HO €mm\\ Uttiitmitg JihatJg THE GIFT OF ,.3:i..%tjjsA. .v.cr^..'D..otxuYY^lJvAb.. .X.Z5^a.l5 13|xii..|]t 1357 Jan ''-' i c-iU hi i ■ I SHER i 1842:' >/.r iVIAY-11'-*'-18jf IJUN 11948E '''2 3 1950 KRNOV] 3 -55 H as' LI ***^''*^wr«h' JULY U 1911 HD2778 .^A^s'lgiT''"'" "-'""^ ^'"^llBllffitefL&p.a an olin 3 1924 030 066 686 WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 19U Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924030066686 THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST LAW WITH AMENDMENTS AND LIST OF DECISIONS THEREUNDER OR RELATING THERETO JULY I, 1911 WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE ^>^.s«^^-nS" TABLE OF OOITTENTS. Page. Tlie Sherman Act and amendments 5 List of prosecutions instituted under act 13 Harrison administration 13 Cleveland administration 16 McKinley administration 19 Roosevelt administration 21 Taft administration 35 Summary of cases brought 40 List of decisions under act 41 (3) THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST LAW. [Act of July 2, 1890 (26 Stat, 209).] AN ACT To protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies. Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of ATnerica in Congress assembled, Sec. 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or com- merce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or con- spiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. Sec. 3. Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any Territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade or commerce between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory or Territories and any State or States or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia and any State or States or foreign nations, is hereby declared illegal. Every person who shall make any (5) such contract or engage in any such combination or con- spiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. Sec. 4. The several circuit courts of the United States are hereby invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain vio- lations of this act; and it shall be the duty of the several district attorneys of the United States, in their respective districts, under the direction of the Attorney General, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petition set- ting forth the case and praying that such violation shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties com- plained of shall have been duly notified of such petition the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing and determination of the case; and pending such petition and before final decree, the court may at any time make such tem- porary restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed just in the premises. Sec. 5. Whenever it shall appear to the court before which any proceeding under section four of this act may be pend- ing, that the ends of justice require that other parties should be brought before the court, the court may cause them to be summoned, whether they reside in the district in which the court is held or not ; and subpoenas to that end may be served in any district by the marshal thereof. Sec. 6. Any property owned under any contract or by any combination, or pursuant to any conspiracy (and being the subject thereof) mentioned in section one of this act, and be- ing in the course of transportation from one State to another, or to a foreign country, shall be forfeited to the United States, and may be seized and condemned by like proceedings as those provided by law for the forfeiture, seizure, and condemnation of property imported into the United States contrary to law. Sec. 7. Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by any other person or corporation by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful by this act may sue therefor in any circuit court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found, with- out respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the costs of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Sec. 8. That the word " person," or '' persons," wherever used in this act shall be deemed to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of either the United States, or the laws of any of the Territories, the laws of any State, or the laws of any foreign country. ANTITETJST AMENDMENTS TO THE WILSON TARIFF ACT OF ATJGTJST 27, 1894^SECTIONS 73-77. [28 Stat., 570.] Sec. 73. That every combination, conspiracy, trust, agree- ment, or contract is hereby declared to be contrary to public policy, iEegal, and void, when the same is made by or be- tween two or more persons or corporations either of whom is engaged in importing any article from any foreign country into the United States, and when such combination, con- spiracy, trust, agreement, or contract, is intended to operate in restraint of lawful trade, or free competition in lawful trade or commerce, or to increase the market price in any part of the United States of any article or articles imported or intended to be imported into the United States, or of any manufacture into which such imported article enters or is intended to enter. Every person who is or shall hereafter be engaged in the importation of goods or any commodity from any foreign country in violation of this section of this act, or who shall combine or conspire with another to violate the same, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction th(5reof in any court of the United States, such person shall be fined in a sum not less than one hundred dollars and not exceeding five thousand dollars, and shall be further pun- ished by imprisonment, in the discretion of the court, for a term not less than three months nor exceeding twelve months. 8 Sec. 74. That the several circuit courts of the United States are hereby invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section seventy -three of this act ; and it shall be the duty of the several district attorneys of the United States, in their respective districts, under the direction of the Attor- ney General, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petitions setting forth the case and praying that such violations shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such petition the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing and determination of the case ; and pending such petition and before final decree, the court may at any time make such temporary restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed just in the premises. Sec. 75. That whenever it shall appear to the court before which any proceeding under the seventy- fourth section of this act may be pending that the ends of justice require that other parties should be brought before the court, the court may cause them to be summoned, whether they reside in the district in which the court is held or not; and subpoenas to that end may be served in any district by the marshal thereof. Sec. 76. That any property owned under any contract or by any combination, or pursuant to any conspiracy (and being the subject thereof) mentioned in section seventy-three of this act, and being in the course of transportation from one State to another, or to or from a Territory or the District of Columbia, shall be forfeited to the United States, and may be seized and condemned by like proceedings as those provided by law for the forfeiture, seizure, and condemnation of prop- erty imported into the United States contrary to law. Sec. 77. That any person who shall be injured in his busi- ness or property by any other person or corporation by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful by this act, may sue therefor in any circuit court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found, with- out respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the costs of suit including a reasonable attorney's fee. [The foregoing sections were expressly preserved in the Dingley Act of 1897. Section 34 of that act (30 Stat., 213) concludes as follows:] And further provided, That nothing in this act shall be construed to repeal or in any manner affect the sections num- bered seventy-three, seventy-four, seventy-five, seventy-six, and seventy-seven of an act entitled "An act to reduce taxa- tion, to provide revenue for the Government, and for other purposes," which became a law on the twenty-eighth day of August, eighteen hundred and ninety-four. [32 Stat., 823.] AN ACT To expedite the hearing and determination of suits in equity- pending or hereafter brought under the act of July second, eighteen hundred and ninety, entitled "An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies," "An act to regulate commerce," approved February fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty- seven, or any other acts having a like purpose that may be hereafter enacted. Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in any suit in equity pending or hereafter brought in any circuit court of the United States under the act entitled "An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies," approved July second, eighteen hunderd and ninety, "An act to regulate commerce," approved Feb- ruary fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, or any other acts having a like purpose that hereafter may be enacted, wherein the United States is complainant, the Attor- ney General may file with the clerk of such court a certificate that, in his opinion, the case is of general public importance, a copy of which shall be immediately furnished by such clerk to each of the circuit judges of the circuit in which the case is pending. Thereupon such case shall be given precedence over others and in every way expedited, and be assigned for hearing at the earilest practicable day, before not less than three of the circuit judges of said circuit, if there be three or more; and if there be not more than two circuit judges, then before them and such district judge as they may select. 