 1912, the combination adjudged illegal in this suit, and front entering into or forming among themselves or with others any like combination or conspiracy, by any method or device whatsoever, the effect of which is or will be to restrain interstate commerce in explosives or to renew the unlawful monopoly of such commerce obtained and possessed by the defendants as adjudged herein, in viola- tion of “An Act to protect trade and commerce against un- lawful Restraints and Monopolies,” approved July 2, 1890, and especially: 1. By causing the conveyance of the factories, plants, brands or business of either of said two new corporations to the other corporation or to E. I. duPont de Nemours Powder Company or vice versa after the segregation of the proper- ties among said corporations shall have taken place as herein provided ; by placing the stocks of either of said corpora- tions in the hands of voting trustees or controlling the voting power of such stocks by any device; 2. By making any express or implied agreement or ar- rangement with one another or with others relative to the control or management of either of said corporations, or the price or terms of purchase, or of sale of explosives or relative to the purchase, sale, manufacture, or transportation of explosives which will have the effect of restraining inter- state commerce; or by making any agreement or arrange- UNITED STATES V. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO. 203 ment of any kind between said corporations under which trade or business is apportioned between said corporations in respect either to customers or localities. 3. By offering. or causing to be offered or making or caus- ing to be made more favorable prices or terms of sale for the products manufactured by them or either of them to the cus- tomers of any rival manufacturer or manufacturers than they at the same time offer to make to their established trade, where the purpose is to unfairly cripple or drive out of busi- ness such rival manufacturer or manufacturers or otherwise unlawfully to restrain the trade and commerce of the United States in any of said products; provided, that no defendant is enjoined or restrained from making any price or prices in the sale of said products, or any thereof, to meet or to compete with prices made by any other defendant, or by any rival manufacturer; and provided, further, that nothing in this decree shall be taken in any respect to enjoin or restrain fair, free and open competition. 4. By either of said corporations retaining or employing the same clerical force or organization, or keeping the same office or offices as any other of said corporations. 5. By either of said corporations doing business directly or indirectly under any other than its own corporate name or the name of a subsidiary corporation controlled by it; provided, however, that, in case of a subsidiary corpora- tion, the controlling corporation shall cause the products of such subsidiary corporation which are sold in the United States and bear the name of the manufacturer to bear also a statement indicating the fact of such control. It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that said defendants cancel and annul: a. Agreement of October 2, 1902, between William Bar- clay Parsons, of the City of New York, and the Delaware Securities Company. Petitioner’s Record, Exhibits, Vol- ume 4, page 1984. b. Agreement of October 6, 1902, between H. deB. Par- sons, of the City of New York, and the Delaware Securities Company. Petitioner’s Record, Exhibits, Volume 4, page 1986. c. Agreement of the second day of October, 1902, between Schuyler L. Parsons, of the City of New York, and the 204 UNITED STATES V. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO. Delaware Securities Company. Petitioner’s Record, Ex- hibits, Volume 4, page 1988. d. A like and identical agreement made about the same date between J. A. Haskell and the Delaware Securities Company, described in Petitioner’s Testimony, Volume 2, page 1012. It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that during a period of five years from the date hereof each of said corpo- rations, the E. I. duPont de Nemours Powder Company and said other two corporations, their stockholders, officers, directors, agents, servants and employees, be hereby enjoined and restrained as follows: 1. None of said corporations shall have any officer or director who is also an officer or director in any other of said corporations. 2. None of said corporations shall employ the same agent or agents for the sale in interstate commerce of explosives which might be sold in competition with each other; pro- vided that any one of said corporations may sell its prod- ucts on commission through a merchant or dealer who is similarly employed by either or both of said other corpo- rations. 3. None of said corporations shall directly or indirectly acquire any stock in another of said corporations or pur- chase or acquire any of the factories, plants, brands or business of such other corporation. It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that each and all of the individual defendants by this decree adjudged to be engaged in said combination, while holding stock in said two corporations and E. I. duPont de Nemours Powder Company or any two thereof, be enjoined and restrained from at any time within three years from the date hereof acquiring, owning or holding, directly or indirectly, any stock or any legal or equitable interest in any stock in either of said two corporations to which said properties shall be transferred, in excess of the amount to which he may be entitled under the provisions of the plan herein mentioned when the same shall have been carried out as proposed; pro- vided, however, that any of said individual defendants may notwithstanding this prohibition acquire from any other or others of said defendants, or in case of death, from their UNITED STATES U. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO. 205 estates, any of the stock held by such other defendant or defendants in said corporations and may acquire their pro- portions of any increase of stock. It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that_any neve anized mre purpose of taking formation and by appropriate proceedings, be made parties is cause and Sia to the De rovisions ie this decree and It is further ord ae adjudged and decreed es ah twenty-seven (27) defendants hereinabove mentioned, do pay to the United States Government its cost in this cause. Tt is further ordered, adjudged and decreed rn lle { tion of this cause is retained by this Court, for the purp ma. such other and d Sas I become necessary. for. ¢: ‘pl Lorn. Tt is further ordered, adjudged and eed aa after the plan hereinabove mentioned shall have been carried into effect a report shall be made to this Court for its approval, setting out the manner in which said plan shall have been carried out. Gro. Gray, Jos. BUFFINGTON, Joun B. McPuerson, Circuit Judges. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE. In Equity. No. 280. Unitep States or America, Perrrioner, Ve E. L pu Pont pe Nemours & Company anp Overs, DEFENDANTS. DECREE. And no it, February 18, 1913, the above cause hav- ing come on to be heard; petitioner being represented by 206 UNITED STATES UV. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO. William A. Glasgow, jr., Esquire, for himself and the Attor- ney General of the United States, and the defendants by George S. Graham and J. P. Laffey, Esquires, and it ap- pearing that the defendants have made a report and also filed a first and sé : emental report setting out ath mannerin-Wwhich the “plan for dissolution. provi in the. third séction of the final “decree of this erie on the 13th day of June, A. D. 1912, has been carried out, and it further appearing that counsel for the United States, while not consenting, does not object to the capitalization of the Hercules Powder Company any the Atlas Powder Com- for inthe me ot dona to the Set that the Hercules Powder Cane has appeared and become a party to this cause, and T. D. Fin- letter, Esq., has filed his appearance for the said company, and that the Atlas Powder Company has also appeared and become a party to this cause, and Samuel M. Clement, jr., has filed his appearance for the said company: Now, therefore, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed. that the provisions of the décree « of June 18, 1912, and the, in- j unctions _contained_ in, said decree, be and the same are hereby extended. to. ‘and nade nda. upon, Sas said-izo new ‘companies, “which have been organized in conformity _ with the requirements of the plan of ne pls And it is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the report and the first and second supplemental reports filed by defendants, setting forth the manner in which the plan of dissolution, ordered to be carried out in the final decree, has been complied with and made effective, are hereby approved. It is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that ae diction of this cause is retained by this court, for pose of making such other and. further ord erg and d ecrees megane 2S BSL RE ULAR PO as May become necessar “rere oreo FR 1, 1918, ae UNITED STATES v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO. 188 Fed. 102; 226 U. S. 61; 226 U. S. 470. IN THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH. April Term, A. D. 1911. No. 993. In Hquity. Tue Unirep States or America, CoMPLAINANT, vs. Tuer Union Paciric Rartroap Company, THE OrEGON SHORT Line Rarzoap Company, THE Orecon Ramroap & Navi- GATION Company, THE San Pepro, Los AncEeLes & Sart Laxe Ramroap Company, Tue Arcuison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ramway Company, THE SourHern Pactric Comerany, Norruern Paciric Ramway Company, Great NorrHern Ram.way Company, Farmers’ Loan & Trust Company, Epwarp H. Harriman, Jacos H. Scurrr, Orto H. Kaun, James Stauman, Henry H. Rocers, Henry C. Frick anp Wiir1am A. CiarKk, DeFENDANTS. This cause came on to be further heard at this term and was argued by counsel; and thereupon upon consideration thereof, it was ordered, adjudged and decreed that the bill be and the same is hereby dismissed. Waurer H. Sanzorn, Wiis Van Devanter, Wau C. Hoos, Emer B. Apams, Judges. Filed June 24, 1911. Jerrold R. Letcher, clerk. By Mar- garet B. Connell, deputy. 207 208 UNITED STATES UV. UNION PACIFIC R. CO. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH. Un1rep States or AmErica, COMPLAINANT, vs. Tur Union Pacrric Rarroap Company; THe Orecon SHort Lint Ramroap Company; Tur Orecon Rarmroap & Navi- cation Company; THe San Pepro, Los Ancetes & Sat Laxe Rarroap Company; THe Arcutson, Topeka & Santa Fe Ramway Company; Tue Sournern Paciric Company; NorrHern Pacirric Ramway Company; Great Nortoern Ramway Company; Tue Farmers’ Loan & Trust Company; Jacop H. Scurr; Orro H. Kaun; James Strxpman; Henry C. Frick; Wuuram A. Crark AND Rozert S. Lovert, as TRUSTEE, DEFENDANTS. DECREE. The above-entitled cause having come on for hearing before this Court, and having been determined adversely to the complainant, and the said cause having been appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, by which court the decree of this Court dismissing the said bill of complaint was in part reversed, and a mandate from the Supreme Court in proper form containing directions as to the decree to be entered herein having been filed here on the 12th day of February, 1918. Now, therefore, this cause came on to be further heard at this term, and was argued by counsel, and thereupon, upon ecnsideration thereof, it was ordered, adjudged and decreed as follows, viz: Section 1. That the final decree entered herein on June 24, 1911, dismissing the bill be set aside so far as the same was reversed by the Supreme Court. Sgc. 2. That prior to the year 1901, and ever since said date, the defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company, has controlled, by the ownership of substantially all the stock thereof, the defendant Oregon Short Line Railroad Com- pany; and that the defendant Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, by the ownership of substantially all the stock thereof. has controlled the defendant Oregon Railroad & UNITED STATES UV. UNION PACIFIC RB. CO, 209 Navigation Company, which latter company has controlled, and still does, through the ownership of all the stock thereof, control the Portland & Asiatic Steamship Company; and that in the year 1901, and for several years prior thereto, said Oregon Railroad & Navigation Company had been the owner and engaged in the operation of a line of steamships between Portland, Oregon, and San Francisco, California, that it continued in the operation of the same until about the year 1904, when a corporation was organized, of which said Oregon Railroad & Navigation Company then was and still is the sole stockholder, known as the San Francisco and Portland Steamship Company, which took over the said line of ships between San Francisco and Portland, and has since been operating the same in connection with the rail lines of said Oregon Railroad & Navigation Company; and that the lines of railway and steamships of said corporations were, prior to 1901, and ever since have been, controlled and man- aged in all respects by the defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company; and that prior to the year 1901, and continuously since that date, the said defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company and its said subsidiary corporations, owned, con- trolled, and managed by it, have owned and have been en- gaged in the operation of a system of railroad and steamship lines. Sec. 3. That the defendant Southern Pacific Company controls, by direct ownership, stock ownership, and lease a system of rail and steamship lines, and also by the owner- ship of a majority of its stock has, during all of said time, controlled the Pacific Mail Steamship Company, which is engaged in transportation business between the port of San Francisco and various ports in China and Japan, which ports in China and Japan were also served by said Portland and Asiatic Steamship Company. Src. 4. That the Central Pacific Railroad Company was organized under the laws of California, and constructed a line of railroad from Sacramento, California, to Ogden, Utah; That the Western Pacific Railroad Company was organ- ized under the laws of California, and constructed a line of railroad from San Francisco to Sacramento, California, and 58556—18—16 210 UNITED STATES UV. UNION PACIFIC R. CO, that these two latter corporations were afterwards consoli- dated into and became the Central Pacific Railroad Com- pany, which was for many years engaged in the operation of said line of railroad from San Francisco to Ogden, at which point it connected with the main line of said Union Pacific Railroad Company ; That the said Southern Pacific Company was and is also the owner of all the capital stock of the Central Pacific Railway Company, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Utah, which succeeded to the ownership of the line of railway from Ogden to San Francisco, thereto- fore owned by the Central Pacific Railroad Company, here- inbefore particularly described; and by virtue of such own- ership of all said capital stock said Southern Pacific Com- pany in all respects controls the operation and management of the affairs and business of said Central Pacific Railway Company. That the railways and properties formerly be- longing to the said Central Pacific Railroad Company were, by indenture and agreement dated July 28, 1899, conveyed to the said Central Pacific Railway Company. That prior thereto and on or about the 17th day of Febru- ary, 1885, the said Central Pacific RailroadeCompany leased to the said Southern Pacific Company, all of its railroad and properties for a period of ninety-nine years, which lease was thereafter modified by agreements between the parties dated the first day of January, 1888, and the 7th day of December, 1893, dated respectively, and the 22d day of March, 1894, and that the railroads of the said Cen- tral Pacific Railroad and said Central Pacific Railway were controlled and operated by the said Southern Pacific Com- pany, and thereafter, and in or about the month of March, 1901, said Southern Pacific Company passed under the control of the Union Pacific Railroad Company as herein- before specified. Sec. 5. That prior to the year 1901, the said systems of rail and steamship lines of the defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company and the defendant Southern Pacific Company, and different portions of the same were, and but for the suppression of competition hereinafter mentioned would still be, active competitors for the transportation of large quantities of freight and passengers between the Atlan- UNITED STATES V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO. 211 tic seaboard and the Pacific coast, and between various other points. That the railroad and steamship lines of said Union Pacific Railroad Company’s system and said South- ern Pacific Company’s system are natural competitors. Sec. 6. That in the spring of 1901 the said defendants, Jacob H. Schiff, Otto H. Kahn and James Stillman, together with one Edward H. Harriman, who was originally a de- fendant in this cause, but who has died during the pendency thereof, for the purpose of enabling the Union Pacific Rail- road Company to acquire control of the railroad system of the Southern Pacific Company and thereby to form the com- bination herein described, caused to be acquired for transfer to the Union Pacific Railroad Company, and said Company thereupon, in consummation of said plan acquired 750,000 shares of the stock of said Southern Pacific Company of the par value of $75,000,000 out of a total issue of 1,978,477 shares of the aggregate par value of $197,847,788 then issued and outstanding (said shares being delivered to said defend- ant Union Pacific Railroad Company on or about March 4, 1901), so that the same might be held in the treasury of said company and voted by it for the purpose and with the in- tention of controlling the election of the board of directors and officers of the said Southern Pacific Company and eliminating the competition that had theretofore existed between said Union Pacific system and said Southern Pacific system. That the said shares of stock were afterwards transferred to the Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, to be held for the use and benefit of said Union Pacific Railroad Com- pany. That thereafter for the purpose of strengthening and completing said combination the Union Pacific Railroad Company acquired, from time to time, additional shares of the capital stock of the Southern Pacific Company, and turned the same over to the Oregon Short Line Railroad Company to be held for the use and benefit of the Union Pacific Railroad Company; until the Oregon Short Line Railroad Company had acquired and now owns and holds 1,266,500 shares of the capital stock of said Southern Pacific Company, out of a total of 2,726,724 shares issued and outstanding, or about 46% thereof. That at each end every annual meeting of the stockholders of the Southern Pacific Company for the election of directors 912 UNITED STATES V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO. since said 750,000 shares of stock were so acquired, the stock so held by said Union Pacific Railroad Company and said Oregon Short Line Railroad Company has constituted a majority of the shares represented at such meetings, and the directors of said Southern Pacific Company have been chosen by the vote of such stock; That the balance of the stock of said Southern Pacific Company is scattered among a large number of stockholders, and that by reason of the fact that such stock is so scattered the full amount of the same is not, and never has been voted at any meeting, for which reason the said stock of the Southern Pacific Company so controlled by said Oregon Short Line Railroad Company has constituted a majority of the stock of said Southern Pacific Company at the meetings of the stockholders thereof, and by reason of said stock ownership the said Union Pacific Railroad Company and its said subsidiary corporation have controlled said Southern Pacific Company; and in the case of a large corporation of the character of the Southern Pacific Company a compact, united ownership of 46% of the stock is ample to control the operations of the corporation. That since April 3, 1901, members of the board of directors of the Union Pacific Railroad Company have constituted « majority of the board of directors of said Southern Pacific Company. That for several years last past the Union Pacific Rail- road Company and its subsidiary lines and said Southern Pacific Company have had common traffic officials, operat- ing officials, purchasing agents, and commercial agents, and the said lines of railway and steamships of said respective systems have been and are operated as a single system, and the competition that formerly existed between the said two railway systems with their steamships, has been destroyed, and the interstate and foreign commerce which was for- merly the subject of competition between said two systems has been in the hands and under the control of said Union Pacific Railroad Company and its subsidiary corporations and their officials. Src. 7. That the stocks of the Southern Pacific Company were acquired and are held by the Oregon Short Line Rail- road Company by virtue of an unlawful combination to UNITED STATES UV. UNION PACIFIC R. CO, 218 restrain trade and commerce, and eliminate the competition herein described. Sec. 8. That the defendants Union Pacific Railroad Com- pany and Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, acting directly or through their respective officers, boards of direc- tors, executive committees, agents, servants, or through any other person, firm or corporation, acting for or in the inter- est of said companies, are hereby perpetually enjoined from purchasing, acquiring, receiving, holding, voting, whether by proxy or otherwise, or in any manner acting as the owner of any of the shares of the capital stock of the Southern Pacific Company. Sec. 9. That the defendant Southern Pacific Company, its officers, directors, servants, and agents, and all persons act- ing by, through, or under it, be, and they are hereby respec- tively and collectively enjoined from permitting the stock aforesaid to be voted by the Union Pacific Railroad Com- pany, the Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, or in their behalf by their attorneys or agents or the attorneys or agents of either of them, at any meeting of the stockholders of said railway company; and said Southern Pacific Company, to- gether with its officers, directors, servants, and agents, are likewise enjoined and respectively restrained from paying any dividends to said Union Pacific Railroad Company or the Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, or to any person for them or either of them on account of stock in said Southern Pacific Company which the said Oregon Short Line Railroad Company now claims to own and hold, and from paying any dividends on said stock while thus held, except to a receiver to be appointed by this court to collect and hold such dividends until disposed of by the decree of this court; and said Southern Pacific Company, its officers, directors, servants, and agents, are further enjoined from permitting or suffering the Union Pacific Railroad Com- pany, the Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, or any of its officers or agents, from exercising any control what- soever over the corporate acts of said Southern Pacific Company. Sec. 10. That the defendants Union Pacific Railroad Com- pany, Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, Oregon Rail- road and Navigation Company and Southern Pacific Com- 214 UNITED STATES VU. UNION PACIFIC R. CO, pany, together with the officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, and all persons and corporations acting by, through, or under the corporations named in this section, are enjoined and prohibited from continuing or carrying into further effect the combination hereby adjudged illegal, either : (a) By the use of any written evidences of a stock in- terest in the said Southern Pacific Company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, Oregon Railroad and Navigation Company, or either of them, or by causing the conveyance of the physical property and business of the Southern Pacific Company, on the one hand, to the Union Pacific Railroad Company, the Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, the Oregon Railroad and Navigation Company, or either of them, upon the other hand; or by causing the conveyance of the physical property and business of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, the Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, the Oregon Rail- road and Navigation Company, or either of them, upon the one hand, to the Southern Pacific Company, upon the other hand; or by placing the control of the Southern Pacific Com- pany, on the one hand, and of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, the Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, and the Oregon Railroad and Navigation Company, upon the other hand, in a trustee or group of trustees; or by causing the stock in said Southern Pacific Company to be held by any person for the benefit of the said Union Pacific Rail- road Company, the said Oregon Short Line Railroad Com- pany, or any person acting in their interest, or in the interest of either of them; or (b) By making any express or implicd agreement or ar- rangement together, or one with another, like that hereby adjudged illegal, relative to the control or management of said Southern Pacific Company by the said Union Pacific Railroad Company, Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, or any person acting in their interest, or from causing said companies to agree as to the rates of transportation of com- petitive traflic, or after the first day of May, 1918, from con- tinuing any union of management of any sort or description, either as to operation, rates or otherwise, between the said Southern Pacific Company. on the one hand, and the said UNITED STATES UV. UNION PACIFIO R. CO, 915 Union Pacific Railroad Company, Oregon Short Line Rail- road Company and Oregon Railroad and Navigation Com- pany, on the other hand, and, after said date from electing, permitting to be elected or continuing the same person or persons as a director or officer of both the Southern Pacific Company, or any of its subsidiary companies, on the one hand, and the Union Pacific Railroad Company, the Oregon Short Line Railroad Company and the Oregon Railroad and N avigation Company, or any of the subsidiaries of said com- panies, on the other hand, or by maintaining common agen- cies for the solicitation of traffic; but nothing herein con- tained shall be construed as prouibiting said railroad com- panies from entering into agreements for the joint carriage of through traffic, including the making of through rates, and the running of through cars or trains, as well as the granting of running rights by the one company to the other, and the making of other operating and traffic arrangements, such as can legally be made between connecting, independent railroad corporations operating under separate manage- ments. And the defendant corporations, their respective officers, directors, agents, servants and employees, and the individual defendants, Jacob H. Schiff, Otto H. Kahn, and James Stillman, are enjoined and prohibited from entering into any like combination to that above described, the effect of which is or may be to restrain commerce among the states or with foreign nations in violation of the act of July 2 1890, by any of the means aforesaid. Sua. 11. And said defendant Oregon Short Line Railroad Company is hereby further enjoined from selling, assigning, transferring, mortgaging or pledging any of the said stock of the Southern Pacific Company, or any certificate of interest in the stock of the last-named company, to any person or corporation except as may be authorized by this court. And the defendant Southern Pacific Company, its officers, directors, agents, and servants, and each and every one of them, are enjoined from recognizing as valid any transfer, mortgage, pledge or assignment by said Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, of the said shares of stock of said 916 UNITED STATES UV. UNION PACIFIC R. CO. Southern Pacific Company, unless the same shall be author- ized by this court. Sec. 12. That nothing in this decree contained shall be considered as preventing the Government, or any party to this suit, from presenting to this Court, plans for the acquisition or control by the Union Pacific Railroad Com- pany of the Central Pacific Railway Company, or of its line of railroad, so far and to such extent as shall be approved by this Court. Any such plan or plans shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court within three months from the 12th day of February, 1913. Sec. 18. The complainant herein is hereby granted leave at any time, by motion or by supplemental or amended bill, or petition, as it may be advised, to make and bring in any additional parties, and the Clerk of this Court is directed to issue all the necessary and appropriate process to that end. Sec. 14. That as directed by the said Supreme Court of the United States, the said defendants may present to this court plans for the disposition of the stock of said Southern Pacific Company, so held by said Oregon Short Line Rail- road Company, within three months from the 12th day of February, 1913, the date of the filing of the mandate in this court; and the court, upon the presentation of such plans will hear the complainant and defendants and will bring in any additional parties whose presence may be found neces- sary to a final disposition of the stock in conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court. In the event that de- fendants shall fail to present such plans within said time, or upon the rejection by the court of the plans submitted within such time, this court will take such steps relative to a disposition of such stock as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this decree, jurisdiction of the cause being retained for that purpose. Sec. 15. The bill of complaint is hereby dismissed as to the defendants, the San Pedro, Los Angeles and Salt Lake Railroad Company; the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company; Northern Pacific Railway Company; Great Northern Railway Company; The Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company; Henry C. Frick, William A. Clark. and Robert S. Lovett, as trustees. UNITED STATES UV, UNION PACIFIC R. CO. 217 Sec. 16. That the complainant, United States of America, have and recover from the defendants, the Union Pacific Railroad Company, the Oregon Short Line Railroad Com- pany, the Oregon Railroad and Navigation Company, Jacob H. Schiff, Otto H. Kahn and James Stillman, its costs and disbursements to be taxed by the court. Watrer H. Sanporn, W. C. Hoox, Wauter I. Surra, United States Circuit Judges. Dated February 12, 1913. