gllllll §111111 ANTITRUST AND AMEND? J*> njCm *e* ■ifriMM'i'iTr*. dd£HinSnn4u Is syislll ANNOTATED ,■■- H53S 1915 Sffi. fCdc (Jorndl Haw ^rljool ICihran} KF163619lT" Un,VerS " yUbrary Federal antitrust laws: 3 1924 019 216 344 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/cu31924019216344 FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAWS ANNOTATED BY ELIAS H. HENDERSON, Ph.B., J.D. OF THE ILLINOIS BAR 1915 INC CHICAGO, ILL. COPYRIGHT 1915 ELIAS H. HENDERSON CONTENTS CLAYTON ACT. Clayton Antitrust Law (1914) 5 TRADE COMMISSION. Trade Commission Law ( 1914) 21 SHERMAN ACT. Sherman Antitrust Law (1890) 31 Amendments. Amendments to the Wilson Tariff 34 Expediting Act of 1903 35 Expediting Act of 1910 36 Immunity Denned 39 Immunity Provision 38 Judicial Code 38 Panama Canal Act 40 ADMINISTRATION. Cases Instituted by the United States under Sherman Antitrust Law. President Harrison's Administration — March 4, 1889 to March 4, 1893 43 President Cleveland's Second Administration — March 4, 1893 to March 4, 1897 44 President McKinley's Administration — March 4, 1897 to September 14, 1901 47 President Roosevelt's Administration — September 14, 1901 to March 4, 1909 47 President Taft's Administration — March 4, 1909 to March 4, 1913 56 President Wilson's Administration — March 4, 1913 71 ENFORCEMENT OF SHERMAN ANTITRUST LAW. Cases Finally Determined 75 Pending Cases Instituted Prior to July 1, 1913 81 Cases Instituted Since July 1, 1913 85 Cases under the Act to Regulate Commerce. Commodities Clause 88 Rebates and Unlawful Discriminations 89 Cases Instituted 89 Cases Concluded 94 PUBLISHED BY FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE BULLETIN SERVICE, Inc. FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING CHICAGO. ILL. Anti-Trust Law (CLAYTON BILL) (Approved October 14, 1914.) AN ACT Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That "antitrust laws," as used herein, includes the Act entitled "An Act to protect trade and commerce against unalwful restraints and monopolies," approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety; sections seventy-three to twenty-seven, inclusive, of an Act entitled "An Act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Government, and for other purposes," of August twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-four; an Act entitled "An Act to amend sections seventy- three and seventy-six of the Act of August twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-four, entitled 'An Act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Government, and for other purposes,'" approved February twelfth, nineteen hundred and thirteen; and also this Act. Commerce Defined. "Commerce," as used herein, means trade or commerce among the several States and with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia or any Territory of the United States and any State, Territory, or foreign nation, or between any insular possessions or other places under the jurisdiction of the United States, or between any such possession or place and any State or Territory of the United States or the District of Columbia or any foreign nation, or within the District of Columbia or any Territory or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States : Provided, That nothing in this Act contained shall apply to the Philippine Islands. Person or Persons Defined. 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, the laws of any of the Territories, the laws of any State, or the laws of any foreign country. Discrimination — Unlawful. SEC 2. That it shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or in- directly to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities, which commodities are sold for use, consumption, or 5 ANTI-TRUST LAW resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, where the effect of such discrimination may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce : Discriminations — Exceptions. Provided, That nothing herein contained shall prevent discrim- ination in price between purchasers of commodities on account of differences in the grade, quality, or quantity of the commodity sold, or that makes only due allowance for difference in the cost of sell- ing or transportation, or discrimination in price in the same or different communities made in good faith to meet competition : And provided further, That nothing herein contained shall pre- vent persons engaged in selling goods, wares, or merchandise in commerce from selecting their own customers in bona fide trans- actions and not in restraint of trade. Sale — Contracts of Goods Tending Toward Monopoly Forbidden. Sec. 3. That it shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption or resale within the United States or any Ter- ritory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, mer- chandise, machinery, supplies or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement or under- standing may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce. Penalty For Infringement on Antitrust Laws. Sec. 4. That any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor in any district court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found or has an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Final Judgment or Decree in Criminal Proceeding Competent Evidence in Civil Suit. Sec. 5. That a final judgment or decree hereafter rendered in any criminal prosecution or in any suit or proceeding in equity brought by or on behalf of the United States under the antitrust laws to the 6 ANTI-TRUST LAW effect that a defendant has violated said laws shall be prima facie evidence against such defendant in any suit or proceeding brought by any other party against such defendant under said laws as to all matters respecting which said judgment or decree would be an estoppel as between the parties thereto: Consent Judgments Excepted. Provided, This section shall not apply to consent judgments or decrees entered before any testimony has been taken: Provided, further, This section shall not apply to consent judg- ments or decrees rendered in criminal proceedings or suits in equity, now pending, in which the taking of testimony has been commenced but has not been concluded, provided such judgments or decrees are rendered before any further testimony is taken. Running of Statute Suspended During Pendency of Suit to Pre- vent Violations of Antitrust Laws. Whenever any suit or proceeding in equity or criminal prosecution is instituted by the United States to prevent, restrain or punish violations of any of the antitrust laws, the running of the statute of limitations in respect of each and every private right of action arising under said laws and based in whole or in part on any matter com- plained of in said suit or proceeding shall be suspended during the pendency thereof. Labor of Human Beings Defined. Sec. 6. That the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. Nothing contained in the antitrust laws shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of labor, agricul- tural, or horticultural organizations, instituted for the purposes of mutual help, and not having capital stock or conducted for profit, or to forbid or restrain individual members of such organizations from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof; nor shall such organizations, or the members thereof, be held or construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, under the antitrust laws. Corporation Forbidden to Acquire Stock in Like Corporation. Sec. 7. That no corporation engaged in commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital of another corporation engaged also in commerce, where the effect of such acquisition may be to substantially lessen competition between the corporation whose stock is so acquired and the corporation making the acquisition, or to restrain such commerce in any section or community, or tend to create a monopoly of any line of commerce. No corporation shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital of two or more corpora- tions engaged in commerce where the effect of such acquisition, or 7 ANTI-TRUST LAW the use of such stock by the voting or granting of proxies or other- wise, may be to substantially lessen competition between such cor- porations, or any of them, whose stock or other share capital is so acquired, or to restrain such commerce in any section or community, or tend to create a monopoly of any line of commerce. Corporations Excepted. This section shall not apply to corporations purchasing such stock solely for investment and not using the same by voting or otherwise to bring about, or in attempting to bring about, the substantial les- sening of competition. Nor shall anything contained in this section prevent a corporation engaged in commerce from causing the forma- tion of subsidiary corporations for the actual carrying on of their immediate lawful business, or the natural and legitimate branches or extensions thereof, or from owning and holding all or a part of the stocks of such subsidiary corporations, when the effect of such form- ation is not to substantially lessen competition. Common Carriers Exempted. Nor shall anything herein contained be construed to prohibit any common carrier subject to the laws to regulate commerce from aid- ing in the construction of branches or short lines so located as to become feeders to the main line of the company so aiding in such construction or from acquiring or owning all or any part of the stock of such branch lines, nor to prevent any such common carrier from acquiring and owning all or any part of the stock of a branch or short line constructed by an independent company where there is no substantial competition between the company owning the branch line so constructed and the company owning the main line acquiring the property or an interest therein, nor to prevent such common car- rier from extending any of its lines through the medium of the acquisition of stock or otherwise of any other such common carrier where there is no substantial competition between the company ex- tending its lines and the company whose_ stock, property, or an in- terest therein, is so acquired. Previous Rights Exempted. Nothing contained in this section shall be held to effect or impair any right heretofore legally acquired : Provided, That nothing in this section shall be held or construed to authorize or make lawful anything heretofore prohibited or made illegal by the antitrust laws, nor to exempt any person from the penal provisions thereof or the civil remedies therein provided. No Person Shall Be Director, etc., of More Than One Bank at Same Time, if Either Has Capital of More Than $5,000,000. Sec. 8. That from and after two years from the date of the ap- proval of this Act no person shall at the same time be a director or other officer or employee of more than one bank, banking association 8 ANTI-TRUST LAW or trust company, organized- or operating under the laws of the United States, either of which has deposits, capital, surplus, and undivided profits aggregating more than $5,000,000 ; and no private banker or person who is a director in any bank or trust company, or- ganized and operating under the laws of a State, having deposits, capital, surplus, and undivided profits aggregating more than $5,000,- 000, shall be eligible to be a director in any bank or banking asso- ciation organized or operating under the laws of the United States. The eligibility of a director, officer, or employee under the foregoing provisions shall be determined by the average amount of deposits, capital, -surplus, and undivided profits as shown in the official state- ments of such bank, banking association, or trust company filed as provided by law during the fiscal year next preceding the date set for the annual election of directors, and when a director, officer, or employee has been elected or selected in accordance with the pro- visions of this Act it shall be lawful for him to continue as such for one year thereafter under said election or employment. Private Banker or Officer of Other Bank Not Eligible as Direc- tor, etc., of Bank in Same City. No bank, banking association or trust company, organized or oper- ating under the laws of the United States, in any city or incorporated town or village of more than two hundred thousand inhabitants, as shown by the last preceding decennial census of the United States, shall have as a director or other officer or employee any private banker or any director or other officer or employee of any other bank, banking association or trust company located in the same place : Mutual Savings Banks Exempt From Section 8. Provided, That nothing in this section shall apply to mutual sav- ings banks not having a capital stock represented by shares : Bank Director Cannot Be Officer in More Than One Other Bank Where Entire Capital Stock is Owned by Same Stockholders. Provided, further, That a director or other officer or employee of such bank, banking association, or trust company may be a director or other officer or employee of not more than one other bank or trust company organized under the laws of the United States or any State where the entire capital stock of one is owned by stockholders in the other : Director of Class A Federal Reserve Bank Eligible For Office in One Member Bank. And provided further, That nothing contained in this section shall forbid a director of class A of a Federal reserve bank, as de- fined in the Federal Reserve Act, from being an officer or director or both an officer and director in one member bank. 9 ANTI-TRUST LAW Directors of Competitive Corporations — Eligibility Determined. That from and after two years from the date of the approval of this Act no person at the same time shall be a director in any two or more corporations, any one of which has capital, surplus, and un- divided profits aggregating more than $1,000,000, engaged in whole or in part in commerce, other than banks, banking associations, trust companies and common carriers subject to the Act to regulate com- merce, approved February fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty- seven, if such corporations are or shall have been theretofore, by virtue of their business and location of operation, competitors, so that the elimination of competition by agreement between them would constitute a violation of any of the provisions of any of the antitrust laws. The eligibility of a director under the foregoing provision shall be determined by the aggregate amount of the capital, surplus, and undivided profits, exclusive of dividends declared but not paid to stockholders, at the end of the fiscal year of said corporation next preceding the election of directors, and when a director has been elected in accordance with the provisions of this Act it shall be lawful for him to continue as such for one year thereafter. Person Eligible at Time of Election Not Amenable to Provisions of Act for Twelve Months. When any person elected or chosen as a director or officer or selected as an employee of any bank or other corporation subject to the provisions of this Act is eligible at the time of his election or selection to act for such bank or other corporation in such capacity his eligibility to act in such capacity shall not be affected and he shall not become or be deemed amenable to any of the provisions hereof by reason of any change in the affairs of such bank or other cor- poration from whatsoever cause, whether specifically excepted by any of the provisions hereof or not, until the expiration of one year from the date of his election or employment. Penalty For Embezzlement of Corporation Funds. Sec. 9. Every president, director, officer or manager of any firm, association or corporation engaged in commerce as a common carrier, who embezzles, steals, abstracts or willfully misapplies, or willfully permits to be misapplied, any of the moneys, funds, credits, securi- ties, property or assets of such firm, association or corporation, aris- ing or accruing from, or used in, such commerce, in whole or in part, or willfully or knowingly converts the same to his own use or to the use of another, shall be deemed guilty of a felony and upon conviction shall be fined not less than $500 or confined in the penitentiary not less than one year nor more than ten years, or both, in the discretion of the court. Jurisdiction of State Courts. Prosecutions hereunder may be in the district court of the United States for the district wherein the offense may have been com- mitted. 10 ANTI-TRUST LAW That nothing in this section shall be held to take away or impair the jurisdiction of the courts of the several States under the laws thereof; and a judgment of conviction or acquittal on the merits under the laws of any State shall be a bar to any prosecution here- under for the same act or acts. Common Carriers Forbidden to Make Contracts With Corpora- tions With Which They Have Interlocking Officers. Sec. 10. That after two years from the approval of this Act no common carrier engaged in commerce shall have any dealings in securities, supplies or other articles of commerce, or shall make or have any contracts for construction or maintenance of any kind, to the amount of more than $50,000, in the aggregate, in any one year, with another corporation, firm, partnership or association when the said common carrier shall have upon its board of directors or as its president, manager or as its purchasing or selling officer, or agent in the particular transaction, any person who is at the same time a director, manager, or purchasing or selling officer of, or who has any substantial interest in, such other corporation, firm, partnership or association, unless and except such purchases shall be made from, or such dealings shall be with, the bidder whose bid is the most favorable to such common carrier, to be ascertained by competitive bidding under regulations to be prescribed by rule or otherwise by the Interstate Commerce Commission. No bid shall be received unless the name and address of the bidder or the names and ad- dresses of the officers, directors and general managers thereof, if the bidder be a corporation, or of the members, if it be a part- nership or firm, be given with the bid. Penalty For Preventing Free Competition. Any person who shall, directly or indirectly, do or attempt to do anything to prevent anyone from bidding or shall do any act to pre- vent free and fair competition among the bidders or those desiring to bid shall be punished as prescribed in this section in the case of an officer or director. Common Carriers Must File Statements of Purchases. Every such common carrier having any such transactions or mak- ing any such purchases shall within thirty days after making the same file with the Interstate Commerce Commission a full and de- tailed statement of the transaction showing the manner of the com- petitive bidding, who were the bidders, and the names and addresses of the directors and officers, of the corporations and the members of the firm or partnership bidding; and whenever the said commission shall, after investigation or hearing, have reason to believe that the law has been violated in and about the said purchases or transac- tions it shall transmit all papers and documents and its own views or findings regarding the transaction to the Attorney General. 11 ANTI-TRUST LAW Penalty For Violating Section 10. If any common carrier shall violate this section it shall be fined not exceeding $25,000 ; and every such director, agent, manager or officer thereof who shall have knowingly voted for or directed the act constituting such violation or who shall have aided or abetted in such violation shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not exceeding $5,000, or confined in jail not exceeding one year, or both, in the discretion of the court. Authority to Enforce Sections 2, 3, 7, 8. Sec. 11. That authority to enforce compliance with sections two, three, seven and eight of this Act by the persons respectively subject thereto is hereby vested: in the Interstate Commerce Commission where applicable to common carriers, in the Federal Reserve Board where applicable to banks, banking associations and trust companies, and in the Federal Trade Commission where applicable to all other character of commerce, to be exercised as follows: Commission Shall Serve Complaint Upon Violators of Sections 2, 3, 7, 8. Whenever the commission or board vested with jurisdiction there- of shall have reason to^believe that any person is violating or has violated any of the provisions of sections two, three, seven and eight of this Act, it shall issue and serve upon such person a complaint stating its charges in that respect, and containing a notice of a hear- ing upon a day and at a place therein fixed at least thirty days after the service of said complaint. The person so complained of shall have the right to appear at the place and time so fixed and show cause why an order should not be entered by the commission or board requiring such person to cease and desist from the violation of the law so charged in said complaint. Any person may make ap- plication, and upon good cause shown may be allowed by the com- mission or board, to intervene and appear in said proceeding by counsel or in person. The testimony in any such proceeding shall be reduced to writing and filed in the office of the commission or board. If upon such hearing the commission or board, as the case may be, shall be of the opinion that any of the provisions of said sections have been or are being violated, it shall make a report in writing in which it shall state its findings as to the facts, and shall issue and cause to be served on such person an order requiring such person to cease and desist from such violations, and divest itself of the stock held or rid itself of the directors chosen contrary to the provisions of sections seven and eight of this Act, if any there be, in the manner and within the time fixed by said order. Until a transcript of the record in such hearing shall have been filed in a circuit court of appeals of the United States, as hereinafter pro- vided, the commission or board may at any time, upon such notice and in such manner as it shall deem proper, modify or set aside, in whole or in part, any report or any order made or issued by it under this section. 