10 In the event the judges sitting in such case shall be divided in opinion, the case shall be certified to the Supreme Court for review in like manner as if taken there by appeal as here- inafter provided. Sec. 2. That in every suit in equity pending or hereafter brought in a,nj circuit court of the United States under any of said acts, wherein the United States is complainant, including cases submitted but not yet decided, an appeal from the final decree of the circuit court will lie only to the Su- preme Court and must be taken within sixty days from the entry thereof: Provided, That in any case where an appeal may have been taken from the final decree of a circuit court to the circuit court of appeals before this act takes effect, the case shall proceed to a final decree therein, and an appeal may be taken from such decree to the Supreme Court in the manner now provided by law. Approved, February 11, 1903. [32 Stat, 854, 903.] AN ACT Making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and four, and for other purposes. ^ ih >!: ^ ^ That for the enforcement of the provisions of the act entitled "An act to regulate commerce," apiDroved February fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, and all acts amendatory thereof or supplemental thereto, and of the act entitled "An act to protect trade and commerce against un- lawful restraints and monopolies," approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety, and all acts amendatory thereof or supplemental thereto, and sections seventy-three, seventy-four, seventy-five, and seventy-six of the act entitled "An act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Gov- ernment, and other purposes," approved August twenty- seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-four, the sum of five hundred thousand dollars, to be immediately available, is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not heretofore appropriated, to be expended under the direc- tion of the Attorney General in the employment of special counsel and agents of the Department of Justice to conduct 11 proceedings, suits, and prosecutions under said acts in the courts of the United States: Provided, That no person shall be prosecuted or be subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing con- cerning which he may testify or produce evidence, docu- mentary or otherwise, in any proceeding, suit, or prosecu- tion under said acts: Provided further, That no person so testifying shall be exempt from prosecution or punishment for perjury committed in so testifying. ***** Approved, February 25, 1903. [32 Stat.. S25. 827.] AN ACT To establish the Department of Comiiiei-ce n'lrl Labor. * * * * s|s Sec. 6. That there shall be in the Department of Commerce and Labor a bureau to be called the Bureau of Corporations, and a Commissioner of Corporations who shall be the head of said bureau, to be appointed by the President, who shall receive a salary of five thousand dollars per annum. There shall also be in said bureau a deputy commissioner who shall receive a salary of three thousand five hundred dollars per annum, and who shall in the absence of the commissioner act as, and perform the duties of the Commissioner of Cor- porations, and who shall also perform such other duties as ma}^ be assigned to him by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor or by the said commissioner. There shall also be in the said bureau a chief clerk and such special agents, clerks, and other employees as may be authorized by laAv. The said commissioner shall have power and authority to make, under the direction and control of the Secretaiy of Commerce and Labor, diligent investigation into the organi- zation, conduct, and management of the business of any corporation, joint-stock company, or corporate combination engaged in commerce among the several States and with foreign nations excepting common carriers subject to "An act to regulate commerce," approved February fourth, eight- een hundred and eighty-seven, and to gather such informa- tion and data as will enable the President of the United States to make recommendations to Congress for legislation 12 for the regulation of such commerce, and to report such data to the President from time to time as he shall require; and the information so obtained or so much thereof as the Presi- dent may direct shall be made public. In order to accomplish the purposes declared in the fore- going part of this section, the said commissioner shall have and exercise the same power and authority in respect to cor- porations, joint-stock companies, and combinations subject to the provisions hereof, as is conferred on the Interstate Com- merce Commission in said " act to regulate commerce " and the amendments thereto in respect to common carriers so far as the same may be applicable, including the right to sub- poena and compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of documentary evidence and to admin- ister oaths. All the requirements, obligations, liabilities, and immunities imposed or conferred by said " act to regulate commerce " and by "An act in relation to testimony before the Interstate Commerce Commission," and so forth, ap- proved February eleventh, eighteen hundred and ninety- three, supplemental to said " act to regulate commerce," shall also apply to all persons who may be subpoenaed to testify as witnesses or to produce documentary evidence in pursu- ance of the authority conferred by this section. It shall also be the province and duty of said bureau, under the direction of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, to gather, compile, publish, and supply useful in- formation concerning corporations doing business within the limits of the United States as shall engage in interstate commerce or in commerce between the United States and any foreign country, including corporations engaged in insur- ance, and to attend to such other duties as may be hereafter provided by law. * Approved, February 14, 1903. [34 Stat., 798.] AN ACT Defining the right of ininiunity of witnesses under the act entitled "An act in relation to testimony before the Interstate Com- merce Commission," and so forth, approved February eleventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-three, and an act entitled "An act to establish the Department of Commerce and Labor," approved Feb 13 ruary fourteenth, nineteen hundred and three, and an act entitled "An act to further regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the States," appro\ed February nineteenth, nineteen hun- dred and three, and an act entitled "An act mailing appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Govern- ment for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and four, and for other purposes," approved February twenty -fifth, nineteen hundred and three. That under the immunity provisions in the act entitled "An act in relation to testimony before the Interstate Com- merce Commission," and so forth, approved February elev- enth, eighteen hundred and ninety-three, in section six of the act entitled ''An act to establish the Department of Com- merce and Labor,'" approved February fourteenth, nineteen hundred and three, and in the act entitled "An act to further regiilate commerce with foreign nations and among the States,"' approved February nineteenth, nineteen hundred and three, and in the act entitled "An act making appropria- tions for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and four, and for other purposes," ap- proved February twenty-fifth, nineteen hundred and three, immunity shall extend only to a natural person who, in obedience to a subpoena, gives testimony under oath or pro- duces evidence, documentary or otherwise, under oath. Approved, June 30, 1906. SUITS BROUGHT AND PROSECUTIONS INSTITUTED BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE SHERMAN ANTI- TRUST LA"W". President Harrison's Administration, March 4. 1889, to March 4, 1893. [William H. Milles, Attorney General, March 5, 1889, to March 6, 1893.] 1. United States v. Jellico Mountain Coal Company (43 Fed. Eep., 898; 46 Fed. Eep., 432). ' (Circuit Court, M. D. Tennessee. October 13. 1890; June 4, 1891.) Suit against the members of the " Nashville Coal Ex- change," composed of various coal mining companies operating mines in Kentucky and Tennessee, and of 2. 14 persons and firms dealing in coal in Nashville, formed for the purpose of fixing prices and regulating the output of coal. A preliminary injunction was denied on October 13, 1890. Upon full hearing the court, on June 4, 1891, held the combination to be in violation of the antitrust law, and enjoined the further carrying out of the agree- ment. United States v. Greenkut et al., 50 Fed. Rep., 469. (District Court, Massachusetts. May Ifi. 1892.) A proceeding by indictment against the officers of the Distilling and Cattle Feeding Co. (Whisky Trust) :for an alleged violation of the antitrust law. Indictment quashed, as allegations were held not to constitute an offense under the statute. 2a. In re Coming, 51 Fed. Rep., 205. (District Court, N. D. Ohio. June 11, 1892.) Application for a warrant of removal from Ohio to Massachusetts to answer to the indictment found in the Greenhut case. Application denied and prisoner dis- charged. 2b. In re Terrell, 51 Fed. Rep., 213. (Circuit Court, S. D. New York. June 28, 1892.) Application for a writ of habeas corpus to secure a discharge from arrest and detention upon a warrant for removal from New York to Massachusetts to ansAver to the indictment found in the Greenhut case. Petitioner discharged. 2c. In re Greene, 52 Fed. Rep., 104. (Circuit Court, S. D. Ohio. August 4, 1892.) Petition for writ of habeas corpus to secure release from the custody of the marshal, by whom he was held awaiting an order for the removal of Greene to Massa- chusetts to answer to the indictment in the Greenhut case. Prisoner discharged. 15 3. United States v. Nelson, 52 Fed. Eep., 646. (District Court, Minnesota. October 10, 1892.) Indictment of a number of lumber dealers for conspir- ing together to raise the price of lumber in violation of the antitrust law. Demurrer to indictment sustained, the court holding that an agreement between a number of dealers to raise prices, unless they controlled nearly the entire com- modity, could not operate as a restraint of trade under the act. 4. United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, .53 Fed. Eep., 440; 58 Fed. Eep., 58; 166 U. S., 290. (Circuit Court, Kansas. November 28, 1892.) (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. October 2, 1893.) (United States Supreme Court. March 22, 1897.) Bill filed January 6, 1892, to enjoin the operations of a combination of railroads engaged in interstate com- merce, formed for the purpose of maintaining " just and reasonable rates," etc. Bill dismissed by Circuit Court ; decree of dismissal affirmed by Circuit Court of Appeals, and reversed by the United States Supreme Court on March 22, 1897. 