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH. Tue Unirep States or AMERICA, COMPLAINANT, vs. Tue Union Pacrric Rattroap Company ; THE OrEGON SHORT Lint Rarroap Company; THe Orecon Ramroap & Navi- GATION Company; THE San Pepro, Los Ancrizes & Sat Lake Rarroap’ Company; Tue Arcuison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ramway Company; THe SouTHern Paciric Company; Nortnern Paciric Ramway Company; Great NorTtHern Rattway Company; Farmers’ Loan & Trust Company; Jacop H. Scurr; Orro H. Kaun; James Srmutman; Henry C. Frick; Wiii1am A. Cuark; Roperr S. Loverr, as Trusres; Centrau Paciric Rarpway Com- PANY AND SOUTHERN Paciric Ramroap Company, Ds- FENDANTS. FINAL DECREE, Whereas the above cause was determined by a decree of this court entered June 24, 1911, dismissing the bill, from which complainant appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which, in an opinion delivered December 2, 1912, reversed the decree of this court and issued its man- -date filed herein February 12, 19138, remanding the cause with instructions to enter a decree and for further proceed- ings in conformity with its opinion, which opinion directed, among other things, that disposition of the shares of capital stock of the defendant Southern Pacific Company found to have been unlawfully acquired by the defendant Oregon 918 UNITED STATES UV, UNION PACIFIC R. CO. Short Line Railroad Company in the interest of the defend- ant Union Pacific Railroad Company— shall be made subject to the approval and decree of the District Court, and any plan for the disposition of this stock must be such as to effectually dissolve the unlawful combination thus created ; and further that— The court shall proceed, upon the presentation of any plan, to hear the Government and defendants and may bring in any additional parties whose presence may be necessary to a final disposition of the stock in conformity to the views herein expressed. * * * * * And any plan or plans shall be presented to the District Court within three months from the receipt of the mandate of this court, failing which, or upon the rejection by the court of plans submitted within such time, the court shall proceed by receivership and sale, if necessary, to dispose of such stock in such wise as to dissolve such unlawful combination. And whereas thereupon, on February 12, 1918, this court entered a decree adjudging that the shares of the defendant Southern Pacific Company held by the defendant Oregon Short Line Railroad Company were acquired by virtue of an unlawful combination to restrain trade and commerce and enjoining the defendants Union Pacific Railroad Com- pany and Oregon Short Line Railroad Company and their agents from voting or receiving dividends in respect thereof, and providing further, amongst other things, as follows: Src. 14. That as directed by the said Supreme Court of the United States, the said defendants may present to this court plans for the disposition of the stock of said Southern Pacific Company, so held by said Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, within three months from the 12th day of February, 1913, the date of the filing of the mandate in this court; and the court, upon the presentation of such plans, will hear the complainant and defendants and will bring in any additional parties whose presence may be found necessary to a final disposition of the stock in conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court. In the event that defendants shall fail to present such plans within said time, or upon the rejection by the court of the plans submitted within such time, this court will take such fur- ther steps relative to a disposition of such stock as may be necessary” to carry out the provisions of this decree, jurisdiction of the cause being retained for that purpose. And whereas on February 12, 1913, the defendants Union Pacific Railroad Company and Oregon Short Line Railroad UNITED STATES UV, UNION PACIFICO R. CO. 219 Company presented a plan for the disposition of the said. shares which had been approved by the Attorney General of the United States but which was withdrawn before action thereon because of the failure of the railroad commission of the State of California to approve certain features thereof within its jurisdiction; ‘And whereas thereafter, with the consent of the Attorney General, the time within which to present plans was extended by the Supreme Court until July 1, 1918; And whereas on June 5, 1913, the defendants Union Pacific Railroad Company and Oregon Short Line Railroad filed herein a petition submitting (1) a First Amended Plan, in substance providing for the disposition of said shares by a public subscription offering at prices and upon terms to be fixed by said defendants and with certain limitations upon the right of Union Pacific stockholders to subscribe; and (2) a Second Amended Plan, in substance providing for the transfer of said shares to a trustee and for the offering of the trustee’s non-voting certificates of interest therein, upon terms fixed by said defendants, to Union Pacific stock- holders or their assignees for subscription, which certificates of interest should be exchangeable for Southern Pacific shares upon affidavit that the applicant for such exchange owned no Union Pacific Railroad Company stock;. And whereas on June 12, 1913, the said defendants filed a petition supplementing their First Amended Plan and Second Amended Plan aforesaid by a proposal to sell to the Pennsylvania Railroad Company 382,924 shares of the Southern Pacific Company in exchange for 425,472 shares of The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company ; And whereas, by petition filed herein June 30, 1918, the said defendants withdrew all of the plans recited in the petitions then pending before the court and submitted their third amended plan; And whereas complainant has filed an answer to said petition submitting said third amended plan; Now, therefore, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed: Section 1. Said third amended plan is hereby approved in so far, and only so far, as its provisions are embodied in this decree. 920 UNITED STATES VU. UNION PACIFIC R. CO. Section 2. The defendants Union Pacific Railroad Com- pany and Oregon Short Line Railroad Company having asked permission to sell to the Pennsylvania Railroad Com- pany 382,924 of the said shares of the capital stock of the defendant Southern Pacific Company, of the par value of $38,292,400, and to accept in exchange 425,472 shares (half preferred and half common) of the capital stock of The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, of the par value of $42,547,200 (being all the stock of said company owned or controlled by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company or any of its subsidiaries), and it appearing that such sale or exchange would be a substantial step toward the effectual dissolution of the particular combination now before the court, it is hereby approved and leave is granted to effect the same: Provided, however, That neither such approval and leave nor anything contained in this decree shall ever be taken or construed as affecting the obligations, powers, rights, or duties under present or future laws of any person or corporation not a party to this cause, nor be taken or con- strued as an adjudication that any defendant herein has the right to acquire or hold the shares of stocks so sold or ex- changed, nor as an exemption of any defendant in respect of such acquisition or holding from the operation of any law now in force or which may hereafter be enacted. In the event of such sale immediate delivery shall be made of the said 382,924 shares of the defendant Southern Pacific Company, which is hereby directed to cause them to be trans- ferred on its stock books to the Pennsylvania Railroad Com- pany, upon presentation of the certificates therefor duly as- signed, and thereupon to pay to the defendant Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, on demand, the dividends apper- taining to said shares hereotfore declared and payable April 1 and July 1, 1913, respectively; and the transaction shall be reported to the court within 30 days from the date hereof. Secrion 3. The Central Trust Company of New York, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, and hereinafter called the Trustee, hav- ing declared its submission to the jurisdiction of this court for all purposes of this cause, and having entered its ap- pearance herein by counsel, is made a party hereto; and said Central Trust Company of New York is hereby appointed UNITED STATES UV, UNION PACIFIC R. CO. 221 to receive and hold, as the custodian and depositary of this court, subject to the provisions of this decree and to the further orders and decrees of the court herein, all shares of the capital stock of defendant Southern Pacific Company which shall be transferred to it as hereinafter provided. Section 4. The shares of the defendant Southern Pacific Company held by the defendant Oregon Short Line Railroad Company remaining after the sale to the Pennsylvania Rail- road Company of 382,924 shares thereof as hereinabove provided, to wit, 883,576 shares, or the entire holdings if such sale to the Pennsylvania Railroad Company shall not be consummated within 30 days from the date hereof, shall be transferred forthwith to the Trustee and registered in its name on the books of the Southern Pacific Company, and certificates therefor delivered to the Trustee. The defendants Union Pacific Railroad Company and Oregon Short Line Railroad Company shall assign or cause to be assigned to the Trustee all dividends appertaining to the shares so transferred which shall have been declared and shall be then or thereafter payable to the defendant Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, or the individuals holding in its behalf, as the registered stockholders entitled to such dividends. Such dividends, hereinafter designated as the “accumulated dividends,” shall be collected by the Trustee and held and distributed upon the terms and conditions here- inafter provided. Secrion 5. Prior to November 1, 1918, the defendants Union Pacific Railroad Company and Oregon Short Line Railroad Company shall offer to all stockholders of the for- mer, common and preferred (registered as such on a date to be designated in the offer and not more than 40 days from its date) or to their assignees, the right to subscribe for cer- tificates of interest representing the said Southern Pacific Company shares transferred to the Trustee as provided here- under, substantially in the proportion of their respective holdings, with such allowance in fixing the distribution ratio as the above-named defendants may deem necessary for possible conversions of convertible bonds of the said Union Pacific Railroad Company. The offering shall include all accumulated dividends appertaining to said shares, and shall be at such price and upon such other terms as the defend- 222 UNITED STATES V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO. ants Union Pacific Railroad Company and Oregon Short Line Railroad Company shall determine, except as specifi- cally herein prescribed or as otherwise directed by the court by a subsequent order or decree. The subscription price shall be payable at the time of the subscription, or, at the option of the subscriber, $25 per share at the time of subscription and the balance within one year thereafter, with interest on such balance at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The subscriptions shall be filed with the Trustee. Neither of the defendants Union Pacific Railroad Com- pany or Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, nor any corporation controlled by either, nor any person acting in the interest of either, shall acquire by purchase or otherwise any of said certificates of interest. The defendants Union Pacific Railroad Company and Oregon Short Line Railroad Company may cause the sale of said certificates of interest upon such subscription offer to be underwritten, the underwriters to agree to purchase any certificates, or such an amount thereof as shall be des- ignated in the underwriting agreement, not subscribed for pursuant to the offer. Srcrion 6. The Trustee shall execute and issne certificates of interest representing the shares transferred to it here- under and shall deliver them at its office in the city of New York to the subscribers therefor under section 5 hereof, upon payment in full of the subscription price and compliance in all respects with the terms prescribed by the offering, or by any subscription receipt issued under section 7 hereof, to be performed by the subscribers to éntitle them to receive such certificates of interest; and in like manner shall deliver such certificates of interest upon full payment therefor to any other purchasers to whom the defendants Union Pacific Railroad Company and Oregon Short Line Railroad Com- pany shall be authorized by the court to sell the same. All such certificates shall be registered by the Trustee in the names of the purchasers. They shall be substantially in the form hereto annexed marked “ Form A.” Section 7. The Trustee shall issue part-paid subscription receipts to all subscribers who shall elect to defer payment of the balance of the subscription price, upon payment of UNITED STATES UV, UNION PACIFIO R. CO. 223 the aforesaid initial installment thereof and due compliance in all other respects with the terms prescribed by the offering to be performed by the subscribers at the time of the sub- scription; and in like manner shall deliver such subscription receipts, upon payment of such initial installment of the purchase price, to any other purchasers to whom defendants Union Pacific Railroad Company and Oregon Short Line Railroad Company shall be authorized by the court to sell the said certificates of interest. All such subscription re- ceipts shall be registered by the Trustee in the names of the purchasers. They shall be substantially in the form hereto annexed marked “ Form B.” Section 8. The certificates of interest and subscription receipts issued hereunder may be in the denominations of 1 share, 10 shares, 50 shares, 100 shares and such other denominations as the Trustee shall elect. The certificates of interest and subscription receipts shall be executed on behalf of the Trustee by such officer of the Trustee in the city of New York, or by such agent in London, England, as it shall authorize thereunto, and such certificates of interest may be countersigned by a trust company in the city of New York as registrar. Secrion 9. The Trustee shall, if so requested by the regis- tered owner of any subscription receipt issued hereunder and then outstanding, by application in writing presented at its office in the city of New York not less than 10 days prior to any annual or special stockholders’ meeting of the Southern Pacific Company, execute and deliver to such reg- istered owner, or to his nominee, a proxy appointing such attorneys, agents and proxies, as such registered owner shall nominate in his said application, to appear and vote at such stockholders’ meeting upon the number of shares represented by said subscription receipt, for the election of directors and upon any other business transacted at such meeting: Pro- vided, however, that as a condition precedent to the issue of such proxy the applicant shall file with the Trustee at its said office, on or before the tenth day preceding such meet- ing, an affidavit executed as hereinafter in section 11 hereof prescribed, and in one of the forms referred to in said section 11, except that said affidavit shall refer to and de- scribe a subscription receipt (or receipts) owned by said 224 UNITED STATES UV. UNION PACIFIC RB. CO. applicant, instead of certificates of interest, and that there shall be substituted in the form of said affidavit for the words “for the purpose of procuring the issue of shares of the capital stock of the Southern Pacific Company held by said Trustee, in exchange for said certificate (or certificates) of interest” the words “for the purpose of procuring the issue of a proxy to vote upon the shares of the capital stock of the Southern Pacific Company held by said Trustee rep- resented by the subscription receipt (or receipts) above de- scribed”: And provided further, that the applicant for such proxy shall at the close of business on the tenth day preceding said meeting be registered on the books of the Trustee as the owner of the subscription receipt (or receipts) upon which such application is based. The Trustee shall not be entitled to vote or issue proxies for voting in respect of any of the said shares of defendant Southern Pacific Company except as in this section provided or as may be hereafter directed by the court. Section 10. So long as any of the shares of the capital stock of the Southern Pacific Company aforesaid shall be held by the Trustee, the Trustee shall collect and receive any and all cash dividends, declared by the Southern Pacific Company, appertaining to the shares so held, which shall be payable to the Trustee, as the registered stockholder en- titled to such dividends by the terms of the declarations thereof. Upon the conversion pursuant to section 11 hereof of any certificate of interest issued hereunder into a certificate for shares of capital stock of the Southern Pacific Company held by the Trustee, the latter shall pay in cash to the owner of the certificate of interest so converted or upon his order the amount of all cash dividends collected by it, in- cluding the aforesaid accumulated dividends, appertaining to the number of shares represented by such certificate of interest, but without interest thereon, and shall execute and deliver to such owner or upon his order a dividend order or assignment for the amount of any unmatured dividends de- clared in respect of such shares which shall be vested at the time of such conversion in the Trustee as the registered stockholder entitled thereto. Any interest realized or al- UNITED STATES UV, UNION PACIFIC R. CO. 225 lowed by the Trustee upon funds paid to it as dividends shall be applicable to the payment of the compensation of the Trustee and the expenses of the administration of the trust, and any balance thereof remaining shall be paid to the defendant Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, unless otherwise ordered bv the court. All dividends payable otherwise than in cash which shall be declared by the Southern Pacific Company shall be re- ceived and held by the Trustee for the pro rata benefit of said registered owners, from time to time, of the certificates of interest issued hereunder and outstanding, upon the same terms and conditions as the shares originally deposited, and shall be distributed to the persons who shall be the respec- tive owners of certificates of interest when and as, and only when and as, the shares originally deposited are distrib- uted to them respectively, subject to any necessary adjust- ment by scrip or otherwise, in the discretion of the Trustee, in respect of fractional shares. All subscription or other rights offered to stockholders of the Southern Pacific Com- pany shall be immediately assigned by the Trustee pro rata to said registered owners of the certificates of interest and subscription receipts issued hereunder and then outstanding, who shall be such registered owners at the date when such rights become fixed. No deduction shall be made by the Trustee in the distri- bution of such dividends or increase for any commissions or expenses of the Trustee or other cost of collection or pay- ment. Secrion 11. At any time upon demand, at its office in the city of New York, upon surrender of any outstanding cer- tificate of interest by the registered owner thereof or his assignee, the Trustee shall deliver to him stock certificates for the number of shares of the defendant Southern Pacific Company (of the par value of $100 each) represented by the surrendered certificate of interest, which stock certifi- cates shall be issued by the said Southern Pacific Company and registered on its books in the name of the new holder, upon condition, however, that the applicant for such conver- sion or exchange shall file with the Trustee a duly executed affidavit in one of the forms hereto annexed. 58556—18——17 226 UNITED STATES V. UNION PACIFIC RB. CO. The affidavit in the case of an individual applying for such conversion or exchange in his own right shall be sub- stantially in the form annexed hereto marked “ Form C.” If the applicant is a corporation or joint-stock company, the affidavit shall be executed by its president, vice presi- dent, controller, secretary, or treasurer, or, in the case of a corporation of a foreign country, by one of its managing officers, and shall be substantially in the form annexed hereto marked “ Form D.” If the applicant is a partnership the affidavit shall be executed by one of the partners and shall be substantially in the form annexed hereto marked “ Form E.” If the applicant is an executor, administrator, guardian, or testamentary or other trustee of an express trust the affidavit shall be made by such executor, administrator, guardian, or trustee, as the case may be, or by one of such if the application is made on behalf of joint representatives, or, if such representative is a corporation or joint-stock company, by its president, vice president, controller, secre- tary, or treasurer, or, in the case of a corporation of a for- eign country, by one of its managing officers, and shall be substantially in the form annexed hereto marked “ Form F.” Provided, however, that whenever the number of shares of capital stock of the defendant Southern Pacific Company held by the Trustee hereunder shall be reduced by the con- version of certificates of interest as provided in this section to 500 shares, it shall be the duty of the Trustee thereupon to distribute such remaining shares pro rata amongst the registered owners of the then outstanding certificates of in- terest, or their assignees, upon the surreader of such certifi- cates of interest, without requiring the affidavits hereinabove provided for. All certificates of interest surrendered pursuant to con- versions or exchanges effected under this section shall forth- with be canceled by the Trustee and shail not be reissued. Within thirty (30) days after the conversion of certificates of interest as herein provided shall have commenced, and at monthly intervals thereafter, the Trustee shall file with the clerk of the court a report showing the aggregate amount of certificates of interest converted since the last previous UNITED STATES UV. UNION PACIFIC RB. CO. 227 report of the Trustee and the names of all persons, firms, or corporations to whom shares of stock of the Southern Pacific Company shall have been issued pursuant to every such con- version involving more than one hundred (100) shares; and from time to time upon the request of the Attorney General of the United States the Trustee shall furnish him with any information which he may require relating to the carrying out of this decree. Section 12. The Trustee shall keep at an office maintained by it in the city of New York books for the registration and transfer of the certificates of interest xnd subscription re- ceipts issued hereunder. Provision may be made by the Trustee for the registration and transfer of subscription re- ceipts and certificates of interest in London, England. Upon the surrender of any such certificate of interest or subscrip- tion receipt duly assigned for transfer and the payment of any stamp tax required by law, the Trustee shall issue to the transferee one or more new certificates of interest or subscription receipts for a like number of shares and shall cancel the surrendered certificate of interest or subscription receipt. , The Trustee may treat the person in whose name shall be registered any certificate of interest or subscription receipt, as hereinbefore provided, as the absolute owner thereof and shall not be affected by any notice to the contrary; and also in order to enable it to effectuate the true intent of this decree the Trustee (so far as consistent with the provisions hereof) may decide all matters of detail in respect of the form of subscription receipts or certificates of interest and the arrangements necessary for their issue and transfer. The Trustee shall be accountable for its action hereunder only in proceedings in this cause, and any order of the court entered upon notice to it and to the defendants Union Pacific Railroad Company and Oregon Short Line Railroad Company shall be full protection to the Trustee for any action which it may take pursuant thereto, and any action so taken by the Trustee shall be binding upon all holders of subscription receipts and certificates of interest. The Trustee shall not be liable to anyone for deferring to take any action until instructed by the court. 