12 ANTI-TRUST LAW Procedure of Commission to Enforce Orders. If such person fails or neglects to obey such order of the commis- sion or board while the same is in effect, the commission or board may apply to the circuit court of appeals of the United States, within any circuit where the violation complained of was or is being com- mitted or where such person resides or carries on business, for the enforcement of its order, and shall certify and file with its applica- tion, a transcript of the entire record in the proceeding, including all the testimony taken and the report and order of the commission or board. Upon such filing of the application and transcript the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon such person and there- upon shall have jurisdiction of th; proceeding and of the question determined therein, and shall have power to make and enter upon the pleadings, testimony, and proceedings set forth m such trans- cript a decree affirming, modifying, or setting aside the order of the commission or board. The findings of the commission or board as to the facts, if supported by testimony, shall be conclusive. If either party shall apply to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence, and shall show to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence is material and that there were reasonable grounds for the failure to adduce such evidence in the proceeding before the commis- sion or board, the court may order such additional evidence to be taken before the commission or board and to be adduced upon the hearing in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as to the court may seem proper. The commission or board may modify its findings as to the facts, or make new findings, by reason of the additional evidence so taken, and > it shall file such modified or new findings, which, if supported by testimony, shall be conclusive, and its recommendation, if any, for the modification or setting aside of its original order, with the return of such additional evidence. The judgment and decree of the court shall be final, except that the same shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court upon certiorari as provided in section two hundred and forty of the Judicial Code. Review of Order of Commission By Petition. Any party required by such order of the commission or board to cease and desist from a violation charged may obtain a review of such order in said circuit court of appeals by filing in the court a written petition praying that the order of the commission or board be set aside. A copy of such petition shall be forthwith served upon the commission or board, and thereupon the commission or board forthwith shall certify_and file in the court a transcript of the record as hereinbefore provided. Upon the. filing of the transcript the court shall have the same jurisdiction to affirm, set aside, or modify the order of the commission or board as in the case of an application by the commission or board for the enforcement of its order and the findings of the commission or board as to the facts, if sup- ported by testimony, shall in like manner be conclusive. 13 ANTI-TRUST LAW Jurisdiction of Circuit Court of Appeals. The jurisdiction of the circuit court of appeals of the United States to enforce, set aside, or modify orders of the commission or board shall be exclusive. Precedence of Proceedings in Circuit Court of Appeals. Such proceedings in the circuit court of appeals shall be given precedence over other cases pending therein, and shall be in every way expedited. No order of the commission or board or the judg- ment of the court to enforce the same shall in any wise relieve or absolve any person from any liability under the antitrust Acts. Complaints — How Served. Complaints, orders, and other processes of the commission or board under this section may be served by anyone duly authorized by the commission or board, either (a) by delivering a copy thereof to the person to be served, or to a member of the partnership to be served, or to the president, secretary, or other executive officer or a director of the corporation to be served; or (b) by leaving a copy thereof at the principal office or place of business of such person; or (c) by registering and mailing a copy thereof addressed to such person at his principal office or place of business. The verified re- turn by the person so serving said complaint, order, or other process setting forth the manner of said service shall be proof of the same, and the return post-office receipt for said complaint, order, or other process registered and mailed as aforesaid shall be proof of the serv- ice of the same. Suits — Where Brought. Sec. 12. That any suit, action, or proceeding under the antitrust laws against a corporation may be brought not only in the judicial district whereof it is an inhabitant, but also in any district wherein it may be found or transacts business ; and all process in such cases may be served in the district of which it is an inhabitant, or wher- ever it may be found. Witnesses May Be Subpoenaed. Sec. 13. That in any suit, action, or proceeding brought by or on behalf of the United States subpoenas for witnesses who are required to attend a court of the United States in any judicial district in any case, civil or criminal, arising under the antitrust laws may run into any other district : Provided, That in civil cases no writ or subpoena shall issue for witnesses living out of the district in which the court is held at. a greater distance than one hundred miles from the place of holding the same without the permission of the trial court being first had upon proper application and cause shown. 14 ANTI-TRUST LAW Violation By Individual Directors of Corporations. Sec. 14. That whenever a corporation shall violate any of the penal provisions of the antitrust laws, such violation shall be deemed to be also that of the individual directors, officers or agents of such corporation who shall have authorized, ordered, or done any of the acts constituting in whole or in part such violation, and such vio- lation shall be deemed a misdemeanor, and upon conviction there- for of any such director, officer, or agent he shall be punished by a fine of not exceeding $5,000 or by imprisonment for not exceeding one year, or by both, in the discretion of the court. District Attorneys — Duties of. Sec. 15. That the several district courts of the United States are hereby invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations 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 setting 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 temporary restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed just in the premises. Whenever it shall appear to the court before which any such proceeding 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 sum- moned 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. Injunctive Relief — How Obtained. Sec. 16. That any person, firm, corporation, or association shall be entitled to sue for and have injunctive relief, in any court of the United States having jurisdiction over the parties, against threat- ened loss or damage by a violation oi the antitrust laws, including sections two, three, seven and eight of this Act, when and under the same conditions and principles as injunctive relief against threatened conduct that will cause loss or damage is granted by . courts of equity, under the rules governing such proceedings, and upon the execution of proper bond against damages for an injunc- tion improvidently granted and a showing that the danger of irrep- arable loss or damage is immediate, a preliminary injunction may issue : Injunctive Relief — Common Carriers Exempt. Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to entitle any person, firm, corporation, or association, except the 15 ANTI-TRUST LAW United States, to bring suit in equity for injunctive relief against any common carrier subject to the provisions of the Act to regulate commerce, approved February fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty- seven, in respect of any matter subject to the regulation, supervision, or other jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Injunction Not Issued Without Notice. Sec 17. That no preliminary injunction shall be issued without notice to the opposite party. No temporary restraining order shall be granted without notice to the opposite party unless it shall clearly appear from specific facts shown by affidavit or. by the verified bill that immediate and irrepa- rable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before notice can be served and a hearing had thereon. Every such temporary restraining order shall be indorsed with the date and hour of issu- ance, shall be forthwith filed in the clerk's office and entered of record, shall define the injury and state why it is irreparable and why the order was granted without notice, and shall by its terms expire within such time after entry, not to exceed ten days, as the court or judge may fix, unless within the time so fixed the order is extended for a like period for good cause shown, and the reasons for such extension shall be entered of record. In case a temporary restrain- ing order shall be granted without notice in the contingency speci- fied, the matter of the issuance of a preliminary injunction shall be set down for a hearing at the earliest possible time and shall take precedence of all matters except older matters of the same char- acter ; and when the same comes up for hearing the party obtaining the temporary restraining order shall proceed with the application for a preliminary injunction, and if he does not do so the court shall dissolve the temporary restraining order. Upon two days' notice to the party obtaining such temporary restraining order the opposite party may appear and move the dissolution or modification of the order, and in that event the court or judge shall proceed to hear and determine the motion as expeditiously as the ends of justice may require. Section 263 of an Act to Revise Laws Relating to Judiciary Repealed. Section two hundred and sixty-three of an Act entitled "An Act to codify, revise, and amend the laws relating to the judiciary," ap- proved March third, nineteen hundred and eleven, is hereby re- pealed. Section 17 of This Act Does Not Affect Section 266 of Above Act. Nothing in this section contained shall be deemed to alter, repeal, oi "mend section two hundred and sixty-six of an Act entitled "An Act to -odify, revise, and amend the laws relating to the judiciary," approved March third, nineteen hundred and eleven. 16 ANTI-TRUST LAW Restraining Order — How Issued. Sec. 18. That, except as otherwise provided in section 16 of this Act, no restraining order or interlocutory order of injunction shall issue, except upon the giving of security by the applicant in such sum as the court or judge may deem proper, conditioned upon the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who may be found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained thereby. Injunction Shall Give Reasons. Sec. 19. That every order of injunction or restraining order shall set forth the reasons for the issuance of the same, shall be specific in terms, and shall describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference to the bill of complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be restrained, and shall be binding only upon the parties to the suit, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, or those in active concert or participating with them, and who shall, by personal service or otherwise, have received actual notice of the same. Injunction in Reference to Employers and Employees. Sec. 20. That no restraining order or injunction shall be granted by any court of the United States, or a judge or the judges thereof, in any case between an employer and employees, or between em- ployers and employees, or between employees, or between persons employed and persons seeking employment, involving, or growing out of, a dispute concerning terms or conditions of employment, un- less necessary to prevent irreparable injury to property, or to a property right, of the party making the application, for which injury there is no adequate remedy at law, and such property or property right must be described with particularity in the application, which must be in writing and sworn to by the applicant or by his agent or attorney. . Injunctions — What They May Not Prohibit. And no such restraining order or injunction. shall prohibit any per- son or persons, whether singly or in concert, from terminating any relation of employment, or from ceasing to perform any work or labor, or from recommending, advising, or persuading others by peaceful means so to do ; or from attending ,at any place where any such person or persons may lawfully be, for the purpose of peace- fully obtaining or communicating information, or from peacefully persuading any person to work or to abstain from working; or from ceasing to patronize or to employ any party to such dispute, or from recommending, advising, or persuading others by peaceful and lawful means so to do ';. or from paying or giving to, or withholding from, any person engaged, in such dispute, any strike, benefits or. other moneys or things of value ; or from peaceably assembling in a lawful manner, and for lawful purposes ; or from doing any act or 17 ANTI-TRUST LAW thing which might lawfully be done in the absence of such disput by any party thereto ; nor shall any of the acts specified in this para graph be considered or held to be violations of any law of the Unite States. Contempt Defined. Sec. 21. That any person who shall willfully disobey any lawfi writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of any district coui of the United States or any court of the District of Columbia b doing any act or thing therein, or thereby forbidden to be done b him, if the act or thing so done by him be of such character as t constitute also a criminal offense under any statute of the Unite' States, or under the laws of any State in which the act was com mitted, shall be proceeded against for his said contempt as herein after provided. Procedure of Court in Case of Contempt. Sec. 22. That whenever it shall be made to appear to any distric court or judge thereof, or to any judge therein sitting, by the rerun of a proper officer on lawful process, or upon the affidavit of som credible person, or by information, filed by any district attorney, tha there is reasonable ground to believe that any person has been guilt; of such contempt, the court or judge thereof, or any judge thereii sitting, may issue a rule requiring the said person so charged t< show cause upon a day certain why he should not be punished there for, which rule, together with a copy of the affidavit or informatior shalKbe served upon the person charged, with sufficient promptnes to enable him to prepare for and make return to the order at the tim fixed therein. If upon or by sUch return, in the judgment of th court, the alleged contempt be not sufficiently purged, a trial sha! be directed at a time and place fixed by the court: Failure of Accused to Make Return. Provided, however, That if the accused, being a natural persor fail or refuse to make return to the rule to show cause, an attach ment may issue against his person to compel an answer, and in cas of his continued failure or refusal, or if for any reason it be im practicable to dispose of the matter on the return day, he may b required to give reasonable bail for his attendance at the trial an his submission to the final judgment of the court. Where th accused is a body corporate, an attachment for the sequestration o its property may be issued upon like refusal or failure to answer. Trial For Contempt. In all cases within the purview of this Act such trial may be b the court, or, upon demand of the accused, by a jury; in which latte event the court may impanel a jury from the jurors then in attend ance, or the court or the judge thereof in chambers may cause 18 ANTI-TRUST LAW sufficient number of jurors to be selected and summoned, as provided by law, to attend at the time and place of trial, at which time a jury shall be selected and impaneled as upon a trial for misdemeanor; and such trial shall conform, as near as may be, to the practice in criminal cases prosecuted by indictment or upon information. Penalty For Contempt. If the accused be found guilty, judgment shall be entered accord- ingly, prescribing the punishment, either by fine or imprisonment, or both, in the discretion of the court. Such fine shall be paid to the United States or to the complainant or other party injured by the act constituting the contempt, or may, where more than one is so damaged, be divided or apportioned among them, as the court may direct, but in no case shall the fine to be paid to the United States exceed, in case the accused is a natural person, the sum of $1,000, nor shall such imprisonment exceed the term of six months : When Court May Dispense With Rule to Show Cause. Provided, That in any case the court or a judge thereof may, for good cause shown, by affidavit or proof taken in open court or before such judge and filed with the papers in the case, dispense with the rule to show cause, and may issue an attachment for the arrest of the person charged with contempt ; in which event such person, When arrested, shall be brought before such court or a judge thereof with- out unnecessary delay and shall be admitted to bail in a reasonable penalty for his appearance to answer to the charge or for trial for the contempt; and thereafter the proceedings shall be the same as provided herein in case the rule had issued in the first instance. Judgment Reviewed Upon Writ of Error. SEC. 23. That the evidence taken upon the trial of any persons so accused may be preserved by bill of exceptions, and any judgment of conviction may be reviewed upon writ of error in all respects as now provided by law in criminal cases, and may be affirmed, reversed, or modified as justice may require. Upon the granting of such writ of error, execution of judgment shall be stayed, and the accused, if thereby sentenced to imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail in such reasonable sum as may be required by the court, or by any justice, or any judge of any district court of the United States or any court of the District of Columbia. Contempts Excepted. Sec. 24. That nothing herein contained shall be construed to relate to contempts committed in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, nor to contempts committed in disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command entered in any suit or action brought or prose- cuted in the name of, or on behalf of, the United States, but the 19 ANTI-TRUST LAW same, and all other cases of contempt not specifically embraced within section twenty-one of this Act, may be punished in conformity to the usages at law and in equity now prevailing. Proceedings For Contempt Within One Year of Date of Offense. Sec. 25. That no proceeding for contempt shall be instituted against any person unless begun within one year from the date of the act complained of; nor shall any such proceeding be a bar to any criminal prosecution for the same act or acts ; but nothing herein contained shall affect any proceedings in contempt pending at. the time of the passage of this Act. Invalidity of This Act — Where and How Applied. Sec. 26. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Act shall, for any reason, be adjudged by any court of competent juris- diction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invali- date the remainder thereof, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered. Approved, October 15, 1914. 20 Federal Trade Commission Law An Act to Create a Federal Trade Commission, to De- fine its Powers and Duties, and for other Purpopses. (Approved September 26, 1914) Commission Defined. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That a commission is hereby created and established, to be known as the Federal Trade Commission (hereinafter referred to as the commission), which shall be composed of five commissioners, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Not more than three of the commissioners shall be members of the same political party. The first commissioners appointed shall continue in office for terms of three, four, five, six, and seven years, respectively, from the date of the taking effect of this Act, the term of each to be designated by the President, but their successors shall be appointed for terms of seven years, except that any person chosen to fill a vacancy shall be appointed only for the unexpired' term of the com- missioner whom he shall succeed. The commission shall choose a chairman from its own membership. No commissioner shall engage in any other business, vocation, or employment. Any commissioner may be removed by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. A vancancy in the commission shall not impair the right of the remaining commissioners to exercise all the powers of the commission. The commission shall have an official seal, which shall be judicially noticed. Commissioners and Employees. Sec. 2. That each commissioner shall receive a salary of $10,000 a year, payable in the same manner as the salaries of the judges of the courts of the United States. The commission shall appoint a secre- tary, who shall receive a salary of $5,000 a year, payable in like man- ner, and it shall have authority to employ and fix the compensation of such attorneys, special experts, examiners, clerks, and other employees as it may from time to time find necessary for the proper performance of its duties and as may be from time to time appro- priated for by Congress. With the exception of the secretary, a clerk to each commissioner, the attorneys, and such special experts and examiners as the com- mission may from time to time find necessary for the conduct of its work, all employees of the commission shall be a part of the classified civil service, and shall enter the service under such rules and regula- 21 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT tions as may be prescribed by the commission and by the Civil Service Commission. Expenses of Commission. All of the expensas of the commission, including all necessary expenses for transportation incurred by the commissioners or by their employees under their orders, in making any investigation, or upon official business in any other places than in the city of Wash- ington, shall be allowed and paid on the presentation of itemized vouchers therefor approved by the commission. Until otherwise provided by law, the commission may rent suitable offices for its use. The Auditor of the State and Other Departments shall receive and examine all accounts of expenditures of the commission. Bureau of Corporations Abolished. Sfic. 3. That upon the organization of the commission and elec- tion of its chairman, the Bureau of Corporations and the offices of Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Corporations shall cease to exist ; and all pending investigations and proceedings of the Bureau of Corporations shall be continued by the commission. All clerks and employees of the said bureau shall be transferred to and become clerks and employees of the commission at their pres- ent grades and salaries. All records, papers, and property of the said bureau shall become records, papers, and property of the com- mission, and all unexpended funds and appropriations for the use and maintenance of the said bureau, including any allotment already made to it by the Secretary of Commerce from the contingent appro- priation for the Department of Commerce for the fiscal year nineteen hundred and fifteen, or from the departmental printing fund for the fiscal year nineteen hundred and fifteen, shall become funds and appropriations available to be expended by the commission in the exercise of the powers, authority, and duties conferred on it by this Act. Office of Commission. The principal office of the commission shall be in the city of Wash- ington, but it may meet and exercise all its powers at any other place. The commission may, by one or more of its members, or by such examiners as it may designate, prosecute any inquiry necessary to its duties in any part of the United States. Sec. 4. That the words defined in this section shall have the fol- lowing meaning when found in this Act, to wit : Commerce Defined. "Commerce" means commerce among the several States or with foreign nations, or in any Territory of the United States or in the District of Columbia, or between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory and any State or foreign nation, or 22 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT between the District of Columbia and any State or Territory or foreign nation. Corporation Denned. "Corporation" means any company or association incorporated or unincorporated, which is organized to carry on business for profit and has shares of capital or capital stock, and any company or asso- ciation, incorporated or unincorporated, without shares of capital or capital stock, except partnerships, which is organized to carry on business for its own profit or that of its members. Documentary Evidence Defined. "Documentary evidence" means all documents, papers, and cor- respondence in existence at and after the passage of this Act. Acts to Regulate Commerce Defined. "Acts to regulate commerce" means the Act entitled "An Act to regulate commerce," approved February fourteenth, eighteen hun- dred and eighty-seven, and all Acts amendatory thereof and supple- mentary thereto. Antitrust Acts Defined. "Antitrust Acts" means the Act entitled "An Act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies," approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety; also the sections seventy- three to seventy-seven, inclusive, of an Act entitled "An Act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Government, and for other purposes," approved August twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-four; and also the Act entitled "An Act to amend sections seventy-three to seventy-six of the Act of August twenty-seventh eighteen hundred and ninety-four, entitled 'An Act to reduce taxa- tion, to provide revenue for the Government, and for other pur- poses,' " approved February twelfth, nineteen hundred and thirteen. Unfair Methods in Competition. Sec. 5. That unfair methods of competition in commerce are hereby declared unlawful. The commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, except banks, and common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, from using unfair methods of competition in commerce. Unfair Methods — Procedure Against. Whenever the commission shall have reason to believe that any such person, partnership, or corporation has been or is using any unfair method of competition in commerce, and if it shall appear to the commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be to the interest of the public, it shall issue and serve upon such person, partnership, or corporation a complaint stating its charges in that 23 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT respect, and containing a notice of a hearing upon a day and at a place therein fixed at least thirty days after the service of said com- plaint. The person, partnership, or corporation so complained of shall have the right to appear at the place and time so fixed and show cause why an order should not be entered by the commission requir- ing such person, partnership, or corporation to cease and desist from the violation of the law so charged in said complaint. Any person, partnership, or corporation may make application, and upon good cause shown may be alldwed by the commission, to intervene and appear in said proceeding by counsel or in person. The testimony in any such proceeding shall be reduced to writing and filed in the office of the commission. If upon such hearing the commission shall be of the opinion that the method of competition in question is prohibited by this Act, it shall make a report in writing in which it shall state its findings as to the facts, and shall issue and cause to be served on such person, partnership, or corporation an order requiring such person, partnership, or corporation to cease and desist from using such method of competition. Until a transcript of the record in such hearing shall have been filed in a circuit court of appeals of the United States, as hereinafter provided, the commission may at any time, upon such notice and in such manner as it shall deem proper, modify or set aside, in whole or in part, any report or any order made or issued by it under this section. Failure to Obey Order of Commission. If such person, partnership, or corporation fails or neglects to obey such order of the commission while the same is in effect, the commis- sion may apply to the circuit court of appeals of the United States, within any circuit where the method of competition in question was used or where such person, partnership, or corporation resides or carries on business, for the enforcement of its order, and shall certify and file with its application a transcript of the entire record in the proceeding, including all the testimony taken and the report and order of the commission. Upon such filing of the application and transcript the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon such person, partnership, or corporation and thereupon shall have juris- diction of the proceeding and of the question determined therein, and shall have power to make and enter upon the pleadings, testimony, and proceedings set forth in such transcript a decree affirming, modi- fying, or setting aside the order of the commission. The findings of the commission as to the facts, if supported by testimony, shall be conclusive. If either party shall apply to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence, and shall show to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence is material and that there were reason- able grounds for the failure to adduce such evidence in the proceed- ing before the commission, the court may order such additional evi- dence to be taken before the commission and to be adduced upon the hearing in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as to the court may seem proper. The commission may modify its findings as to the facts, or make new findings, by reason of the additional evi- 24 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT dence so taken, and it shall file such modified or new findings, which, if supported by testimony, shall be conclusive, and its recommenda- tion, if any, for the modification or setting aside of its original order, with the return of such additional evidence. The judgment and de- cree of the court shall be final, except that the same shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court upon certiorari as provided in sec- tion two hundred and forty of the Judicial Code. Review of Order by Petition. Any party required by such order of the commission to cease and desist from using such method of competition may obtain a review of such order in said circuit court of appeals by filing in the court a written petition praying that the order of the commission be set aside. A copy of such petition shall be forthwith served upon the commis- sion, and thereupon the commission forthwith shall certify and file in the court a transcript of the record as hereinbefore provided. Upon the filing of the transcript the court shall have the same juris- diction to affirm, set aside, or modify the order of the commission as in the case of an application by the commission for the enforcement of its order, and the findings of the commission as to the facts, if supported by testimony, shall in like manner be conclusive. Jurisdiction of Court of Appeals. The jurisdiction of the circuit court of appeals of the United States to enforce, set aside, or modify orders of Hie commission shall be ex- clusive. Precedence of Proceedings; Such proceedings in the circuit court of appeals shall be given precedence over other cases pending therein, and shall be in every way expedited. No order of the commission or judgment of the court to enforce the same shall in any wise relieve or absolve any person, partnership, or corporation from any liability under the anti- trust acts. Complaints — How Served. Complaints, orders, and other processes of the commission under this section may be served by anyone duly authorized by the com- mission, either (a) by delivering a copy thereof to the person' to be served, or to a member of the partnership to be served, or to the president, secretary, or other executive officer or a director of the corporation to be -"rvd: it (1)) by leaving a copy thereof at the principal office nr pl-T^ of business of such person, partnership, or corporation ; or (c) bv registering and mailing a copy thereof ad- dressed to such person, partnership, or corporation at his or its prin- cipal office or place of business. The verified return by the person so serving said complaint, order, or other process setting forth the manner of said service shall be proof of the same, and the return post-office receipt for said complaint, order, or other process reg- istered and mailed as aforesaid shall be proof of the service of the same. 25 ' FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT Commission — Powers of. Sec. 6. That the commission shall also have power — (a) To gather and compile information concerning, and to investi- gate from time to time the organization, business, conduct, practices, and management of any corporation engaged in commerce, excepting banks and common carriers subject to the Act to regulate commerce, and its relation to other corporations and to individuals, associations, and partnerships. (b) To require, by general or special orders, corporations engaged in commerce, excepting banks, and common carriers subject to the Act to regulate commerce, or any class of them, or any of them, respectively, to file with the commission in such form as the commis- sion may prescribe annual or special, or both annual and special, reports or answers in writing to specific questions, furnishing to the commission such information as it may require as to the organization, business, conduct, practices, management, and relation to other cor- porations, partnerships, and individuals of the respective corpora- tions filing such reports or answers in writing. Such reports and answers shall be made under oath, or otherwise, as the commission may prescribe, and shall be filed with the commission within such reasonable period as the commission may prescribe, unless additional time be granted in any case by the commission. (c) Whenever a final decree has been entered against any defend- ant corporation in any suit brought by the United States to prevent and restrain any violation of the antitrust Acts, to make investiga- tion, upon its own initiative, of the manner in which the decree has been or is being carried out, and upon the application of the Attorney General it shall be its duty to make such investigation. It shall transmit to the Attorney General a report embodying its findings and recommendations as a result of any such investigation, and the re- port shall be made public in the discretion of the commission. (d) Upon the direction of the President or either House of Con- gress to investigate and report the facts relating to any alleged viola- tions of the antitrust Acts by any corporation. (e) Upon the application of the Attorney General to investigate and make recommendations for the readjustment of the business of any corporation alleged to be violating the antitrust Acts in order that the corporation may thereafter maintain its organization, man- agement, and conduct of business in accordance with law. (f) To make public from time to time such portions of the in- formation obtained by it hereunder, except trade secrets and names of customers, as it shall deem expedient in the public interest ; and to make annual and special reports to the Congress and to submit there- with recommendations for additional legislation ; and to provide for the publication of its reports and decisions in such form and manner as may be best adapted for public information and use. (g) From time to time to classify corporations and to make rules and regulations for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act. 26 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT (h) To investigate, from time to time, trade conditions in and with foreign countries where associations, combinations, or practices of manufacturers, merchants, or traders, or other conditions, may affect the foreign trade of the United States, and to report to Congress thereon, with such recommendations as it deems advisable. Commission as Master in Chancery. Sec. 7. That in any suit in equity brought by or under the direc- tion of the Attorney General as provided in the antitrust Acts, the court may, upon the conclusion of the testimony therein, if it shall be then of opinion that the complainant is entitled to relief, refer said suit to the commission, as a master in chancery, to ascertain and report an appropriate form of decree therein. The commission shall proceed upon such notice to the parties and under such rules of pro- cedure as the court may prescribe, and upon the coming in of such report such exceptions may be filed and such proceedings had in re- lation thereto as upon the report of a master in other equity causes, but the court may adopt or reject such report, in whole or in part, and enter such decree as the nature of the case may in its judgment require. Departments of Government Must Furnish Commission with Information. SEC 8. That the several departments and bureaus of the Govern- ment when directed by the President shall furnish the commission, upon its request, all records, papers, and information in their posses- sion relating to any corporation subject to any of the provisions of this Act, and shall detail from time to time such officials and em- ployees to the commission as he may direct. Right of Commission to Examine Documents of Corporation Accused — And to Subpoena Witnesses. Sec. 9. That for the purposes of this Act the commission, or its duly authorized agent or agents, shall at all reasonable times have access to, for the purpose of examination, and the right to copy any documentary evidence of any corporation being investigated or pro- ceeded against; and the commission shall have power to require by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the pro- duction of all such documentary evidence relating to any matter under investigation. Any member of the commission may sign subpoenas, and members and examiners of the commission may administer oaths and affirmations, examine witnesses, and receive evidence. Attendance of Witnesses — Where. Such attendance of witnesses, and the production of such docu- mentary evidence, may be required from any place in the United States, at any designated place of hearing. And in case of diso- bedience to a subpoena the commission may invoke the aid of any court of the United States in requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of documentary evidence. 27 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT Failure to Obey Subpoena Punished as Contempt. Any of the district courts of the United States within the juris- diction of which such inquiry is carried on may, in case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpoena issued to any corporation or other per- son, issue an order requiring such corporation or other person to appear before the commission, or to produce documentary evidence if so ordered, or to give evidence touching the matter in question; and any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by such court as a contempt thereof. District Courts of U. S. May Issue Writs of Mandamus. Upon the application of the Attorney General of the United States, at the request of the commission, the district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus commanding any person or corporation to comply with the provisions of this Act or any order of the commission made in pursuance thereof. Commission May Order Testimony to Be Taken by Deposition. The commission may order testimony to be taken by . deposition in any proceeding or investigation pending under this Act at any stage of such proceeding or investigation. Such depositions may be taken before any person designated by the commission and having power to administer oaths. Such testimony shall be reduced to writing by the person taking the deposition, or under his direction, and shall then be subscribed by the deponent. Any person may be compelled to appear and depose and to produce documentary evi- dence in the same manner as witnesses may be compelled to appear and testify and produce documentary evidence before the commission as hereinbefore provided. Pay of Witnesses. Witnesses summoned before the commission shall be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid witnesses in the courts of the United States, and witnesses whose depositions are taken and the persons taking the same shall severally be entitled to the same fees as are paid for like services in the courts of the United States. Witness Not Prosecuted for Anything Concerning Which He Testifies. No person shall be excused from attending, and testifying or from producing documentary evidence before the commission or in obedi- ence to the subpoena of the commission on. the ground or for the reason that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him may tend to criminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture. But no natural person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any trans- action, matter, or thing concerning which he may testify, or produce 28 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT evidence, documentary or otherwise, before the commission in obedi- ence to a subpoena issued by it : Perjury Prosecuted. Provided, That no natural person so testifying shall be exempt from prosecution and punishment for perjury committed in so testifying. Penalty for Failure to Testify. Sec. 10. That any person who shall neglect or refuse to attend and testify, or to answer any lawful inquiry, or to produce documen- tary evidence, if in his power to, do so, in obedience to the subpoena or lawful requirement of the commission, shall be guilty of an offense and upon conviction thereof by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be punished by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000, or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Penalty for False Entries in Corporations Record. Any person who shall willfully make, or cause to be made, any false entry or statement of fact in any report required to be made under this Act, or who shall willfully make, or cause to be made, any false entry in any account, record, or memorandum kept by any cor- poration subject to this Act, or who shall willfully neglect or fail to make, or to cause to be made, full, true, and correct entries in such accounts, records, or memoranda of all facts and transactions apper- taining to the business of such corporation, or who shall willfully re- move out of the jurisdiction of the United States, or willfully muti- late, alter, or by any other means falsify any documentary evidence of such corporation, or who shall refuse to submit to the commission or to any of its authorized agents, for the purpose of inspection and taking copies, any documentary evidence of such corporation in his possession or within his control, shall be deemed guilty of an offense against the United States, and shall be subject, upon conviction in any court of the United States of competent jurisdiction, to a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000, or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both such fine and im- prisonment. Penalty for Failure of Corporation to File Annual or Special Report. If any corporation required by this Act to file any annual or special report shall fail so to do within the time fixed by the commission for filing the same, and such failure shall continue for thirty days after notice of such default, the corporation shall forfeit to the United States the sum of $100 for each and every day of the continuance of, such failure, which forfeiture shall be payable into the Treasury of the United States, and shall be recoverable in a civil suit in the 29 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT name of the United States brought in the district where the corpora- tion has its principal office or in any district in which it shall do busi- ness. It shall be the duty of the various district attorneys, under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, to prose- cute for the recovery of forfeitures. The costs and expenses of such prosecution shall be paid out of the appropriation for the expenses of the courts of the United States. Penalty for Unlawful Disclosures. Any officer or employee of the commission who shall make public any information obtained by the commission without its authority, unless directed by a court, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceed- ing $5,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. Federal Trade Commission Law Not to Affect Antitrust Acts. Sfic. 11. Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to pre- vent or interfere with the enforcement of the provisions of the anti- trust Acts or the Acts to regulate commerce, nor shall anything con- tained in the Act be construed to alter, modify, or repeal the said antitrust Acts or the Acts to regulate commerce or any part or parts thereof. Approved, September 2fi, 1914. 30 Federal Anti-Trust Law (Sherman Act and Amendments) THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST LAW. [Act of July 2, 1890 (26 Stat., 209.)] AN ACT To protect trade and commerce against unlawful restrainl and monopolies. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of th United States of America in Congress assembled, Section 1.- Every contract, combination in the form of trust c otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce amon trie several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to b illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engag in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fin not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceed ing one year, or both said punishments, in the discretion of th court. Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt ti monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or per sons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among th several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of ; misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fim not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceed ing one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of thi court. SEC. 3. Every contract, combination in form of trust or other wise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any Terri tory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or ir restraint of trade or commerce between any such Territory anc another, or between any such Territory or Territories and an) State or States or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations or between the District of Columbia and any State or States oi foreign nation, is hereby declared illegal. Every person who shal' make any such contract or engage in any such combination or con- spiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on convictior thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dol- lars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. 31 SHERMAN ANTITRUST LAW. SEC 4. That several circuit courts of the United States are hereby invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations 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 setting forth the case and praying that such violation shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such petition the court shall pro- ceed, 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 prohibi- tion 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 pending, that the ends of justice require that other parties should be brought before 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 com- bination, or pursuant to any conspiracy (and being the subject thereof) mentioned in section one of this act, and being 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 con- demned by the proceedings as those provided by law for the for- feiture, 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 prop- erty 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, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sus- tained, 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, the laws of any of the Territories, the laws of any State, or the laws of any foreign country. 32 ANTITRUST LAW AMENDMENTS. ANTI-TRUST AMENDMENTS TO THE WILSON TARIFF ACT OF AUGUST 27, 1894— SECTIONS 73-77. [28 Stat., 570.] Section 73. That every combination, conspiracy, trust, agree- ment, or contract is hereby declared to be contrary to public policy, illegal, and void, when the same is made by or between 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, conspiracy, trust, agreement, or contract is in- tended 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 manu- facture into which such imported articles 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 con- spire with another to violate the same, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof 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 punished by imprisonment, in the discretion of the court, for a term not less than three months nor exceeding twelve months. 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 Attorney 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 pro- hibited. 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 peti- tion 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 33 ANTITRUST LAW AMENDMENTS. 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 pro- ceedings as those provided by law for the forfeiture, seizure, and condemnation of property imported into the United States contrary to law. SEC 77. That 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, without respect to the amount in con- troversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. AMENDMENTS TO ABOVE SECTIONS OF WILSON TARIFF ACT. [Act of Feb. 12, 1913, (37 Stat., 667.)] AN ACT TO amend section seventy-three and seventy-six of the act of August twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-four, entitled "An act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Govern- ment, and for other purposes." Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section seventy-three and section seventy-six of the act of August twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-four, entitled "An act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Government, and for other purposes," be, and the same are hereby, amended to read as follows : "Section 73. That every combination, conspiracy, trust, agree- ment, or contract, is hereby declared to be contrary to public policy, illegal, and void when the same is made by or between two or more 34 ANTITRUST LAW AMENDMENTS. persons or corporations either of whom, as agent or principal, is engaged in importing any article from any foreign country into the United States, and when such combination, conspiracy, trust, agree- ment, or contract is intended to operate in restraint of lawful trade, or free competition in lawful trade or commence, or to increase the market price in any part of the United States of any article or ar- ticles 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 en- gaged 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 thereof 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 punished by imprisonment, in the discretion of the court, for a term not less than three months nor exceeding twelve months." "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, imported into and being within the United States or being in the course of trans- portation 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 pro- vided by law for the forfeiture, seizure, and condemnation of prop- erty imported into the United States contrary to law." EXPEDITING ACT OF 1903. [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 com- merce 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 by 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 35 ANTITRUST LAW AMENDMENTS. commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies," approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety, "An act to regulate com- merce," approved February 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 Attorney 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. There- upon such case shall be given precedence over others and in every way expediated, and be assigned for hearing at the earliest prac- ticable 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. 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 hereinafter provided. SEC 2. That in every suit in equity pending or hereafter brought in any 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 Supreme 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. Aproved, February 11, 1903. EXPEDITING ACT OF 1910. [36 Stat., 854.] AN ACT To amend an act entitled "An act to expedite the hearing and determination of suits in equity pending or hereafter brought un- der 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 Febru- ary fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, or any other acts 36 ANTITRUST LAW AMENDMENTS. having a like purpose that may be hereafter enacted," approved February eleventh, nineteen hundred and three. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section one of the act entitled "An act to expediate the hearing and determin- ation 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 mono- polies,' '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,' approved February eleventh, nineteen hundred and three, be, and the same is hereby, amended so as to read as follows : "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 mono- polies,' approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety, 'An act to regulate commerce,' approved February fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, or any other acts having a like purpose that here- after may be enacted, wherein the United States is complainant, the Attorney 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. There- upon such case shall be given precedence over others and in every way expedited, and be assigned for hearing at the earliest practicable day, before not less than three of the circuit judges of said court, 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; or, in case the full court shall not at any time be made up by reason of the necessary absence or disqualification of one or more of the said circuit judges, the Justice of the Supreme Court assigned to that circuit or the other circuit judge or judges' may designate a district judge or judges within the circuit who shall be competent to sit in said court at the hearing of said suit. In the event the judges sitting in such case shall be equally divided in opinion as to the decision or disposition of said cause, or in the event that a majority of said judges shall be unable to agree upon the judgment, order, or decree finally disposing of said case in said court which should be entered in said cause, then they shall immediately certify that fact to the Chief Justice of the United States, who shall at once 87 ANTITRUST LAW AMENDMENTS. designate and appoint some circuit judge to sit with said judges and to assist in determining said cause. Such order of the Chief Justice shall be immediately transmitted to the clerk of the circuit court in which said cause is pending, and shall be entered upon the minutes of said court. Thereupon said cause shall at once be set down for reargument and the parties thereto notified in writing by the clerk of said court of the action of the court and the date fixed for the reargument thereof. The provisions of this section shall apply to all causes and proceedings in all courts now pending, or which may hereafter be brought. Approved, June 25, 1910. THE JUDICIAL CODE. "AN ACT To codify, revise, and amend the laws relating to the judi- ciary." (Approved March 3, 1911; in effect January 1, 1912, 36 Stat., 1087.) Section 289.. The circuit courts of the United States, upon the taking effect of this act, shall be and hereby are abolished. * * * SEC 290. All suits and proceedings pending in said circuit courts on the date of the taking effect of this act, whether originally brought therein or certified thereto from the district courts, shall thereupon and thereafter be proceeded with and disposed of in the district courts in the same manner and with the same effect as if originally begun therein. * * * SEC 291. Whenever, in any law not embraced within this act, any reference is made to, or any power or duty is conferred or im- posed upon, the circuit courts, such reference shall, upon the taking effect of this act, be deemed and held to refer to, and to confer such power and impose such duty upon, the district courts. IMMUNITY PROVISION OF 1903. [32 Stat, 854, 903.] AN ACT Making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judi- cial expenses of the Government for the fiscal ending June thir- tieth, nineteen hundred and four, and for other purposes. ***** That for the enforcement of the provisions of the act entitled "An act to regulate commerce," approved February fourth, eighteen 38 ANTITRUST LAW AMENDMENTS. hundred and eighty-seven, and all acts amendatory thereof or sup- plemental thereto, and of the act entitled "An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies," ap- proved 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 Government, 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 direction of the Attorney General in the employment of special counsel and agents of the Department of Justice to conduct 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 concerning which he may testify or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, in any proceeding, suit, or prosecution under said acts : Provided further, That no person so testifying shall be exempt from prosecution or punish- ment for perjury committed in so testifying. Approved, February 25, 1903. ACT DEFINING RIGHT OF IMMUNITY. [24 Stat., 798.] AN ACT Defining the right of immunity of witnesses under the act entitled "An act in relation to testimony before the Interstate Commerce Commission," and so forth, approved February elev- enth, eighteen hundred and ninety-three, and an act entitled "An act to establish the Department of Commerce and Labor," ap- proved February fourteenth, nineteen hundred and three, and an act entitled "An act to further regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the States," approved February nineteenth, nineteen hundred and three, and an act entitled "An act making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, nine- teen hundred and four, and for other purposes," approved Febru- ary twenty-fifth, nineteen hundred and three. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That under the 39 ANTITRUST LAW AMENDMENTS. immunity provisions in the act entitled 'An act in relation to testi- mony before the Interstate Commerce Commission," and so forth, approved February eleventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-three, in section six of the act entitled "An act to establish the Department of Commerce and Labor," approved February fourteenth, nineteen hundred and three, and in the act entitled "An act to further regu- late commerce with' foreign nations and among the States," approved February nineteenth, nineteen hundred and three, and in the act entitled "An act making appropriations for the legislative, execu- tive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and four, and for the other purposes," approved 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 produces evidence, documentary or otherwise, under oath. Approved, June 30, 1906. PANAMA CANAL ACT. [Act of March 4, 1913 (37 Stat., 560).] AN ACT To provide for the opening, maintenance, protection, and operation of the Panama Canal, and the sanitation and govern- ment of the Canal Zone. Sec. 11. That section five of the act to regulate commerce, ap- proved February fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, as here- tofore amended, is hereby amended by adding thereto a new paragraph at the end thereof, as follows : "From and after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and four- teen, it shall be unlawful for any railroad company or other common carrier subject to the act to regulate commerce to own, lease, operate, control, or have any interest whatsoever (by stock owner- ship or otherwise, either directly, indirectly, through any holding company, or by stockholders or directors in common, or in any other manner) in any common carrier by water operated through the Panama Canal or elsewhere with which said railroad or other carrier afaresaid does or may compete for traffic or any vessel carrying freight or passengers upon said water route or elsewhere with which said railroad or other carrier aforesaid does or may compete for traffic ; and in case of the violation of this provision each day in which such violation continues shall be deemed a separate offense." 40 ANTITRUST LAW AMENDMENTS. Jurisdiction is hereby conferred on the Interstate Commerce Com- mission to determine questions of fact as to the competition or possibility of competition, after full hearing, on the application of any railroad company or other carrier. Such application may be filed for the purpose of determining whether any existing service is in violation of this section and pray for an order permitting the con- tinuance of any vessel or vessels already in operation, or for the purpose of asking an order to install new service not in conflict with the provisions of this paragraph. The commission may on its own motion or the application of any shipper institute proceedings to inquire into the operation of any vessel in use by any railroad or other carrier which has not applied to the commission and had the question of competition or the possibility of competition determined as herein provided. In all such cases the order of said commission shall be final. If the Interstate Commerce Commission shall be of the opinion that any such existing specified service by water other than through the Panama Canal is being operated in the interest of the public and is of advantage to the convenience and commerce of the people and that such extension will neither exclude, prevent, nor reduce com- petition on the route by water under consideration, the Interstate Commerce Commission may, by order, extend the time during which such service by water may continue to be operated beyond July first, nineteen hundred and fourteen. In every case of such extension the rates, schedules, and practices of such water carrier shall be filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission and shall be subject to the act to regulate commerce and all amendments thereto in the same manner and to the same extent as is the railroad or other com- mon carrier controlling such water carrier or interested in any manner in its operation: Provided, Any application for extension under the terms of this provision filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission prior to July first, nineteen hundred and fourteen, but for any reason not heard and disposed of before said date, may be considered and granted thereafter. No vessel permitted to engage in the coastwise or foreign trade of the United States shall be permitted to enter or pass through said canal if such ship is owned, chartered, operated, or controlled by any person or company which is doing business in violation of the provisions of the act of Congress approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety, entitled "An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies," or the provisions of 41 ANTITRUST LAW AMENDMENTS. sections seventy-three to seventy-seven, both inclusive, of an act approved August twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety- four, entitled "An act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Government, and for other purposes," or the provisions of any other act of Congress amending or supplementing the said act of July second, eighteen hundred and ninety, commonly known as the Sherman Antitrust Act, and amendments thereto, or said sections of the act of August twenty seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-four. The question of fact may be determined by the judgment of any court of the United States of competent jurisdiction in any cause pending before it to which the owners or operators of such ships are parties. Suit may be brought by any shippers or by the Attorney General of the United States. * * * * * 42 LIST OF CASES INSTITUTED BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAW. President Harrison's Administration, march 4, 1889, to March 4, 1803. United States v. Jellico Mountain Coal Company. (43 Fed. 898, 46 Fed. 432.) Suit in Circuit Court at Nashville, Term., October 13, 1890, against the members of the "Nashville Coal Exchange," composed of vari- ous coal-mining companies operating mines in Kentucky and Ten- nessee and of persons and firms dealing in coal in Nashville, formed for the purpose of fixing prices and regulating the output of coal. Upon 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 agreement. United States v. Greenhut et al. (50 Fed. 469.) A proceeding by indictment in District Court, Massachusetts, May 16, 1892, against the officers of the Distilling and Cattle Feed- ing 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. In re Corning. (51 Fed. 305.) Application to District Court, N. D. Ohio, June 11, 1892, for a warrant of removal from Ohio to Massachusetts to answer to the indictment found in the Greenhut case. Application denied and prisoner discharged. In re Terrell. (51 Fed. 213.) Application to Circuit Court, S. D. New York, June 28, 1892, for a writ of habeas corpus to secure a discharge from arrest and deten- tion upon a warrant for removal from New York to Massachusetts to answer to the indictment found in the Greenhut case. Petitioner discharged. In re Greene. (52 Fed. 104.) Petition to Circuit Court, S. D. Ohio, August 4, 1892, 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 Massachusetts to answer to the indictment in the Greenhut case. Prisoner discharged. 