5. United States v. Workingmen^s Amalgamated Council of New Orleans et al., 54 Fed. Eep., 994 ; 57 Fed. Eep., 85. (Circuit Court, E. D. Louisiana. March 25, 1893.) (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. June 13, 1893.) Suit to restrain defendants, a combination of work- men, from interfering with interstate and foreign com- merce, in violation of the antitrust law. The injunction was granted, and the law held to apply to combinations of laborers as well as capitalists. This decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 16 6. United States v. Patterson et al., 55 Fed. Rep., 605 ; 59 Fed. Eep., 280. (Circuit Court. Massachusetts. February 28 and June 7, 1893.) Cash register case. Indictment of members of a com- bination formed for the purpose of controlling the price of cash registers. A demurrer was sustained as to cer- tain counts of the indictment and overruled as to others, and leave granted to file special demurrers to the counts which were sustained. The special demurrers were heard on June 1, 1893, and the demurrers overruled, the court adhering to its former ruling. Letter of Attorney General dated October 16, 1893, shows case was allowed to lapse because of consolidation of complaining wit- ness with defendants. 7. United States v. E. C. Knight Company (Sugar Trust), 60 Fed. Rep., 306; 60 Fed. Rep., 934; 156 U. S., 1. (Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. January 30, 1894.) (Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. March 26, 1894.) (United States Supreme Court. January 21, 1895.) Bill in equity to enjoin the operations of the Sugar Trust, charged with a violation of the antitrust law. The bill was dismissed January- 30, 1894. Appeal was taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and the decree affirmed. From this decision an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, where the decree of dismissal was affirmed. President Cleveland's Second Administration, March 4, 1893, to March 4, 1897. [Richard Olxey. Attornov General, March 6, 1893, to June 7, 1895; .Tddson Harmon, Attorney General, June 8, 1895, to March 5, 1897.] 1. United States v. Agler^ 62 Fed. Rep., 824. (Circuit Court, Indiana. July 12, 1894.) Information charging contempt of court in disobey- ing an injunction restraining Agler and others from 2. 17 interfering with interstate commerce and obstructing the mails. Information quashed. It was charged that Agler was a member of the American Eailway Union, the members of which order were on a strike and had been enjoined under the antitrust law from interfering with the carrying of the mails and from obstructing interstate commerce. This is one of the " Debs " cases. United States v. Elliott, 62 Fed. Kep., 801 ; 64 Fed. Rep., 27. (Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri. July 6 and October 24, 1894.) Suit to restrain Elliott, Debs, and others, members of the American Eailway Union, from carrying out their unlawful conspiracy to interfere with interstate com- merce and to obstruct the carrying of the mails, in vio- lation of the antitrust law. Preliminary injunction granted. A demurrer to this bill was overruled. 3. United States v. Dels et al., 64 Fed. E«p., 724. (Circuit Court, N. D. Illinois. December 14, 1894.) Proceedings in contempt to punish Debs and others for disobeying an injunction restraining them from in- terfering with interestate commerce and with obstructing the mails, by means of a conspiracy, in violation of the antitrust law. Defendants found guilty and punished. 3a. In re Debs, petitioner, 158 U. S., 564. (United States Supreme Court. May 27, 1895.) Proceeding instituted July 2, 1894. Application for a writ of habeas corpus to secure a discharge from im- prisonment for disobeying an injunction of the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois, restraining Debs and others from conspiring to interfere with inter- state commerce, in violation of the antitrust law. Petition for the writ denied. 98740—11 2 18 4. United States v. Gassidy, 67 Fed. Eep., 698. (District Court, N. D. California. April 1 and 2, 1895.) Cassidy and others were indicted under section 5440, United States Kevised Statutes, for conspiring to com- mit offenses against the United States, which acts con- sisted in a combining and conspiring to restrain trade •and commerce between the States, in violation of the antitrust law, and grew out of the Pullman strike in California. The trial lasted five months and resulted in a disagreement of the jury. 5. Moore v. United States, 85 Fed Eep., 465. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. February 14, 1898.) Indictment of the members of an association of dealers in coal at Salt Lake City for entering into a conspiracy to regulate the price of coal. Indictment returned No- vember 4, 1895. Moore was tried and convicted in the District Court of Utah upon this indictment. The Cir- cuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of convic- tion, for the reason that upon the admission of Utah as a State it was no longer a " Territory'" within the mean- ing of the antitrust act, and the combination was not in restraint of interstate commerce, and the court there- fore had no jurisdiction of the offense. 6. United States v. Joint Traffic Association, 76 Fed. Rep., 895; 89 Fed. Rep. 1020; 171 U. S., 505. (Circuit Court, S. D. New York. May 28, 1896.) (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. March 19, 1897.) (United States Supreme Court. October 28, 1898.) Suit instituted January 8, 1896. Bill in equity to enjoin the alleged violation of the antitrust law by a combination of railroads. The Circuit Court dismissed the bill, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the action of the Circuit Court. These judgments were reversed by the United States Supreme Court. 19 7. United States v. Addyston Pipe and Steel Company, 78 Fed. Rep., 712; 85 Fed. Eep., 271; 175 U. S., 211. (Circuit Court, E. D. Tennessee. February 5, 1897.) (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. February 8, 1898.) (United States Supreme Court. December 4, 1899.) Suit instituted December 10, 1896. Bill in equity to enjoin the operations of the cast-iron pipe trust, which attempted to control the price of cast-iron pipe. The bill was dismissed by the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decree of the Circuit Court and remanded the case, with instructions to enter a decree for the Government. On appeal to the Su- preme Court the action of the Circuit Court of Appeals was affirmed. 8. United States v. Hopkins et al., 82 Fed. Rep., 529; 84 Fed. Rep., 1018 ; 171 U. S., 578. (Circuit Court, Kansas. September 20, 1897.) (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Decem- ber 27, 1897.) (United States Supreme Court. October 24,1898.) Suit instituted December 31, 1896. Bill to restrain the operations of the "Kansas City Live Stock Ex- change," organized to control the shipments of live stock. The injunction was granted, but on appeal the Supreme Court reversed the decree of the Circuit Court and remanded the case, with instructions to dismiss the bill. President McKinley's Administration — March 4, 1897-September 14, 1901. [Joseph McKenna^ Attorney General, March 5, 1897, to June 25, 1898; John W. Griggs, Attorney General, June 25, 1898, to March 29, 1901 ; Philander C. Knox, Attorney General, April 5, 1901, to June 30, 1904.] 1. Anderson v. United States, 82 Fed. Rep., 998 ; 171 U. S., 604. (Circuit Court, N. D. Missouri. .) 3. 20 (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. ■) (United States Supreme Court. October 24, 1898.) Bill in equity to restrain the operations of " The Traders' Live Stock Exchange," of Kansas City, an association formed for the purpose of buying cattle on the market. This suit was instituted June 7, 1897, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri. Decree of temporary injunction was granted and the case appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. From there it was certified to the Supreme Court of the United States for instructions upon certain questions, under the provisions of section 6 of the act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat., 828). The Supreme Court reversed the decree of the Circuit Court and remanded the case with directions to dismiss the bill, holding that the acts complained of were not a violation of the antitrust law. United States v. Coal Dealers'' Association, 85 Fed. Rep., 252. (Circuit Court, X. D. California. January 28, 1898.) Suit brought December 16, 1897. Bill for injunction to restrain the operations of a combination of coal dealers known as the " Coal Dealers' Association of California." A temporary injunction was granted. United States v. Chesapeake and Ohio Fuel Company et al., 105 Fed. Eep., 93; 115 Fed. Rep., 610. (Circuit Court, S. D. Ohio. August 31, 1900.) (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. April 8, 1902.) Bill filed May 8, 1899, to annul a contract and dissolve a combination of producers and shippers of coal in Ohio and West Virginia, engaged in mining coal and making coke intended for " Western shipment," under agree- ment to sell the same at not less than a memorandum price, to be fixed by an executive committee appointed by the producers. Defendants enjoined, contract de- clared void and illegal, and the combination dissolved. Affirmed by Circuit Court of Appeals. No appeal taken. \t 21 President Roosevelt's Administration — September 14, 1901-March 4, 1909. [Pg.ii'ANDBn C. Knox, Attorney General, April 5, 1901, to June 30, 1904; WILLIAM H. Moody, Attorney General, July 1, 1904, to December 10, 1906; Charles .T. Bonaparte, Attorney General, December 17, 1906, to March 4, 1909.] 