228 UNITED STATES V, UNION PACIFIC R. CO. In case any certificate of interest or subscription receipt issued hereunder shall become mutilated or be destroyed, the Trustee, in its discretion, may issue a new certificate of in- terest or subscription receipt of the same denomination in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of such mutilated certificate of interest or subscription receipt, or in lieu of and substitution for the same if destroyed. In case of destruction, the applicant for a substituted certificate of interest or subscription receipt shall furnish to the Trustee evidence of such destruction to the satisfaction of the Trustee in its discretion, and such reasonable indemnity as the Trustee shall require. Secrion 13. From time to time the Trustee shall pay over to the defendant Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, or to.its order, upon demand, when and as received by it, the moneys received by it in payment of, or on account of, subscriptions or purchases as hereinbefore provided, and it shall not be liable for any loss of such moneys unless incurred through its gross negligence or willful misconduct. Section 14. The Trustee shall be entitled to reasonable compensation, the amount thereof to be approved by the court, for all services rendered by it hereunder, which com- pensation, together with counsel fees and other expenses in- curred hereunder and approved by the court, and all stamp and other taxes imposed by law upon the transfer of the shares of the Southern Pacific Company from the Trustee to the holders of certificates of interest, shall be paid by the defendants Union Pacific Railroad Company and Oregon Short Line Railroad Company. Sxcrion 15. The defendant Southern Pacific Company is hereby authorized and directed from time to time to make any transfers upon its stock books of the aforesaid shares of its capital stock held by the defendant Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, or its nominees, and to make all payments of dividends, contemplated by the provisions of this decree or necessary or appropriate in the performance thereof. Section 16. Nothing in this decree nor in that entered February 12, 1913, shall be construed as prohibiting the de- fendant Union Pacific Railroad Company from acquiring at UNITED STATES UV, UNION PACIFIC R. CO, 229 any time the capital stock or the railroads and other prop- erty of the defendant Central Pacific Railway Company. Secrion 17. If, at any time after January 1, 1916, any of such certificates of interest shall remain outstanding, the court, in its discretion, after a hearing upon such notice to holders of certificates of interest as it may direct, may order the shares of the Southern Pacific Company represented by said certificates to be sold and the proceeds distributed to the registered owner or owners of such certificate or cer- tificates. oa Section 18. The Trustee is hereby authorized to treat all funds on deposit hereunder as general deposits and to allow interest thereon. 5 Louis C. Krauthoff, Esquire, of New York City, is ap- pointed commissioner for the court to see to it that the letter and spirit of this plan of dissolution is carried out and is directed to report to the court from time to time. Section 19. The Trustee shall be subject to removal by the court in its discretion, and, in the event of such removal, the court shall appoint another Trustee. Secrion 20. Any party to this cause may make applica- tion to the court at any time for such further orders and directions as may be necessary or proper in relation to the carrying out of the provisions of this decree, or in relation to the disposition of the unlawfully held shares of the de- fendant Southern Pacific Company; and jurisdiction thereof is retained for the purpose of giving full effect to this decree and the decree herein entered on February 12, 1913, and for the purpose of making such other and further orders and decrees or taking such other action, if any, as may be- come necessary or appropriate to carry out and enforce said decrees and the directions of the Supreme Court. Watter H. Sanzorn, Wuuiam C. Hoox, Waurer I. Smite, United States Circuit Judges. June 380, 1913. 230 UNITED STATES UV. UNION PACIFIC R. CO. Form A. INOMsceeeeesee ee ee Shares. CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST IN Souruern Paciric Company STocg. This is to certify that the undersigned (hereinafter des- ignated as the “Trustee”) has received and now holds for or assigns, certificates rep- resenting shares of the capital stock of the Southern Pacific Company, a corporation of the State of Kentucky, of the par value of $100 each, subject to the terms of a decree entered the day of June, 1913, by the District Court of the United States for the District of Utah, in the suit of the United States of America against Union Pacific Railroad Company and others, to which de- cree reference is hereby made for a statement of the terms and conditions upon which this certificate is issued and of the rights of the holder hereof, and to which decree the holder of this certificate assents by acceptance hereof. This certificate is one of a series of certificates issued by the undersigned in accordance with the terms of the said decree, representing in the aggregate not exceeding shares of the capital stock of said Southern Pacific Com- pany. The registered owner hereof, or his assigns, is entitled, upon the surrender of this certificate and upon filing with the Trustee an affidavit in the form required by section 11 of said decree (to the effect, in substance, that the applicant does not own any shares of the capital stock of the Union Pacific Railroad Company and is not acting for or on behalf of any stockholder of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, or in concert, agreement, or understanding with any other person, firm, or corporation for the control of the Southern Pacific Company in the interest of the Union Pacific Rail- road Company, but in his own behalf in good faith), to receive a stock certificate for the number of shares of the capital stock of said Southern Pacific Company represented UNITED STATES UV. UNION PACIFIO R. CO. 231 by this certificate and to receive the amount of all dividends (but without interest thereon) appertaining to the number of shares represented by this certificate declared and payable by the Southern Pacific Company after the 2d day of Janu- ary, 1918, and collected and received by the Trustee prior to such conversion, and also to receive a dividend order or assignment executed by the Trustee for any declared but unmatured dividend appertaining to said shares which shall be vested, at the time of such conversion, in the Trustee as the registered holder of said shares. All subscription or other rights offered by the Southern Pacific Company apper- taining to the shares represented by this certificate will be assigned to the registered owner hereof, as provided in said decree. This certificate is transferable by the registered owner hereof, in person or by his duly authorized attorney, at the office of the Trustee in the city of New York, upon surrender and cancellation hereof; and thereupon one or more new certificates for a like number of shares will be issued to the transferee in exchange therefor. This certificate is not valid until countersigned by the registrar. In witness whereof, , as Trustee, has caused this certificate to be executed by one of its vice presidents and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed and to be attested by one of its assistant secretaries this day of , 191 Trus tee. By Vice President. Attest: Assistant Secretary Countersigned : ’ ij es FORM OF ASSIGNMENT. For value received the undersigned hereby sells, assigns, and transfers unto the interest in Southern Pa- cific Company shares and dividends thereon represented by 232 UNITED STATES UV. UNION PACIFIC R. CO. the within certificate and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint attorney to transfer the same on the books of the Trustee, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated In the presence of— Form B. No. -_---_-_-__- Supscrierion ReEcerer FOR CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST IN SOUTHERN Paciric COMPANY Stock. This is to certify that the undersigned (hereinafter des- ignated as the “'Trustee””) has received payment of the first installment of twenty-five dollars ($25) per share of the subscription price ($ per share) of certificates of inter- est in shares of the capital stock of the Southern Pacific Company, of the par value of $100 per share, and that , or assigns, will be entitled to receive a fully paid certificate of interest for said shares, at the office of the un- dersigned in the city of New York, upon the surrender of this receipt and the payment of the balance of said subscrip- tion price, on or prior to the day of , 1914, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum to the date of payment. Failure to pay the said deferred balance of the subscrip- tion price, with the interest thereon, on the day of , 1914, will operate as a forfeiture of all rights in respect of the subscription and the installment previously paid. The undersigned has received and will hold, until default in the payment of the principal or interest of the deferred balance of the said subscription price, for the above-named subscriber, or assigns, stock certificates representing the UNITED STATES UV. UNION PACIFIC R. CO. 238 number of shares above specified of the capital stock of the Southern Pacific Company; subject to the terms of a decree entered the day of June, 1918, by the District Court of the United States for the District of Utah, in the suit of the United States of America against Union Pacific Rail- road Company and others, to which decree reference is hereby made for a statement of the terms and conditions upon which this subscription receipt is issued and of the rights of the holder hereof, and to which decree the holder hereof assents by acceptance hereof. All dividends, appertaining to the number of shares above specified, declared and payable by the Southern Pacific Com- pany after the second day of January, 1913, will be collected by the Trustee, and paid over (but without interest thereon) to the holder of a fully paid certificate of interest for said shares, upon the conversion of such certificate of interest into said shares of the capital stock of the Southern Pacific Company pursuant to the provisions of said decree. This subscription receipt is transferable by the registered owner hereof, in person or by his duly authorized attorney, at the office of the Trustee in the city of New York or at its office or agency in London, England, upon surrender and cancellation hereof; and thereupon one or more new sub- scription receipts for a like number of shares will be issued to the transferee in exchange herefor. ; The registered owner hereof is entitled, at any time not less than 10 days prior to the annual stockholders’ meeting of the Southern Pacific Company held on the Wednesday follow- ing the first Monday of April in each year, and not less than 10 days prior to any special stockholders’ meeting of said company, to require the Trustee to execute and deliver to such registered owner, or his nominee, a proxy appointing such attorneys, agents, and proxies as the registered owner hereof shall nominate in writing, to appear and vote at such stockholders’ meeting upon the number of shares represented by this subscription receipt, for the election of directors and upon any other business transacted at such meeting: Pro- vided, however, that such registered owner shall file with the Trustee, at its office in the city of New York, on or before the tenth day preceding such meeting, an affidavit in the 234 UNITED STATES V. UNION PACIFIC RB. CO. form required by sections 9 and 11 of said decree (to the effect in substance that the registered owner hereof does not own any shares of the capital stock of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, and is not acting for or on behalf of any stockholder of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, or in concert, agreement, or understanding with any other person, firm, or corporation for the control of the Southern Pacific Company in the interest of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, but in his own behalf in good faith); And pro- vided, further, that the applicant for such proxy shall at the close of business on the tenth day preceding said meet- ing be registered on the books of the Trustee as the owner of this subscription receipt. This subscription receipt shall not be valid for any pur- pose unless signed on behalf of the Trustee by one of its officers or by its agent in London. In witness whereof, as Trustee, has caused this certificate of interest to be executed in its behalf this day of , 19138. ? Trustee. ee FORM OF ASSIGNMENT. For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns, and transfers unto this subscription receipt and the interest represented thereby in shares of the capital stock of Southern Pacific Company, and dividends thereon, and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint attorney to transfer the same on the books of the Trustee, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated ; In the presence of— UNITED STATES UV. UNION PACIFIC R. CO. 235 Form C. STATE oF , County of being duly sworn deposes and says: That deponent is the bona fide owner in his own proper right of a certificate or certificates of interest numbered for shares registered in the name of , issued by the Central Trust Company, of New York, as Trustee, under a decree entered on the day of June, 1913, by the Dis- trict Court of the United States for the District of Utah, in the suit of the United States of America against Union Pacific Railroad Company and others, and makes this affi- davit for the purpose of procuring the issue of shares of the capital stock of the Southern Pacific Company held by said Trustee, in exchange for said certificate (or certificates) of interest. That deponent does not own in his (or her) own right any shares of the capital stock of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation of the State of Utah, whether registered in his (or her) own name on the books of said Union Pacific Railroad Company or registered in the names of others for deponent’s use and benefit. That deponent, in making this application, is not acting for or on behalf of any stockholder of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, or in concert, agreement, or understanding with any other person, firm, or corporation for the control of the Southern Pacific Company in the interest of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, but in his own behalf in good faith. Sworn to before me this day of g AOL Form D. STATE oF , County of 88s , being duly sworn, deposes and says: That he is of the ; a corporation (or a joint stock company), hereinafter called the “Applicant.” That said applicant is the dona fide owner in its own proper right of a certificate or certificates of interest numbered for shares, registered in the name of , issued by the Central Trust Company of New York, as Trustee, under a decree entered on the day of June, 236 UNITED STATES V. UNION PACIFIC RB. CO. 1918, by the District Court of the United States for the District of Utah, in the suit of the United States of America against Union Pacific Railroad Company and others, and that deponent makes this affidavit for the purpose of pro- curing the issue of shares of the capital stock of the Southern Pacific Company held by said Trustee, in exchange for said certificate (or certificates) of interest. That said applicant does not own in its own right any shares of the capital stock of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation of the State of Utah, whether registered in its own name on the books of said Union Pacific Railroad Company or regis- tered in the names of others for said applicant’s use and benefit. That said applicant, in making this application, is not acting for or on behalf of any stockholder of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, or in concert, agreement, or understanding with any other person, firm, or corporation for the control of the Southern Pacific Company in the interest of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, but in its own behalf in good faith. Sworn to before me this day of , 191. Form FE. STATE OF , County of » 88s being duly sworn, deposes and says: That he is a member of the partnership of , herein- after called the “Applicants”; that said applicants are the bona fide owners in their own proper right of a certificate or certificates of interest numbered for shares, registered in the name of , issued by the Central Trust Company of New York, as Trustee, under a decree entered on the day of June, 1913, by the District Court of the United States for the District of Utah, in the suit of the United States of America against Union Pacific Railroad Company and others, and deponent makes this affidavit for the purpose of procuring the issue of shares of the capital stock of the Southern Pacific Company held by said Trustee in exchange for said certificate (or certificates) of interest. That said applicants do not own in their own right any shares of the capital stock of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation of the State of Utah, whether registered in UNITED STATES V. UNION PACIFIC R. OO. 237 the applicants’ own name on the books of said Union Pacific Railroad Company or registered in the names of others for their use and benefit. That said applicants, in making this application, are not acting for or on behalf of any stock- holder of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, or in con- cert, agreement, or understanding with any other person, firm, or corporation for the control of the Southern Pacific Company in the interest of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, but in their own behalf in good faith. Sworn to before me this day of , 191. Form F. STATE OF » County of » 88s being duly sworn, deposes and says: That he is of That the trust estate repre- sented by deponent is the dona fide owner in its own proper right of a certificate or certificates of interest numbered for shares, registered in the name of : issued by the Central Trust Company of New York, as Trustee, under a decree entered on the day of June, 1913, by the District Court of the United States for the District of Utah, in the suit of the United States against Union Pacific Railroad Company and others. That depo- nent makes this affidavit for the purpose of procuring the issue of shares of the capital stock of the Southern Pacific Company held by said Trustee, in exchange for said certifi- cate (or certificates) of interest. That said trust estate does aot own any shares of the capital stock of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation of the State of Utah, whether registered in the name of said trust estate on the books of said Union Pacific Railroad Company or regis- tered in the names of others for the use and benefit of said trust estate. That said trust estate, in making this applica- tion, is not acting for or on behalf of any stockholder of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, or in concert, agree- ment, or understanding with any other person, firm, or cor- poration for the control of the Southern Pacific Company in the interest of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, but in its own behalf in good faith. Sworn to before me this day of , 191 UNITED STATES v. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HART- FORD R. R. CO. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. In Equity. No. 483. Tue Unrrep Srares or America, COMPLAINANT, vs. Tue New Yorn, New Haven & Harrrorp Ramroap Com- PANY, Boston & Maine Ramroap, THe ConsonipatTep Ramway Company, anp THe Ruopve Istanp Company, DEFENDANTS. DISCONTINUANCE. And now comes the United States of America, the com- plainant in the above entitled cause, by Asa P. French, its Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, acting under the direction of the Attorney General, and discontinues said suit as to each and all of the several defendants. Untrep Srates or AMERICA. By its attorney, Asa P. FrRencH. [June 26, 1909.] 239 UNITED STATES v. NATIONAL PACKING CO. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. [Chancery Journal, December Term, 1910. Tuesday, December 27, 1910.] Unrrep States or AMERICA Vs. Nationan Pacwine Company ET AL. Kouxsaat, J. This cause coming on to be heard upon the discontinuance filed in the above entitled suit by the petitioner herein and upon the motion of the solicitors for the petitioner for the entry of an order dismissing the above entitled suit at the costs of said petitioner and without prejudice, and it appear- ing to the court that all costs have been paid herein by saic petitioner, it is Ordered, adjudged and decreed that said suit be, and the same is hereby, dismissed without prejudice. It is further ordered that if the said defendants, or any or either of them desire to show cause to the court why this order of dismissal should be set aside and this cause rein- stated, they shall do so at the opening of court at the hour of ten o’clock in the forenoon, on Wednesday, December 28th, 1910, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard; and that a copy of this order be served upon the solicitors of record of the defendants before the hour of four o’clock p. m. today. 241 58556-—18——18 UNITED STATES v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RY. CO. IN THD CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DIVISION OF THH EASTERN JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. No. 5839. Unrivep Staves or America, COMPLAINANT, vs. Tue Missourt Paciric Ramway Company ET AL, Dr- FENDANTS. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. The United States, by Frederick N. Judson and Edwin P. Grosvenor, Special Assistants to the Attorney-General, having applied for a temporary restraining order, restrain- ing the defendants from enforcing, effecting or making the advances in interstates rates as set out in Supplement No. 2 to Interstate Commerce Commission Tariff No. A-115, on the ground that said advances have been arrived at by the defendants herein by agreement with each other and with- out competition and in violation of the Act of July 2, 1890, called the Sherman Anti-trust Act, and that the enforce- ment of said advances will be a further violation of said statute, and, It appearing that unless such a restraining order be issued said advances will become effective June 1, 1910, to the grave harm and injury of the people of the said United States, and, Said counsel for the United States having stated that they would immediately upon the filing of this temporary restraining order, by direction of the Attorney-General, file an expediting certificate under the Act of Feb. 11, 1903, providing for a speedy determiantion of the issues herein. Now, on reading and filing the affidavit of said Edwin P. Grosvenor and exhibits thereto and the affidavit of John M. Jones and exhibits thereto and pursuant to the provisions of Section 4 of said Act of July 2, 1890, 243 244 UNITED STATES U. MISSOURI PAOIFIC RY. CO. It is ordered that the defendants, The Missouri Pacific Railway Company, Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, The Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, The Wabash Railroad Company, Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, Illinois Central Railroad Company, The Chicago & Alton Railroad Company, The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company, Chicago Great Western Railway Company. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company, St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company, Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City Railroad Company, St. Paul & Des Moines Railroad Company, The Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company, Iowa Central Railway Company, Fort Dodge, Des Moines & Southern Railroad Company, Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Com- pany, Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Company, Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railway Company of Illinois, Chicago, Milwaukee & Gary Railway Company, Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company, The Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Chicago, Indiana & Southern Railroad Company, and The Western Trunk Line Committee, be enjoined and restrained until the further order of the Court from adopting or enforcing in any manner the ad- vances in interstate freight rates specified and scheduled in Supplement No. 2 to Interstate Commerce Commission Tariff A-115, and from making any of the changes of rates set forth therein. Davi P. Dyer, Judge, Sitting in U. S. Cireuit Court. May 31, 1910. UNITED STATES UV. MISSOURI PACIFIO RY. CO. 245 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DIVISION OF THE EASTERN JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. Unirep States or AMERICA, COMPLAINANT, vs. Missourr Pactric Raruway Company rT Au., DEFENDANTS. On motion of the United States, by its District Attorney, under the direction of the Attorney General, it is ordered that the above entitled cause be and the same is hereby dismissed, at the costs of complainant. June 27, 1910. (Signed) Davw P. Dyer, Judge. UNITED STATES v. SOUTHERN WHOLESALE GROCERS’ ASS’N. 207 Fed. 434. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA. In Equity. No. 205. Tue Untrep States or America, PErrrioner, vs. Tue Sournern WHowesaLe Grocers’ ASSOCIATION ET AL, DeErFENDAN'S. DECREE OF INJUNCTION. This cause coming on to be heard before D. D. Shelby and Don A. Pardee, circuit judges, and Thos. G. Jones, dis- trict judge, come the United States of America by Oliver D. Street, United States attorney for the northern district of Alabama, and O. E. Harrison, special assistant to the Attor- ney General, who prosecute in this behalf, and come also the defendants, by their solicitors, Luke E. Wright and Caru- thers Ewing, and petitioner moves the court for an injunc- tion in accordance with the prayer of the bill, and by consent of all parties, in open court, it is adjudged, ordered, and decreed as follows: 1. That the said defendants, The Southern Wholesale Grocers’ Association and all the members of said associa- tion, The Southern Wholesale Grocers’ Association, a cor- poration, The McLester-Van Hoose Company, James A. Van Hoose, Robert McLester, The Alabama Grocery Com- pany, S. W. Lee, Joseph H. McLaurin, L. M. Hooper, F. E. Hashagen, C. W. Bartleson, Robert Moore, Thomas C. Davis, B. B. Earnshaw, C. C. Guest, T. H. Scovell, W. T. Reeves, R. A. Morrow, J. H. C. Wulburn, J. D. Faucette, W. A. Scott, and James W Lee, and each and all of them, their directors, officers, agents, servants, and employees, and all 247 248 U.S. V. SOUTHERN WHOLESALE GROCERS’ ASSN. persons acting under, through, by, or in behalf of them or either of them, or claiming so to act be, and they are hereby, perpetually enjoined, restrained, and prohibited from com- bining, conspiring, confederating, or agreeing together or with others expressly or impliedly, directly or indirectly, to prevent manufacturers or producers engaged in selling or shipping commodities among the several States and in the District of Columbia from selling such commodities to any person who is not a member of the said The Southern Whole- sale Grocers’ Association, or who is not listed on the so-called Green Book, published by said association, its officers, and agents, and entitled “ Official List of Wholesale Grocers in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Indian Territory, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia,” or any book, pamphlet, or list of like character; and they and each of them be, and are likewise enjoined, restrained, and prohibited ‘from pub- lishing, causing to be published, aiding, assisting, or en- couraging the publication, distribution, or circulation of any book, pamphlet, or list wherein is contained only the names of wholesale grocers located in the territory embraced by said organization who have announced their intention or agreed, directly or indirectly, expressly or impliedly, to work in harmony with said association. They are also enjoined, restrained, and prohibited from publishing or distributing, or causing to be published or distributed, or aiding or assisting or encouraging in the pub- lication or distribution of any list or lists of manufacturers or producers who have, expressly or impliedly, directly or indirectly, agreed to sell only to members of said association, or to persons, firms, or corporations listed in said Green Book, or book, pamphlet, or list of like character. 