43 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. United States v. Nelson. (52 Fed. 646, 201 TJ. 8. 92.) Indictment in District Court, Minnesota, October 10, 1892, of a number of lumber dealers for conspiring together to raise the price of lumber. Demurrer to indictment sustained. United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association. (53 Fed. 440, 58 Fed. 58, 166 U. S. 290.) Petition filed January 6, 1892, in Circuit Court Kansas, to enjoin the operations of a combination of railroads engaged in interstate commerce, formed for the purpose of maintaining "uniform rates," etc. Petition dismissed by Circuit Court; decree of dismissal affirmed by Circuit Court of Appeals, and reversed by the United States Supreme Court. United States v. Workingmen's Amalgamated Council of New Orleans et al. (54 Fed. 994, 57 Fed. 85.) Suit in Circuit Court, E. D. Louisiana, March 25, 1893, to restrain defendants, a combination of workmen, from interfering with inter- state and foreign commerce. An injunction was granted and the decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. United States v. Patterson et al. (55 Fed. 605, 59 Fed. 280, 201 Fed. 697, 205 Fed. 292.) Indictment in Circuit Court, Massachusetts, February 28 and June 7, 1893, of members of a combination formed for the purpose of controlling the prices of cash registers. Letter of Attorney Gen- eral dated October 16, 1893, shows case was allowed to lapse because of reconciliation of complaining witness with defendants. United States v. E. C. Knight Company. (60 Fed. 306, 60 Fed. 934, 156 U. S. 1.) Petition in Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania, January 30, 1894, to enjoin the operations of an alleged Sugar Trust. The petition 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 again affirmed. President Cleveland's Second Administration, March 4, 1893, to March 4, 1897. United States v. Eugene V. Debs et al. (64 Fed. 724.) Petition filed on July 3, 1894, in the U. S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana, seeking to restrain interference by American Railway Union and forty-nine individual defendants with mails and interstate commerce carried by all railroads operating in Indiana. An injunction was issued on July 3, 1894, which was continued in 44 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. force until September 19, 1898, when the case was dismissed at the instance of the Government. United States v. Agler. (62 Fed. 824.) Information filed in Circuit Court, Indiana, July 12, 1894, charg- ing contempt of court in disobeying am injunction restraining Agler and others from interfering with interstate commerce and obstruct- ing the mails. Agler was a member of the American Railway Union, the members of which order had been enjoined from inter- fering with the carrying of the mails and from obstructing interstate commerce. Information quashed. United States v. Elliott. (62 Fed. 801, 64 Fed. 27.) Suit in Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri, July 6, and October 24, 1894, to restrain Elliott, Debs, and others, members of the American Railway Union, from carrying out an unlawful conspiracy to inter- fere with interstate commerce and to obstruct the carrying of the mails. Preliminary injunction granted. Final decree entered April 6, 1896, against two hundred and ninety-five defendants, and tem- porary injunction made permanent. United States v. Debs et al. (64 Fed. 724.) Petition filed on July 2, 1894, in the Circuit Court for the North- ern District of Illinois, alleging conspiracy to obstruct the mails and to interfere with interstate commerce. A temporary injunction was issued on July 2, 1894, for violation of which contempt proceedings were instituted. Original petition dismissed on July 28, 1899, at the instance of the Government. United States v. Debs et al. (64 Fed. 724.) Proceedings in contempt in the Circuit Court, N. D. Illinois, De- cember 14, 1894, to punish Debs and others for disobeying an in- junction restraining them from interfering with interstate commerce and with obstructing the mails. Defendants found guilty and pun- ished. In re Debs, petitioner. (158 U. S. 564.) Application to United States Supreme Court July 2, 1894. for a writ of habeas corpus to secure a discharge from imprisonment for disobeying an injunction of the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois, restraining Debs and others from conspiring to interfere with interstate commerce. Petition for the writ denied. United States v. Cassidy. (67 Fed. 698.) Indictment in District Court, N. D. California, April 1 and 2, 1895, under section 5440, Revised Statutes, for combining and con- 45 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. spiring to restrain trade and commerce between the States, in vio- lation of the antitrust law, of which conspiracy the Pullman strike in California was a result. The trial resulted in a disagreement of the jury on April 6, 1895. A nolle prosequi entered on July 1, 1895. Moore v. United States. (85 Fed. 465.) Indictment returned November 4, 1895, against the members of an association of dealers in coal at Salt L,ake City for entering into a conspiracy, while Utah was a Territory, to regulate the price of coal. Moore was tried and convicted in the District Court of Utah. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of conviction, for the reason that upon the admission of Utah as a State it was no longer a "Territory" within the meaning of the antitrust act, and the combination not beirig in restraint of interstate commerce, the court had no jurisdiction of the offense. United States v. Joint Traffic Association. (76 Fed. 895, 89 Fed. 1020, 171 U. S. 505.) Suit instituted January 8, 1896, in the Circuit Court, S. D. New York, to enjoin the alleged violation of the antitrust law by a com- bination 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. United States v. Addyston Pipe and Steel Company. (78 Fed. 712, 85 Fed. 271, 175 U. S. 211.) Suit instituted December 10, 1896, Circuit Court, E. D. Tennes- see, to enjoin the operations of a combination of manufacturers of cast-iron pipe, by which it was attempted to control prices. The petition 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 Supreme Court the action of the Circuit Court of Appeals was affirmed. United States v. Hopkins et al. (82 Fed. 529, 84 Fed. 1018, 171 U. S. 578.) Suit instituted in the Circuit Court, Kansas, December 31, 1896, to restrain the operations of the "Kansas City Live Stock Ex- change," organized to control shipments of live stock. The injunc- tion was granted and an appeal was taken to the Circuit Court of A.ppeals, from whence it was removed to the Supreme Court of the United States. By that court the decree of the Circuit Court was 46 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. reversed and the case was remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition. President McKinley's Administration, March 4, 1S97, to September 14, 1901. Anderson v. United States. (82 Fed, 998, 171 U..S. 604.) Petition filed June 7, 1897, in the Circuit Court for the Western District of Missouri to restrain the operations of "The Traders' Ivive Stock Exchange," of Kansas City, an association formed for the purpose of buying cattle on the market. Decree of temporary injunction was granted and the case was appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. From there it was certi- fied to the Supreme Court of the United States for instructions. The Supreme Court reversed the decree of the Circuit Court and remanded the case with directions to dismiss the petition. United States v. Coal Dealers' Association. (85 Fed. 252.) Petition filed December 16, 1897, in the Circuit Court, N. D. Cali- fornia, to restrain the operations of a combination of coal dealers. A temporary injunction was granted, from which no appeal was taken, and on May 2, 1899, a final decree was ordered granting the relief prayed for. United States v. Chesapeake and Ohio Fuel Company et al. (105 Fed. 93, 115 Fed. 610.) Petition filed May 8, 1899, in the Circuit Court, S. D. Ohio, to annul a contract and dissolve a combination among and between producers and shippers of coal in Ohio and West Virginia. De- fendants were enjoined, contract was declared void and illegal, and the combination was dissolved. President Roosevelt's Administration, September 14, 1901, to March 4, 1909. United States v. Northern Securities Co. et al. (120 Fed. 721, 193 U. S. 197.) Petition filed March 10, 1902, in the Circuit Court, Minnesota, to enjoin the defendant, the Northern Securities Co., from acquir- ing, holding, or voting the shares of the capital stock of two com- peting railway companies. The Circuit Court on April 9, 1903, entered a decree in favor of the Government, and this decree was, on March 14, 1904, affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States. United States v. Swift & Co. et al. (122 Fed. 529, 188 Fed. 92, 196 U. S. 375.) Petition filed May 10, 1902, in the , Circuit Court, Northern Dis- trict of Illinois, to restrain the defendants, who were engaged in the 47 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. buying of live stock and the selling of dressed meats, from carrying out an unlawful conspiracy entered into between themselves and the various railway companies to suppress competition and to obtain a monopoly. Demurrers to the petition were overruled on February 18, 1903, and a preliminary injunction was granted. The defend- ants having failed to answer, the court, on May 26, 1903, entered a final decree. Defendants appealed from this decree to the Supreme Court of the United States, where it was affirmed. United States v. The Federal Salt Company et al. Petition filed October 15, 1902, in Circuit Court for the Northern District of California to restrain the defendants from combining and conspiring to suppress competition in the manufacture and sale of salt in the Western States. A temporary restraining order was issued on that date, and the court on November 10, 1902, granted an injunction pendente lite, thus in effect making the restraining order perpetual. United States v. The Federal Salt Company. Indictment returned on February 28, 1903, in the Northern Dis- trict of California against the so-called Salt Trust. On May 12, 1903, a plea of guilty was entered and a fine of $1,000 was imposed and collected. United States v. Jacksonville Wholesale Grocers' Association. Petition filed September 12, 1903, in the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Florida, for the purpose of dissolving a com- bination of wholesale grocers. November 1, 1907, the case was dis- missed. United States v. General Paper Co. et al. Petititon filed December 27, 1904, in the Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota against the General Paper Co. and twenty- three other corporations engaged in the manufacture and sale of paper, alleging a combination and conspiracy to restrain trade and commerce. On May 11, 1906, the court ordered judgment in favor of the Government, dissolving the combination and granting all relief prayed for in the petition. United States v. Armour & Co. et al. (142 Fed. 808.) Indictment returned on July 1, 1905, in the Northern District of Illinois. Many preliminary objections were urged, and all were disposed of in favor of the Government, except certain special pleas of immunity, based upon information concerning the matters for 48 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. which the defendants were indicted which they had given to the Department of Commerce and Labor. On March 29, 1906, the court sustained the pleas so far as the individual defendants were concerned and overruled them with respect to the corporations. February 5, 1913, dismissed. United States v. MacAndrews & Forbes Company et al. ( 149 Fed. 823, 212 XJ. 8. 585.) Indictment returned in June, 1906, in the Southern District of New York charging a combination and conspiracy to regulate the interstate trade and sale in licorice paste. January 10, 1907, Mac- Andrews & Forbes Co. was found guilty on first and third counts of indictment, the J. S. Young Co. was found guilty on first and third counts ; and a verdict of acquittal was returned as to the indi- vidual defendants. MacAndrews & Forbes Co. was fined $10,000, and J. S. Young Co. $8,000. United States v. Metropolitan Meat Co. et al. (3 Dist. Hawaii 110.) Petition filed in October, 1905, in the Circuit Court for Hawaii, to restrain the operation of alleged unlawful combinations in re- straint of trade in beef and beef products. Demurrer to bill over- ruled October 2, 1906. United States v. Nome Retail Grocers' Association. Petition filed November 4, 1905, in the District Court, Second Division, District of Alaska, alleging combination to fix prices and to suppress competition. With the consent of the defendant a de- cree was entered dissolving the combination. United States v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis et al. (197 Fed. 446, 224 U. S. 383.) Petition filed on December 1, 1905, in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to enjoin the defendant railroads from continuing an unlawful combination to operate Eads Bridge and Merchants Bridge as a common agency of interstate commerce. Upon disagreement of circuit judges the case was carried to the Supreme Court but was remanded by that court for further pro- ceedings. The petition was then dismissed by the Circuit Court, and an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court, where, on April 22, 1912, the decree of the Circuit Court was reversed, and the case remanded with directions to enter a decree in conformity with the opinion of the Supreme Court. A controversy having arisen as to whether the district judge or the three circuit judges had jurisdic- tion a writ of prohibition was filed against the district judge, which 49 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. was sustained by the Supreme Court. The form of final decree to be entered is now under consideration by the circuit judges, the respective parties having submitted their views on December 6, 1913. ■United States v. Allen & Robinson et al. (3 Dist. Hawaii, 664.) Petition filed in October, 1905, in the Circuit Court for the Dis- trict of Hawaii alleging unlawful combination to control the trade in lumber in that Territory. Answers filed January 2, 1906. De- cision adverse to Government and petition ordered dismissed on March 30, 1911. United States v. Otis Elevator Co. et al. Petition filed March 7, 1906, in the 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 manufacture and sale of elevators. On June 1, 1906, a decree was entered by consent, granting the relief prayed for. United States v. F. A. Amsden Lumber Company et al. Indictment returned on May 4, 1906, in the District Court of Oklahoma for restricting competition and maintaining prices in the sale of lumber. September 25, 1907, pleas of guilty were entered and fines aggregating $2,000 were imposed and collected. United States v. National Association of Retail Druggists et al. Petition filed May 9, 1906, in the Circuit Court for the District of Indiana, alleging a combination in restraint of interstate trade in the sale of drugs and proprietary medicines. On May 9, 1907, a final decree was entered by agreement, granting all the relief prayed for in the petition. United States v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Company et al. (163 Fed. 66.) Indictment returned on May 25, 1906, in the Middle District of Tennessee, against 31 coporations and 25 individuals engaged in the fertilizer business, charging a conspiracy in violation of the Federal antitrust act and a conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States in violation of section 5440 of the Revised Statutes. On April 17, 1908, various motions, pleas in abatement, and de- murrers were filed. On July 3, 1908, the motions and demurrers were overruled, and the pleas in abatement were sustained and the indictment was quashed. 50 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. United States v. American Ice Company et al. Indictment returned on July 12, 1906, in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, charging an unlawful agreement to con- trol prices and restrict competition in the sale of ice. No further action taken. United States v. Chandler Ice and Cold Storage Plant et al. Indictment returned on September 19, 1906, in the District Court for the Territory of Oklahoma, charging a combination to appor- tion territory in the sale of ice. Demurrer overruled in May, 1907. Case was ordered dismissed on April 10, 1911. United States v. Alfred M. Gloyd et al. Indictment returned on September 21, 1906, in the District Court for the Territory of Oklahoma, charging a combination to maintain prices and restrict competition in the sale of lumber. Dismissed. United States v. People's Ice and Fuel Company and W. B. Lount. Indictment returned on October 23, 1906, in the District Court for the Territory of Arizona, charging a combination to control prices and restrict competition in the sale of ice. The trial resulted in a verdict of not guilty as to People's Ice and Fuel Co. Case as to W. B. Lount was continued over term, and on October 16, 1907, a plea in bar was filed, which on following day was sustained. United States v. Demund Lumber Company et al. Indictment returned on October 23, 1906, in the District Court for the Territory of Arizona, charging a combination to control prices and restrict competition in the sale of lumber. January 2, 1907, the trial was commenced and resulted in a verdict of not guilty as to Demund Lumber Co. May 9, 1907, a verdict of acquittal was directed as to remaining defendants. United States v. Phoenix Wholesale Meat and Produce Company et al. Indictment returned on October 23, 1906, in the District Court for the Territory of Arizona, charging a combination to control prices and restrict competition in the sale of meats. January 7, 1907, verdict of not guilty as to Phoenix Wholesale Meat & Produce Co. and indictment against Hurley dismissed. Verdict of guilty as to defendant S. J. Tribolet, and fine of $1,000 imposed. Verdict affirmed by Supreme Court of Territory. United States v. Standard Oil Company of N. J. et al. (152 Fed. 290, 173 Fed. 177, 221 U. S. 1.) Petition filed November 15, 1906, in Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, alleging that defendants were maintaining a 51 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. combination in restraint of trade in the production and sale of petro- leum. Decision in favor of Government on November 20, 1909. Appealed to Supreme Court, and judgment affirmed May 15, 1911, and the combination was thereafter dissolved in accordance with the terms of the decree. United States v. T. B. Hogg et al. Indictment returned December 8, 1906, in the District Court for the Territory of Oklahoma, charging a combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce in the sale of lumber. Dismissed upon admission of Oklahoma to statehood. United States v. Atlantic Investment Company et al. Indictment returned February 11, 1907, in the District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, charging a combination in restraint of trade and commerce in the manufacture and sale of turpentine. February 18, 1907, four corporations and two individuals entered pleas of guilty, and the court imposed fines aggregating $30,000. United States v. American Seating Company et al. Indictment returned March 12, 1907, in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, charging 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 aggregating $43,000 were im- posed and collected. Defendant E. H. Stafford Manufacturing Co. filed demurrer April 3, 1907. May 31, 1907, demurrer was over- ruled and plea of not guilty entered. Dismissed January 27, 1913. United States v. American Seating Company et al. Petition filed March 12, 1907, in the Circuit Court for the North- ern District of Illinois, alleging 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. As to these defendants the case was dismissed on January 27, 1913. United States v. Santa Rita Mining Company and Santa Rita Store Company. Indictment returned on April 4, 1907, in the district of New Mexico, charging a combination in restraint of trade. Demurrer was filed and overruled. Fine of $1,000 imposed on each defendant. An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of the Territory of New 62 . PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. Mexico, where judgment of the lower court was reversed, and the case was subsequently dismissed. United States v. The Heading Company et al. (183 Fed. 427, 226 U. 8. 