1. United States v. Northern Securities Co., Great North- ern R'y Co., Northern Pacific R'y Co. et al., 120 F. R., 721 ; 193 U. S., 197. (Circuit Court, Minnesota. April 9, 1903.) (United States Supreme Court. March 14, 1904.) This suit was brought on March 10, 1902, in the Cir- cuit Court of the United States for. the District of cl'- Minnesota, to enjoin the defendant, the Northern Securi- ties Co., from purchasing, acquiring, receiving, holding, voting, or in any manner acting as the owner of any of the shares of the capital stock of the two defendant rail- way companies, and to restrain the defendant railway companies from permitting the securities company to vote any of the stock of said railways, or from exercising any control whatsoever over the corporate acts of either of said railway companies, it being charged that the securities company was formed for the purpose of ac- quiring a majority of the capital stock of the two rail- way companies in order that it might in that way effect practically a consolidation of the two companies by con- trolling rates and restricting and destroying competi- tion, in violation of the Sherman antitrust law. The Circuit Court on April 9, 1903, entered a decree in favor of the Government as prayed in the petition, and this decree was, on March 14, 1904, affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States. 2. United States v. Swift & Co. et al., 122 F. E. 529; 196 U. S., 37.5. Suit brought on May 10, 1902, in the Circuit Coiirt of the United States for the Noitliern District of Illinois to restrain the defendants (commonly known as the Beef Trust), who are engaged in the buy- ing of live stock and the selling of dressed meats, from carrying out an unlawful conspiracy entered into be- 3. 4. 22 tween themselves and with the various railway compa- nies, to suppress competition and to obtain a monopoly in the purchase of live stock and in the selling of dressed meats. A preliminary restraining order was granted on May 20, 1902. The defendants having demurred to the bill, the court, after hearing, on April 18, 1903, overruled the demurrers and granted a preliminary injunction. The defendants having failed to answer, the court, on May 26, 1903, entered an order making the decree final and perpetually enjoying the further operations of the trust. The defendants, on August 14, 1903, appealed from the final decree of the Circuit Court to the Supreme Court of the United States, where decree was affirmed January- 30, 1905. United States v. The Federal Salt Company et al. Suit brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, on October 15, 1902, to restrain the defendants (known as the Salt Trust) from unlawfully combining and conspiring to suppress competition in the manufacture and sale ot salt in the States west of the Rocky Mountains, in vio- lation of the Sherman antitrust law. A temporary re- straining order was issued on that date, and, the cause coming on for hearing, the court on November 10, 1902, granted an injunction pendente lite, thus, in effect, mak- ing the restraining order perpetual. No appeal was taken from this order. United States v. The Federal Salt Company. On February 28, 1903, the grand jury for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California returned an indictment against the Salt Trust, for hav- ing violated the antitrust law. On May 12, 1903, the trust pleaded guilty, and the court sentenced it to pay a fine of $1,000, which was paid. 23 5. United States v. Jacksonville Wholesale Grocers'' As- sociation. A proceeding in equity, instituted on Septem- ber 12, 1903, in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of Florida, for the purpose of dissolv- ing a combination of wholesale grocers, operating in violation of the antitrust law. November 1, 1907, dismissed. 6. United States v. General Paper Go. et al. Decem- ber 27, 1904, a bill in equity was filed in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minne- sota against the General Paper Co. and twenty-three other corporations engaged in the manufacture and sale of paper, alleging that they had entered into a combination and conspiracy to restrain trade and com- merce in the manufacture of news print, manila, fiber, and other papers by making the General Paper Co. their common sales agent. On May 11, 1906, the court or- dered judgment in favor of the Govermnent, dissolving the combination and affording all relief prayed in the bill. (See also Nelson v. United States, 201 U. S., 92; Alexander v. United States, id., 117.) United States v. Armour & Co. et al. After the af- firmance by the Supreme Court of the decree of the Cir- cuit Court in United States v. Swift <& Company (above referred to) complaints from various quarters were made to the department that the combination still continued. The department thereupon began an exhaustive inquiry before the grand jury for the northern district of Illi- nois, which resulted in the return of an indictment on July 1, 1905, against Armour & Co., J. Ogden Ar- mour, president ; Patrick A. Valentine, treasurer ; Arthur Neekler, general manager; Thomas J. Connors, super- intendent, and Samuel A. McEoberts, assistant treasurer, of Armour & Co. ; the Armour Packing Co., and Charles W. Armour, president; Swift & Co., and Louis F. Swift, president; Lawrence A. Carton, treasurer; D. Edwin 8. 8a. 24 Hartwell, secretary, and Albert H. Veeder and Robert C. McManus and Arthur F. Evans, agents of Swift & Co.; the Fairbank Canning Co., and Edward Morris, vice president; Ira N. Morris, secretary of the Fairbank Canning Co. ; the Cudahy Packing Co., and Edward A. Cudahy, vice president and general manager of the Cudahy Packing Co. Against this indictment many preliminary objections were urged. All were disposed of in favor of the Gov- ernment, except certain special pleas of immunity in bar, based upon information concerning the matters for which the defendants were indicted, which they had given to the Department of Commerce and Labor. The court sustained the pleas so far as the individual defend- ants were concerned and overruled them with respect to the corporations. United States v. MacAndrews c& Forbes Company et al. (149 Fed., 823; 212 U. S., 585). In June, 1906, the grand jury returned an indictment against the MacAndrews & Forbes .Co., the J. S. Young Co., a corporation of Maine, and Karl Jungbluth and Howard E. Young, their respective presidents, for illegally com- bining and conspiring to regulate the interstate trade and sale in licorice paste, an article used in the manufacture of plug and smoking tobacco, snuff, and cigars. De- fendants entered pleas of not guilty, with leave to with- draw or demur on or before July 9, 1906. July 9, 1906, demurrers filed by all of the defendants. December 4, 1906, demurrers overruled. December 19, 1906, trial commenced. January 10, 1907, MacAndrews & Forbes Co. was found guilty on first and third counts of indict- ment, the J. S. Young Co. guilty on first and third counts ; verdict of acquittal as to individual defendants. MacAndrews & Forbes Co. fined $10,000. J. S. Young Co. fined $8,000. The Tobacco Trust Gases {Hale v. Tlenkel, 201 U. S., 43; McAlister v. Henkel, id., 90; 149 Fed.. 823; 212 U. S., 585). These cases grew out of an investigation 10. 11. 25 by a Federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York of the American Tobacco Co. and the Mac- Andrews & Forbes Co., believed to be violating the antitrust laws, the matter having been brought to the attention of the grand jury by the officers of the De- partment of Justice, special counsel having been ap- pointed for the purpose of investigation and prosecution. Subpoenas duces tecum were, served upon the officers of the companies directing them to produce papers and other documentary evidence belonging to the corpora- tions. They refused to obey the subpoena or to answer questions propounded to them. The Circuit Court ad- judged them in contempt and committed them until they should produce the books and answer the questions. They applied to another judge of the same court for writs of habeas corpus, which, upon hearing, were dis- charged. Upon appeal the Supreme Court affirmed the orders denying the writs. United States v. Metropolitan Meat Gomfany et al. Bill filed in equity in October, 1905, in the United States Circuit Court for Hawaii, to restrain the operation of alleged unlawful combinations in restraint of the trade in beef and beef products. Demurrer to bill overruled October 2, 1906. Pending. United States v. Nome Retail Grocers^ Association. November 4, 1905, the department directed the United States attorney for the Second Division of Alaska to file a bill in equity against the Nome Retail Grocers' Associa- tion, alleging a combination to fix prices and to suppress competition. Suit was promptly instituted, whereupon the defendants agreed to the entry of a decree granting all the relief prayed for in the petition. A decree dis- solving the combination was entered accordingly. United States v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis et al. Petition filed in Circuit Court of United States for the Eastern District of Missouri on 12. 26 December 1, 1905, to enjoin the defendant railroads from continuing an unlawful combination entered into between them to operate Eads Bridge and Merchants Bridge as a common agency of interstate commerce. Upon disagree- ment of Circuit Judges case was carried to the Supreme Court and was remanded by that court for further pro- ceedings. Government then attempted to secure rehear- ing in the Circuit Court and failed, and has appealed to the Supreme Court, where the case is set for hearing in October, 1911. United States v. Allen (& Rohinson et al. Bill filed in October in United States Circuit Court for the District of Hawaii alleging unlawful combination to control the trade in lumber in that Territory. Answers filed Jan- uary 2, 1906. Pending. 13. United States v. Otis Elevator Co. et al. Bill filed March 7, 1906, in the United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of California against the Otis Elevator Co. and a number of other corporations and individuals, in which it was alleged that they were maintaining a combination in restraint of trade in the matter of the manufacture and sale of elevators. June 1, 1906, a decree was entered by consent dissolving the combination and granting the relief prayed. 