2. That the said defendants and each and all of them, their directors, officers, agents, servants, and employees, and all persons acting under, through, by, or in behalf of them, or either of them, or claiming to so act, be, and they are hereby, enjoined, restrained, and prohibited from combin- ing, conspiring, confederating, and agreeing together or with others to fix a price at which any commodity shall be U. S. VU. SOUTHERN WHOLESALE GROCERS’ ASSN. 249 sold, or to coerce manufacturers and producers engaged in selling and shipping commodities among the several States, and in the District of Columbia, to fix a limited selling price at which such commodities are to be sold, and to have such price printed on cards and distributed; and they are hereby enjoined, restrained, and prohibited from printing, causing to be printed, or encouraging or aiding in the printing of such cards, or their distribution; and they and each of them are likewise enjoined, restrained, and prohibited from con- spiring, confederating, or agreeing together or with others, expressly or impliedly, directly or indirectly, to prevent such manufacturers and producers from selling and ship- ping commodities to any wholesale grocer who does not maintain the price so fixed and listed; and they and each of them are likewise enjoined, restrained, and prohibited from demanding and receiving from any such manufacturer or producer any rebate, bonus, or emolument of any kind to be paid to any wholesale dealer or jobber for and on account of the fact that he has maintained the limited selling price: and are likewise enjoined, restrained, and prohibited from paying or delivering any such rebate, bonus, or emolument of any kind, directly or indirectly, to any such wholesale grocer or jobber who has maintained such limited selling price, or demanding or receiving any fine or penalty, directly or indirectly, from any wholesale grocer or jobber engaged in commerce among the several States and in the District of Columbia for and on account of such wholesale grocer or jobber not having maintained said limited selling price. 3. That said defendants and each and all of them, their directors, officers, agents, servants, and employees, and all persons acting under, through, by, or in behalf of them, or either of them, or claiming so to act, be, and they are hereby. perpetually enjoined, restrained, and prohibited from con- spiring, confederating, or agreeing together or with others, expressly or impliedly, directly or indirectly, to boycott any manufacturer or producer, wholesaler, or jobber engaged in commerce among the several States and in the District of Columbia for and on account of any such manufacturer, pro- ducer, wholesaler, or jobber having sold or transported in interstate commerce any commodity to any person, firm, or 250 vU. S. ¥. SOUTHERN WHOLESALE GROCERS’ ASSN. corporation who is not a member of said association or who does not maintain the said limited selling price or who is not listed in the said Green Book or book, pamphlet, or list of like character; and also from combining, conspiring, con- federating, and agreeing together, or with others, expressly or impliedly, directly or indirectly, to prevent any person, firm, or corporation who refuses to join said association or who refuses to maintain said limited selling price or who sells commodities direct to the consumer from purchasing such commodities from manufacturers, jobbers. producers, or wholesalers engaged in commerce among the several States and in the District of Columbia; and also from conspiring, confederating. and agreeing together or with others, ex- pressly or impliedly, directly or indirectly. to increase job- bers’ profits by increasing prices at which wholesalers and jobbers shall sell any commodity in interstate commerce. 4. That said defendants and each and all of them, their directors, officers, agents. servants. and employees, and all persons acting under, through, by. or in behalf of them, or either of them, or claiming so to act, be, and they are hereby, perpetually enjoined, restrained, and prohibited from con- spiring or agreeing together or with others, expressly or im- pliedly, to do or to refrain from doing anything the purpose or effect of which is to fix or maintain the price at which any commodity employed or intended to be employed in com- merce among the veveral States and in the District of Colum- bia shall or should be sold by any manufacturer, jobber. wholesaler, or retailer, or the purpose or effect of which is to hinder or prevent, by intimidation or coercion, any person. firm, or corporation from buying or selling any such com- modity wherever, whenever, from and to whomsoever and at whatsoever price may be then and there agreed upon by the seller and purchaser. 5. The Southern Wholesale Grocers’ Association, its offi- cers and members, and all who shall hereafter become officers and members of said association, are hereby perpetually en- joined and inhibited from doing, or combining or conspiring to do, either or anv of said acts. The said association and its officers and members are not restrained from maintaining U. S. UV. SOUTHERN WHOLESALE GROCERS’ ASSN. 251 said organization for social or other PUpOReS than those herein prohibited. 6. It is further ordered, adjudged, and oe that peti- tioner have and recover of the defendants judgment for the costs in this behalf expended, for which let execution issue. The parties have consented to the foregoing; it is ordered entered as the decree of the court. Down A. Parnes, Circuit Judge. Daviv D. Suetsy, Circuit Judge. Tuos. G. JoNnzEs, District Judge. It is agreed by all parties that the foregoing be entered as the decree of the court. October 17, 1911. O. D. Srrzer, United States Attorney for Petitioner. Luxe E. Wrieut, Attorney for Defendants. A true copy: [SEAL. ] Cuas. J. ALLISON, Clerk United Stotes Court. UNITED STATES v. GREAT LAKES TOWING CO. 208 Fed. 733; 217 Fed. 656. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO. February Term, A. D. 1915, to-wit: February 13, 1915. Present: Honorable J. W. Warrington, L. E. Knappen, A. C. Denison, U. S. Circuit Judges, sitting as District Judges. No. 72. Equity. Tue Unitep Srates or AMERICA vs. Tue Great Lakes Towing CoMpaNy ET AL. By direction of the Honorable J. W. Warrington, L. E. Knappen, and A. C. Denison, United States Circuit Judges sitting as District Judges, the following order is hereby entered : This cause was heard, upon pleadings and proofs, before the Circuit Judges of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, under the Expediting Act of February 11, 1903, Chapter 544 (82 Stat. L. 823). Upon consideration whereof, and being fully advised in the premises, the Court, on the issues joined, adjudges and decrees as follows: 1. That the defendant the Great Lakes Towing Company and the corporations controlled by it, to wit: The Dunham Towing & Wrecking Company, the Union Towing & Wrecking Company, the Thompson Towing & Wrecking Association, the Hand & Johnson Tug Line and the Great Lakes Towing Company, Ltd., constitute and are a combination in restraint of trade and commerce between the several states of the United States, and between the states of the United States and Canada, in violation of the Act of Congress approved July 2, 1890, entitled “An Act to pro- 253 254 UNITED STATES UV. GREAT LAKES TOWING CO. tect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies.” (Act July 2, 1890, Ch. 647, 26 Stat. L. 209.) 2. That the defendants, the Great Lakes Towing Com- pany, the Dunham Towing & Wrecking Company, the Union Towing & Wrecking Company, the Thompson Tow- ing & Wrecking Association, the Hand & Johnson Tug Line, and each of them, their officers, agents, directors, servants, employees and successors, are hereby restrained and en- joined from directly or indirectly carrying on the business of vessel towing, either alone or in connection with wreck- ing, boiler testing and bottom work (or any one or more of said three last named classes of business), upon the Great Lakes and their tributaries, except in strict compliance with each of the requirements of this decree and in strict ob- servance of the several injunctions hereby imposed. 3. That the defendants, the Great Lakes Towing Com- pany, the Dunham Towing & Wrecking Company, the Union Towing & Wrecking Company, the Thompson Tow- ing & Wrecking Association, the Hand & Johnson Tug Line, and each of them, their officers, agents, directors, servants, employees and successors, are hereby perpetually restrained and enjoined from making or entering into. with any per- son, persons, partnership, corporation or concern, any agree- ment or understanding, or any combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce among the several states or with foreign nations, and from monopolizing or attempting to monopolize, or combining or conspiring with any other person, persons, partnership, corporation or concern, to monopolize any part of the trade and commerce among the several states or with foreign nations, in or with respect to the business of vessel towing, either alone or in connection with wrecking, boiler testing and bottom work, or any one or more of the three classes of business last named, upon the Great Lakes and their tributaries. 4. That the defendants, the Great Lakes Towing Com- pany, the Dunham Towing & Wrecking Company, the Union Towing & Wrecking Company, the Thompson Towing & Wrecking Association and the Hand & Johnson Tug Line, and each of them, their officers, agents, directors, servants, employees and successors, are hereby perpetually restrained UNITED STATES UV. GREAT LAKES TOWING CO. 2%255 and enjoined, subject only to the qualifications hereafter ex- pressed herein, from (a) entering into any contract, agree- ment or arrangement with any person, persons, partnership, corporation or concern, for joint service or for the pooling of receipts, or for suppressing, controlling or interfering in any manner with freedom of competition in any port or ports on the Great Lakes, whether or not the defendants above named, or either of them shall be engaged in business in such port or ports; (b) entering into any agreement, con- tract or understanding, direct or indirect, with any cus- tomer, new or old, for the exclusive furnishing of the whole or any part of the towing or any other service of such cus- tomer, except the single item’ of service then immediately to be performed, and either as respects more than one ‘port or place or as respects but one port or place, to the end that the ultimate rate to each customer shall be absolutely the same for each like, contemporaneous item of service; (c) giving or agreeing to give to any customer any rate, con- cession, discount or rebate, except such as are given equally and without discrimination to all customers fox the like service, regardless of whether or not such customers are stockholders in the towing company, and regardless of the amount or proportion of their custom furnished to the tow- ing company, or whether custom is given in whole or in part either at all or at any one or more ports where the towing company does business, or whether the custom so given relates to but one class or to more than one class of business so done by the towing company, viz., towing, wreck- ing, boiler testing and bottom work or for any other reason whatever,—to the end that the ultimate rate to each cus- tomer shall be absolutely the same for each like or contem- poraneous and similar item of service; (d) giving any pref- erence or priority of service, in point of time, to any cus- tomer, except as based upon the order in which application for such item of service is made; (e) refusing or neglecting to furnish service as speedily as practicable to any applicant therefor, except where refusal to render service to such ap- plicant is justified by a good-faith belief, communicated to the customer, that payment for such service will not promptly be made; (f) making: or giving any undue or un- 256 UNITED STATES V. GREAT LAKES TOWING CO. reasonable preference or advantage to any particular per- son, company, firm, corporation or locality, or any partic- ular description of traffic, transportation or other business, in any respect whatsoever; or to subject any particular per- son, company, firm. corporation or locality, or any partic- ular description of traffic, transportation or business, to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or. disadvantage in any re- spect whatsoever; (g) engaging in so-called “rate wars”. or making competitive cuts from its regular schedule of tariff rates, relating to any kind of services furnished by the towing company, except that to meet (but only to meet, and not to go below) actual rates made by the competitor or competitors for the same kind and quality of service, the towing company may cut not exceeding twenty-five per cent. from its regular tariff rates; provided further, that such cut shall not reduce the rate below the actual cost of such service, nor shall it be made in any case under circumstances constituting in fact unfair or fraudulent competition; and in all cases where such cuts are made from regular tariff schedules, a record of the facts and circumstances shall be kept and immediately furnished to the commissioner, if one shall be provided for; (h) entering into any contract, agree- ment or understanding whereby the person, partnership or corporation from whom or from which any tug, tugs or other property are purchased from the towing company, or obtained under lease, charter or exchange, is forbidden to engage either in the towing business or in any other class of business in which the towing company may be engaged at any place or to any extent whatever; (i) entering into any contract, agreement or understanding whereby the person, partnership or corporation to whom or to which any tug, tugs or other property is sold by the towing company, or leased, chartered or exchanged, whereby any limitation is imposed as to the use which may be made of such tug, tugs or other property. or as to the ports in which they shall be operated or kept. 5. The towing company shall from time to time publish and keep on file in its offices for public inspection by any person desiring to see the same, printed tariffs showing the charges to be made for towing and for all other classes of UNITED STATES U..GREAT LAKES TOWING CO. 257 service in which the towing company may engage, at each port in which the company regularly has tugs stationed*or in which it performs towing or other service. The tariff shall plainly show all charges to be made for towing and for each other class of service, and a schedule shall be made for each port. The charges not only for towing, but for all classes of services, shall be based upon the various kinds and degrees of service, the size and business of ships, and the season in which the service is to be rendered. For this pur- pose proper and equitable ‘classifications may be made; but always oni the basis of equality between, and without dis- crimination among, the customers of the towing company, for any reason whatever. 6. Unless the towing company shall, by writing, file in this cause within thirty days from the filing and notice of this decree, or within such further time as may be given for the purpose, its consent and agreement to be bound by all the foregoing terms and conditions of this decree, the court will immediately proceed to create a receivership of the physical properties of the towing company, with power to operate said properties and carry on the business of said towing com- pany subject to such further orders as may be made in this cause. The towing company is hereby restrained and enjoined, during the time limited for the filing of such consent and agreement, from ceasing or suspending, in whole or in part, its towing service or any service in which it is now engaged. 7. The appointment and selection of a receiver, as well as the determination of his powers and duties, and the direc- tions to be given, are reserved until the expiration of the time given the towing company for the consent and agree- ment provided for in the sixth paragraph of this decree, as are also the terms and provisions of the plan of sale of the properties of the towing company under such receivership. 8. The bill of complaint herein is hereby dismissed as to the defendant the Pittsburgh Steamship Company. 9. Jurisdiction of this cause is retained for the purpose of giving full effect to this decree, or taking such other action, if any, as may become necessary or appropriate for the 58556—18——19 258 UNITED STATES VY. GREAT LAKES TOWING CO. carrying out and enforcement of this decree, including pro- viston for commissionership to aid in such enforcement. 10. Any party to this cause, or any one succeeding to the rights of said party, in whole or in part, may make applica-. tion to the Court at any time for such further orders and directions as may be necessary or proper in relation to the carrying out of the provisions of this decree. J. W. Warrincton, Circuit Judge. L. E. Knapren, Circuit Judge. A. C. Denison, Circuit Judge. UNITED STATES v. CHICAGO BUTTER & EGG BOARD. IN TIIE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THER NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION. Unrtep States or AMERICA, PETITIONER, vs. Cuicaco Burrer anp Eco Boarp et au., DEFENDANTS. DECREE, This cause having come on to be heard at this term, upon the amended petition herein, the answers of the defendants thereto, the replication of the petitioner to such answers, the report of Hon. Charles B. Morrison, one of the masters in chancery of this court, to whom this cause was heretofore referred to take the evidence herein and report the same to this court, together with his conclusions of law and fact thereon, and the exceptions of the defendants to the report of said master, and the court having considered said report and the said exceptions thereto, and heard the arguments of counsel for the respective parties in respect thereto, and being now fully advised in the premises, It is ordered, That the said exceptions, and each of them, of the said defendants to the report of the said master be and the same and each of them hereby are overruled; and said cause having come on further to be heard upon the pleadings aforesaid and upon the motion of the petitioner for a decree herein, in accordance with the said findings and report of said master in chancery, and the court being now fully ad- vised in the premises, /¢ 7s therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed as follows: First. That the said master’s report be and the same is hereby in all respects approved and confirmed. 259 260 UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO BUTTER & EGG BOAED. Second. That the defendants heretofore formed and at the time of the filing of the petition were parties to a com- bination and conspiracy to restrain interstate trade and com- merce in butter and eggs by the means hereinafter specifi- cally enjoined in paragraphs (a), (b), and (ce), in violation of the act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies. Wherefore, the defendants Chicago Butter and Egg Board, G. W. Bull, Charles S. Borden, M. H. Eichengreen, A. J. Strigel, K. Rutledge, Charles B. Ford, John W. Lowe, Thomas W. Brennan, and F. A. Kelly, the officers, agents and members of said Chicago Butter and Egg Board, and all persons acting for or on its behalf, or in connection with it, or any of its members, concerning any of the matters set forth in the amended petition herein, are permanently en- joined and restrained from further engaging in the afore- said combination or conspiracy or from entering into any other combination or conspiracy to restrain trade in butter and eggs, or in either commodity, by any like means or de- vices whatsoever; and (a) From appointing or authorizing the appointment of any officer, agent, or committee of said~Chicago Butter and Egg Board, whether of one or more persons, to fix or sug- gest the price or prices of butter and eggs or of either com- modity. (6) For maintaining a quotation committee, or any other committee or agency of said Chicago Butter and Egg Board, or its membership, which shall fix a price or prices of butter and eggs or of either commodity. (¢) From quoting or publishing any price or prices of butter and eggs or of either commodity purporting to be “ quotations,” “market prices,” “Chicago Butter and Egg Board prices,” or “ official quotations of Chicago Butter and Egg Board,” or the prices obtaining upon the board of said defendant corporation, unless and except such prices be those which have actually obtained upon said board in bona fide sales of butter or eggs. (2) From fixing or determining by contract, combination, or agreement the bids or offers which members of said Chi- UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO: BUITER & EGG BOARD, 261 cago Butter and Egg Board shall make with respect to pur- chases or sales of butter and eggs or of either commodity in advance of the making of said bids or offers. (e) From requiring, compelling, or demanding by board rule, by-law, or otherwise, that the members of said Chi- cago Butter and Egg Board use the quotations or prices of -butter and eggs or of either commodity which are made by means of transactions upon said Chicago Butter and Egg Board as a basic price in contracts for the purchase or sale of butter or eggs in interstate commerce. (f) From making fictitious or washed or pretended sales or purchases of butter and eggs or of either commodity for the purpose of misleading any person or persons as to the actual price at which butter and eggs or either commodity are being sold upon said Chicago Butter and Egg Board or which are intended to be used in any way as a basis for the making of quotations or prices on said Chicago Butter and Egg Board. (g) From making or participating in or knowingly per- mitting on said Chicago Butter and Egg Board at any time any sale or purchase of butter and eggs or of either commod- ity that is not a dona fide transaction in which the seller in good faith intends to deliver the commodity and the pur- chaser in good faith intends to accept and pay therefor. (A) From making or participating in or knowingly per- mitting to be made any sale or purchase of butter or eggs or either commodity on said Chicago Butter and Egg Board, in pursuance of any combination or conspiracy by or between any two or more persons or corporations to raise or lower or affect the price of butter and eggs or of either commodity on said Chicago Butter and Egg Board, and thereby to raise or lower or affect the price of butter and eggs or of either commodity in interstate commerce. (4) From making or causing to be made any offer to buy or sell butter and eggs or either commodity on said Chicago Butter and Egg Board at a price which has been agreed upon by any two or more of the members of said board or by any one or more of said members and any other person or persons prior to the making of said offer. 262 UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO BUTTER & EGG BOARD, Third. That the secretary of said Chicago Butter and Egg Board furnish a copy of this decree to members of said board and to those who hereafter shall become members thereof. Fourth. That the court retains jurisdiction of this case for the purpose of entertaining at any time hereafter any application which petitioner may make with respect to this decree; and Fifth. That the petitioner have and recover from the de- fcndants its costs. Entered at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day of October, A. D. 1914. By the court. (Signed) Kenesaw M. Lanois, Judge. UNITED STATES v. STANDARD SANITARY MFG. CO. 191 Fed. 172; 226 U. S. 20. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. Before Gorr and Prircrarn, Circuit Judges, and Rosg, District Judge. Tre Unirev Srares or AMERICA, PETITIONER. vs. Sranparp Sanirary Manouracturtrne Company, A. WEIs- KITTEL & Company, Tur Barnes Manuracturine Com- PANY, THE Cauitt Iron Works, Couwett Leap Company, Tue Day-Warp Company, THe Humpureys Manurac- TuRING Company, Kerner Manuracrurina Company, Tue J. L. Morr Iron Worxs, McVay & Wa Ker, THE McCrom-Howett Company, Tus Narionay Sanirary Manoracrurine Company, Union Sanirary Manurac- TuRING Company, Unirep States Sanrrary Manvurac- tuRING Company, L. Wotrr Manuracturine Company, Wueriting Enametep Iron Company, THEODORE AHRENS, Francis J. Torrance, E. L. Dawes, W. A. Myter, ANTON WEIskiTTEL, Joun D. Hetse, C. H. Vorcerz, T. R. Barnes, F, H. Caupwe.t, J. J. Manonsy, Jesse T. Duryxa, Berr O. Tiupen, W. C. Winrietp, A. G. Warp, S. N. Forp, Rew Carpenter, J. A. FravENHEIM, Jorpan L. Mort, Max GorpeL, THomas Waker, ALEXANDER C. WALKER, Lioyp G. McCrum, Howarp T. Gates, Frank G. Borven, D. W. Davis, L. C. Hursman, E. V. Brigham, CHar.es Arrorr, A. H. Ciinz, Jr., Herman Hoetscuer, J. E. Wricut, Grorcr W. FranzHemm, Epwin L. Wayman, DerFENDANTS. DECREE. This cause came on to be heard at this term, and was argued by counsel: and thereupon, upon consideration 263 264 UNITED STATES UV. STANDARD SANITARY MFG. CO. thereof, it is by the court, Judges Pritchard and Rose con- curring, and Judge Goff dissenting, ordered, adjudged, and decreed :— First. That each of the defendants, Bert O. Tilden and George W. Franzheim, in his official character as secretary of his respective corporation, defendant herein, attested the contracts hereinafter mentioned, executed by such respective corporation, and had no other connection therewith, and that the original petition of the United States herein be and hereby is dismissed as to the defendants, Bert O, Tilden and George W. Franzheim, with costs to each of them to be taxed. Second. That the defendants (other than those against whom the petition is dismissed, and Ludwig Wolff, who died before the final hearing), in the manner set forth in the petition, have entered into and are engaging in a combina- tion in restraint of trade and commerce among the several States in sanitary enameled ironware and have attempted and are attempting to monopolize said trade and commerce in said ware, in violation of the act of Congress approved July 2, 1890, entitled “An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies.” Third. That upon the evidence the defendant Colweil Lead Company is engaged in interstate commerce within ths meaning of the act of Congress approved July 2, 1890,-en- titled “An act to protect trade and commerce against unlaw- ful restraints and monopolies.” Fourth. That the so-called manufacturers’ license agree- ments and the jobbers’ license agreements, and the price lists made part of said agreements, all described in the petition herein, have been and are the means adopted and used by the defendants in order to carry into effect the objects and purposes of said unlawful combination in re- straint of said interstate trade and commerce in violation -of said act of Congress, and that the said agreements and price lists are therefore hereby declared illegal and the defendants and all and each of them and their officers, agents, servants, and employees are enjoined and prohib- ited from doing anything in furtherance of said manu- facturers’ license agreements and jobbers’ license agree- UNITED STATES ¥. STANDARD SANITARY MFG. CO. 265 ments, and from enforcing in any manner said agreements or any of the terms thereof, and from adopting or enforc- ing said price lists in interstate commerce in sanitary enam- eled ironware. Fifth. That the defendants, their officers, agents, servants, and employees, are enjoined and prohibited from continu- ing their attempt to monopolize interstate commerce in said ware by means of the unlawful combination hereinbefore described, and more particularly by means of said manu- facturers’ license agreements and jobbers’ license agree- ments, and said price lists, or by any other means similar thereto. Sixth. That the said defendants, their officers, directors, agents, servants, and employees, are enjoined and prohib- ited from resuming, engaging in, continuing, or carrying into further effect the combination adjudged illegal hereby, and from engaging in or entering into any like combination or attempt to monopolize, the effect of which will be to restrain commerce in sanitary enameled ironware among the several States of the United States, or in the Terri- tories of the United States, by making any express or implied agreement or arrangement together, or one with an- other, like that adjudged illegal herein, relative to the control or management of the business of the said defend- ants in sanitary enameled ironware, the effect of which will be to prevent each and any of them from carrying on interstate trade and commerce in sanitary enameled iron- ware in competition with the others. Seventh. That this decree shall not be construed to pre- vent whoever may be the owner or owners of the Arrott patent and other dredger patents relating to the manu- facture of sanitary enameled ironware, from granting law- ful licenses to any of the defendants or others to use such patents, or to prevent the defendants or others from taking lawful licenses to use any of such patents. Eighth. It appearing to the court that on the twentieth day of January, 1911, the defendants, Cahill Iron Works, Frank H. Caldwell and John J. Mahoney, by leave of the court, filed their substituted and amended answer in the cause, showing that theretofore, to wit, on the 17th 266 UNITED STATES UV. STANDARD SANITARY MFG. CO. day of December, 1910, they withdrew from said combina- tion and ceased thereafter to engage in any of the prac- tices complained of in the petition, and submitting to a decree such as is herein decreed, it is further adjudged and decreed that the petitioner recover of said defendants one- sixteenth of its lawful costs which accrued in the cause up to the closing of the case of the petitioner on December 22nd, 1910, and that the petitioner recover of the other defendants, except said Bert O. Tilden and George W. Franzheim, and Ludwig Wolff, the remainder of its law- ful costs in this cause. Nov. 25th, 1911. J. C. Prircwarp, U. 8. Circuit Judge. Joun C. Rose, District Judge. UNITED STATES v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, FOR TITE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION. In Equity. No. 8120. Twirep States or America, COMPLAINANT, vs. GENERAL Execrric Company eT AL,, DErenpants. FINAL DECREE. This cause coming on to be heard this day upon the mo- tion of the complainant upon the petition herein for an injunction to restrain the defendants from violating the provisions of the act of Congress approved July 2, 1890, en- titled “An act to protect trade and commerce against un- lawful restraints and monopolies,” as prayed for in said pe- tition, and the complainant now appearing by Wade H. Ellis, John A. Kratz, Jr., and J. S. Pratt its counsel, and the defendants by their respective counsel, as follows: General Electric Company by Charles Neave, and Edwards H. Childs; Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company and Westinghouse Lamp Company by Homer H. Johnson; Kentucky Electrical Company, York Electric & Machine Company and Elmer F. Dwyer by E. L. Thurston; Corn- ing Glass Works by A. D. Falck; Libbey Glass Company by E. J. Marshall; Phoenix Glass Company by J. M. Shields; Aetna Electric Company, Capital Electric Company, Frank- lin Electric Manufacturing Company, Liberty Electrical Manufacturing Company and Howard Gilmore and William Gilmore by Arthur L. Shipman; and the National Electric Lamp Company and all other defendants by W. B. Sanders, and the defendants now by leave of the court withdrawing their answers herein and stating in open court through their 267 268 UNITED STATES UV. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. counsel that it is not their desire or intention, nor the desire or intention of any or either of them to violate the provisions of the act above referred to, but stating that it is their desire and intention and the desire and intention of each of them to comply with each and all the provisions of the Statutes of the United States referring to agreements, combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, and that their previ- ous action in the premises was in the belief that it was not in violation of law, and that it is the desire and intention of them and each of them not to operate under or make or carry on any such contracts or practices as are condemned by said Act of Congress as now construed by the Court, and the Court, finding upon the petition that the defendants are and have been engaged in unlawful agreements and combinations in restraint of trade and that the doing of the several acts and things set forth in the petition and hereinafter enjoined are unlawful, and the defendants not opposing the entry of this decree, it is accordingly by the Court, adjudged, or- dered and decreed as follows: First: That the petition herein be and hereby is dismissed as to the defendant Kentucky Electrical Company. Second: That the General Electric Company is the owner of the entire capital stock of the National Electric Lamp Company, and, at the time of the filing of the petition herein, was the owner of the majority of said stock; that the said National Electric Lamp Company is in turn the owner of the entire capital stock of the subsidiary companies herein- after named; that such stock ownership has been concealed from the general public and the trade; that notwithstanding such stock ownership the General Electric Company, the National Electric Lamp Company, and the latter’s subsid- iary companies hereinafter named, are pretending to be separate, distinct, independent and competing companies, in the business of manufacturing, dealing in and selling in- candescent electric lamps, whereas no such independence or competition exists or has existed, and that the General Electric Company has heretofore been largely engaged in carrying on the incandescent lamp business indirectly through said companies. It is, therefore, adjudged, ordered and decreed, that the defendants, National Electric Lamp Company and all its UNITED STATES VU. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. 269 subsidiary companies, to wit, The American Electric Lamp Company of New York (referred to in the petition as The American Incandescent Lamp Company of New York), The Banner Electric Company, Brilliant Electric Com- pany, Bryan-Marsh Company, The Buckeye Electric Com- pany, The Colonial Electric Company, The Columbia In- candescent Lamp Company, The General Incandescent Lamp Company, The Economy Electric Company, The Fos- toria Incandescent Lamp Company, Independent Incandes- cent Lamp Company, Munder Electric Company, New York & Ohio Company, The Shelby Electric Company, The Standard Electrical Manufacturing Company, The Sterling Electrical Manufacturing Company, Sunbeam Incandescent Lamp Company, The Fostoria Bulb & Bottle Company, The Providence Gas Burner Company, and The Warren Electric & Specialty Company, be each and all of them dissolved, and the General Electric Company is enjoined from hereafter conducting, except in its own name, the business heretofore or hereafter carried on by it in incandescent lamps of any and every description; and It is further adjudged, ordered and decreed that all facto- ries, plants, and manufacturing and selling departments op- erated or owned by said General Electric Company, for the manufacture and sale of incandescent lamps, shall be made known to the general public and trade as the property and business of the said General Electric Company; provided that the General Electric Company is not prohibited by this decree from preserving and using the trade names of incan- descent lamps lawfully manufactured or sold by it, includ- ing the trade names now employed by the companies men- tioned in this clause second, if it acquires such trade names and the business of manufacturing lamps to which the same are applied; but such names shall be publicly known as the property of the General Electric Company. Third: That the General Electric Company and each and all of the Lamp Manufacturing Defendants as defined in clause fourth, their officers, agents and servants be and they hereby are restrained, enjoined and forbidden from making or carrying out directly or indirectly, any con- tracts with any manufacturer or manufacturers of lamp- making machinery, or with any manufacturer or manufac- 270 UNITED STATES UV. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. turers of bulbs and tubing for incandescent lamps, whereby such manufacturers or any of them shall be bound not to sell the goods, manufactured by them, respectively, to oth- ers than the said defendants or any of them, or hindered from so doing or obligated to sell to the said defendants or any of them at other and different prices and terms of pay- ment than those to which they severally may sell to other purchasers. Fourth: That the General Electric Company and each and all of the said defendants mentioned in clause second hereof, together with the Westinghouse Electric and Manu- facturing Company, Westinghouse Lamp Company, Aetna Electric Company, The Capital Electric Company, The Franklin Electric Manufacturing Company, Liberty Elec- trical Manufacturing Company, and Howard Gilmore and William Gilmore, doing business as the Gilmore Electric Company, all said defendants being collectively herein des- ignated “The Lamp Manufacturing Defendants,” are en- joined from fixing by combination, agreement, understand- ing or any other acts between any two, more or all of them, or between them or any of them and others, the price or prices at which any incandescent electric lamp or lamps of any pattern, character, type or description, whether made or sold under letters patent, license or otherwise, shall be sold or dealt in, either at wholesale or retail; provided that any of the defendants lawfully owning patents may grant to another defendant or to others, or may receive appropriate manufacturing licenses under such patents, or under any patents lawfully owned by any of the defend- . ants or others, upon terms and conditions fixed only by the licensors; provided further, that any such licensor is hereby enjoined and prohibited from requiring or imposing upon the licensee the fixing of a resale price to be observed by the licensee’s vendees; and the purchasers of such lamps from either the licensor or from the licensee or from the vendees of either the licensor or licensee, whether at whole- sale or retail, shall not be in any manner restricted as to the price at which such lamps shall be sold to the public or to any dealer or consumer. Fifth: That the General Electric Company and the other above-mentioned Lamp Manufacturing Defendants are en- UNITED STATES V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. 271 joined from maintaining, by agreement, differentials be- tween lamps which do not in fact differ in quality or efficiency, and said defendants are enjoined from allowing discounts based on aggregate purchases from different manufacturers. Sixth: That the General Electric Company and the other above-named Lamp Manufacturing Defendants, and each of them, their officers, agents and servants, are perpetually enjoined and restrained from making or enforcing any contracts, arrangements, agreements or requirements with dealers, jobbers and consumers, who buy from the said defendants either tantalum filament, tungsten filament, metalized carbon filament or ordinary carbon filament lamps, or any of them, by which such dealers, jobbers and consumers are compelled to purchase all their ordinary car- bon filament lamps from said defendants as a condition to obtaining such other types of lamps, or any of them, or by which dealers, jobbers and consumers are compelled to pur- chase any one or more of the above-mentioned types of lamps from the said defendants as a condition to the pur- chase or supply of any other or all of said types of lamps; and the said General Electric Company and the Lamp Manufacturing Defendants aforesaid are perpetually en- joined and restrained from discriminating against any dealer, jobber or consumer desiring to purchase tantalum, tungsten or metalized carbon filament lamps because of the fact that such dealer, jobber or consumer purchases ordi- nary carbon filament lamps from others, and are perpetu- ally enjoined and restrained from discriminating against any dealer, jobber or consumer desiring to purchase any one or more of the above-mentioned types of lamps because of the fact that such dealer, jobber or consumer purchases any other of said lamps from other manufacturers or dealers. Seventh: That the General Electric Company and the others of the said Lamp Manufacturing Defendants are perpetually enjoined and restrained when making discounts based on the quantity of lamps purchased by any dealer, jobber or consumer from making such discounts on the basis of the total quantity of tungsten, tantalum, metalized car- bon and ordinary carbon filament lamps sold, or the total quantity of ordinary carbon filament lamps and any one 272 UNITED STATES UV. GENERAL ELECTBIO CO, or more of such other types of lamps sold; and the General Electric Company and the others of the said Lamp Manu- facturing Defendants are further perpetually enjoined and restrained from making any discounts based on the total quantity of any two or more types of lamps sold, when the result is to combine or aggregate the discount on both an unpatented lamp and a lamp patented or claimed to be patented; and that said defendants and each and all of them are perpetually enjoined from utilizing any patents which they may have or claim to have or which they may hereafter acquire or claim to have acquired, as a means of controlling the manufacture or sale of any type or types. of lamps not protected by lawful patents. Eighth: That the General Electric Company and the other defendants are each enjoined and restrained from offering or making more favorable prices or terms of sale for incandescent electric lamps to the customers of any rival manufacturer or manufacturers than it at the same time offers or makes to its established trade, where the purpose is to drive out of business such rival manufacturer or manu- facturers, or otherwise unlawfully to restrain the trade and commerce of the United States in incandescent electric lamps; provided that no defendant is enjoined or restrained from making any prices for incandescent electric lamps to meet, or to compete with, prices previously made by any other defendant, or by any rival manufacturer; and pro- vided further that nothing in this decree shall be taken in any respect to enjoin or restrain fair, free and open compe- tition. Ninth: That the General Electric Company, as licensor, on the one hand, and Westinghouse Electric and Manufactur- ing Company, The Capital Electric Company, The Aetna Electric Company, The Franklin Electric Manufacturing Company, The Liberty Electrical Manufacturing Company, and Howard Gilmore and William Gilmore, trading as the Gilmore Electric Company, as licensees and each and every one of them, and their officers, agents and servants, are hereby perpetually enjoined and restrained from operating under any license contracts or agreements so far as such con- tracts or agreements provide that prices and terms of sale of incandescent electric lamps shall be fixed otherwise than UNITED STATES UV. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. 273 by the licensor, or containing provisions fixing the prices at which any purchaser or any vendee from a manufacturer shall sell incandescent electric lamps. Tenth: That the defendant, the General Electric Com- pany, is hereby enjoined and restrained from exercising its option to purchase the capital stock of the defendant the Franklin Electric Manufacturing Company, or from exercis- ing or attempting to exercise any influence or control what- soever over said company by virtue of its said option. Eleventh: It is further adjudged, ordered and decreed that the court retains jurisdiction of this cause for the pur- pose of enforcing the decree herein, and also for the purpose of modifying any of its injunctive provisions as to any de- fendant or defendants upon the joint application of the At- torney General and such defendant or defendants. Twelfth: It is further ordered that the defendants be and hereby are given a period of ninety days from and after the date of entry of this decree for compliance with the terms thereof, but they ate given a period of six months from and after the date of the entry of this decree for compliance with the terms of clause second hereof, during which several periods the injunction herein ordered is stayed. It is further ordered that the defendants pay the costs of suit to be taxed. (Signed) Joun M. Kiturrs, Judge. Ocroser 12, 1911. 58556—18——20 UNITED STATES v. HAMBURG-AMERICAN LINE. 200 Fed. 806; 216 Fed. 971; 239 U. S. 466. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. In Equity. E-7-74. Unrrep States or America, Peritionmr, vs. Hawmpoure - AMERIKANISCHE Pacxutraurt - ACTIEN - GESELL- SCHAFT ET AL, DEFENDANTS. FINAL DECREE. The United States of America having filed its petition herein on the 4th day of January, 1911, and the defendants, The Allan Line Steamship Company, Limited, International Mercantile Marine Company (American Line), International Navigation Company, Limited (American Line), The An- chor Line (Henderson Brothers), Limited, Canadian Pa- cific Railway Company, The Cunard Steamship Company, Limited, British and North Atlantic Steam Navigation Company, Limited (Dominion Line), Hamburg-Ameri- kanische Packetfahrt-Actien-Gesellschaft (Hamburg-Ameri- ean Line), Nederlandsh-Amerikanische Stoomvaart Mat- schappij (Holland-Amerika Lijn), Norddeutscher Lloyd (North German Lloyd Line), Societe Anonyme de Naviga- tion Belge Americaine (Red Star Line), Russian East Asiatic Steamship Company, Limited (Russian-American Line), Oceanic Steam Navigation Company, Limited (White Star Line), Bryce J. Allan, Phillip A. S. Franklin, John Lee, William Coverley, Charles P. Sumner, Emil L. Boas (now deceased), Adrian Gips, Gustav H. Schwab (now de- ceased), Herman C. Von Post, Gustav H. Schwab, Jr., Alexander E. Johnson and Max Straus, having duly ap- peared and answered herein, and the petitioner having duly filed a replication to said answers, Now, therefore, comes the. United States of America’ by H. Snowden Marshall, Esq., United States Attorney for the 275 276 UNITED STATES U. HAMBURG-AMERICAN LINE. Southern District of New York, and Henry A. Guiler, Esq., Special Assistant to the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and come also the defend- ants by their solicitors, Spooner and Cotton, Burlingham, Montgomery and Beecher, Choate, Larocque and Mitchell, Lord, Day and Lord, and Ralph J. Bullowa, Esq., and the said cause having duly come on to be heard before the Hon. E. Henry Lacombe, Alfred C. Coxe, Henry G. Ward and Henry Wade Rogers on the pleadings and proof, and the petitioner having moved the court for an injunction in ac- cordance with the prayer of the petition; Wherefore, it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed: 1. That as to the defendants Allan Line, Bryce J. Allan and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company the petition is dismissed. 2, That the other defendants and each of them and their agents, servants, employees and all persons acting under or in behalf of them are hereby enjoined, restrained and pro- hibited from combining, conspiring or agreeing to interfere with or restrain the business of any owner of a vessel oper- ated in competition with the vessel or vessels of one or other of said defendants, by providing, operating, or maintaining an extra vessel for the purpose of having it compete with such competing vessel by offering to carry passengers; and from in any way contributing to the cost or expense of pro- curing and operating such extra vessel. This injunction, however, shall not in any way affect the right of each indi- vidual defendant to run such vessels and on such terms as such individual defendant may choose in opposition to any competitor provided that the cost and expense thereof is not contributed in whole or in part by any of the other defend- ants. 8. As to all other prayers for relief the petition is dis- missed without costs to either side. November 9, 1914. E. Henry Lacomsz, U. S. Circuit Judge. Aurrep C. Coxg, “ U. 8. Circuit Judge. Henry G. Warp. Henry Wave Rocers. UNITED STATES UV. HAMBURG-AMERICAN LINE. 277 AT A STATED TERM OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, HELD IN THE UNITED STATES COURT HOUSE AND POST OFFICE BUILDING, BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, CITY OF NEW YORK, ON THE 21st DAY OF MARCH, 1916. -7-74. Unirep Srares or AMERICA, PETITIONER, AGAINST HameBur¢-AMERIKANISCHE Packerraurr ACTIEN- GESELLSCHAFT, ET AL, DEFENDANTS. The United States of America and Norddeutscher Lloyd, Gustav Schwab, jr., Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt Actien-Gesellschaft, Canadian Pacific Railway Company, The Allan Line Steamship Company, Limited, Bryce J. Allan, The Cunard Steamship Company, and Charles P. Sumner, having appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States from the decree of this Court, entered herein November 9, 1914, and said appeals having duly come on to be heard, and having been argued by counsel, and said Supreme Court of the United States having sent hither its mandate in words and figures as follows: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SS: THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: TO THE HONORABLE THE JUDGES OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, GREETING: Wuereas lately in the district court of the United States for the Southern District of New York before you, or some of you, in a cause between the United States of America, petitioner, and Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt Ac- tien-Gesellschaft, et al., defendants, in equity H-7-74, wherein the decree of the said district court entered in said cause on the 9th day of November, A. D. 1914, is in the fol- lowing words, viz: The United States of America having filed its petition herein on the 4th day of January, 1911, and the defendants, The Allan Line Steamship Company, Limited, International Mercantile Marine Company (American Line), Interna- 278 UNITED STATES V. HAMBURG-AMERICAN LINE. tional Navigation Company, Limited (American Line), The Anchor Line (Henderson Brothers), Limited, Canadian Pa- cific Railway Company, The Cunard Steamship Company, Limited, British and North Atlantic Steam Navigation Company, Limited (Dominion Line), Hamburg-Amerikan- ische Packetfahrt Actien-Gesellschaft (Hamburg-American Line), Nederlandsh-Amerikaansche Stoomvaart Matschap- pij (Holland-Amerika Lijn), Nordeutscher Lloyd (North German Lloyd Line), Societe Anonyme de Navigation Belge Americaine (Red Star Line), Russian East Asiatic Steam- ship Company, Limited (Russian-American Line), Oceanic Steam Navigation Company, Limited (White Star Line), Bryce J. Allan, Phillip A. S. Franklin, John Lee, William Coverley, Charles P. Sumner, Emil L. Boas (now deceased), Adrian Gips, Gustav H. Schwab (now deceased), Herman C. Von Post, Gustav H. Schwab, jr., Alexander E. Johnson, and Max Straus, having duly appeared and answered herein, and the petitioner having duly filed a replication to said answers, Now, therefore, comes the United States of America by H. Snowden Marshall, Esq., United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Henry A. Guiler, Esq., special assistant to the United States attorney for the South- ern District of New York, and come also the defendants by their solicitors, Spooner and Cotton, Burlingham, Mont- gomery & Beecher, Choate, Larocque and Mitchell, Lord, Day and Lord, and Ralph J. Bullowa, Esq., and the said cause having duly come on to be heard before the Hon. E. Henry Lacombe, Alfred C. Coxe, Henry G. Ward, and Henry Wade Rogers on the pleadings and proof, and the pe- titioner having moved the Court for an injunction in at- cordance with the prayer of the petition; Wherefore, it is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed: 1, That as to the defendants Allan Line, Bryce J. Allan and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company the petition is dismissed. 2. That the other defendants and each of them and their agents, servants, employees, and all other persons acting under or in behalf of them are hereby enjoined, restrained, and prohibited from combining, conspiring, or agreeing to interfere with or restrain the business of any owner of a UNITED STATHS VU. HAMBURG-AMERICAN LINE. 279 vessel operated in competition with the vessel or vessels of one or other of said defendants, by providing, operating, or maintaining an extra vessel for the purpose of having it compete with such competing vessel by offering to carry pas- sengers; and from in any way contributing to the cost or expense of procuring and operating such extra vessel. This injunction, however, shall not in any way affect the right of each individual defendant to run such vessels and on such terms as such individual defendant may choose in opposition to any competitor, provided that the cost and expense thereof is not contributed in whole or in part by any of the other defendants. 3. As to all other prayers for relief the petition is dis- missed without costs to either side. November 9, 1914. E. Henry Lacomse, U. 8. Cirewit Judge. Aurrep C. Coxr, U. 8S. Circuit Judge. H. G. Warp, Henry Wave Rogers. as by the inspection of the transcript of record of the said district which was brought into the Supreme Court of the United States by virtue of an appeal taken by the petitioner, and a cross appeal taken by the defendants, agreeably to the Act of Congress in such case made and provided, fully and at large appears. And whereas, in the present term of October, in the vear of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifteen, the said cause came on to be heard before the said Supreme Court on the said transcript of record, on appeal and cross appeal, and was argued by counsel : On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered, ad- judged, and decreed by this court that the decree of the said district court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, re- versed. And it is further ordered that this cause be, and the saine is hereby, remanded to the said district court with directions to dismiss the bill without prejudice to the right of the Gov- 280 UNITED STATES ?) HAMBURG-AMERICAN LINE. ernment in the future to assail any actual contract or com- bination deemed to offend against the Anti-Trust Act. January 10, 1916. You. therefore. are hereby commanded that such further proceedings be had in said cause. in conformity with the opinion and decree of this court, as according to right and justice, and the laws of the United States. ought to be had, the said appeals notwithstanding. Witness, THE Honoraste Epwarp D. Wuire, Chief Jus- tice of the United States. the fourth day of March, in the vear of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen. James D. Maner, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States. Now, on reading and filing said mandate it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that said mandate be filed, and that the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States be, and it is hereby, made the judgment of this court, and that the decree entered herein November 9. 