324, 228 U. S. 158.) Petition filed June 12, 1907, in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to dissolve a combination among the an- thracite coal-carrying roads and others. December 8, 1910, a deci- sion was handed down by the Circuit Court adjudging that defend- ants were joined in a combination in restraint of trade through the instrumentality of the Temple Iron Co., but dismissing the charge of the petition as to the so-called 65 per cent contracts whereby it was alleged the independent output was controlled, and also the charges as to certain so-called minor combinations. Cross appeals were taken to the Supreme Court, where the decree of the lower court, in so far as it adjudged the defendants parties to a combina- tion in restraint of trade through the instrumntality of the Temple Iron Co., was affirmed, but was reversed as to the so-called 65 per cent contracts with instructions to cancel them, and was further modified by dismissing the petition in other respects without preju- dice, instead of absolutely. United States v. National Umbrella Frame Company et al. Indictment returned July 1, 1907, in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, charging a conspiracy to restrain interstate trade and commerce in the manufacture and sale of um- brella material. Pleas of guilty were entered and fines aggregating $3,000 imposed and collected. United States v. American Tobacco Company et al. (164 Fed. 700, 221 U. S. 106, 191 Fed. 371.) Petition filed July 10, 1907, in the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, in which it was alleged that defendants were maintaining a combination in restraint of trade and commerce in the manufacture and sale of tobacco. November 7, 1908, a decision was rendered in favor of the Government, except as to individual defendants and certain foreign and other corporations. Cross ap- peals were taken to the Supreme Court, where, on May 29, 1911, a decision was rendered sustaining the Government on every point; and the case was remanded to the Circuit Court and the unlawful combination was dissolved in accordance with the decision of th'e Supreme Court. •53 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. United States v. E. H. Stafford Manufacturing Company et al. Indictment returned July 10, 1907, in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois charging a combination in restraint of trade in the manufacture and sale of school and church furniture. Dissmissed January 27, 1913. United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. et al. (188 Fed. 127.) Petition filed July 30, 1907, in the Circuit Court for the District of Delaware, in which it is alleged that defendants were maintaining a combination in restraint of trade in the manufacture and sale of gunpowder and other explosives. On June 21, 1911, a decision and interlocutory decree was rendered ordering the dissolution of the combination. Final decree dissolving the combination was approved by the court on June 13, 1912. United States v. One Hundred and Seventy-five Cases of Cigarettes. Information filed October 28, 1907, in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia covering the seizure of 175 cases of cigarettes under section 6 of the Federal antitrust act. Cigarettes subsequently released under bond. Decree of dismissal entered January 31, 1913. United States v. H. D. Corbett Stationery Company et al. Indictment returned November 1, 1907, 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 and defendants were held to next grand jury. October 28, 1908, reindicted. November 6, 1908, verdict of not guilty re- turned. United States v. Union Pacific Coal Company et al. (178 Fed. 737.) Indictment returned November 20, 1907, in the District Court for the District of Utah, charging a conspiracy to maintain a monopoly in the sale of coal. January 6, 1908, demurrer filed. March 2, 1908, die demurrer was sustained as to first count and overruled as to second count. December 3, 1908, verdict of guilty was returned. March 29, 1909, fines aggregating $13,000 imposed. November, 1909, judgment was reversed by Circuit Court of Appeals, and the suit was dismissed March 21, 1910. United States v. Chas. L/. Simmons et al. Indictment returned January 20, 1908, in the District Court for the Southern District of Alabama charging a combination in re- straint of trade and commerce in the manufacture and sale of 54 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. plumbers' supplies. December 1, 1910, pleas of guilty were filed, and fines aggregating $265 were imposed. United States v. Union Pacific Railroad Company et al. (188 Fed. 102, 226 U. 8. 61, 226 U. 8. 470.) Petition filed February 1, 1908, in the Circuit Court for the Dis- trict 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, the petition was dismissed by the Circuit Court on 'the ground that the roads involved were not competing lines and hence the combination was not a violation of law. An appeal was taken to Supreme Court, which handed down a decision reversing the lower court on December 2, 1912. Final decree entered at St. Paul, Minn., on June 30, 1913. United States v. E. J. Ray et al. Indictment returned February 14, 1908, 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. See note to case 40. United States v. E. 3. Ray et al. Indictment returned February IS, 1908, in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against seventy-two laborers, charging a combination and conspiracy in restraint of interstate trade and commerce. NOTE — On January 26, 1911, the above cases Nos. 39 and 40 were consolidated for trial. A verdict of guilty was returned as to three defendants, and fines aggregating $110 were imposed. An appeal was granted and the judgment of the lower court was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. United States v. Joseph Stiefvater et al. Indictment returned February IS, 1908, in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, charging a combination in re- straint of trade and commerce in the manufacture and sale of plumbers' supplies. June 25, 1910, case was dismissed. United States v. American Naval Stores Company et al. (172 Fed. 455, 186 Fed. 592.) Indictment returned April 11, 1908, in the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Georgia, charging a combination in restraint of trade and commerce in the manufacture and sale of turpentine. May 10, 1909, verdict of guilty was returned as to five individual defendants. Fines aggregating $17,500 imposed and two defend- 55 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. ants sentenced to serve three months in jail. Appeal taken to Cir- cuit Court of Appeals and the judgment was there affirmed. Cer- tiorari granted by Supreme Court. Judgment of lower court re- versed June 9, 1913, on ground of error in judge's charge to jury. Pending. United States v. New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Com- pany et al. Petition filed May 22, 1908, in the Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, charging the New Haven Co. with combining under common control the steam and electric railway systems in New England. Dismissed June 26, 1909. United States v. John H. Parks et al. Indictment returned June 16, 1908, in the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, charging a combination in restraint of trade in the manufacture and sale of paper. On June 19, 1908, defendants plead guilty and fines aggregating $50,000 were imposed and collected. President Taft's Administration, march 4, 1909, to March 4, 1913. United States v. American Sugar Refining Company et al. Indictment returned July 1, 1909, in the Southern District of New York. A plea of the statute of limitations was interposed by the defendants Kissell and Harned, which was sustained by the Circuit Court. An appeal therefrom was taken to the Supreme Court, where the matter was decided in favor of the Government. March 31, 1912, the trial of this case resulted in a disagreement of the jury. United States v. Albia Box and Paper Company et al. Indictment returned December 7, 1909, in the Southern District of New York charging combination in restraint of trade in paper board. February 7, 1910, all defendants plead guilty and fines ag- gregating $57,000 were imposed and collected. United States v. John S. Steers et al. (192 Fed. 1.) Indictment returned February 17, 1910, in Eastern District of Kentucky, charging conspiracy to restrain trade. This is the so- called "Night Rider" case. April 16, 1910, a verdict of guilty was returned as to eight of twelve defendants and fines aggregating $3,500 were imposed. The case was appealed to Circuit Court of Appeals, and the judgment was affirmed. May 11, 1912, the sen- tences were commuted by the President to payment of costs of suit 56 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. United States v. Imperial Window Glass Company et al. Indictment returned April 7, 1910, in the Western District of Pennsylvania, charging combination and conspiracy to enhance the price of window glass. Demurrers to the indictment were over- ruled, and on November 10, 1910, pleas of nolo contendere were entered and fines aggregating $10,000 were imposed and collected. United States v. National Packing Company et al. Indictment returned March 21, 1910, in Northern District of Illinois, charging combination to restrain trade in fresh meats. De- murrer to indictment was sustained June 23, 1910. United States v. National Packing Co. et al. Petition filed March 21, 1910, in the Circuit Court for the North- ern District of Illinois, charging combination in restraint of trade in fresh meats and praying for dissolution. Dismissed in order to facilitate the prosecution of criminal case. United States v. Armour Packing Company et al. (143 Fed. 808.) Indictment returned in April, 1910, in the Southern District of Georgia, charging combination to control prices and restrict com- petition. Pending on demurrer. United States v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company and Twenty-four other railroads. Petition filed May 31, 1910, in Circuit Court, E. D. of Missouri, to restrain violation of Sherman law, and temporary restraining order issued on that day enjoining advances in freight rates in west- ern trunk-line territory. Thereafter the Interstate Commerce Com- mission enjoined the rate advances which the temporary restraining order had prevented from going into effect, and the petition was dismissed. United States v. Southern Wholesale Grocers' Association. (207 Fed. 434.) Petition filed June 9, 1910, in the Circuit Court, Northern District of Alabama, alleging combination to regulate prices and control marketing of groceries. An agreed decree was entered. The court, October 17, 1911, perpetually restraining the association, its officers and members, from doing any and all of the acts complained of. See contempt proceedings, number 79 post. United States v. Great Lakes Towing Company et al. Petition filed June 19, 1910, in the Circuit Court Northern Dis- trict of Ohio, against an alleged combination of towing facilities 57 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. on the Great Lakes. A decision in favor of the Government was handed down February 11, 1913. The plan of dissolution is now under consideration by the court. United States v. Chicago Butter and Eggs Board. Petition filed June 13, 1910, in Circuit Court, Northern District of Illinois. A demurrer to the petition was sustained with leave to amend, and an amended petition was filed. Set for hearing on mas- ter's report on January 8, 1914. United States v. Frank Hayne, James A. Patten et al. (187 Fed. 664, 226 U. S. 525.) Indictments returned August 4, 1910, in Southern District of New York alleging conspiracy to run a corner in cotton. Demurrers were sustained as to certain counts of indictment and overruled as to others, and an appeal was taken by the United States to the Su- prme Court. Case was argued during November, 1911, and reargued at the October term, 1912. Decision by Supreme Court January 6, 1913, sustaining indictments. Patten entered plea of guilty Febru- ary 11, 1913, and was fined $4,000. Indictment dismissed as to other defendants, and another indictment was returned July 1, 1913. See case No. 6, page 56. United States v. Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Company et al. (191 Fed. 172, 226 U. S. 20.) Petition filed July 22, 1910, in Circuit Court, District of Mary- land, charging a combination, under cover of a patent licensing arrangement, to restrain competition and enhance prices of enamel ware. In a decision rendered October 13, 1911, the court sustained all the Government's contentions, and a decree was entered Novem- ber 25, 1911, from which an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court. Decision of lower court affirmed by Supreme Court November 18, 1913. United States v. Louis F. Swift et al. Indictment returned in September, 1910, in the Northern District of Illinois against ten individuals engaged in the meat-packing in- dustry. Defendants filed numerous pleas in bar, etc., all of which were decided in favor of the Government. March 27, 1912, after a trial lasting over three months the jury returned a verdict of acquit- tal. United States v. John Reardon & Sons Company and Consolidated Rendering Co. (191 Fed. 454.) Indictment returned in October, 1910, in the District of Massa- 58 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. chusetts, charging combination in the rendering business. Demurrer to indictment was sustained June 23, 1911. United States v. Ferdinand Sulzberger, doing business under the name of John Reardon & Sons Company, and Horatio W. Heath, of Boston, doing business as the Consolidated Rendering Company. Indictment returned in October, 1910, in the District of Massa- chusetts, charging a combination in the rendering business. De- murrer to indictment was sustained June 23, 1911. United States v. Horatio W. Heath and Cyrus S. Hapgood. Indictment returned in October, 1910, in the District of Massa- chusetts, charging a combination in the rendering buisness. De- murrer to indictment was sustained June 23, 1911. United States v. Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Company et al. (191 Fed. 172, 226 U. S. 20.) In addition to the above-mentioned suit in equity (No. 13, supra), indictmnts were returned at Detroit on December 6, 1910, against the same corporations and individuals, charging the same acts. After a trial lasting six weeks the jury reported a disagreement on March 14, 1912. Retrial in February, 1913, resulted in a verdict of guilty and fines aggregating $51,006 were imposed. United States v. American Sugar Refining Company et al. Petition filed November 28, 1910, in the Circuit Court Southern District of New York, alleging a combination in restraint of trade and praying for its dissolution. Demurrer was overruled December 11, 1911. Issues joined and taking of testimony in chief on behalf of Government has been concluded. United States v. General Electric Company et al. Petition filed March 3, 1911, in the Northern District of Ohio, charging a combination in the manufacture of incandescent electric lamps. A decree was agreed upon between counsel, which was ap- proved by the court October 12, 1911. United States v. Purrington et al. Indictment returned September 14, 1910, in the Northern District of Illinois, charging combination to restrain trade in paving bricks and paving blocks. Demurrer was overruled November 9, 1911. Nolle prosequi entered June 3, 1913. 59 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. United States v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt Actien-Gesell- schaft and others. (220 Fed. 806.) Petition filed January 4, 1911, in the Circuit Court for the South- ern District of New York, to dissolve a combination of steamship lines regulating steerage traffic on the Atlantic Ocean. Demurrers were overruled December 20, 1911. Taking of testimony coir pleted and case set for argument on April 17, 1914. United States v. William C. Geer, president Albia Box and Pap< £• Com- pany, et al. / Indictment returned April 28, 1911, in the Southern D:*trict of New York, alleging a combination and conspiracy in re4raint of interstate commerce in paper board. Demurrer overrul^. May 9, 1913. Case being prepared for trial. United States v. Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers Association. (201 Fed. 581.) Petition filed May 19, 1911, in Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, charging defendants with conspiring to re- strain trade through the instrumentality of black lists and trade agreements. Decision by lower court in favor of Government Jan- uary 9, 1913, and a decree entered March 1, 1913, from which an appeal was taken to the supreme Court. 'Argued in Supreme Court during October term, 1913. United States v. Isaac Whiting et al. Indictment returned May 26, 1911, in the District of Massachus- etts, charging a combination to restrain trade in milk throughout the New England States. Demurrer argued in November, 1912, and decision awaited. United States v. Holmes et al. Indictment returned June 23, 1911, in the Northern District of Illinois, charging that the secretaries of fourteen retail lumbermen's associations were in a conspiracy by means of a central bureau to control the marketing of lumber. Demurrer filed. Nolle prosequi entered June 6, 1913. United States v. Wm. P. Palmer and 25 others. Constituting the Bare Copper Wire Association. Indictment re- 60 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. turned June 29, 1911, in the Southern District of New York. See note to No. 36. United States v. Wm. P. Palmer and 33 others. Constituting the Weatherproof and Magnet Wire Association. Indictment returned June 29, 1911, in the Southern District of New York. See note to No. 36. United States v. Wm. P. Palmer and 38 others. Constituting the Rubber Covered Wire Association. Indictment returned June 29, 1911, in the Southern District of New York. See note to No. 36. United States v. F. W. Boebling and 17 others. Constituting the Fine Magnet Wire Association. Indictment re- turned June 29, 1911, in the Southern District of New York. See note to No. 36. United States v. Wm. P. Palmer and 15 others. Constituting Horse Shoe Manufacturers' Association. Indictment returned June 29, 1911, in the Southern District of New York. See note to No. 36. United States v. Phillip H. W. Smith and 14 others. Constituting the Underground Power Cable Association. Indict- ment returned June 29, 1911, in the Southern District of New York. See note to No. 36. United States v. Frank ?f. Philips and 10 others. Constituting the Telephone Cable Association. Indictment re- turned June 29, 1911, in the Southern District of New York. See note to No. 36. United States v. Wm. P. Palmer and 17 others. Constituting the Lead Encased Rubber Insulated Cable Associa- tion. Indictment returned June 29, 1911, in the Southern District of New York. See note to No. 36. United States v. E. E. Jackson, jr., and 17 others. Constituting the Wire Rope Association. Indictment returned June 29, 1911, in the Southern District of New York. United States v. Periodical Clearing House et al. Petition filed in June, 1911, in the Southern District of New York against the members of the so-called Magazine Trust. The trial 61 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. resulted in an equally divided court and an order of dismissal was entered May 29, 1913. United States v. Jay B. Pearce et al. Indictment returned July 19, 1911, in the Northern District of Ohio against certain manufacturers and jobbers for combination and conspiracy in the manufacture and sale of wall paper. De- murrer was overruled May 13, 1912. Trial resulted in a verdict of not guilty on May 24, 1912. United States v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern R. B. et al. (303 Fed. 295.) Petition filed August 4, 1911, in the Southern District of Ohio to enjoin combination and conspiracy whereby certain railroads are held under one control. Decision of lower court in favor of Gov- ernment December 28, 1912. Proposed plan of dissolution has been submitted to and is now being considered by the court. United States v. Edward E. Hartwick et al. Petition filed August 31, 1911, in the Circuit Court, Eastern Dis- trict of Michigan, alleging conspiracy and unlawful restraint of trade on the part of members of the Michigan Retail L,umber Deal- ers' Association, The Scout Publishing Co., and the Lumber Secre- taries' Bureau of Information. Issues joined and taking of testi- mony completed. United States v. Standard Wood Company et al. Petition filed in September, 1911, in the Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, against the members of the so-called Kin- dling Wood Trust. On default of answer, a decree was entered against defendants March 11, 1912. United States v. Hunter Milling Company, Blackwell Milling and Ele- vator Company, and Frank Foltz. Indictment returned September 10, 1911, in the Western District of Oklahoma charging violation of section 1 of the Antitrust Act. Demurrer overruled December 16, 1912. Jury returned a verdict of guilty, and fines aggregating $2,000 were imposed. United States v. S. W. Winslow et al. (195, Fed. 578, 227 U. S. 202.) Two indictments (113 and 114) returned September 19, 1911, in the District of Massachusetts charging combination, conspiracy, and monopoly in trade in shoe machinery. Demurrer to indictment 113 was sustained, and demurrer to indictment 114 was overruled as to first count and sustained as to second count. An appeal was taken 62 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. by the United States from decision in No. 113, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Pending. United States v. The Colorado and Wyoming Lumber Dealers' Associa- tion and The Lumber Secretaries's Bureau of Information. Petition filed September 25, 1911, in the Circuit Court, District of Colorado, for injunction against defendants for conspiracy to re- strain trade in lumber and its products. The taking of testimony has been completed and further action is being deferred, awaiting decision by Supreme Court in case 24, ante. United States v. Willard G. Hollis et al. Petition in equity filed October, 1911, in the Circuit Court, Dis- trict of Minnesota, against the Lumber Secretaries' Bureau of In- formation. The Lumberman Publishing Company, and certain in- dividuals alleging conspiracy and combination in the lumber trade. The taking of testimony has been completed and further action is being deferred pending decision of Supreme Court in case 24, ante. United States v. United States Steel Corporation, and others. Petition filed October 27, 1911, in District Court for District of New Jersey alleging a combination in restraint of interstate com- merce in iron and steel and their products and an attempt to mono- polize the same. Issues joined and testimoney in chief on behalf of Government has been taken. United States v. Joe Cotton et al. Defendants were on November 15, 1911, indicted in the Southern District of Mississippi, for conspiring to restrain interstate com- merce during course of a strike on the Illinois Central Railroad. The strike having been terminated, no further action has been taken. United States v. National Cash Register Co. et al. Petition filed December 4, 1911, in Circuit Court, Southern District of Ohio, alleging conspiracy and monopoly in the manu- facture, sale, and shipment of cash registers and other registering devices. Issue joined and taking of testimony will shortly be com- menced. Delay due to prosecution of criminal case, 60 post. United States v. United Shoe Machinery Co. et al. Petition in equity filed December 12, 1911, in Circuit Court, Dist- rict of Massachusetts, alleging combinations and conspiracies in restraint of interest and foreign trade in shoe machinery, and pray- ing for perpetual restraining order, dissolution of company, and restoration of normal conditions. Testimony now being taken in Dpen court. 