14. United States v. F. A . Amsden Lumber Company et al. Indictment returned in the District Court of Oklahoma May 4, 1906, for violation of the Sherman Act in re- stricting competition and maintaining prices in the sale of lumber. May 13, 1907, change of venue granted to Grant County. September 25, 1907, pleas of guilty and fines imposed aggregating $2,000, which were paid. 15. United States v. National Association of Retail Drug- gists et al. Bill in equity filed May 9, 1906, in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Indiana 16. 17. 27 against the National Association of Eetail Druggists, alleging a combination in restraint of interstate trade in the sale of drugs and proprietary medicines. May 9, 1907, final decree entered by agreement, giving the Government all the relief prayed for in the petition. United States v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Com- pany el al. May 25, 1906, the Federal grand jury for the Middle District of Tennessee, upon information fur- nished by the Department of Justice, returned an indict- ment against 31 corporations and 25 individuals en- gaged in the fertilizer business in the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Tennessee, charging them with engaging in a conspiracy in violation of the Fed- eral antitrust act, and with conspiring to commit an offense against the United States, viz, the aforesaid conspiracy, in violation of section 5440 of the Revised Statutes. The fertilizer manufacturers combined to fix the price of fertilizers in the territory mentioned and to apportion the trade among themselves according to an agreed percentage. July 11, 1906, all the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States from an order of the Circuit Court of the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia denying the right of habeas corpus and remanding them to the custody of the marshal for re- moval to the Middle District of Tennessee for trial. The case before the Supreme Court was argued on De- cember 3, 1906, and on March 4, 1907, the judgment of the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Virginia was reversed and the case remanded to that court for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion of the Supreme Court. April 17, 1908, various motions, pleas in abatement, and demurrers filed. July 3, 1908, certain motions and demurrers overruled, plea in abate- ment allowed, and indictment quashed. United States v. American Ice Company et al. July 12. 1906, indictment returned in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, charging an unlawful agree- ment to control prices and restrict competition in the sale of ice. Case pending. 18. United States v. Chandler Ice and Gold Storage Plant et ah September 19, 1906, indictment returned in the Distiict Court for the Territory of Oklahoma against the Chandler Ice and Cold Storage Plant and others, charging a combination to apportion territory in the matter of the sale of ice. May 5, 1907, demurrer filed by defendant Groves and overruled. May 20, 1907, de- murrer filed by Chandler Ice and Cold Storage Plant. Dismissed. 19. United States v. Alfred M. Gloyd et al. September 21, 1906, indictment returned against Alfred M. Gloyd and others in the District Court for the Territory of Oklahoma, charging a combination to maintain prices and restrict competition in the sale of lumber. Dis- missed. 20. United States v. People^s h^e and Fuel Con^pany, a corporatio7i, and IF. B. Lonnt. October 23, 1906, in- dictment returned in the District Court for the Terri- tory of Arizona, charging a combination to control prices and restrict competition in the sale of ice. January 5, 1907, trial commenced. Verdict not guilty as to People's Ice and Fuel Co. and company held to next grand jury. Trial of AV. B. Lount continued over term. October 16, 1907, plea in bar filed. October 17, 1907, plea in bar sustained. 21. United States v. Demand Lumber Company et al. October 23, 1906, indictment returned in the District Court for the Territory of Arizona, charging a combi- nation to control prices and restrict competition in the sale of lumber. January 2, 1907, trial commenced. 29 Verdict of not guilty as to Demund Lumber Co. January 7, 1907, cases against Chamberlain Lumber Co. and Valley Lumber Co. continued over term. May 8, 1907, motion made to court to instruct for acquittal. Motion argued and taken under advisement. May 9, 1907, mo- tion sustained and verdict of acquittal returned. 22. United States v. Phoenix Wholesale -Meat and Pro- duce Gom'pany, a corporation, P. T. Hurley, and S. J. Tribolet. October 23, 1906, indictment returned in the District Court for the Territory of Arizona, charging a combination to coptrol prices and restrict competition in the sale of meats. January 7, 1907, trial commenced. Verdict of not guilty as to Phoenix Wholesale Meat & Produce Co. January 8, 1907, indictment against Hur- ley dismissed. Verdict of guilty as to defendant S. J.. Tribolet. January 12, 1907, Tribolet sentenced to pay fine of $1,000. January 9, 1907. case against Phoenix Wholesale Meat & Produce Co. dismissed. Appeal to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Arizona. Su- preme Court aiSrmed decision of lower court. Fine paid. 23. United States v. Standard Oil Company of N. J. et cd^ (United States Circuit Court En. Mo., 173 Fed., 177.) (United States Supreme Court, 121 U. S. 1.) November 15, 1906, bill in equity filed in United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Mis- souri against the Standard Oil Co. and others, in which it is alleged that they are maintaining a combination in restraint of trade in the manufacture and sale of petroleum. Decision by unanimous court favor Gov- ernment November 20, 1909. Appealed to Supreme- Court and judgment affirmed May 15, 1911. 24. United States v. T. B. Hogg et al. December 8, 1906, indictment returned in the District Court for the Terri- tory of Oklahoma, charging a combination and conspir- 30 acy in restraint of trade and commerce in the sale of lumber. March 25, 1907, plea of not guilty. Change of judge granted on application of defendants. Dismissed. 25. United States v. Atlantic Investrnent Company et al. February 11, 1907, indictment returned in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia against the Atlantic Investment Co. and others, charging a combination in restraint of 'trade and com- merce in the matter of the manufacture and sale of tur- pentine. February 18, 1907, four corporations alid two individuals, defendants to this indictment, entered pleas of guilty, and the court imposed a fine of $5,000 upon each of the six defendants, making a total of $30,000. 26. United States v. American Seating Company et al. March 12, 1907, indictment returned in the District Court of the Northern District of Illinois charging a violation of the Sherman antitrust law by engaging in a combination in restraint of trade in the manufacture and sale of school and church furniture. April 1, 1907, defendant corporations entered pleas of guilty, with one exception. May 20, 1907, fines imposed aggregating $43,000. Defendant E. H. Stafford Manufacturing Co. filed demurrer April 3, 1907. May 31, 1907, demurrer overruled and plea of not guilty entered. 27. United States v. American Seating Company et al. March 12, 1907, bill in equity filed in the United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the American Seating Co. and others, in which it is alleged that they are maintaining a combination in restraint of trade in the manufacture and sale of school and church furniture. August 15, 1907, decree entered granting perpetual injunction against all defendants, except E. H. Stafford Manufacturing Co., E. H. Staf- ford, E. M. Stafford, and E. G. Bentley. 28. 29. 80. 31. 31 United States v. Santa Rita Mining Company and Santa Rita Store Company. April 4, 1907, indictment returned in the district of New Mexico charging a vio- lation of section 3 of the Sherman antitrust law for engaging in a combination in restraint of trade. De- murrer filed and overruled. Fine of $1,000 imposed on each defendant; total, $2,000. Appeal taken to the Su- preme Court of the Territory of New Mexico. United States v. The Reading Company et al. United States Circuit Court, En. Pa., 183 Fed., 427. June 12, 1907, bill in equity filed in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to dissolve a combina- tion among the anthracite coal-carrying roads and others, alleged to be operating in violation of the Sherman law. December 8, 1910, decision dismissing petition, except as to Temple Iron Co., which was adjudged illegal. Cross appeals taken to Supreme Court where case is now pending. Set for argument in October, 1911. United States v. National Umtrella Frame Company et al. July 1, 1907, indictment returned in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania charg- ing a conspiracy to restrain interstate trade and com- merce in the manufacture and sale of umbrella material, in violation of the Sherman antitrust law and section 5440, R. S. Pleas of guilty entered and fines aggre- gating $3,000 imposed. United States v. American Tobacco Company et al. (United States Circuit Court, Sn. N. Y., 164 Fed., 700.) (United States Supreme Court, 121 U. S. — .) Bill in equity filed July 10, 1907, by the United States against the American Tobacco Co. and others, in which it was alleged that they were maintaining a combination in restraint of trade and commerce in the manufacture 32. and sale of tobacco. November 7, 1908, decision ren- dered in favor of the Government except as to indi- vidual defendants and certain foreign and other cor- porations. Cross appeals were taken to the Supreme Court, where, on May 29, 1911, a sweeping decision was rendered sustaining the Government on every point. United States v. E. H. Stafford Manufacturing Gom- fany et al. July 10, 1907, indictment returned in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois charging a violation of the Sherman antitrust law by engaging in a combination in restraint of trade in the manufacture and sale of school and church furniture. Case pending. 