1914, be, and the same is hereby, reversed: and it is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition of the United States of America filed herein on the 4th day of January, 1911, be, and the same is hereby. dismissed without prejudice to the right of the Government in the future to as- sail any actual contract or combination deemed to offend against the Anti-Trust Act. C. M. Hotveu, DI. | March 21, 1917.] UNITED STATES v. EASTERN STATES RETAIL LUMBER DEALERS’ ASS’N. 201 Fed. 581; 234 U. S. 600. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. In Equity. No. E. 7-123. Tur Unirep Stares or America, Perrrioner, vs. Tur Eastern States Reram, Lumser Deauers’ Association AxpD OrnHers, DEFeNnDaNTs. FINAL DECREE, This cause coming on to be heard~ before E. Henry Lacombe, Alfred C. Coxe, Henry G. Ward, and Walter C. Noyes, Circuit Judges, comes the United States of America, by Henry A. Wise, United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Clark McKercher, special assist- ant to the Attorney General, and come also the defendants by their solicitors, Atwater & Cruikshank, and Taylor, Jack- son & Brophy, and the said cause being heard on the plead- ings and proof, and petitioner having moved the court for an injunction in accordance with the prayer of the bill, Jt is ordered, adjudged, and decreed as follows: 1. That the defendants: (a) The Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers’ Associa- tion, a corporation of the State of New York, and its officers directors, members, and delegates, as follows: President and director, Richard S. White; vice president and director, Wil- liam C. McBride; secretary and treasurer, Louis A. Mans- field; and directors, William B. Gaines, William T. Gal- 281 282 U.S. U. EASTERN STATES LUMBER DEALERS’ ASSN. liher, Charles H. Tibbetts, John Perrine, Jesse D. Crary, James S. Davis, George A. Smock, J. F. Glasby, James M. Reilly, A. Schumaker, W. H. Judd, Clarence H. Carpenter, G. Waldo Parrott, William P. Vaughn, TH. W. Sears, C. P. Chase, E. N. Bagg, Charles P. Maule, Fischer Dalrymple, E. M. Yerks, Tracy Cowan, Lee L. Herrell, Henry P. Duker, and George H. PoehImann; The New York Lumber Trade Association, a corporation of the State of New York, and its officers and trustees, as follows: Russel J. Perrine, president; John F. Steeves, first vice president; Frederick W. Starr, second vice president; Charles F. Fischer, trensurer; and Jesse D. Crary aforesaid, secretary; and the trustees, David M. Resscguie, John L. Cutler, William P. Youngs, Guy Loomis, William 8. Wan- del, Hammond Talbot, Guilan Ross, Richard S. White afore- said, Rowland McClave, Louis Bossert, James H. Pittinger, John Eagan, William H. Simonson, Abner P. Biglow, Albro J. Newton, Christopher W. Wilson, Elbert M. Wiley, Peter A. Smith, John J. Cooney, Edwin D, MacMurray, George C. Lavery, William F. Clarke, John C. Creveling, William §S. Van Chief, Allan H. Church, Treadwell D. Carpenter, Pat- rick Moore, James Sherlock Davis, and Thomas J. Crombie; George A. Smock, aforesaid, individually and as presi- dent; A. KK. Bennett, individually and as vice president; J. F. Glasby, aforesaid, individually aud as treasurers and James M. Reilly, aforesaid, individually and as seeretary of a voluntary association known as the New Jersey Lim. berman’s Protective Association; and the following, indi- vidnally and as directors in, and as representatives of, all the members of said last-named association: T. W. Searing. Charles W, Ennis, A. B. Ayers, Tl. V. Meeks, W. W. Sinalley, M. PF. Ellis, 8. S. Thompson, S. Tred Bailey, A. K. Bennett, W. D. Gulick, W. E. Tuttle. jr., T. Newton Rudgers, Tsaac EF. Hutton, Warren Somers, James Crowell, 1. P. Dillistin, R. W. Kennedy, R. 1. Booth, M. J. Kimball, G. W. Dick- ensheet, Irving A. Collis, P. J. Devlin; The Building Material Men’s Association of Westchester County, a corporation of the State of New York, and its officers and directors, as follows: FE. M, Yerks, aforesaid, U. & UV. EASTERN STATES LUMBER DEALERS’ ASSN. 283 president; John IF. Dinkle, vice president; Robert Havi- land, treasurer; Tracy Cowan, aforesaid, secretary; IF. M. Dain, J. A. Mahlstedt, Alonzo Guest, C. P. Young, E. N. Leete, Charles H. Tibbetts, aforesaid, directors; William C. McBride, aforesaid, individually and as presi- dent; Fischer Dalrymple, aforesaid, individually and as vice president; and Charles P. Maule, aforesaid, individually and as secretary and treasurer of a voluntary association known as the Retail Lumberman’s Association of Philadel- phia; and the following persons, individually and as direc- tors and as representatives of the members of said last- named association: Herbert P. Robinson, Benjamin Stocker, S. A. Yorks, Amos Y. Lesher, Herbert E. Weitzel, Frank L. Luckenbach, Charles H. Wisler, John E. Lloyd, Charles M. Strickler, James A. Richardson, Charles M. Chestnut, I. N. Troth ; The Lumber Dealers’ Association of Connecticut, a cor- poration of the State of Connecticut, and its officers and directors, as follows: A. Schumaker, aforesaid, president; F. A. Lines, vice president; and Louis A. Mansfield, afore- said, secretary and treasurer; directors, E. J. Lake, W. H. Goddard, Frank H. Sexton, Harry C. Turner, John O. Fox, Horace §. Hatch, Howard L. Platt, Louis A. Lampson, W. B. Beckley, H. W. Damon, A. R. Plumley, and F. H. Barnes; The Massachusetts Retail Lumber Dealers’ Association, a corporation of the State of Massachusetts, and its officers and directors, as follows: H. W. Sears, aforesaid, president; L. S. Williston, vice president; W. H. Sawyer, vice presi- dent; W. A. Fuller, vice president; M. L. Foster, treasurer ; and E. N. Bagg, aforesaid, secretary; directors, C. K. Ferry, F. K. Southworth, Charles P. Chase, aforesaid, Edwin Bradley, Edward S. Decker, J. L. Temple, Frank Palmer, and William B. Gaines; Lumber Dealers’ Association of Rhode Island, a corpora- tion of the State of Rhode Island, and its officers and direc- tors as follows: Arthur S. Vaughn, aforesaid, president; Willard D. Lansing, vice president; G. Waldo Parrott, aforesaid, secretary and treasurer; directors, John F. Ga- 984 U.S. U. EASTERN STATES LUMBER DEALERS’ ASSN. lena, George D. Lansing, Louis Roberts, Jeremiah F. O’Dris- coll, Forest J. Perkins, aforesaid, Samuel C. Cottrell, Henry A. Grimwood, jr.. Edward W. Duff, William T. Galliher, aforesaid, individually and as president; W. A. H. Church, individually and as vice president; George E. Walker, individually and as treasurer; Lee L. Herrell, in- dividually and as secretary; and the following persons in- dividually and as members and committeemen, and as repre- sentatives of the members of a voluntary association known as the Lumber Exchange of the District. of Columbia; Thomas W. Smith, John W. Tolson, Samuel Ross. The Retail Lumbermen’s Association of Baltimore, Md., a corporation of the State of Maryland, and its officers and directors as follows: Henry P. Duker, aforesaid, president; Harry J. Matthews, vice president; George H. Poehlmann, aforesaid, secretary and treasurer; directors: John J. Duffy, Samuel H. Helfrich, A Frank Gilbert. George Schumaker, Benjamin C. Bayne, John D. Vridin, John H. Geis, have been and now are in a combination or conspiracy to restrict and restrain competition; that the method adopted and now being used by said defendants to distribute such information is by the publication and distribution of the list known as the “ Official Report,” the form of which is as follows: Orricia, Report. (Name of the particular association circulating it.) STATEMENT TO MEMBERS (with the date). You are reminded that it is because you are mem- bers of our association and have an interest in com- mon with your fellow members in the information contained in this statement that they communicate it to you; and that they communicate to you in strictest confidence and with the understanding that you are to receive it and treat it in the same way. The following are reported as having solicited, quoted, or as having sold direct to the consumers: (Here follows a list of the names and addresses of various wholesale dealers.) U. S. UV. EASTERN STATES LUMBER DEALERS’ ASSN. 285 Members upon learning of any instance of persons soliciting, quoting, or selling direct to consumers should at once report same, and in so doing should, if possible, supply the following information: The number and initials of car. The name of consumer to whom the car is ‘con- signed. The initials or name of shipper. The date of arrival of car. The place of delivery. The point of origin. and that said combination and conspiracy is such as the act of Congress approved July 2, 1890 (26 Stat., 209), en- titled “ An act to protect trade and commerce against unlaw- ful restraints and monopolies,” denounces as illegal. 2. That said defendants and each of them, their officers, directors, agents, employees, and members, be, and they are hereby, enjoined, restrained, and prohibited from combin- ing, conspiring, confederating, or agreeing together or with others jointly to distribute, and from jointly distributing, to any of the members of the aforesaid associations or any other person or persons any information showing soliciting, quo- tations, or sales and shipments of lumber and lumber prod- ucts from manufacturers and wholesale dealers to consumers of or dealers in lumber, and from the preparing and distrib- uting the said list known as the “Official Report,” hereto- fore described, or by the use of any similar device. With- out costs to either side. E. Henry Lacomsr. Aurrep C. Coxe. H. G. Warp. Water C. Noyrs. [March 1, 1913.] UNITED STATES v. PERIODICAL CLEARING HOUSE. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Unrrep States or America, Peririoner, vs. PrriopicaL Cteartne House anp Oruers, DerENDANTS. This cause pursuant to the expediting certificate made and filed herein by the Attorney General of the United States having duly come on to be heard before the Honorables E. Henry Tacombe, Alfred C. Coxe, Henry G. Ward and Walter C. Noyes, the Circuit Judges of the Second Circuit, sitting in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York on the 11th day of February, 1913, and having been heard upon the record, briefs and oral argument, and the same having been duly considered, and the said Judges having filed a certificate of division herein pursuant to the Expedition Act of February 11th, 1903, and this cause having been further considered, and the petitioner having failed to satisfy a majority of the Court that it is entitled to the relief prayed for, it is Orperep, ADJUDGED AND Decreep that the petition be and the same hereby is dismissed, and it is further Orperep, Apsupcep AnD Decreep that the certificate of division filed herein on April 22nd, 1913, be and the same hereby is canceled. E. Henry Lacomesz, Aurrep C. Coxs, H. G. Warp, Watrer C. Noyss, Circuit Judges. Filed May 29th, 1913. 287 UNITED STATES v. LAKE SHORE & MICHIGAN SOUTHERN RY. CO. 203 Fed. 295. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, KASTHRN DIVISION. In equity. No. 1584. Tuer Unrtep States or Amertca, PLAINTIFr, v. Tor Lake Saore & Micnicgan Sournern Ramway Com- pany, Tur Cursapraxe & Onto Ramway Company, THe Hocxixe Variry Rawway Company, THe Totrpo & Onto Crenrrat Ramway Company, Tur Kanawua & Micuican Ramway Company, THe ZANESVILLE & West- ERN Ramway Company, Sunpay. Creek Company, Con- TINENTAL. Coan Company, Kaxawna & Hockrne Coan & Coke Company, DEFENDANTS. FACTS CONCERNING PROGRESS OF THE CASE BETWEEN THE FIRST HEARING AND THE ULTIMATE SUBMISSION FOR DECREE. This cause was heard before the circuit judges of the Sixth Judicial Circuit (pursuant to certificate of the Attor- ney General of the United States, filed herein according to act of Congress of February 11, 1903). The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to relief, but reserved certain ques- tions touching the nature and extent thereof. After hear- ing upon these questions, plaintiff was permitted to file an amendment to its bill and to bring in additional defendants, named below. Forms of decree were presented, but they indicated that both sides were in some respects claiming relief which could not be granted. With a view of elimi- nating these difficulties, a memorandum opinion was filed. Thereafter, counsel for the plaintiff, and counsel for three of the defendants: the Lake Shore, the Toledo & Ohio Cen- tral, and the Zanesville & Western, each submitted a form 58556—18——_21 289 290 U.S. U. LAKE SHORE & MICHIGAN SOUTHERN RY. 00. of decree; and counsel for two of the defendants, the Hock- ing Valley and the Chesapeake & Ohio, presented sugges- tions as to certain provisions the decree should contain. Since then the attorney general of Ohio upon leave ap- peared, as a friend of the court, for the purpose only of calling attention: (1) to the pendency in the Court of Appeals of Franklin County, Ohio, of three actions in guo waranto: State, Hu rel. against the defendant railways herein (some of such railway companies being defendants in the first of those actions, one in the second, and all in the third); (2) to the issues presented, which in the main concern the power of certain of the railway companies to hold stock in certain of the other railway companies and in the coal companies, and to the relief sought, under a statute of the State, called the “ Valentine Anti-Trust Act”; and (8) to objections of the State to certain provisions of the last form of decree submitted, as stated, in the instant case on behalf of certain of the defendants, and also to the suggestions offered for others of the defendants touch- ing the form of decree to be entered herein. I. FINDINGS OF FACT. Plaintiff’s counsel request the court to file separate find- ings of fact, and counsel for defendants object thereto; not- withstanding Equity Rule 71, it is deemed permissible and proper in this case to accompany the decree by the fol- lowing findings of fact: (1) ORIGINAL DEFENDANTS—-WHERE ORGANIZED. The railroad companies named in the above-recited title of the case are all Ohio corporations, except the Chesapeake & Ohio, which was organized under the laws of Virginia. The coal companies there named were organized; the Sun- day Creek under the laws of New Jersey, and the other two under the laws of West Virginia. U. 8. U. LAKE SHORE & MICHIGAN SOUTHERN RY. CO. 291 (2) DEFENDANTS BROUGHT IN UNDER AMENDMENT TO BILL. The Central Trust Company of New York, as trustee under the first consolidated mortgage of the Hocking Val- ley Railway Company; the said Central Trust Company, as trustee of stock in the Sunday Creek Company under the agreement of April 30, 1908; John H. Doyle, as trustee of stock in the Sunday Creek Company under the agreement of April 30, 1908; J. P. Morgan & Company, as trustee of the stock of the Kanawha & Hocking Coal & Coke Company and of the Continental Coal Company, to secure agreement for division of coal traffic, such trustee, however, having re- signed and the Bankers’ Trust Company of New York hav- ing been duly substituted in the place and stead of J. P. Morgan & Company as such trustee; these additional de- fendants have appeared and filed separate answers, setting up their respective claims as trustee, and, with the original defendants, have stipulated that the cause should be sub- mitted upon the proofs previously offered. (3) THE RAILROADS. The Lake Shore extends from Buffalo to Chicago, passing through the northerly portion of Ohio by way of Toledo, and has a number of intermediate branches. Connection is main- tained in Toledo, though not described, between the Lake Shore and the Toledo & Ohio Central, and also the Hocking Valley. A large majority of the capital stock of the Lake Shore is owned by the New York Central. The Chesapeake & Ohio extends from Old Point Comfort to Cincinnati, run- ning (in West Virginia) along the southerly side of the Kanawha River from Gauley (connecting with Gauley Bridge and Charleston) to Scary, thence (leaving the Kanawha River) westwardly to the Ohio River at Guyan- dotte, and thence along the south side of the Ohio River to Covington, Ky., where it crosses the river to Cincinnati; it owns a great majority of the stock of the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway of Indiana, and so reaches Chicago. Two of the remaining railroads are entirely within Ohio, running gen- erally in a north and south direction, viz, the Hocking Val- 992 U.S. U. LAKE SHORE & MICHIGAN SOUTHERN RY. CO. ley, from Toledo by way of Fostoria, Columbus, Logan, Gal- lipolis, Kanauga, and Hobson to Pomeroy (Kanauga being on the Ohio River opposite Point Pleasant, W. Va.), with a branch line from Logan to Athens; and the Toledo & Ohio Central with two divisions running from Toledo, the easterly one by way of Fostoria and Thurston to Corning, and the other by way of Columbus to Thurston. The Kana- wha & Michigan extends south from Corning by way of Athens and Hobson to Kanauga, where it crosses the Ohio River to Point Pleasant, and continues thence along the northerly side of the Kanawha River by way of Charleston to Gauley Bridge, using the tracks, however, of the Hock- ing Valley between Hobson and Gallipolis. The Zanes- ville & Western is also entirely within Ohio and extends east from Thurston to Zanesville. This sufficiently shows the geographical relations and the common termini and common points of connection as respects these railroads. (4) THE COAL FIELDS DIRECTLY AFFECTED. The coal lands tributary to the three exclusively Ohio railroads, are situated in that State and well known as the Hocking coal fields, and a portion of those fields, but prin- cipally coal lands situated in West Virginia, are tributary to the Kanawha & Michigan Railroad, and those latter coal lands are in the well-known Kanawha coal district. (5) COAL TRAFFIC, AND OTHER COAL FIELDS INVOLVED. & | * The principal freight traffic of all the railroads men- tioned, except the Lake Shore, is bituminous coal. The prin- cipal coal mines along the Chesapeake & Ohio are in the Kanawha, New River, and Big Sandy coal districts of West Virginia and Kentucky. A substantial part of the freight traflic of the Lake Shore is bituminous coal, originating not only in the Hocking Valley coal fields and the Kanawha coal district, but also on two or more of its branch roads connecting with coal fields situated in other portions of Ohio and in Pennsylvania. Coal derived from these various fields is carried over the defendant railroads and their con- U.S. VU. LAKE SHORE & MICHIGAN SOUTHERN RY. CO. 293 nections to destinations, some of them common destinations, situated in States (including lake ports therein) other than the States in which the coal originated. (86) COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS. (a2) Between 1890 and 1899, through ownership of stock and guaranty of bonds of the Kanawha & Michigan, the To- ledo & Ohio Central controlled and operated that line in connection with its own. During that period the Hocking Valley and the Toledo & Ohio Central were naturally com- peting lines, and, as far south as the Ohio River, were paral- lel lines. Aside from the Kanawha & Michigan, the Hock- ing Valley, as far south as Athens, and the Toledo & Ohio Central are parallel and naturally competing roads. Prior to and in 1899, free competition was maintained between the Toledo & Ohio Central and the Kanawha & Michigan, on the one hand, and the Hocking Valley, on the other, as respects the coal traffic derived from the Hocking Valley coal fields and the Kanawha coal district, as well as of the other traffic carried over their lines; this traffic included beth interstate and intrastate shipments. (6) The Kanawha & Michigan is dependent for the move- ment of its traffic north of Corning upon either the Toledo & Ohio Central or the Hocking Valley, or both. The Kana- wha & Michigan, if used as a carrier exclusively in connec- tion with either the Toledo & Ohio Central or the Hocking Valley, would be a natural competitor of the one or the other of such roads according as the connection and use might be maintained; and the capacity of the Toledo & Ohio Central to increase its competing traffic is enhanced by its connec- tion at Thurston with the Zanesville & Western. The com- petitive conditions naturally existing: between the Hocking Valley and the Toledo & Ohio Central would manifestly be preserved by traffic derived from the Kanawha & Michigan, if that line were owned and operated independently of either of the others. (c) What is known as the southern division of the Hock- ing Valley, to wit, the portion between Logan and Pomeroy, has not since 1899, while the Kanakha & Michigan has, been 294 U.S. VU. LAKE SHORE & MICHIGAN SOUTHERN RY. CO. improved in grades, roadbed, and bridges, so as practically to accommodate the heavier railroad equipment and freight traffic which have been introduced since that year; and, fur- ther, it is shown that the configuration of the territory adja- cent to the Kanawha River is such as reasonably to prevent construction of a track additional to that of the Kanawha & Michigan on the one side, or the branches of the Chesapeake & Ohio on the other as far westwardly as Scary. It is not shown, however, that construction of an independent con- nection is impracticable by a line uniting with the Chesa- peake & Ohio at Scary or at some point in its existing tracks between Scary and Guyandotte, and running thence north- wardly either to Gallipolis or Kanauga; nor that the south- ern division of the Hocking Valley can not reasonably be improved and utilized for heavy equipment and traffic; that division was an essential part of the Hocking Valley during the period of free competition mentioned. (7) RAILROAD REORGANIZATION OF 1899. The immediate predecessor of the Hocking Valley Rail- way Company was the Columbus, Hocking Valley & Toledo Railway Company. LEARNED Hann, POS. Cirenit Tides, | Mareh v3. 1917.] UNITED STATES v. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER C0. 214 Fed. 987. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. No. 624. Tue Unirep Starrs or America, PETITIONER, vs. INTERNATIONAL Harvester CoMPANY ET AL., DEFENDANTS. DECREE. On this 15th day of August, 1914, this cause came on for decree upon the submission heretofore had, and the court being well advised in the premises finds that the defendant the International Harvester Company was as originally organized and now is a combination in restraint of trade and commerce among the several States and with foreign nations in agricultural implements, and did from its incep- tion monopolize and attempt to monopolize a part of the trade and commerce among the several States and with foreign nations in agricultural implements, and that the International Harvester Company of America, the Inter- national Flax Twine Company, the Wisconsin Steel Com- pany, the Wisconsin Lumber Company, the Illinois North- ern Railway, and the Chicago West Pullman and Southern Railroad Company are subsidiary companies of the Inter- national Harvester Company and are confederated with it in the unlawful purposes aforesaid, and that the defend- ants Cyrus H. McCormick, Charles Deering, James Deer- ing, John J. Glessner, William H. Jones, Harold F. McCor- mick, Richard F. Howe, Edgar A. Bancroft, George F. Baker, William J. Louderback, Norman B. Ream, Charles Steele, John A. Chapman, Elbert H. Gary, Thomas D. 58556—18——24 337 838 UNITED STATES V. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. Jones, John P. Wilson, William L. Saunders, and George W. Perkins are officers of said International Harvester Com- pany and are aiding and assisting it in the unlawful busi- ness mentioned : It is adjudged and decreed that said combination and monopoly be forever dissolved, and to the end that the business and assets of the International Harvester Company be separated and divided among at least three substantially equal, separate, distinct, and independent corporations, with wholly separate owners and stockholders, and that the de- fendants file with the clerk within ninety days a plan for such separation and division for the consideration of this court. In the event this case is appealed and decree super- seded, then the time in which the defendant shall file said plan is hereby extended to ninety days from the filing of the procedendo or mandate of the Supreme Court with the clerk of this court. In case the defendants fail to file such plan in the time limited this court will entertain an application for the appointment of a receiver for all the property of the. cor- porate defendants. Jurisdiction is retained by the court to make such addi- tional decrees as may be deemed necessary to secure the final winding up and dissolution of the combination and monopoly complained of and as to costs, In case the defendants or any of them see fit to appeal from this decree the supersedeas bond is fixed at $50,000, and the same may be approved by any one of the circuit judges of this circuit who sat upon the trial. Wauoerm C. Hoox,. Water. I. Surry, Circuit Judger Filed August. 15th, 1914. UNITED STATES V. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER Co, 339 IN THE DISTRICY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THR DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. In equity No. 624. Tue Unirep Srates or Amertca, Petrrioner, vs. InternationaL Harvester Company ET AL., DEFENDANTS. ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO MODIFY. On this third day of October, 1914, this cause came on for hearing on the motion of the defendants filed on! August 17, 1914, to amend the decree of this court entered herein on the 15th day of August, 1914, and the parties being present by their respective counsel, and the court having considered the same, It is hereby ordered, That said decree be, and the same is hereby, amended by striking out the words “and with foreign nations” wherever they appear in the decree, but the power and duty of the court in dealing with all the prop- erty and business of every character of the defendant cor- porations, at the commencement of this suit or since, so far as lawful and necessary to effect a dissolution of the combi- nation, are not renounced but expressly reserved, and by striking out, pursuant to an agreement between the Attor- ney General and counsel for the defendants evidenced by the written consent of the Attorney General signed by the United States Attorney for Minnesota, presented to the court this day, the first sentence in the second paragraph of said decree reading as follows: It is adjudged and decreed that said combination and monopoly be forever dissolved, and to the end that the business and assets of the International Harvester Company be separated and divided among at least three substantially equal, separate, distinct, and inde- pendent corporations with wholly separate owners and stockholders and that the defendants file with the 340 UNITED STATES UV. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO, clerk within ninety days a plan for such separation and division for the consideration of this court, and substituting in place thereof the following: It is adjudged and decreed that said combination and monopoly be forever dissolved, and to that end that the business and assets of the International Har- vester Company be divided in such manner and into such number of parts of separate and distinct owner- ship as may be necessary to restore competitive condi- tions and bring about a new situation in harmony with law; and that the defendants file with the clerk within ninety (90) days a plan for such separation and division for the consideration of this court. Watter H. Sanzorn, Wituraxr C. Hoox, Watrer I. Sura, Circuit Judges. UNITED STATES v. ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA. IN TIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DIS- TRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, Unirep Srates or Axrertca, Petitioner, VS. ALominum Company or America, DEFENDANT. DECREE, This cause coming on to be heard on this 7th day of June, 1912, before the Hon. James M. Young, District Judge, and the petitioner having appeared by its district attorney, John H. Jordan, and by Wm. T. Chantland, its special assistant to the Attorney General, and having moved the court for an injunction in accordance with the prayer of its petition, and it appearing to the court that the allegations of the petition state a cause of action against the defendant under the pro- visions of the act of July 2, 1890, known as the Anti-Trust Act, that it has jurisdiction of the subject matter, and that the defendant has been regularly served with proper process, and has appeared in open court, by George B. Gordon, its counsel, and has given its consent to the entering and rendi- tion of the following decree: Now, therefore, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed: 1. That sections 2, 4, and 5 of the agreement entered into as of date September 25, 1908, between the Societe Anonyme pour ]’Industrie de l’Aluminum of Neuhausen and the Northern Aluminum Company (Ltd.), acting on behalf of the defendant corporation, as follows, to wit: 2. The N. A. Co. agree not to knowingly sell alumi- num directly or indirectly in the European market. The A. J. A. G. agree not to knowingly sell alumi- num directly or indirectly in the American market. 341 842 UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA, 4, The total deliveries to be made by the two com- panies shall be divided as follows: European market, 75 per cent to A. J. A. G., 25 per cent to N. A. Co. American market, 25 per cent to A. J. A. G., 75 per cent to N. A. Co. Common market, 50 per cent to A. J. A. G., 50 per cent to N. A. Co. The Government sales to Switzerland, Germany, and Austria-Hungary are understood to be reserved tothe A. J. A. G. The sales in the U. S. A. are understood to be re- served to the Aluminum Company of America. Accordingly the A. J. A. G. will not knowingly sell aluminum directly or indirectly to the U. S. A. and the N. A. Co. will not knowingly sell directly or indi- rectly to the Swiss, German, and Austria-Hungarian Governments. 5. The N. A. Co. engages that the Aluminum Com- pany of America will respect the prohibitions hereby laid upon the N. A. Co. be and the same are hereby declared null and void, and that the defendant Aluminum Company of America, and all its agents and representatives in whatever capacity, are hereby perpetually enjoined from directly or indirectly requiring the parties to said contract to abide by its terms, and de- fendant is further enjoined from either directly or indirectly entering into, through said Northern Aluminum Company, or any other person or corporation, and from making or aiding in making any agreement containing provisions of the nature of those hereinbefore set out, in so far as they relate to the sale of aluminum in the United States, or its importation into or exportation from the United States, or any contract or agreement, either verbal or written, the pur- pose and effect of which would be to restrain the importation into the United States, from any part of the world, of alumi- num, or alumina, or bauxite, or any other material from which aluminum can be manufactured, or to fix or illegally affect the prices of such aluminum, alumina, bauxite, or other material, when imported. UNITED STATES UV, ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA. 8438 2, That the fourth and eighth paragraphs of the agree- ment entered into, under date of July 5, 1905, between the defendant Aluminum Company of America, under its for- mer name, Pittsburgh Reduction Company, and the General Chemical Company, a corporation, which paragraphs read as follows: Fourth. Said Chemical Company further expressly covenants and agrees that it will not use or knowingly sell any of the bauxite sold to it by the said Bauxite Company hereunder, or any other bauxite, or the products thereof for the purpose of conversion into the metal aluminum, and that upon proof that any of said bauxite or products thereof have been put to any such use it will not make any further sales or deliveries to the purchaser thereof. Eighth. It is understood and agreed that the bauxite sold hereunder by the said Bauxite Company to the said Chemical Company shall be used by the said Chemical Company and by companies under its control or whose stock is largely held by it, and by no other person or party, and only for the manufac- ture of alum, alum salts, alumina sulphate or alumina hydrate for alum and its compounds, and for no other purpose whatsoever— be, and they are, hereby declared null and void and are stricken out of said contract; and that the fifth section of said contract which reads as follows: Fifth. The said Reduction Company agrees to use its good offices in the interest of said Chemical Com- pany so far as relates to promoting the trade of the latter in alum and alum products in the United States and in foreign countries; and said Chemical Com- pany reciprocally undertakes and agrees to use its good offices in the interest of said Reduction Company so far as relates to promoting the metal business of the latter in the United States and in foreign coun- tries— in so far as it may be considered as an agreement upon the part of the General Chemical Company to antagonize the interests of the competitors of the defendant company, be 844 UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA. and it is hereby declared to be null and void, and that defendant and all its agents and representatives be, and they are, hereby perpetually enjoined from in any manner, and to any extent, requiring an enforcement of said pro- visions, and from entering into or acting in pursuance of any contract or agreement the purpose and effect of which would be to place any restrain upon the General Chemical Company with reference to the right of said company to acquire and sell, or the quantity which it may acquire and sell, or the price at which it may acquire and sell any bauxite, alumina or aluminum of which it may become the owner by purchase, manufacture, or otherwise. 3. That the tenth and eighteenth sections of the contract entered into under date of April 20, 1909, between the defendant Aluminum Company of America and the Norton Company, which sections read as follows, to wit :— Tenth. Norton Company may mine and use bauxite from the said forty-acre tract of bauxite land referred to in paragraph D above, which shall be used for the purpose of manufacturing alundum, and may mine and sell from the said property bauxite or other min- eral taken therefrom for any purpose except for the manufacture of aluminum, and Norton company shall not sell or otherwise dispose of said forty-acre tract except subject to the above restrictions. Eighteenth. Norton Company shall not at any time during the continuance of this agreement use or sell any of the bauxite contained on the said forty-acre tract described in paragraph D above, or any other bauxite, or the products thereof, hereafter acquired by Norton Company, in the United States of America or the Dominion of Canada for the purpose of con- version into aluminum— and all other parts of said ccntract, in so far as they restrain or seek to restrain the Norton Company from exer- cising its free and independent will in using and disposing of the bauxite which it may receive under the provisions of said contract, or any other bauxite which it may obtain, be and the same are hereby declared null and void and are abrogated; and that the defendant, and its officers and UNITED STATES UV. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA. 345 agents, be perpetually enjoined from in any manner or to any extent enforcing or requiring recognition by the Nor- ton Company of such provisions, and from hereafter enter- ing into any contract with said Norton Company, the pur- pose and effect of which would be to restrain said Norton Company in the disposition of any bauxite which may be obtained from any source, or of any alumina or aluminum which it may manufacture from such bauxite, or may other- wise obtain. 4. That the following clause in a contract between defend- ant and the Pennsylvania Salt Manufacturing Company, to wit: The Pennsylvania Salt Manufacturing Company agrees not to enter into the manufacture of alumi- num as long as this agreement is in force— and the ratification and extension of said clause contained in a letter from the Pennsylvania Salt Manufacturing Com- pany to defendant, dated January 1, 1907, be and the same are hereby declared null and void; and that defendant Aluminum Company of America and its officers and agents be and they are hereby perpetually enjoined hereafter from in any manner or to any extent enforcing or relying upon said clause and its ratification, and from entering into any con- tract with said Pennsylvania Salt Manufacturing Com- pany, the purpose and effect of which would be to restrain said Pennsylvania Salt Manufacturing Company from freely making any disposition that it may see proper, and at any price it may deem proper, of any bauxite, alumina or aluminum, the ownership of which it may acquire from any source. 5. That that part of the agreement entered into as of date November 16, 1910, by defendant Aluminum Company of America and Gustave A. Kruttschnitt, of Newark, New Jersey, and James C. Coleman, of Newark, New Jersey, which provides that— As part consideration for the execution of this agreement by Aluminum Company, Kruttschnitt and Coleman hereby severally agree that for the period of twenty years from the date hereof, in that part of 345 UNITED STATES UV. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA. the United States east of a north and south line through Denver, Colorado, neither Kruttschnitt nor Coleman will directly or indirectly engage or become interested in the manufacture or fabrication or sale of aluminum or any article made substantially of aluminum, provided that either or both the said Kruttschnitt and Coleman may be employed by or become interested in the Aluminum Company or said Aluminum Goods Manufacturing Company without committing a breach of this contract— in so far as it constitutes a restraint upon said Kruttschnitt and Coleman from freely engaging in any part or branch of the aluminum business, be and the same is hereby declared to be null and void, and that the defendant, and its officers, agents, and representatives be and they are hereby perpetu- ally enjoined from entering into a contract with said Krutt- schnitt or Coleman or with any other individual, firm, or corporation of a like or similar character to the above-quoted provisions of said contract, except as the same may be a lawful incident to the purchase of good will. 6. That the defendant and its officers, agents, and repre- sentatives be and they are hereby perpetually enjoined from entering into a contract with any other individual, firm, or corporation of a like or similar character to the above-quoted provisions in the contracts between the Alumnium Company of America and the General Chemical Company, between said Aluminum Company and the Norton Company, be- tween said Aluminum Company and the Pennsylvania Salt Manufacturing Company, and between said Aluminum Company and Kruttschnitt and Coleman, or either of them, and from entering into or participating in any combination or agreement the purpose or effect of which is to restrict or control the output or the prices of aluminum or any material from which aluminum is directly or indirectly manufac- tured, and from making any contract or agreement for the purpose of or the effect of which would be to restrain com- merce in bauxite, alumina, or aluminum, or to prevent any other person, firm or corporation from or to hinder him or it in obtaining a supply of either bauxite, alumina, or alumi- num of a good quality in the open market in free and fair UNITED STATES UV. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA. 347 and open competition, and from themselves entering into or compelling or inducing, under any pretext, or in any man- ner whatsoever, the making of any contact between any per- sons, firms, or corporations engaged in any branch of the business of manufacturing aluminum goods the purpose or effect of which would be to fix or regulate the prices of any of their raw or manufactured products in sale or resale. 7. To prevent all undue discrimination upon the part of defendant and its officers and agents, or upon the part of any firm or corporation in whose business defendant owns or hereafter acquires a financial interest by stock ownership or otherwise, against any competitor of defendant, and thus to prevent the unlawful acquisition by defendant of a monopoly in any branch of manufacturing from crude or semifinished aluminum, defendant and its officers, agents, and representa- tives, are hereby perpetually enjoined from committing the following acts, to wit: (a) Combining either by stock ownership or otherwise with any one or more manufacturers for the purpose or with the effect of controlling or restraining the output of any product manufactured from aluminum, or fixing or control- ling the price thereof. (6) Delaying shipments of material to any competitor without reasonable notice and cause, or refusing to ship or ceasing to continue shipments of crude or semifinished alu- minum to a competitor on contracts or orders placed, and particularly on partially filled orders, without any reason- able cause and without giving notice of same, or purposely delaying bills of lading on material shipped to any com- petitor, or in any other manner making it impossible or diffi- cult for such competitor promptly to obtain the material upon its arrival, or from furnishing known defective ma- terial. (c) Charging higher prices for crude or semifinished alu- minum from any competitor than are charged at the same time under like or similar conditions from any of the com- panies in which defendant is financially interested, or charg- ing or demanding higher prices for any kind of crude or semifinished aluminum from any competitor for the purpose or which under like or similar conditions will have the effect 348 UNITED STATES ¥. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMEBICA. of discriminating against such manufacturers in bidding on proposals or contracts to the advantage of said defendant or any company in which it is financially interested. (d) Refusing to sell crude or semifinished aluminum to prospective competitors in any branch of the manufacturing aluminum goods industry on like terms and conditions of sale, under like or similar circumstances, as defendant sells such crude or semifinished aluminum to any firm or corpora- tion engaged in similar business in which defendant is financially interested. (e) Requiring, as a condition precedent to selling crude or semifinished aluminum to a competitor, that such com- petitor divulge to defendant the terms which such competitor proposes to make in order to secure the work in which the desired aluminum is to be used, and from imparting to any one the purpose or purposes for which said competitor is in- tending to use said metal. (7) Requiring or compelling the making of agreements by competitors not to engage in any line of business nor to sup- ply any special order in competition with defendant or with any company in which it is financially interested as a con- dition precedent to the procurement of aluminum metal. (g) Representing or intimating to competitors that unless they dealt with defendant or with companies in which de- fendant has a financial interest for their supply of metal such competitor will not be able to obtain a sufficient supply of metal or obtain it at a price that will permit them to en- gage in competition with defendant or with companies in which defendant is financially interested; or in like manner representing or intimating to consumers of aluminum in any stage of manufacture that unless they deal with defendant or with a company in which it is financially interested, their supply of material or manufactured products will be cut off for that reason. (h) Taking the position with persons, firms, or corpora- tions engaged in the manufacture of any kind of aluminum goods that if they attempt to enlarge or increase any of their industries or engage in enterprises that are or will be com- petitive with defendant or with the business of any firm or corporation in which defendant is financially interested such UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA, 349 persons, firms, or corporations will for that reason be unable to procure their supply of material from defendant or any of the companies in which it is financially interested. The term “competitor,” as used above, shall be construed to mean all persons, firms, or corporations engaged in or who are actually desiring or about to engage in the manufacture of any kind of products or goods from crude or semifinished aluminum, whose business is not controlled or not subject to be controlled by defendant, its officers and agents, either by virtue of ownership of all or a part of the capital stock of such concerns or through any other form or device of financial interest. Provided, however, that nothing contained in this decree shall be construed to prevent or restrain the lawful promo- tion of the aluminum industry in the United States. Provided, further, that nothing herein contained shall obligate defendants to furnish crude aluminum to those who are not its regular customers to the disadvantage of those who are whenever the supply of crude aluminum is insuf- ficient to enable defendant to furnish crude aluminum to all persons who desire to purchase from defendant, but this proviso shall not relieve defendant from its obligation to perform all its contract obligations, and neither shall this proviso, under the conditions of insufficient supply of crude aluminum referred to, be or constitute a permission to de- fendant to supply such crude aluminum to its regular cus- tomers mentioned with the purpose and effect of enabling defendant or its regular customers, under such existing conditions, to take away the trade and contracts of com- petitors. Provided, further, that nothing in this decree shall pre- vent defendant from making special prices and ‘terms for the purpose of inducing the larger use of aluminum, either in a new use or as a substitute for other metals or materials. Provided, further, that nothing in this decree shall pre- vent the acquisition by defendant of any monopoly lawfully included in any grant of patent right. Provided, further, that the raising by defendant of prices on crude or semifinished aluminum to any company which it owns or controls or in which it has a financial interest, regardless of market conditions, and for the mere purpose 3850 UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA, of doing likewise to competitors while avoiding the appear- ance of discrimination, shall be a violation of the letter and spirit of this decree. This decree having been agreed to and entered upon the assumption that the defendant, Aluminum Company of America, has a substantial monopoly of the production and. sale of aluminum in: the United States, it is further pro- vided that whenever it shall appear to the court that sub- stantial competition has arisen, either in the production or sale of aluminum in the United States, and that this decree in any part thereof works substantial injustice to defendant, this decree may be modified upon petition to the court after notice and hearing on the merits, provided that such appli- cations shall not be made oftener than once every three years. It is further ordered that the defendants pay the costs of suit to be taxed. Per curiam: - James M. Youna, Judge. UNITED STATES v. HERMAN SIELCKEN. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Unrrep States or AMERICA vs. Herman SIELCKEN, Bruno ScHROEDER, OF THE FIRM J. Henry Scuroeper & Co., Epovarp Buncz, M. Lz Vicomts Des Toucues, Dr. Pavto pa Sriva Pravo, THEO0- por Wits, Tue Socierr Generate, Tuz New Yorx Dock Co., DEFENDANTS. DECREE, It appearing by the statements of counsel for the respec- tive parties made in open court, that this controversy has been settled, it is Orperep, Apsupcep and Decrerp That the petition herein be and the same hereby is dismissed, without costs to either party as against the other. (Signed) E. Henry Lacomssz, Circuit Judge. Axrrep C. Coxe, Circuit Judge. H. G. Warp. Circuit Judge. Watrer C. Noyss, Circuit Judge. 351 UNITED STATES v. PRINCE LINE, LIMITED. 220 Fed. 280; 242 U. 8. 537, IN TH DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. In Equity No. E-9-201. Unitep Sratres or Amurica, PETITIONER, vs. Prince Lins, Limiren, er su., Derenpants. The United States of America having filed its petition herein on the 5th day of June, 1912, and the defendants Prince Line, Limited, Paul F. Gerhard, Charles Z. Gerhard, Francis J. Zimmerman, Harry Connor, Hamburg-Ameri- kanische Packetfahrt Aktien-Gesellschaft, Hamburg-Suda- merikanische Dampfschiffarts-Gesellschaft, William G. Sickel, Henry H. Garvan, Paul Gotthiel,. Thomas A. Sparks, William Voelkens, W. H. Voelkens, W. L. Walter, Robert H. Goodwin, Clement H. Betts, Lamport & Holt, Limited, Frederick T. Busk, Lorenzo Daniels, and William Gein, hav- ing duly appeared and answered herein: Now, therefore, come the United States of America, by H. Snowden Marshall, Esq., United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Ernest E. Baldwin and Stanley D. Montgomery, Special Assistants to the United States Attorney General, and come also the defendants by their solicitors, Convers & Kirlin, Spooner & Cotton, Bur- lingham, Montgomery & Beecher, and the said cause having duly come on to be heard before the Hon. E. Henry La- combe, Alfred C. Coxe, Henry G. Ward and Henry Wade: Rogers on the pleadings and proof, and the petitioner hav- ing moved the Court for an injunction in accordance with: the prayer of the petition: And it appearing that the defendants, Prince Line, Lim- ited, and Lamport & Holt, Limited, have upon occasions re- fused to receive lawful cargo, tendered at regular rates, and’ 58556—18-——25 353 354 UNITED STATES UV, PRINCE LINE, LIMITED. that, although no such refusal by the defendants Hamburg- American Line and Hamburg-South American Line, their officers, agents and employees is proved, said last named corporations were parties to the combination against which this suit was directed: It is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed :— 1. That all and singular the defendants in the above com- bination, their agents, servants and employees, and all per- sons acting under or in behalf of them be and they hereby are enjoined, restrained and prohibited from refusing to receive for transportation any lawful cargo or merchandise, from the United States to Brazil, or from Brazil to the United States, offered or tendered to any of them by any shipper at the regular rates obtaining at the time, applicable to all shippers; and are enjoined, restrained and prohibited from combining, conspiring or agreeing to refuse to receive and transport any cargo or merchandise for shipment offered by any shipper at any port served by the conference, at their regular rates and in the order in which the same shall be offered for shipment. 2. As to all other prayers for relief the petition is dis- missed, without costs to either side. i. Henry Lacomse. Aurrep C. Coxr. H. G. Warp. Henry Wave Rocers. Dated: March 17th, 1915. AT A STATED TERM OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, HELD IN THE UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE AND POST- OFFICE BUILDING, BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, CITY OF NEW YORK, ON THE 23D DAY OF MARCH, 1917. Present: Hon. Learned Hand, district judge. E. 9-201. Unirep States or AMERICA, PETITIONER, AGAINST Prixce Linz, Luurrep, rr au., DEFENDANTS. ‘The United States of America having appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States from the decree of this UNITED STATES UV. PRINCE LINE, LIMITED. 855 court entered herein May 17, 1915, and said appeal having duly come on to be heard, and having been argued by coun- sel, and the said Supreme Court of the United States having sent hither its mandate in words and figures as follows: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SS: THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE HONORABLE THE JUDGES OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, GREETING: Wuenreag, lately in the district court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, before you, or some of you, in a cause between The United States of America, petitioner, and Prince Line, Limited, et al., defendants, in equity, No. 9-201, wherein the decree of the said district court, entered in said cause on the 17th day of May, A. D. 1915, is in the following words, viz: The United States of America having filed its petition herein on the 5th day of June, 1912, and the defendants, Prince Line, Limited, Paul F. Gerhard, Charles Z. Gerhard, Francis J. Zimmerman, Harry Connor, Hamburg-Ameri- kanische Packet-fahrt Aktien-Gesellschaft, Hamburg-Sud- amerikanische Dampfschiffahrts-Gesellschaft, William G. Sickel, Henry H. Garvan, Paul Gottheil, Thomas A. Sparks, Wilhelm Voelkens, W. H. Voelkens, W. L. Walter, Rebert H. Goodwin, Clement H. Betts, Lamport & Holt, Limited, Frederick T. Busk, Lorenzo Daniels, and William Gein, hav- ing duly appeared and answered herein; Now, THEREFORE, comes the United States of America, by H. Snowden Marshall, Esq., United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Ernest E. Baldwin and Stanley D. Montgomery, special assistants to the Attorney General, and come also the defendants by their solicitors, Convers & Kirlin, Spooner & Cotton, Burlingham, Montgomery & Beecher, and the said cause having duly come on to be heard before the Hon. E. Henry Lacombe, Alfred C. Coxe, Henry G. Ward, and Henry Wade Rogers, on the pleadings and proof, and the: petitioner having moved the court for an injunction in accordance with the praver cf the petition. 356 UNITED STATES UV. PRINCE LINE, LIMITED. It is hereby orDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED: 1. That all and singular the defendants in the above com- bination, their agents, servants and employees, and all per- sons acting under or in behalf of them be and they hereby are enjoined, restrained, and prohibited from refusing to receive for transportation unless for good cause any lawful cargo or merchandise from the United States to Brazil, or from Brazil to the United States, offered or tendered to any of them by any shipper at the regular rates obtaining at the time, applicable to all shippers; and are enjoined, re- strained and prohibited from combining, conspiring, or agreeing to refuse unless for good cause to receive and trans- port any cargo or merchandise for shipment offered by any shipper at any port served by the conference at their regu- lar rates and in the order in which the same shall be offered for shipment. 2. As to all other prayers for relief the petition is dis- missed without costs to either side. Dated New York, May 17th, 1915. E. Henry Lacomer. H. G. Warp, ALrFreD C. Coxe, Henry Wane Rocers. as by the inspection of the transcript of the record of the said district court, which was brought into the Supreme Court of the United States by virtue of an appeal agreeably to the act of Congress in such case made and provided fully and at large appears. AND WHEREAS, in the present term of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, the said cause came on to be heard before the said Supreme Court, on the said transcript of record, and was argued by counsel : ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now here ORDERED, AD- JUDGED, AND DECREED by this court that the decree of the said District Court in this cause be and the same is hereby reversed. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this cause be and the same is hereby remanded to the said District Court with directions to dismiss the bill without prejudice to the right of the UNITED STATES UV, PRINCE LINE, LIMITED. 3857 United States in the future to assail any actual contract or combination deemed to offend against the Anti-Trust Act. January 22, 1917. You, THEREFORE, are hereby commanded that such further proceedings be had in said cause, in conformity with the opinion and decree of this court, as according to right and justice, and the laws of the United States, ought to be had, the said appeal notwithstanding. * Wrrness the honorable Epwarp D. Wurrs, Chief Justice of the United States, the twenty-sixth day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and seventeen. Jamrs D. Mauer, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States. Now on reading and filing said mandate, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that said mandate be filed, and that the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, be and is hereby made the judgment of this court, and that the decree entered herein May 17, 1915, be and the same is hereby reversed; and it is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition of the United States of America filed herein on the 5th day of June, 1912, be and the same is hereby dismissed without prejudice to the right of the United States in the future to assail any actual contract or combination deemed to offend against the Anti-Trust Act. Learnep Hann, U.S. Circuit Judge. [March 23, 1917.] UNITED STATES v. CENTRAL-WEST PUBLISHING CO. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. No. 30888. Untirep Srates or America, PETITIONER, vs. CenrraL-West Pusrisuine Company, WeEsTerN Nrwsvarer Union, American Press AssociaTIon, ET AL. DErEND- ANTS, DECREE. This cause coming on for hearing on this 8rd day of August, As D. 1912, before the Honorable KX. M. Landis, dis- trict judge of this court, and the petitioner having ap- peared by its district attorney, James H. Wilkerson, and by William T. Chantland, special assistant to the Attorney Gen- eral, and having moved the court for an injunction in ac- cordance with the prayer of its petition, and it appearing to the court that the allegations of the petition state a cause of action against the defendants under the provisions of the act of July 2, 1890, known as the antitrust act, and that the court has jurisdiction of the persons and the subject matter and that the defendants have each been regularly served with proper process and have filed their answers to the pe- tition, and that the defendants, Central-West Publishing Company, Western Newspaper Union, Western Newspaper Union of New York, George A. Joslyn, John I. Cramer, H. IL. Fish, and M. H. McMillen, by their attorneys, J. H. Cowin, John J. Sullivan, and Charles IF. Harding, and the defendants, American Press Association, Courtland Smith, W. G. Brogan, and Maurice I’. Germond, by their attorney, Charles A. Brodek, have given and do now give in open 359 360 UNITED STATES U. CENTRAL-WEST PUBLISHING CO. court their consent to the rendition and entering of the fol- lowing decree: Now, therefore, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed: I. That the defendants and each of them are found, and they are hereby declared to have been and to be now engaged in an attempt to monopolize interstate trade and commerce in the business of shipping ready-print papers, matrices, and stereotyped plates, and in the dissemination of news among the several States of the Union, all done and carried on in violation of the act of Congress of July 2, 1890, com- monly known as the antitrust act. II. That the defendants herein and each of them have both separately and in concert committed acts in unfair compe- tition against mutual competitors and that these defendants and each of them as to said matters be permanently and spe- cifically enjoined and restrained from either directly or indi- rectly, separately or in concert, through their agents or em- ployees, from in any manner committing or doing any acts of unfair competition against the competitors of either of these defendants, and that specifically each be permanently enjoined from thus doing or aiding in doing any of the fol- lowing acts: (1) From underselling any competing service with the intent or purpose of injuring or destroying a competitor of either of these defendants. (2) From sending out traveling men for the purpose or with instructions to influence the customers of such competitors of either of these defendants, so as to secure the trade of such customers, without regard to the price. (8) From in any manner or for any length of time sell- ing his or its service in either plate, ready print, or matrices, either separately or one service with another, at less than a fair and reasonable price, with the purpose or intent of injuring or destroying the business of any competitor of either of these defendants. (4) From threatening any customer of a competitor with starting a competing plant unless he patronizes one or the other of these defendants. (5) From threatening the competitors of either of these defendants that they must either cease competing with UNITED STATES UV, CENTRAL-WEST PUBLISHING co. 3861 defendants or sell out to one or the other of the defendants herein, and from threatening that unless they do their indus- tries will be destroyed by the establishment of near-by plants to actively compete with them or by any other method of unfair competition. III. That the defendants Western Newspaper Union, Western Newspaper Union of New York, Central-West Publishing Company, George A. Joslyn, John F. Cramer, H. H. Fish, and M. H. McMillen be, and they are hereby, permanently enjoined from either directly or indirectly, by themselves or through their agents or employees, from in any manner continuing to du any acts in unfair competition against the other defendant company in this petition named, to wit, American Press Association, as alleged in divisions six and seven of this petition, and particularly that they be thus enjoined from doing any of the following acts: (a) From combining or attempting to combine with said defendant American Press Association, either by purchase, stock ownership, or in any other manner. (6) From holding out inducements, in the way of control or otherwise, to the said American Press Associations, or either of them, or any of their officers, agents, or employees, to induce or compel a combination between the Western Newspaper Union and its allied concerns and the American Press Associations. (ce) From selling any of their product or services at less than a fair and reasonable profit, or at cost, or less than cost, with the purpose or intent of injuring or destroying the interstate trade and commerce of the American Press Association, or of any other competitors. (d) From in any manner, either directly or indirectly, causing any person or persons or company to purchase stock or become interested in the American Press Association for the purpose of or with the effect of harassing the said American Press Association by unconscionable or unreason- able demands for an examination of its books or inquiry into its business methods, or the institution of suits, with such or like purpose in view. (e) From in any manner, either directly or indirectly, in- structing, causing, or permitting their agents or employees 3862 UNITED STATES UV. CENTRAL-WEST PUBLISHING CO. or traveling salesmen throughout the country, to circulate reports or to intimate or convey the impression that these de- fendants will put the American Press Association out of business, or that the American Press Association will not be able to continue in business against the competition of these defendants, or that the American Press Association intends to or is about to combine with the defendants or the defend- ants with them, or to intimate or convey the impression that unless publishers approached by such salesmen deal with these defendants, they will be discriminated against as soon as the American Press Association shall be put out of busi- ness by the competition to which it is being subjected. (f) From sending out traveling men for the purpose or with instructions to influence the customers of the other de- fendants hereto, so as to secure the trade of such customers, without regard to the price. (7g) From in any manner threatening or intimating that they will start competing papers at points where customers of the American Press Association or other competitors re- fuse to deal with them, either in plate or ready print matter or both. (A) From in any manner promising or intimating to any publisher or other person who is a customer of the Ameri- can Press Association, or any other competitor, that they will protect such customer against expenses and costs in any suit that may arise by reason of the repudiation of any con- tract between such competitor and such customer. (¢) From in any manner retaining or permitting the re- tention by their agents or employees of plate metal or other property belonging to the American Press Association, or other competitor of said defendants. (7) From in any manner offering bonuses of paper or plate service free or at a nominal price with the purpose and intent of inducing or enabling customers of the American Press Association or any other competitor to temporarily change to home-print papers and thus to assist them in breaking contracts with the said American Press Association with lessened chance of liability for breach of contract; and furthermore from offering in connection with such bonus to sell their service at less than the usual price to such customer UNITED STATES UV. CENTRAL-WEST PUBLISHING CO. 363 of such competitor, and from offering as a part of such plan the continued use of free plate for the home-print side of the papers of such customers. (&) From purchasing or acquiring stock in any other corporation, or interest in any other concern, engaged in the manufacture or sale of plate matter or ready prints, and not a party hereto; and from acquiring the property and busi- ness of any such company, unless application be made to and permission to make such purchase be granted by this court. (2) From in any manner unfairly criticizing and abusing the method of the said American Press Association with ref- erence to advertising, or from doing any of said things through its weekly house organs, known as the Publishers’ Auxiliary and the Western Publisher, and particularly from misrepresenting through said means the business and busi- ness methods of the American Press Association, with the intent and for the purpose of taking away the customers of the said American Press Association, or otherwise injuring its business. (m) From in any manner continuing or participating in unfair attacks upon the said American Press Association, with the purpose of injuring or depreciating or destroying the value of the property and securities of the said American Press Association. (n) From maintaining any auxiliary plant in any cities of the United States apparently independent, but in fact the property of the Western Newspaper Union, or its officers and stockholders, for the purpose and with the intent of making the newspaper trade generally believe such institu- tions to be independent. IV. That the defendants American Press Association, Courtland Smith, W. G. Brogan, and Maurice F. Germond be perpetually enjoined from in any manner, either per- sonally or as officers, or through their agents or employees, from continuing to commit or assisting in the commission of any acts of unfair competition directed against the de- fendants Central-West Publishing Company, Western News- paper Union, or any other of these named defendants’ com- petitors, and that they be permanently enjoined particularly 864 UNITED STATES V. CENTRAL-WEST PUBLISHING CO. from in any manner doing or committing any of the fol- lowing acts: (a) From selling its adless ready-print or plate service for less than a fair and reasonable price, or at cost, or below cost, with the purpose or intent of injuring the business of these named defendants or other competitors of the said American Press Association. (6) From in any manner unfairly criticizing and abusing the method of the said Western Newspaper Union with ref- erence to advertising through these defendants’ circulars relating to its bureau of foreign advertising, or from doing any of said things through its weekly house organ, known as the American Press, and particularly fron: misrepresent- ing through said means the business and business methods of the Western Newspaper Union, with the intent and for the purpose of taking away the customers of the said West- ern Newspaper Union, or otherwise injuring its business. (¢) From in any manner continuing or participating in unfair attacks upon the said Western Newspaper Union with the purpose of injuring or depreciating or destroying the value of the property and securities of the said Western Newspaper Union. (d) From maintaining any auxiliary plant in any cities of the United States apparently independent but in fact the property of the American Press Association, or its offi- cers and stockholders, for the purpose and with the intent of making the newspaper trade generally believe such insti- tutions to be independent. (e) From sending out traveling men for the purpose or with instructions to influence the customers of the other defendants hereto, so as to secure the trade of such cus- tomers, without regard to the price. (f) From in any manner retaining, or permitting the retention by their agents or employees, of plate metal or other property belonging to the Western Newspaper Union, or other competitor of said defendants. (7g) From in any manner offering bonuses of paper or plate service, free or at a nominal price, with the purpose and intent of inducing or enabling customers of the Western Newspaper Union or any other competitor to temporarily UNITED STATES UV, CENTRAL-WEST PUBLISHING CO. 3865 change to home print papers and thus to assist them in breaking contracts with the said Western Newspaper Union with lessened chances of liability for breach of contract; and furthermore from offering in connection with such bonus to sell their service at less than the usual price to such cus- tomer of such competitor, and from offering as a part of such plan the continued use of free plate for the home print side of the papers of such customer. (hk) From purchasing or acquiring stock in any other corporation or interest in any other concern engaged in the manufacture or sale of plate matter or ready prints and not a party hereto; and from acquiring the property and busi- ness of any such company, unless application be made to and permission to make such purchase be granted by. this court. V. That each of the defendants named in this petition be specifically and permanently enjoined and restrained from combining or joining in any acts— (a) OF unfair competition either against another or against any mutual competitor; (6) Looking toward a combination between any of these defendants; (c) Any acts done with the intent or purpose of driving out of the industries in which they are now engaged of either of these defendants, or of any of their competitors; And as to each of the above acts defendants, and each of them, and their officers and agents, are enjoined from doing them, either separately or in concert or conjunction with either of the other defendants. It is further ordered that the defendants, Western News- paper Union and the American Press Association, each pay one-half of the cost of this suit, to be taxed. When in this decree the American Press Association is mentioned, reference is had to both the American Press Association organized under the laws of New York and the American Press Association organized under the laws of West Virginia, or if such portion of the decree is not appro- priate to both, the one is intended to which it is appropriate. Kenrsaw M. Lanois, Judge. 3866 UNITED STATES U. CENTRAL-WEST PUBLISHING CO. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINCIS. Tur Unrrep States or AMERICA, PETITIONER, vs. CrnrraL-West PustisHinec Company; WESTERN NEWSPAPER Union; Western Newsparer Union or New York, Greorce A. Jostyn, Joun F. Cramer, H. H. Fisu, anp M. H. McMuen; American Press Association, A Cor- PORATION Orcanizep Unber tHE Laws or THE STATE OF New Yorx; American Press AssociaTIon, 4 Corrora- TION OrcANIzED UnpER THE Laws or THE STATE OF WEST Virernta; Courttanp Smiru, W. G. Brosan, anp Mav- RIcE F, GERMOND, DEFENDANTS. The petition of the defendants American Press Associa- tion, Courtland Smith, William G. Brogan, and Maurice F. Germond that the decree entered herein on August 3, 1912, be so modified as to permit American Press Associa- tion to sell its assets and business pertaining to stereotyped plates, as a going concern, to Western Newspaper Union, having come on for hearing, and said petitioners appearing by their solicitors, Edgar A. Bancroft and Charles A. Brodek, and the United States of America appearing by Henry 8. Mitchell, special assistant to the Attorney Gen- eral, and the other defendant, Central-West Publishing Company, Western Newspaper Union Company, Western Newspaper Union of New York, John F. Cramer, H. H. Fish, and M. H. McMillen (George A. Joslyn having died since the rendition of the decree), appearing by their solici- tors, Horace K. Tenney and Charles F. Harding, and it ap- pearing to the court that it has jurisdiction of the parties to and subject matter of said decree, and the testimony of witnesses and other evidence and the statements of counsel in support of said petition having been heard and consid- ered, the court holds that the facts set forth in the petition and the evidence introduced upon the hearing to support the same are immaterial; that it is contrary to the whole spirit and purpose of the Sherman Law to authorize one competitor to absorb or assimilate another competitor, re- UNITED STATES V, CENTRAL-WEST PUBLISHING CO. 367 gardless of whether such competitor is able to continue in business or not, and that the sale of such assets and business by American Press Association to Western Newspaper Union would be in violation of the Sherman Law. It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that said petition be and it hereby is denied. To which order and decree the petitioners duly object and except. Thereupon, the petitioners, American Press Association, Courtland Smith, William G. Brogan, and Maurice F. Ger- mond, pray an appeal from said order to the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit, which is allowed upon said petitioners filing an appeal bond in the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars, and presenting their certificate of evidence within twenty days from this date. Kewnesaw M. Lanois. June 15, 1917. UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, SEVENTH CIRCUIT. Wepnespay, Jouty 11, 1917. Before— Hon. Francis E. Barer, Circuit Judge. Hon. Samvent Atscuuter, Circuit Judge. Hon. J. Oris Humpurey, District Judge. American Press Association, CourTLanp Suir, WILLIAM G. Brogan, anp Maurice IF. Grrmonp vs. Unitrep States or America, Centra West Pousuisure Company, Western Newsrarer Union, Western News- paper Union or New Yorx, Joun F. Cramer, H. H. Fisn, anp W. H. McMIien. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTH - ERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the rec- ord from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and was ar- gued by counsel. 868 UNITED STATES UV. CENTRAL-WEST PUBLISHING CO. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered, ad- judged, and decreed by this court that the decree of the said district court in this cause appealed from denying the peti- tion of the American Press Association et al., filed May 9, 1917, to amend the decree of the said district court entered on August 3, 1912, be, and the same is hereby reversed; and that this cause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the said district court with direction to enter a decree supple- mental to the criginal decree, authorizing the Western News- paper Union to be a bidder and purchaser at a sale by the American Press Association of its plant and. business as a going concern, on the condition and under the prohibition that the Western Newspaper Union shall not employ the plant and business so purchased or use the situation created by such purchase to charge more than cost of production plus a fair and reasonable profit, such fair and reasonable profit to be measured relatively by the range of annual profit ob- tained by the Western Newspaper Union from its plate business since the entry of the original decree of August 8, 1912. UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, SEVENTH CIRCUIT. Satourpay, AveusT 25, 1917. Before— Hon. Francis E. Barer, Circuit Judge. Hon. Samus, ALScHULER, Circuit Judge. Hon. J. Orrs Humpurey, District Judge. American Press Association, Courttann Situ, Wit1iax G. Brogan, 4np Maurice F. Grrmonp. vs. Unrrep Srares or America, Centra West PuBiisHine Company, WesTeRN Newsparer Union, Western News- PAPER UNION or New York, Joun F. Cramer, H. H. Fisu, anp W. H. McMitten. APPEAL FROM THE DISTKICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTH- ERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION. It is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court that the decree heretofore entered in this cause in this UNITED STATES (, CENTRAL-WEST PUBLISHING CO, 869 court on July 11, 1917, be, and the same is hereby vacated and set aside; and it is further ordered, adjudged. and decreed that the decree of this court in this cause he in the following words and hgures, to wit: This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Tllinois, Eastern Division, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered, ad- judged, and decreed by this court that the decree of the said district court in this cause appealed from denying the petition of the American Press Association et al.. filed May 9, 1917, to amend the decree of the said district court entered on August 3, 1912, be, and the same is hereby, reversed; and that this cause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the said district court with direction to enter a decree, supple- mental to the original decree, authorizing the Western Newspaper Union to be a bidder and purchaser at a sale by the American Press Association of its plate plant and busi- ness as a going concern, on the condition and under the prohibition that the Western Newspaper Union shall not employ the plant and business so purchased or use the situ- ation created by such purchase to charge more for its plate service to newspaper publishers than cost of production plus a fair and reasonable profit, such fair and reasonable profit to be measured relatively by the range of annual profit obtained by the Western Newspaper Union from its plate business since the entry of the original decree of August 3, 1912, without however depriving the purchaser of such profits as result from its purchase by reason of the increase of business and the economies in the cost of produc- tion following the same; provided that present prices for plate service to newspaper publishers shall not be increased, unless, but not longer than, an increase is warranted by increase in cost factors. And it is further ordered that the mandate issue forthwith. 58550—18——26 370 UNITED STATES 7’, CENTRAL-WEST PUBLISHING CO. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES POR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION. Present: The Hon. Evan A. Evans, acting district judge. Wepnespay, SupremBer 5, A. D., 1917. Tus Uxrren Srates or AMERICA VB. SENTRAL-West PupnisHixG Company, WerSTERN NEwS- PAPER Union, AMERICAN Press ASSOCIATION, ET AL. JN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF THE AMERICAN PRESS ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS FOR THE MODIFICATION OF THE DECREE ENTERED HEREIN ON AUGUST 8, 1912. ; Come now the parties by their respective counsel, and the American Press Association, a corporation of New York; American Press Association, a corporation of West Vir- ginia; and Courtland Smith having moved the court for leave to file the mandate of the Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States for the seventh circuit bearing date August 30, 1917, reversing the order and decree of this court of June 15, 1917, and remanding the cause with directions, said motion is allowed, and it is ordered that said mandate be duly filed and made a part of the record herein; and in pur- suance of said mandate, It is ordered and decreed by the court, supplemental to said decree of August 3, 1912, that the defendant Western Newspaper Union is hereby authorized to be a bidder and purchaser at a sale by the American Press Association of its plate plant and business as a going concern, on the condition and under the prohibition that the Western Newspaper ‘nion shall not employ the plant and business so purchased or nse the situation created by such purchase to charge more for its plate service to newspaper publishers than cost of production plus a fair and reasonable profit, such fair and reasonable profit to be measured relatively by the range of annual profit obtained by the Western Newspaper Union UNITED STATES U. CENTRAL-WEST PUBLISHING CoO. 371 from its plate business since the entry of the original decree of August 3, 1912, without, however, depriving the pur- chaser of such profits as result from its purchase by reason of the increase of business and the economies in the cost of production following the same; provided that present prices for plate service to newspaper publishers shall not be in- creased unless but not longer than an increase is warranted by increase in cost factors. And said decree of August 3, 1912, is modified accordingly. Evan A. Evans, Acting District Julge. UNITED STATES v. ASSOCIATED BILLPOSTERS & DISTRIBUTORS. IN THe DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OL AMERICA FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISTON, In Equity, No. 30887. Tue Usrreo Stares or Amertca, Petrrionrr, vs. Associated Bitpposrers ANp Distrrpcrors or THe United STATES AND Canapa, AND Otrers, DEFENDANTS. DECREE, This cause having come on to be heard at this term, and having been argued by counsel, upon consideration thereof, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed, as follows: First. That the petition is dismissed as to the defendants F. Weyland Ayer, Henry E. McKinney, Albert G. Bradford, Jarvis .\. Wood. George L. Dyer Company; the George Bat- ten Company; Mahin Advertising Company; and Henry P. Wall. Second. That the defendants, except those dismissed, here- tofore formed and are now parties to a combination or con- spiracy to restrain interstate and foreign trade and com- merce in posters by the means hereinafter specifically en- joined, in violation of the Act of Congress of July 2, 1890, entitled: “An Act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restrains and monopolies.” Wherefore, the defendant Associated Billposters and Dis- tributors of the United States and Canada, the name of which has been changed since the filing of the petition herein to Poster Advertising Association, and the defendants Peter J. McAliney, L. T. Bennett, John E. Shoemaker, John H. Logeman, Edward C. Donnelly, Joseph J. Flynn, Barney Link. James F. O’Mealia, O. 5. Hathaway, Samuel Pratt, 373 374 U.S. . ASSOCIATED BILLPOSTERS & DISTRIBUTORS. James A. Reardon, Burnett W. Robbins. Harry C. Walker, George L. Chennell, Will J. Davis, Jr., Phinelan B. Haber, Charles T. Kindt, Frank Z. Zehrung, Lewis H. Ramsey, James D. Burbridge, Walter .S. Barton, James A. Curran. A. A. Edwards, Thomas H. B. Varney, E. L. Ruddy, .\sso- ciated Billposters and Distributors Protective Company, George Enos Throop, Inc., Massengale Advertising Agency. A.M. Briggs, L. J. Rees. W