63 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. United States v. A. Haines et al. Two indictments returned December 16, 1911, in the Southern District of Florida against members of Longshoremen's Association for combining, conspiring, and agreeing to interfere with interstate operations of the Mason Forwarding Company which had declined to recognize one of the conspirators known as the "walking dele- gate." See not to case 51, post. United States v. A. Haines et al. Two indictments returned December 16, 1911, in the Southern District of Florida for combining, conspiring, and agreeing upon rules, regulations, requirements, etc., with reference to the employ- ment of workmen to load vessels with lumber for interstate shipment. NOTE. — Cases 50 and 51 consolidated for trial. Defendants entered pleas of guilty and were sentenced each to four hours' confinement. United States v. Pacific Coast Plumbing Supply Association et al. Petition filed December 18, 1911, in Circuit Court, Southern District of California, alleging unlawful restraint of trade and com- merce in plumbing supplies on the Pacific coast. Decree enjoining defendants from further committing the acts complained of was entered January 6, 1912. United States v. The Keystone Watch Case Company et al. Petition filed December 20, 1911, in the Circuit Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging unlawful contracts, combinations, and conspiracies to monopolize trade in filled watch cases and watches, and praying for a permanent decree ordering the dissolu- tion of the company and enjoining defendants from further com- mitting the unlawful acts complained of. Issues joined, taking of testimony completed, and cases is now ready for trial. United States v. American Naval Stores Company et al. (172 Fed. 445, 186 Fed. 592.) Petition filed January 8, 1912, in the District Court, Southern District of Georgia, alleging unlawful combination and conspiracy in restraint of interstate and foreign commerce in turpentine and resin. Demurrer overruled January 2, 1913. Defendant suspended business in March, 1913, on account of financial difficulties, and since then no further action has been taken. United States v. New Departure Manufacturing Company et al. (204 Fed. 107.) Indictment returned January 8, 1912, in the Western District of New York against six corporations and eighteen individaul defend- 64 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. ants, charging unlawful combination and conspiracy for the purpose of monopolizing the coaster-brake business, and fixing and main- taining prices for coaster brakes. Plea in abatement overruled April 2, 1912. Demurrer overruled March 12, 1913. Defendants entered pleas of guilty and nolo contendere and fines aggregating $81,500 were imposed in May, 1913. tTnited States v. The North Pacific Wharves & Trading Co. et al. Indictment (834 — B) returned February 12, 1912, in the First Division, District of Alaska, charging defendants with conspiring to monopolize and monopolizing the coal business at Skagway. Demurrer sustained May 3, 1912. United States v. Pacific & Arctic Railway & Navigation Co. et al. (228 U. S. 87.) Indictment (835- — B) returned February 12, 1912, in the First Division, District of Alaska, charging defendants with engaging in a conspiracy to monopolize and monopolizing the transportation business between the head of L,ynn Canal and the headwaters of the Yukon River. Demurrer sustained on May 3, 1912. United States v. The North Pacific Wharves & Trading Co. et al. Indictment (83(5 — B) returned February 12, 1912, in the First Division, District of Alaska, charging defendants (1) with engaging in a conspiracy and combination in restraint of trade and commerce by way of combining the four wharves at Skagway under one man- agement, and (2) with monopolizing the wharfinger business at Skagway. Demurrer overruled on May 3, 1912. Final trial resulted in disagreement of jury on January 27, 1913. Pending. United States v. Pacific & Arctic Railway and Navigation Co. et al. (228 U. S. 87.) Indictment (837 — B) returned February 13, 1912, in the First Division, District of Alaska, charging defendants with engaging in a conspiracy to monopolize and monopolizing the steamship trans- portation between Puget Sound and British Columbia ports in the south and Skagway in the north. Demurrer sustained, except as to corporation defendants to count No. 6. Upon appeal to the Su- preme Court the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. Pending. United States v. John H. Patterson et al. (55 Fed. 605, 59 Fed. 280, 201 Fed. 697, 205 Fed. 292) Indictment returned February 22, 1912, in the Southern District of Ohio, against John H. Patterson, president, and 29 other officials 65 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. and employes of the National Cash Register Company, alleging a conspiracy in restraint of interstate trade and commerce in cash registers, resulting in an unlawful monopoly of the industry. De- murrer overruled June 26, 1912. Trial resulted in a verdict of guilty as to 29 of the 30 defendants and fines aggregating $135,000 and jail sentences ranging from nine months to one year were im- posed. Pending on appeal. United States v. American-Asiatic Steamship Company et al. Petition in equity filed March 30, 1912, in Southern District of New York, charging defendants with combining and conspiring, entering into unlawful contracts and pooling agreements, and allow- ing rebates, for the purpose of securing a monopoly of the business of transporting freight between ports on the Atlantic coast of the United States and ports in the Philippine Islands, Japan, China, and the Far East. Issue joined. Taking of testimony on behalf of Government nearing completion. United States v. Julius F. Miller, Secretary, New York Charcoal Company et al. Indictment returned April 2, 1912, in the Eastern District of New York charging defendants with restraining interstate trade and com- merce in charcoal. Demurrer sustained October. 17, 1912. United States v. International Harvester Company et al. Petition filed April 30, 1912, in the District Court, District of Minnesota, alleging the acquisition and maintenance of a monopoly in harvesting and agricultural machinery and implements and twine. Testimony taken, expediting certificate filed, and case argued before three circuit judges at St. Paul during November, 1913. United States v. Aluminum Company of America. Petition filed May 16, 1912, in the District Court, Western Dist- rict of Pennsylvania, to prevent a further monopoly of and restraint upon the interstate and foreign trade and commerce in aluminum and aluminum wares. Consent decree granting relief substantially as prayed for was entered at Pittsburgh on June 7, 1912. United States v. Herman Sielcken et al. Petition filed May 18, 1912, in the District Court, Southern Dist- rict of New York, alleging conspiracy to reduce the production of coffee, especially in the State of San Paulo, Brazil, and to withdraw a large per cent of coffee from the market by purchase. Motion for preliminary injunction denied. Upon the advice of the State Depart- ment that representations had been made by the Brazilian Govern- 66 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. ment that the entire quantity of coffee which was being withheld from market had been sold to a large number of dealers throughout the United States, an order of dismissal was entered May 29, 1913. United States v. Prince Line (Limited) et al. Petition filed June 5, 1912, in the District Court, Southern Dist- rict of New York, charging defendants, as common carriers of freight and passengers between ports of the United States and ports in the Republic of Brazil, with acquiring and maintaing a substantial monopoly by means of contracts, rebates, and other unlawful acts, and praying for an annulment of said contracts, agreements, etc. Issue joined and testimony in chief on behalf of Government has. been introduced. United States v. Central- West Publishing Co. et al. Petition filed August 3, 1912, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, charging defendants with engaging in unfair competition against each other and against others engaged in com- peting industries, with the intent to restrain and monopolize inter- state trade and commerce in plate and ready-print matter. Consent decree, granting relief as prayed for, entered at Chicago on August 3, 1912. United States v. Associated Billposters and Distributors of the United States and Canada et al. Petition filed August 3, 1912, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, charging defendants with engaging in a combin- ation and conspiracy to place unlawful restraints upon interstate and foreign trade and commerce in posters. Hearing on demurrer set for January 30, 1914. United States v. Motion Picture Patents Company et al. Petition filed August 15, 1912, in the District Court, Eastern Dist- rict of Pennsylvania, to remove the restraints which defendants have imposed upon interstate and foreign trade and commerce in machines, appliances, and apparatus relating to the motion-picture art, and upon persons engaged in such trade and commerce. The taking of testimony in chief on behalf of Government has been completed. United States v. Calvin N. Payne et al. Indictment returned August 29, 1912, in the Northern District of Texas, charging defendants with engaging in a conspiracy in 67 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. restraint of interstate and foreign trade and commerce in oils and oil products. Nolle prosequi entered February 25, 1913. United States v. Consolidated Rendering Co. Indictment returned October 31, 1912, in the District of Massa- chusetts, charging monopoly of interstate trade and commerce in rendering materials. December 1, 1913, plea of nolo contendere by defendant and fine of $5,000 imposed. United States v. Consolidated Rendering Co. Indictment returned October 31, 1912, in the District of Massa- chusetts, charging monopoly of interstate trade and commerce in rendering materials. December 1, 1913, plea of nolo condendere by corporation and fine of $3,000 imposed. Indictment nolle prossed as to individual defendants. NOTE. — These actions were instituted as a result of demurrers hav- ing been sustained in cases 15, 16, and 17, and are therefore not counted as additional cases. United States v. The Master Horseshoers' National Protective Association of America and others. Petition filed December 12, 1912, in the Eastern District of Michigan, charging defendants with engaging in a combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce in drilled horseshoes, adjustable calks, and rubber hoof pads. Pending on demurrer. United States v. Philadelphia Jobbing Confectioners' Association et al. Petition filed December 13, 1912, in the Eastern District of Penn- sylvania, charging defendants with unlawfully interfering with interstate commerce in candies and confections. Consent decree entered February 17, 1913. United States v. Elgin Board of Trade et al. Petition filed December 14, 1912, in the Northern District of Illi- nois, charging defendants with combining and conspiring in the interest of a number of large centralizing concerns to restrain inter- state commerce in butter and butter fat, and arbitrarily fixing the price thereof to obtain throughout the United States. Issue joined and taking of testimony in open court will be commenced on Janu- ary 8, 1914. United States v. Charles S. Mellen, Edson J. Chamberlin and Alfred W. Smithers. Indictment returned December 23, 1912, in the Southern District of New York, charging a combination and conspiracy to restrain 68 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. interstate commerce by preventing the construction of subsidiary lines of the Central Vermont Railway Company (itself a subsidiary of the Grand Trunk Railway Company) from Palmer, Mass., to Providence, R. I. ; from White River Junction, Vermont, to Boston ; and from Boston to Blackstone, connecting there with the Palmer Providence line. Case at issue awaiting trial. United States v. Kellogg Toasted Corn Flake Company et al. Petition filed December 26, 1912, in the Eastern District of Mich- igan, alleging that the business policy of the defendant company in fixing and enforcing resale prices on Kellogg's Toasted Corn Flakes is unlawful and tends to restrain and monopolize interstate com- merce in said product. United States v. Page et al. Indictment returned February .5, 1913, at Portland, District of Oregon, charging 15 individuals, through the medium of the Pro- duce Merchants' Exchange, of Portland, with unlawfully controll- ing the purchase, distribution, and sale of approximately 90 per cent of the produce, fruit, and vegetables shipped into the State of Oregon. The defendants entered pleas of guilty on February 21, 1913, and fines aggregating $8,450 were imposed and collected. United States v. Rrentler-Arnold Hinge Last Company et al. Petition filed February 7, 1913, in the District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, alleging the unlawful control by defendant of the interstate trade and commerce in shoe and boot lasts, both pat- ented and unpatented. Consent decree was entered at Detroit, Mich- igan, on February 7, 1913. United States v. United Shoe Machinery Company of New Jersey et al. Petition filed February 8, 1913, in the District Court at Trenton, New Jersey, seeking to have annulled an alleged unlawful contract involving "inseam trimming machines." United States v. The Southern Wholesale Grocers' Association et al. (207 Fed. 434.) Petition for rule to show cause why an attachment for a criminal contempt of court for alleged violation of the terms of a decree, entered October 17, 1911 (see No. 9), should not issue was filed in the District Court at Birmingham, Northern District of Alabama, on February 10, 1913. The association and three individual mem- bers were adjudged guilty of contempt of court, and on July 29, 1913, fines aggregating $5,500 were imposed. 69 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. United States v. Board of Trade of the City of Chicago et al. Petition filed February 11, 1913, in the District Court at Chicago, Illinois, attacking rule 33 of the Chicago Board of Trade, by virtue of which it is alleged the price of all corn, oats, wheat, and rye ar- riving in Chicago at times when the board of trade is not in session is arbitrarily determined. Motion to strike out certain portions of defendants' answer has been argued, and the ruling of the court is awaited. United States v. The Cleveland Stone Company et al. Petition filed February 12, 1913, in the District Court at Cleve- land, Northern District of Ohio, charging defendants with establish- ing and maintaining a ; practical monopoly of the stone business. United States v. The Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company and The Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Coal Company. Petition filed February 13, 1913, in the District Court at Trenton, New Jersey, charging defendants with transporting coal in which it had an interest in violation of the commodities clause of the inter- state-commerce act, and with entering into an unlawful contract whereby the Coal Company acquired a monopoly of the sale of anthracite coal produced along the line of the Railroad Company, in violation of the antitrust act. The taking of testimony has been completed and brief is being prepared. Expediting certificate filed and case set for hearing on January 27, 1914. United States v. The McCaskey Register Company et al. Petition filed February 20, 1913, in the District Court at Cleve- land, Northern District of Ohio, charging defendants with conspir- ing to restrain and monopolize the manufacture and sale of account registers and appliances. United States v. Liter-national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Unions Nos. 9 and 134, et al. Petition filed February 24, 1913, in the District Court at Chicago, Northern District of Illinois, seeking to enjoin defendants from interfering with the interstate business of the Postal Telegraph- Cable Company. A temporary injunction was granted and is still in force. United States v. Corn Products Refining Company et al. Petition filed March 1, 1913, in the District Court at New York City, charging defendants with monopolizing interstate trade and commerce in corn products, and praying for the dissolution of the combination. Issue joined. 70 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. United States v. The American Thread Company et al. Petition filed March 3, 1913, in the District Court at Trenton, New Jersey, charging defendants with monopolizing the thread industry. Answers of defendants filed September 10, 1913. Issue joined. United States v. The Burroughs Adding Machine Company et al. Petition filed March 3, 1913, in the District Court at Detroit, Michigan, alleging that defendants were engaged in a conspiracy to monopolize interstate trade and commerce in adding machines. A consent decree was entered at Detroit on March 3, 1913. United States v. American Coal Products Company et al. Petition filed March 3, 1913, in the District Court at New York City, charging defendants with monopolizing the supply of coal tar and restraining the trade of competitors in the purchase of coal tar and in the manufacture and sale of tarred roofing felts, coal-tar pitch, and other coal-tar products. A consent decree was entered on March 4, 1913. United States v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis et al. (197 Fed. 446, 224 U. S. 383, 226 U. S. 420.) Petition filed March 4, 1913, in the District Court at St. L,ouis, Eastern District of Missouri, alleging a conspiracy on the part of the members of the St. Louis Coal Traffic Bureau to suppress and eliminate competition in various rates for the transportation of soft coal from the State of Illinois to the city of St. L,ouis, Missouri. President Wilson's Administration, March 4, 1913. United States v. The New Departure Manufacturing Company et al. (204 Fed. 107.) Petition filed May 27, 1913, in the District Court at Rochester, Western District of New York, alleging that defendants entered into a conspiracy and combination and devised a license agreement for the purpose of restraining and monopolizing the manufacture and sale of bicycle and motorcycle parts and coaster brakes. An agreed decree was entered at Rochester on May 27, 1913. United States v. White et al. Indictment returned June 7, 1913, in the District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, against 19 members of the United Mine Workers of America, alleging a conspiracy to inter- fere with interstate commerce in coal mined in West Virginia. 