33. United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & co. et al. July 30, 1907, bill in equity filed in the Circuit Court for the District of Delaware against E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. and others, in which it is alleged that they are maintaining a combination in restraint of trade in the manufacture and sale of gunpowder and other high explosives. September 1, 1908, examiner ap- pointed to take testimony. June 21, 1911, a decision was rendered ordering the dissolution of the combi- nation. 34. United States v. One Hundred and Seventy -five Cases of Cigarettes. October 28, 1907, information filed in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia covering the seizure of 175 cases of cigarettes under section 6 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Case pending. 35. United States v. H. D. Gorbett Stationery Company et al. November 1, 1907, indictment returned in the District Court for the District of Arizona charging a combination in restraint of trade. November 4, 1907, demurrer filed. November 14, 1907, demurrers sustained 36. 37. 38. 39. 33 and defendants referred to next grand jury. October 28, 1908, reindicted. November 6, 1908, verdict not guilty. United States v. Union Pacific Goal Gom,pany et aZ., 173 Fed., 737. November 20, 1907, indictment returned in the District Court for the District of Utah, charging a conspiracy to violate and a violation of the Sherman Act. January 6, 1908, demurrer filed. March 2, 1908, demurrer sustained as to first count and overruled as to second count. December 3, 1908, verdict guilty. March 29, 1909, fines aggregating $4,000 imposed. November, 1909, judgment reversed. United States v. Cfias. L. Simmons et al. Januaty 20, 1908, indictment returned in the District Court for the Southern District of Alabama charging a combination in restraint of trade and commerce in the matter of the manufacture and sale of plumbers' supplies. December 1, 1910, pleas of guilty, and fines aggregating $265 im- posed. , United States v. Union Pacific Railroad Companf^ et al. February 1, 1908, a bill in equity was filed in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Utah, charging a combination and conspiracy in violation of the Sherman Act on the part of the so- called Harriman lines. June 23, 1911, decision by Cir- cuit Court to the effect that the roads involved were not competing lines and hence the combination was not a violation of law. United States v. E. J. Ray et al. February 14, 1908, indictment returned in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against seventy -two laborers, charging a combination and conspiracy in restraint of foreign trade and commerce, in violation of the Sher- man Act. 98740—11 3 42. 34 40. United States v. E. J. Ray et at. February 15, 1908, indictment returned in the Circuit Court for the East- ern District of Louisiana against seventy-two laborers, charging a combination and conspiracy in restraint of interstate trade and commerce, in violation of the Sher- man Act. January 26, 1911, cases consolidated for trial. Verdict of guilty as to three defendants and fines amounting to $110 imposed. 41. United States v. Joseph Stief voter et al. February 15, i908, indictment returned in the United Slates Cir- cuit Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, charg- ing a combination in restraint of trade and commerce in the matter of the manufacture and sale of plumbers' supplies. June 25, 1910, dismissed. United States v. American Naval Stores Gortvfany et al. (161 Fed., 834; charge to grand jury, 186 Fed., 692). April 11, 1908, indictment returned in the United .States Circuit Court for the Southern District of Georgia, charging a coml>ination in restraint of trade and commerce in the matter of the manufacture and sale of turpentine. May 10, 1909, verdict guilty as to five individual defendants. Fines aggregating $17,500 imposed and two defendants sentenced to three months in jail. Appealed to Circuit Court of Appeals and judgment affirmed. Certiorari granted to Supreme Court, where case is now pending. 43. United States v. New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company et al. (165 Fed., 742). May 22, 1908, a bill in equity was filed in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts, charging the New Haven Co. with combining and at- tempting to combine under one conmion control the various railroad and electric railway systems in New England in violation of the Sherman Act. Dismissed June 26, 1909. 35 44. 3. United States v. John H. Parks et al. June 16, 1908, indictment returned in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, charging a combination in restraint of trade in the matter of the manufacture and sale of paper. June 19, 1908, defend- ants pl«ad guilty and sentenced to pay fines aggregating $50,000, which were paid. President Taft's Administration, March 4, 1909. [Geo. W. Wickeksham, Attorney Ganeral, March 4, 1909.] United States v. American Sugar Re-fining Company et al. Indictment under Sherman law July 1, 1909. A plea of the statute of limitations was interposed by the defendant Kissell, which was taken to the Supreme Court, where it was decided in favor of the Govern- ment. (See U. S. V. Kissell, 218 U. S., 601.) Pending. United States v. Albia Box cSi Paper Company et al. December 7, 1909, indictment returned in Southern Dis- trict of New York charging combination in restraint of trade in paper board. February 7, 1910, all defendants plead guilty and fines aggregating $57,000 were assessed. United States v. John S. Steers et al. Indictment re- turned in Eastern District of Kentucky February 17, 1910, charging conspiracy to restrain trade. This is the so-called '•''Night Rider " case where the restraint con- sisted in preventing the shipment of tobacco in inter- state commerce by means of violence and intimidation. After the overruling of demurrers and various pleas in abatement a trial was had, and on April 16, 1910, a ver- dict of guilty was returned as to eight of twelve defend- ants and fines aggregating $3,500 imposed. Appealed to Circuit Court of Appeals, where case is now pending. 4. 5. 6. 7. 36 United States v. Imferial Window Glass Company et al. Indictment found in western Pennsylvania April 7, 1910, charging combination and conspiracy to en- hance the price of window glass. Demurrers to the in- dictment were overruled, and on November 10, 1910, pleas of nolo contendere were entered and fines aggregat- ing $10,000 and costs were imposed. United States v. National Packing Company ft al. Indictment returned in Northern District of Illinois March 2, 1910, charging combination to restrain trade in fresh meats. Demurrer to indictment sustained June 23, 1910. United States v. National Paching Company et ah Northern Illinois. Bill in equity charging combination in restraint of trade in fresh meats and praying for dis- solution filed March 21, 1910. Dismissed in order to facilitate the prosecution of later criminal case. United States v. Armour Packing Company et al. Indictment returned at Savannah, Ga., in April, 1910, charging combination to control prices and restrict competition. Case now pending. United States v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company and twenty-four other railroads. Petition to restrain violation of Sherman law filed May 31, 1910, and tempo- rary restraining order issued on that day enjoining ad- vances in freight rates in western trunk-line territory, which would have become effective June 1, 1910. There- upon the railroads, after consultation with the President, withdrew their proposed advances in freight rates, and after tlie passage of the act of June 18, 1910, the mat- ter was referred to the Interstate Commerce Commis- sion. Thereafter the Interstate Commerce Commission enjoined the rate advances wliich the temporary re- straining order obtained by the Department on May 31, 1910, had prevented from going into effect. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 37 United States v. Southern Wholesale Grocers'' Asso- ciation. Bill in equity charging combination to regu- late prices of necessities of life filed at Birmingham, Ala., June 9, 1910. An examiner has been appointed and the taking of testimony is being pushed to a speedy conclusion, and an early hearing and determination is expected. United States v. Great Lakes Towing Company et al. Petition filed in Northern District of Ohio on June 19, 1910, against an alleged combination of towing facilities on the Great Lakes. The taking of testimony is nearing completion, and the case will be assigned for an early hearing. United States v. Chicago Butter & Egg Board. Bill asking for dissolution filed at Chicago June 13, 1910. A demurrer to the petition was sustained with leave to amend. An amended bill has been filed and the case is now pending. United States v. Frank Hayne, James A. Patten, etal.^ 180 Fed., 946. Indictments returned New York City against alleged cotton pool conspirators August 4, 1910. Demurrers were sustained as to certain counts of indict- ment and overruled as to others, and case is now on appeal to the Supreme Court. United States v. Standard Sanitary J/anufarturing Company et al. Petition filed at Baltimore July 22, 1910, charging a combination, under cover of a patent licensing arrangement, to restrain competition and en- hance prices of enamel ware. Four volumes of testi- mony was taken, and case set for argument at Eichmond on June 15, 16, and 17, 1911. An early decision is expected. United States v. Louis F. Swift et al. Indictment returned by the grand jury at Chicago in September, 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 38 1910. against ten prominent individuals engaged in the meat-packing industry. Defendants have filed numer- ous pleas in bar, etc., all o£ which were d'Bcided in favor of the Goverimient. and it is hoped that an early trial may be had. United States v. John Reardon & Sons Company and Consolidated Rerulering Co. Indicted jointly by Federal grand jury at Boston in October, 1910. De- murrer to indictment sustained June 23, 1911. United States v. Ferdinand Sulzberger doing busi- ness under the name of John Reardon c& Sons Com- pany, and Horatio W. Heath, of Boston, doing business as the Consolidated Rendering Company. Jointly in- dicted at Boston in October, 1910, for violation of the Sherman law. Demurrer to indictment sustained June 23, 1911. United States v. Horatio W. Heath and Cyrus S. Hapgood. Indictment returned in October at Boston, charging violation of the Sherman law. Demurrer to indictment sustained June 23, 1911. (Note. — In the last three indictments, whicli were found simul- taneously, the Government charges that the defendants have attempted to divide territory between themselves throughout New England, so as to avoid competition and dri\ e out competitors in the hide and rendering business.) United States v. Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Company et cd. In addition to the above suit in equity (No. 13, supra), indictments were returned by grand jury at Detroit on December 6, 1910, against the same corporations and individuals charging the same acts. Various demurrers and dilatory pleas have been filed, argued, and overruled, and an early trial is expected. United States v. American Sugar Refining Com- pany et al. A suit in equity was filed at New York on November 28, 1910, against this corporation, its officers 39 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. and agents, and its owned and controlled corporatioiis, attacking it as a combination in restraint of trade and praying for its dissolution. The case is now pending and will be prosecuted diligently. United States v. General Electric Company et d. Bill in equity filed at Cleveland, Ohio, on March 3, 1911, charging a combination in incandescent electric lamps. This suit is the outcome of an extensive investigation into the electrical industry. Like the enameled ware combination, it is founded on a cross-licensing arrange- ment under patents. Answers have been filed, and the taking of testimony will shortly begin. United States v. Purrington, et al. Indictment re- turned in the Northern District of Illinois September 14, 1910, charging combination to restrain trade in paving bricks and paying blpcks. Pending. United States v. Hamburg -Amerihanische Paclcet- fahrt Actien Gesellschaft and others. Trans-Atlantic steamship pool. Combination of steamship lines regu- lating steerage traffic on the Atlantic Ocean. Suit filed January 4, 1911, at New York City. Now pending. United States v. Eastern States Retail Lumher Deal- ers^ Association. Suit in equity filed at New York on May 19, 1911, charging the Eastern States Lumber Dealers' Association, its officers and members, with a conspiracy in restraint of trade through the instru- mentality of black lists and trade agreements. United States v. Isaac Whiting, John K. Whiting, Charles H. Hood, Edward J. Hood, and William A. Graustein. Indictment returned by the grand jury at Boston, Mass., on May 26, 1911, charging a combination to restrain trade in milk throughout the New England States. 40 25. United States v. Isaac Whiting, John K. 'Whiting^ Charles B.. Hood,, Edward J. Hood, and 'William, A. Graustein, and William, A. Hunter, Secretary of Pro- diocers^ Co. May 26, 1911. Indictment returned by the grand jui-y at Boston, Mass., charging a conspiracy to restrain trade in milk throughout, the New England States. 26. United States v. Lumher Secretaries^ Bureau of In- formation et al. Indictment returned June 23, 1911, in the Northern District of Illinois, charging that the sec- retaries of fourteen retail lumbermen's associations, covering twenty-three States from Pennsylvania to the Pacific coast, were in a conspiracy by means of a central controlling bureau to control the marketing of lumber by forcing the product through the retailer to the consumer, and restraining the trade of the manufacturer, whole- saler, and consumer, and eliminating competition for the trade of the consumer. SUMMARY OF CASES UNDER ANTITRUST LAWS. President Harrison's Administration. I'our bills in equity. Thiee indictments. President Cleveland's Administration. Four bills in equity. Two indictments. Two informations for contempt. President McKinley's Administration. Three bills in equity. President Roosevelt's Administration. Eighteen bills in equity. Twenty-five indictments. One forfeiture proceeding. President Taft's Administration. Ten bills in equity. Sixteen indictments. CASES DECIDED UNDEE THE SHEEMAIT lAW OR RELATING THERETO. Abner-Drury Brewing Co. , Leonard v 25 D. C. App. , 1 61 A. Booth & Co. V. Davis 127 Fed., 875 131 Fed., 31 Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., U. S. !,■ 78 Fed., 712 85 Fed., 271 175 U.S., 211 Agler, U. S., v ' 62 Fed., 824 Alexander V. U. S 201 U.S., 117 Allen Bros. Tob. Co., R. 3. Reynolds Tob. Co. v 151 Fed., 819 American Banana Co. w. United Fruit Co 153 Fed., 943 160 Fed., 184 166 Fed., 261 213 U.S., 347 American Biscuit & Mfg. Co. v. Klotz 44 Fed. , 721 American Brake Beam Co. r. Pungs 141 Fed., 923 American Naval Stores Co., U. S. ■« 172 Fed., 455 American Preservers' Co. , Bishop v 51 Fed. , 272 105 Fed., 845 American School Furniture .Co., Metcalfv 108 Fed., 909 113 Fed., 102.) 122 Fed., 115 American Sugar Ref. Co., Pennsylvania Sugar Ref. Co. <). 160 Fed., 144 166 Fed., 254 American Tel. & Tel. Co., Ames I) 166 Fed., 820 American Tob. Co., Larcust) -- 163 Fed., 712 American Tob. Co. , Monarch Tob. Works v 165 Fed. , 774 American Tob. Co., People's Tob. Co. ^ 170 Fed., 396 American Tob. Co., U.S... 164 Fed., 700 221 U. S., American Tob. Co., U. S. Tob. Co. I. 163 Fed., 701 American Tob. Co , Ware-Kramer Tob Co. t- 178 Fed. , 117 180 Fed., 160 A merican Tob. Co. , Weisert Bros. Tob. Co. .; 163 Fed. , 712 American Union Coal Co. v Penna. R. Co 159 Fed. , 278 Ames V. American Tel. & Tel. Co 166 Fed., 820 315 Anderson, Shawnee Compress Co. v 87 Pac. (41) 42 Anderson t'. United states 82 Fed., 998 171 U. S., 604 Arkansas Brokerage Co. v. Dunn & Powell 1 73 Fed. , 899 Armour & Co., U. S. D 142 Fed., 808 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Prescott & A. C. Ey. Co. 73 Fed., 438 84 Fed., 213 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., U. S. D 142 Fed., 176 Barber Asphalt Paving Co., Field « 117 Fed., 925 194 U. S., 618 Bay (Cincinnati, Portsmouth, Big Sandy sind Pomeroy Packet Co. v.) 200 U. S., 179 Beef Trust Cases. See U. S. v. Swift and U. S. v. Armour. Bement v. National Harrow Co 186 U. S., 70 Bigelow r. Calumet & Hecla Min. Co 155 Fed., 869 167 Fed., 704 167 Fed., 721 Bishop J). American Preservers' Co 51 Fed., 272 105 Fed., 845 Blindell v. Hagan 54 Fed., 40 56 Fed., 696 Block V. Standard Distilling & Distributing Co 95 Fed. , 978 Blount Mfg. Co. V. Yale & Towne Mfg. Co 166 Fed. , 555 Board of Trade v. Christie Grain & S. Co 116 Fed., 944 121 Fed., 608 125 Fed., 161 198 U. S , 236 Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus 139 Fed., 155 210 U. S., 339 Booth & Co. t). Davis 127 Fed., 875 131 Fed., 31 Bradley, Fonotipia Ltd. ■!) 171 Fed., 951 Bradley, Victor Talking Mach. Co. t; 171 Fed., 951 Buchanan, Foot v 113 Fed., 156 Callam, Northwestern Consol. Min. Co. r 177 Fed., 786 Calumet & Hecla Min. Co., Bigelow v 155 Fed., 869 167 Fed,, 704 167 Fed., 721 Camors-McConnell Co. v. McConnell 140 Fed. , 412 140 Fed., 987 152 Fed., 321 Carter-Crume Co., Cravens v 92 Fed., 479 Carter-Crume Co. i). Peurrung 86 Fed., 439 Case, J. I. Threshing Mach. Co., Indiana Mfg. Co. II 148 Fed., 21 154 Fed., 365 Cassidy, United States v 67 Fed., 698 Central Coal & Coke Co. v. Hartman Ill Fed., 96 Central Railroad & Banking Co. of Ga., Clarke v 50 Fed., 338 Charles E. Wisewall, The 74 Fed., 802 86 Fed., 671 43 Chattanooga Foundry 6f Pipe Works, CSty of Atlajita v. . 101 Fed., 900 127 Fed., 23 203 U. S., 390 Chesapeake & Ohio Fuel Co., U. S. « 105 Fed., 93 115 Fed., 610 Chicago Wall Paper Mills v. General Paper Co 147 Fed. , 491 Christie Gr»in & Stock Co., Board of Trade v 116 Fed., 444 121 Fed., 608 125 Fed., 161 198 U. S., 236 CiUey ». United Shoe Mach. Co 152 Fed., 726 Cincinnati N. O. & T. P. Ey, Co., Thomas 1) 62 Fed., 803 Cincinnati, Portsmouth, Big Sandy & Pomeroy Packet Co. e. Bay '. 200 U. S., 179 City of Atlanta?). Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works. . 101 Fed., 909 127 Fed., 23 203 U. S., 390 Clahaugh t'. Southern Wholesale Grocers' Ass'n 181 Fed., 706 Clarke v. Central E. E. & Banking Co. of G a 50 Fed., 338 Cole Transp. Co. I'. White Star Line 186 Fed., 63 Coal Dealers' Ass'n of Calif., U. S. ^ 85 Fed., 252 Comer, Waterhouse t' 55 Fed., 149 Connolly, Union Sewer- Pipe Co. ■!) 99 Fed. , 354 184 U. S., 540 Continental Tobacco Co., Whitwell v 125 Fed., 454 Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Voight 148 Fed, , 939 212 U. S., 227 Corning, In re..... 51 Fed., 205 Cravens ti. Carter-Orume Co 92 Fed., 479 Creamery Package Mfg. Co., Virtue v 179 Fed., 115 Danbury Hatters' Case. See Loewe v. Lawlor. Darius Cole Transp. Co. v. White Star Line 186 Fed. , 63 'Davis et al., A. Booth & Co. v 127 Fed., 875 131 Fed., 31 Debs, United States V 64 Fed., 724 Debs, In re 158 U. S., 564 Delaware, L. & W. E. Co. «. Frank 110 Fed., 689 Delaware, L. & W. E. Co. ». Kutter 147 Fed., 51 D, E. Loewe & Co. D. Lawlor 130 Fed., 633 142 Fed., 216 148 Fed., 924 208 U. S., 283 Dennehy ?>. McNulta 86 Fed., 825 77 Fed., 900 Dr. Miles Med. Co. v. Jaynes Drug Co 149 Fed. , 838 Dr. Miles Med. Co. c. Park 164 Fed., 803 220 U. S., 373 44 Dueber Watch Case Mfg. Co. v. Howard Watch & Clock Co 55 Fed., 851 66 Fed., 637 Dunn & Powell i\ Arkansas Brokerage Co 173 Fed. , 899 Eastman Kodak Co., Loeb w 183 Fed., 704 E. C. Knight Co., U. S. V 60 Fed., 306 60 Fed., 934 156 U. S., 1 E. Howard Watch & Clock Co., Dueber Watch Case Mfg. Co. ■- 55 Fed. 56 Fed. Elliott, United States v 62 Fed. 64 Fed. Ellis, V. Ininan, Poulsen & Co 124 Fed. 131 Fed. Evans v. Lowenstein 69 Fed. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Northern Pac. R. R. Co... 60 Fed. Field V. Barber Asphalt & Paving Co 117 Fed. 194 U. S. Fonotipia Ltd. v. Bradley 171 Fed. Foot V. Buchanan 113 Fed. Frank (Delaware L. & W. R. Co. v.) 110 Fed. Geiger, Otis Elevator v 107 Fed. General Electric Co. v. Wise 119 Fed. General Paper Co. v. Chicago Wall Paper Mills 147 Fed. Gibbs ?>. McNeeley (Shingle trust) 102 Fed. 107 Fed. 118 Fed. Goshen Rubber Works v. Single Tube Auto. & Bicycle TireCo 166 Fed. Grand Jury, In re 62 Fed. Grand Jury, In re charge to 151 Fed. Green, In re 52 Fed. Greenhut, United States v 50 Fed Greer, Mills & Co. v. Stoller 77 Fed. Griffin & Skelly Co. , U. S. Consol. S. R Co. v 126 Fed. Gulf, C. &S. F. Ry. Co. V. Miami S. S. Co 86 Fed. Hadley Dean Plate Glass Co. v. Highland Glass Co 143 Fed. Hagan, Blindell v 54 Fed. 56 Fed. Hale, In re 139 Fed. Haler. Henkel 201 U.S. Hale i: O'Connor Coal & Sup. Co 181 Fed. Harriman v. Northern Securities Co 132 Fed. 134 Fed. 197 U. S. Harrington, Pidcock v 64 Fed. Hartman, Central Coal & Coke Co. v Ill Fed. 45 Hartman ?'. John D. Parks & Sons Co 145 Fed., 153 Fed., 175 Fed., 217 U. S. 76 Fed., 83 Fed., 84 Fed., 201 U. S 201 U. 8. 143 Fed., 183 Fed., 82 Fed., 84 Fed., 171 U. 8. 55 Fed., 66 Fed., 51 Fed., 158 U.S., 64 Fed., 62 Fed., 151 Fed., 52 Fed., 139 Fed., 201 U.S., 180 Fed., 51 Fed., 148 Fed., 154 Fed., 124 Fed., 131 Fed., 125 Fed., 142 Fed., 149 Fed., 149 Fed., 43 Fed., 46 Fed., 148 Fed., 154 Fed., 154 Fed., 153 Fed., 76 Fed., 89 Fed., 171 U. 8. 198 U. 8. 173 Fed., 218 U. S. 180 Fed , 358 Heike, United States v 24 852 Hench, National Harrow Co. D . 423 667 Henkel, Hale v 36 226 43 Henkel, McAlister v 90 Highland Glass Co., Hadley Dean Plate Glass Co. r Hocking Valley Ry. Co., Manningtou v Hopkins, United States v Howard Watch & Clock Co., Dueber Watch Case Mfg. Co. t< 242 133 529 1018 578. 851 In re Corning 637 205 In re Debs, Petitioner U. S. V. Debs 564 724 In re Grand Jury 840 In re Green 834 104 In re Hale . . . , . 496 Hale V. Henkel 43- 946 In re Terrell - - 213 Indiana Mfg. Co. v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co 21 365 956- lola Portland Cement Co. , Phillips v 182 593 1010- 21 838 Jellico Mountain Coke & Coal Co., U. S. i) J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co., Indiana Mfg. Co. v Johnb. Parks & Sons Co., Hartman t; Joint Traffic Association, U. S. v 898 432 21 365. 895 24 895- 1020 505 236- 823 Kittle, In re , 601 946, 46 Klotz, American Biscuit & Mfg. Co. « 44 Fed., 721 Knight Co., United States u 60 Fed., 306 60 Fed., 934 156 U. S., 1 Kutter, Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. D 147 Fed., 51 Laemuile et al., Motion Picture Patents Co. v 178 Fed., 104 Larcua s'. American Tob. Co 163 Fed., 712 Lawlor, Loewe v 130 Fed., 633 142 Fed.. 216 148 Fed., 924 208 V. S., 283 Lehigh Valley R. Co., Meeker etal. !) 162 Fed., 354 183 Fed., 548 Leonard v. Abner-Drury Brewing Co 25 D. 0. App. , 161 Licorice Paste Trust. See TJ. 8. v. MacAndrewa & Forbes Co. Loder v. Jayne 142 Fed., 1010 149 Fed., 21 Loeb V. Eastman Kodak Co 183 Fed., 704 Loewe ti. Lawlor 130 Fed., 033 142 Fed., 216 148 Fed., 924 208 U. S., 283 Lowenstein ». Evans 69 Fed., 908 Lowry v. Tile, Mantel & Grate Ass'n 98 Fed., 817 106 Fed., 38 Lowry, W. W., Montague & Co. ■!) 115 Fed., 27 193 U. S., 38 Mc A lister iJ. Henkel 201 U. S., 90 MacAndrews & Forbes Co., U.S. t; 149 Fed., 823 212 U. S., 585 MoConnell, Camors-McOonnell Co. i; 140 Fed., 412 140 Fed., 987 152 Fed., 321 McXeeley, Gibbs v 102 Fed., 594 107 Fed., 210 118 Fed., 120 McNulta, Dennehy D 86 Fed., 825 Manniiigton D. Hocking Valley Ry. Co. et al.'. 183 Fed., 133 Meeker et al. v. Lehigh Valley R. Co 162 Fed., 354 183 Fed., 548 Metcalf V. American School Furniture Co 108 Fed. , 909 113 Fed., 1020 122 Fed., 115 Miami S. S. Co., Gulf C. & S. F. Ry. Co. ■!) 86 Fed., 407 Milwaukee Rubber Works, Rubber Tire Wheel Co. ij 142 Fed., 531 154 Fed,, 358 Mines?). Scribner 147 Fed., 927 47 Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co 1 23 Fed. , 692 194 U. S., 48 Monarch Tob. Works v. American Tob. Co 165 Fed. , 774 Montague & Co. i;. Lowry 115 Fed., 27 193 U. S., 38 Mooree. United States 85 Fed., 465 Motion Picture Patents Co. t-. Laemuile 1 78 Fed . , 104 Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Ullman 186 Fed. , 174 National Folding-Box & Paper Co. v. Robertson 99 Fed., 985 National Harrow Co. ». Hench 76 Fed., 667 83 Fed., 36 84 Fed., 226 National Harrow Co. ». Quick 67 Fed., 130 74 Fed., 443 National Harrow Co., Bement w 186U.S., 70 National Harrow Co., Strait t' 51 Fed., 819 National Window Glass Joljbers' Ass'n., Wheeler Sten- 152 Fed., 864 zel Co. V. Nelson, United States ■!) 52 Fed., 646 Nelson w. United States 201U.S., 92 Northern Securities Co. , Harriman v 132 Fed. , 464 134 Fed., 331 197 U.S., 244 Northern Securities Co., U. 8. •» 120 Fed., 721 193 U.S., 197 Northern Securities Co. , Minnesota v 123 Fed. , 692 194 U.S., 48 Northwestern Consol. Min. Co. v. Wm. Callam & Son... 177 Fed., 786 O'Connor Coal & Sup. Co., Hale » 181 Fed , 267 Otis Elevator Co. v. Geiger 107 Fed., 131 Park, Or. Mites Med. Co. » 164 Fed., 803 220 U.S., 373 Park, John D., & Sons Co., Hartmant; 145 Fed., 358 153 Fed., 24 Patterson, United States t) 55 Fed., 605 59 Fed., 280 Penna. R. Co., American Union Coal Co. » 159 Fed., 278 Penna. Sngar Ref. Co. f. American Sugar Ref. Co 160 Fed., 144 166 Fed., 254 896 439 593 821 People's Tob. Co. ■v. American Tob. Co 170 Fed. Peurrung, Carter-Orume Co. « 86 Fed. Phillips V. Portland Cement Co 125 Fed. Pidcock «. Harrington 64 Fed. Prescott & A. C. R. Co. .. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co . . . 73 Fed., 438 84 Fed., 213 Punge, Ainerican Brake Beam Go. f 141 Fed., Quick, National Harrow Co. i ^7 Fed.. 74 Fed., 236 923 130 48 R. J. Reynolds Tob. Co. r. Allen Bros. Tob. Co 151 Fed., 819 Reading Company, U.S.r 183 Fed., 427 Rice r. Standard Oil Company 134 Fed., 464 Robertson ('. National Folding-Box & Paper Co 99 Fed., 9^5 Robinson t). Suburban Brick Co 127 Fed., 804 Rubber Tire Wheel Co. v. Milwaukee Rubber Works Co. 142 Fed., 531 154 Fed., 358 Scribner, M nes v 147 Fed., 927 Shawnee Compress Co. iJ. Anderson 87 Pac, 315 209 U. S., 423 Shingle Trust. See Gibbs v. McNulta. Single Tube Auto. & Bicycle Tire Co., Goshen Rubber AVorksi- 166 Fed., 431 Southern Indiana Exp. Co. r. United States Exp. Co -.. 88 Fed., 659 92 Fed., 1022 Southern Railway, Tift I) 138 Fed., 753 Southern Wholesale Grocers' Ass'n., Clabaugh ^1 181 Fed., 706 Standard Distiriing& Distributing Co., Block 1) 95 Fed., 978 Standard Oil Company, Rice v 134 Fed. , 464 Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, U. S. !> 152 Fed., 290 173 Fed., 177 221U.S., 1 State of Minnesota r. Northern Securities Oo 123 Fed . , 692 194 U. S., 48 Stoller, (Greer, Mills & Co. «).) 77 Fed., 1 Strait V. National Harrow Co 51 Fed., 819 Straus, Bobbs-Merrill Co. i' 139 Fed., 155 210 U. S., 339 Suburban Brick Co., Robinson D 127 Fed., 804 Swift & Co., United States u 122 Fed., 529 196 U. S., 375 Terrell, In re 51 Fed., 213 Thomas!). Cin.,N. 0. &T. P. Ry. Co 62 Fed., 803 Thomson I'. Union Castle Mail S. S. Co 149 Fed., 933 166 Fed., 251 Tift u. Southern Ry. Co 138 Fed., 753 Tile, Mantel & Grate Ass'n v. Lowry 98 Fed., 817 106 Fed., 38 Tobacco Trust Cases. See U. S. v. American Tobacco Co., Hale V. Henkel, McAlister v. Henkel, and U. 8. v. Mac- Andrews & Forbes Co. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n., U. S. J) 53 Fed., 440 58 Fed., 58 166 U. S., 290 Tribolet, United States t) 95 Pac, 85 Ullman, Motion Picture Patents Co. D 186 Fed., 174 Union Castle Mail S. S. Co., Thomson t) 149 Fed., 933 166 Fed., 251 49 Union Pacific Coal Co., f, U. S 17o Fed. Union Sewer-Pipe Co. t: Connolly 99 Fed. ", ., 184 U. S. United Fruit Co., American Banana Co. v 153 Fed. 160 Fed. 166 Fed. 213 U. S. United Shoe IMach. Co., Cilley c 152 Fed. U. S. r. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co 78 Fed. 85 Fed. 175 D. S. U. S. V. Agler '. 62 Fed. U. S. t'. American Naval Stores Co 172 Fed. U. S. r. American Tobacco Co 164 Fed. 221 U. S. U. S. V. Armour&Co 142 Fed. U. S. V. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co 142 Fed. U. S. c.Cassidy .,....,, 67 Fed. U. S. J). Chesapeake & Ohio Fuel Co 105 Fed. 115 Fed. U.S.I). Coal Dealers' Assn. of Calif , 85 Fed. U. S. !•. Debs 64 Fed. In re Debs.... 158 U.S. U. S. V. E. C. Knight Co 60 Fed. 60 Fed. 156 U. S. U. S. ('.Elliott 62 Fed. 64 Fed. U. S. V. Freight Association. . .(See U. S. v. Trans-Mis- souri Freight Association.) U. S. V. General Paper Co. (See Nelson v. U. S. and Alexander v. U. S.) U. S. ?>. Greenhut 50 Fed., 469 U. S. V. Heike 175 Fed., 852 217 U. 8., 423 U. S. r. Hopkins - 82 Fed., 529 84 Fed., 1018 171 U. S., 578 U S. V. Jellico Mountain Coke & Coal Co 43 Fed., 898 46 Fed., 432 U S. i;. Joint Traffic Association 76 Fed., 895 89 Fed., 1020 171 U. S., 505 U. S. .. Kissell - 173 I^d^, 823 737 354 540 943 184 261 347 726 712 271 211 824 455 700 808 176 698 93 610 252 724 564 306 934 1 801 27 U. S. t;. MacAndrews & Forbes Co 1!! ff*^," ^^^ 98740—11 4 218 U. S., 601 149 Fed., 823 212 U. S., 585 50 U. S. w. Nelson :... 52 Fed., 646 Nelson «. United States 201 U. S., 92 U. S. V. Northern Securities Company 120 Fed., 721 193 V. S., 197 U. S. w. Patterson 55 Fed., 605 59 Fed., 280 U. S. u. Reading Company 183 Fed., 427 U. S. V. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey 152 Fed., 290 173 Fed., 177 221 U. S., 1 U. S. ... Swift & Co 122 Fed., 529 196 U. S., 375 U. S. 11. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass' n 53 Fed., 440 58 Fed., 58 166 U. S., 290 U. S. V. Tribolet- 95 Pao., 85 U. S. iJ. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co 163 Fed. , 66 U. S. I). Workingmen's Amalgamated Council 54 Fed., 994 57 Fed., 85 U. S., Alexanders 201 U. S., 117 U. S., Anderson I) 82 Fed., 998 171 U. S., 604 U. S., Moorej; 85 Fed., 465 U. S., Union Pacific Coal Co. v 173 Fed., 737 U. S. Consolidated S. E. Co. v. Griflan-Skelly Co 126 Fed., 364 U. S. Exp. Co., Southern Ind. Exp. Co. v.'. 88 Fed., 659 92 Fed., 1022 United States Tob. Co. v. American Tob. Co 163 Fed. , 712 Victor Talking Mach. Co. d. Bradley 171 Fed. , 951 Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. i). U. S 163 Fed., 66 Virtue J). Creamery Package Mfg. Co 179 Fed., 115 Voight, Continental Wall Paper Co. v 148 Fed., 939 212 U. S., 227 Ware-Kramer Tob. Co. w. American Tob. Co 178 Fed., 117 180 Fed., 160 Waterhouse D. Comer 55 Fed., 149 Weisert Bros. Tob. Co. v. American Tob. Co 163 Fed., 712 Wheeler Stenzel Co. v. National Window Glass Jobbers' Asa'n 152 Fed., 864 White Star Line, Cole Transp. Co. iJ 186 Fed., 63 Whitwell ». Continental Tob. Co 125 Fed., 454 Wise, General Electric Co. f 119 Fed., 922 Wisewall, The Charles E 74 Fed., 802 86 Fed., 671 Workingmen's Amalgamated Council, U. S. v 54 Fed., 994 57 Fed., 85 Yale & To wne Mfg. Co. , Blount Mfg. Co. i) 166 Fed. , 555 * ^ ^ ^*^%