71 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. United States v. Eastman Kodak Oo. et al. Petition filed June 9, 1913, in the District Court at Buffalo, West- ern District of New York, alleging that defendants have acquired a monopoly of the business of manufacturing, selling, and distibuting photographic supplies. Issue joined. United States v. The Quaker Oats Company et al. Petition filed June 11, 1913, in the District Court at Chicago, Illinois, alleging combination to restrain and monopolize interstate trade and commerce in oatmeal products and by-products. Issue joined. United States v. Hippen et al. Indictment returned June 25, 1913, in the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against The Oklahoma Brokerage Company and two other corporations and the officers thereof, alleg- ing a conspiracy to restrain and monopolize interstate trade and commerce in fruits and vegetables. Demurrer sustained October 1, 1913. United States v. Thompson et al. Indictment returned July 1, 1913, in the District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that the defendants con- spired to run a corner in cotton on the New York Cotton Exchange. Defendants entered pleas of nolo contendere in December, 1913, and fines aggregating $18,000 were asessed. United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Company et al. Petition filed July 24, 1913, in the District Court at Portland, Oreg., seeking to destroy a monopoly of the telephone business on the Pacific Coast. Issue joined and taking of testimony on behalf of Government is nearing completion. United States v. Beading Company et al. (183 Fed. 427, 226 U. S. 824, 228 U. S. 158.) (Anthracite coal combination). Petion in equity filed September 2, 1913, in the District Court at Philadelphia, Pa., against a com- bination consisting of Reading Company and affiliated corporations, charging it with restraining and monopolizing trade in anthracite coal. Issue joined. United States v. The National Wholesale Jewelers' Association et al. Petition filed November 18, 1913, in the District Court at New York City, charging defendants with conspiring to eliminate all competition — except as between wholesalers or jobbers — for the trade of all classes of retail dealers in jewelry and jewelry products. 72 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. United States v. American Can Company et al. Petition filed November 29, 1913, in the District Court at Balti- more, Md., alleging monopolization of the business of making tin cans. United States v. John P. White et al. Indictment returned December 1, 1913, in the District Court, Pueblo, Colo., charging officials and members of the United Mine Workers of America with monopolizing all diggers of coal and mine laborers and with restraining interstate commerce in coal. 73 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. ENFORCEMENT OF THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST LAW. (From the Report of the Attorney General for the year 1914) No branch of the work of this department more vitally affects the public interest than the enforcement of the antitrust act, since the preservation of fair competition in trade and the prevention of monopoly, for which it is designed, are essential to the general welfare. Complaints of violation of this law are very numerous and, where they have any foundation at all, usually involve very complex states of fact — often an entire industry must be studied in order to reach a conclusion. In the nature of things, therefore, complaints of this character can not be rapidly disposed of. Every substantial complaint is investigated. In general, the pro- cedure is to refer the complaint to the United States attorney for the appropriate district, whose duty it is to make an investigation, with the assistance of a special agent, and report the facts to the department, together with his conclusions and recommendations, where the complaint can not be adequately or conveniently investi- gated by any regular United States attorney a special attorney is designated. During the period from July 1, 1913, up to the present time, 16 cases have been finally determined — 8 civil and 8 criminal. There are pending at this time 47 cases — 32 civil and 15 criminal — of which IS cases — 6 civil and 9 criminal — were instituted during the present administration. Since July 1, 1913, 18 cases have been instituted — 7 civil and 11 criminal — of which 5 have been finally determined — 3 civil and 2 criminal. 74 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. CASES FINALLY DETERMINED. New Haven Case. In May, 1908, a suit was instituted under the antitrust act attack- ing, in part only, however, the monopoly of transportation facilities in New England held by the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co. In June, 1909, that suit was discontinued. Thereafter the New Haven Co. still further strengthened its hold upon the transportation facilities of New England. Regarding the creation of this monopoly as a defiant violation of the antitrust act, my predecessor, immediately upon taking office, began preparations to attack it. By that time, however, the New Haven Co. and the Boston & Maine Railroad, which it controls, had been reduced to the unfortunate state now known to all the country. In consequence, their securities, which were widely distributed among small investors, had shrunk in value enormously, and the commerce and industries of all New England were seriously affected and under severe strain. In this condition of affairs, whilst intent upon enforcing the law, it was obvious the duty of the Department of Justice to move toward that end along the course which promised the least possible further distress to the stricken investors and unsettled industries of New England. In accordance with that policy the request of the new management of the New Haven Co. to enter into negotia- tions, with a view to bring about without a protracted and neces- sarily unsettling contest a dissolution of the unlawful monopoly, was granted. In the meantime the department sought to avoid any action that might hinder in any way the accomplishment of that end so important to the people of New England, but the criminal aspects of the case were kept constantly in mind and care was taken to do nothing which might interfere with proper prosecutions at the appropriate time. As a result of the negotiations, a plan of voluntary dissolution was agreed upon and incorporated in a final decree entered October 17, 1914, by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Briefly stated the decree provides that — 1. The agreement between the New Haven Company and the New York Central for the joint operation of the Boston & Albany Railroad will be canceled. 2. The New Haven Company will relinquish control of the Boston & Maine Railroad. 75 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. 3. The New Haven Company will dispose of its interests in trolley lines. 4. The New Haven Company will dispose of its interests in ocean steamship lines between the ports of New England and New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and other Atlantic sea- ports. 5. Whether the New Haven Company shall be permitted to retain control of its steamboat lines on Long Island Sound will be submitted to the Interstate Commerce Commission for deter- mination pursuant to the provisions of the Panama Canal act. The criminal aspects of the case have been presented to a grand jury in the southern district of New York, and indictments returned against 21 individuals who were officers or directors of the New Haven Railroad. It must be borne in mind, however, that the Fed- eral Government can institute prosecutions in this case only in re- spect of transactions involving restraints of trade or attempts to monopolize. It has no power to institute proceedings for the punish- ment of those responsible for the financial irregulartities brought to light, since at the time such irregularities were committed im- provident or dishonest management of the financial affairs of a rail- road company created by a State was not an offense against any P'ederal law, but only against the State law. Telephone Cases. For a long time there had been persistent complaints made to the department by the so-called independent telephone companies that the American Telephone & Telegraph Co. and its associated com- panies, commonly known as the Bell System, were attempting to bring under one control the means of communication by wire throughout the entire country, not only through the expansion and extension of their own system, but by the acquisition of competing lines, in violation of the Federal antitrust laws. The American Co., indeed, had frankly admitted its purpose in this regard in its annual report for the year ending December 31, 1910, in which it is stated: This process of combination will continue until all telephone exchanges and lines will be merged either into one company owning and operating the whole system, or until a number of companies with territories determined by political, business, or geographical conditions, each performing all functions pertain- ing to local management and operation, will be closely asso- 76 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. dated under the control of one central organization exercising all the functions of centralized general administration. The Department investigated these complaints and found that they were not without basis. The Bell System had already so far accomplished its purpose that more than half of all the telephones in the United States were under its control, and it also had acquired through stock ownership practical control of the larger of the two principal telegraph companies of the country. In July, 1913, a suit was instituted under the antitrust act at Portland, Oregon, against companies comprising the Bell System and others, charging them with having entered into a combination to monopolize the means of telephonic communication in and be- tween the States of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. Some time after the institution of this suit the officers and direc- tors of the Bell System indicated that they were desirous of bring- ing its organization and business throughout the country generally into harmony with the antitrust laws as construed by the Depart- ment of Justice, and to that end conferences were had between offi- cers of the Department and officers of the Bell System. In compliance with the suggestions of the Attorney General, for- mulated in the course of these conferences, the Bell System com- mitted itself to the following course of action, briefly stated : First. It agreed to dispose of its entire holdings of stock of the Western Union Telegraph Co. in such way that the control and management of the latter will be entirely independent. Second. It agreed not to make any further acquisitions, directly or indirectly, of competing telephone systems. Third. It agreed to connect its long-distance wires with the local exchanges of independent companies. Of course, the interpretation of the antitrust act on which was based the action taken by the Department in respect of the Bell Sys- tem does not mean that where there are two telephone systems in a city or town there never can be a consolidation into a single system. It does mean that where competition has been established in long- distance telephony between points in different States it can not be destroyed by contract or consolidation. This interpretation leaves local communities generally free to have one telephone system, if they desire, subject to the condition that in the event of a consoli- dation the consolidated company will make connections with all long-distance interstate lines and thereby preserve competition in interstate communication. 77 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. It should also be kept in mind that the requirement that the Amer- ican Telephone & Telegraph Co. relinquish its control of the West- ern Union Telegraph Co. does not mean that they can not continue to cooperate where their services are supplementary rather than competitive. In other words, the action of the Department, while requiring these two companies to be under separate control and man- agement, so that in so far as they perform like services the public may have the benefit of competition between them, also leaves them entirely free to cooperate for the benefit of the public in so far as their services are supplementary. There was left to be disposed of the before-mentioned suit insti- tuted at Portland, Oregon, against the companies comprising the Bell System for attempting to monopolize the means of telephonic communication in and between the States of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. After extended negotiations, the defendants agreed to meet the demands of the Government, and a decree sustaining the petition was entered on March 26, 1914. The attempt of the Bell System to monopolize all of the means of communication by wire has thus been effectually prevented. Wholesale Jewelers' Association. On January 30, 1914, a decree was entered in the United States District Court at New York City enjoining the National Wholesale Jewelers' Association and others from further carrying out a con- spiracy to prevent manufacturers of jewelry from selling direct to retail dealers. Thread Case. On June 2, 1914, a decree was entered in the United States Dis- trict Court for the District of New Jersey dissolving a combination between J. & P. Coats, Ltd., and affiliated corporations, and the American Thread Co. and affiliated corporations (the most impor- tant factors in the thread case) ; and enjoining them from engaging in certain unfair trade practices against independent manufacturers of thread. There is every reason to believe that the result will be not only to restore competition between J. & P. Coats, Ltd., and the American Thread Co., but also to permit independent manufacturers to compete freely. Lumber Dealers' Association. The case against the Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers' Asso- ciation — a combination of retail lumber dealers to prevent whole- 78 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. salers from selling directly to consumers — was decided by the Dis- trict Court for the Southern District of New York in favor of the Government. On appeal by the defendants this decree was affirmed by the Supreme Court on June 22, 1914. The three cases pending in other parts of the United States against similar associations of lumber dealers are being pushed to a conclusion. The Butter and Egg Cases. On April 27, 1914, a decree was entered in the United States Dis- trict Court at Chicago enjoining the Elgin Board of Trade and -others from continuing certain practices by which the prices of but- ter throughout a large area were arbitrarily fixed. In a similar case, the Chicago Butter and Egg Board and others were charged with arbitrarily fixing and controlling the price paid for butter and eggs throughout a large section. The case was de- cided in favor of the Government, and a decree granting the relief sought was entered by the United States District Court at Chicago on October 12, 1914. Electrical Workers' TJnions. On February 24, 1913, the members of the International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, local unions Nos. 9 and 134, were tem- porarily enjoined by the United States District Court at Chicago from interfering with the interstate business of the Postal Telegraph Co. This temporary injunction was made permanent by a final decree entered on February 27, 1914. Alaska Transportation Cases. There were two indictments, one against the North Pacific Wharves & Trading Co. and others, charging a conspiracy to mo- nopolize the wharf facilities at Skagway; the other against the Pacific & Arctic Railway & Navigation Co. and others, charging a conspiracy to monopolize steamship transportation between Puget Sound and certain Alaskan ports. In February, 1914, the corpora- tions entered pleas of guilty, and fines aggregating $28,000 were im- posed. Rendering Cases. In the criminal cases pending in the district of Massachusetts against the Consolidated Rendering Co. et al., for a monopolization of interstate trade and commerce in rendering materials, the corpo- rations entered pleas of nolo contendere in December, 1913, and fines aggregating $8,000 were imposed. 79 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. Cotton-Corner Cose In the case against Thompson and others, charged with conspir- ing to run a corner in cotton on the New York Cotton Exchange, pleas of nolo contendere were entered in December, 1913, and fines aggregating $18,000 were imposed. Mine Workers. The indictment against White and other officers and members of the United Mine Workers of America, charging a conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce in coal mined in West Virginia, was nolle prossed on June 20, 1914. It was instituted by a district attorney without authority and was without foundation. Naval-Stores Case In the case of the American Naval Stores Co. and others there was a conviction in the lower court, and fines aggregating $17,500 were imposed and two of the defendants were sentenced to jail for three months each. On a writ of certiorari the Supreme Court re- versed the judgment of the trial court on account of error in the judge's charge to the jury. This case was retried in June, 1914, and resulted in a verdict of not guilty. Clothes- Wringer Case. The American Wringer Co. and others were indicted for entering into a combination to fix the price of clothes wringers. The corpo- rations and the two principal individual defendants entered pleas of nolo contendere on November 13, 1914, and fines aggregating $6,000 were imposed. 80 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. PENDING CASES INSTITUTED PRIOR TO JULY 1, 1913. United States v. United States Steel Corporation et al. This case was argued before the circuit j.udges, under the pro- visions of the expediting act, during October, 1914, and the decision of the court is awaited. United States v. International Harvester Co. et al. This case was argued in November, 1913, and on August 12, 1914, was decided in favor of the Government. A decree was entered ordering the combination and monopoly to be dissolved. Adopting the principle steadfastly insisted upon by this administration, the court directed that the parts into which the combination may be dis- solved shall be separately owned and controlled and not be left in the control of one and the same set of stockholders. The defend- ants have appealed to the Supreme Court. United States v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis et al. On April 22, 1912, the Supreme Court handed down an opinion favorable to the Government and remanded this case to the lower court with directions to enter a decree in conformity with its opin- ion. The circuit judges entered a final decree on March 2, 1914. Believing that this decree did not carry out the mandate and opinion of the Supreme Court, the Government appealed. The case was argued in October, 1914, and the decision of the Supreme Court is awaited. United States v. Great Lakes Towing Co. et al. On February 11, 1913, the suit against the Great Lakes Towing Co. et al. for monopolizing towing facilities at most of the important lake ports was decided by the district court in favor of the Govern- ment. How to dissolve the combination is now under consideration by the court. United States v. American Sugar Refining Co. et al. The taking of testimony has been completed and the case is being prepared for trial. United States v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt Actien Gesellschaft et al. (Trans- Atlantic Steamship Pool.) This case was argued during April, 1914, and a decision unfavor- able to the Government was handed down on October 12, 1914. An appeal will be taken to the Supreme Court. 81 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. United States v. Prince Line (Limited) et al. (Steamship lines to ports in Brazil.) The taking of testimony has been completed, and the case is be- ing prepared for trial. United States v. American-Asiatic Steamship Co. et al. (Steamship lines to ports in the Far East.) The taking of testimony has been completed, and the case is being prepared for trial. United States v. Hollis et al., United States v. Hartwick et al., and United States v. The Colorado & Wyoming Lumber Dealers' Association et al. (Lumber Cases.) The taking of testimony in the Hollis case has been completed, and the case is being prepared for trial during December, 1914. The other two cases are at issue, and stipulations have been entered into under which certain portions of the testimony introduced in the Hollis case may also be used therein. United States v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern R. R. Co. et al. (Soft-coal Case.) The civil suit against the combination of so-called soft-coal carry- ing roads in Ohio and West Virginia was decided by the district court in favor of the Government in Decmber, 1912. A supple- mental decision as to the relief to be granted was rendered Novem- ber 10, 1913. A final decree awarding in the main the relief asked by the Government was entered on March 14, 1914. United States v. United Shoe Machinery Co. et al. The trial of this case was completed in June, 1914, and the deci- sion of the court is awaited. The trial of the indictment against substantially the same defendants has been deferred until the civil case has been decided. United States v. National Cash Register Co. et al. After a long trial, the criminal case resulted in a verdict as to 29 of the 30 defendants, and fines aggregating $135,000 and jail sen- tences ranging from nine months to one year were imposed. The defendants having appealed, the case was argued before the Circuit Court of Appeals during the October term, 1914, and a decision is awaited. The civil case against substantially the same defendants is at issue, but no further proceedings have been had pending the disposition of the appeal in the criminal case. United States v. The Keystone Watch Case Company et al. This case was argued in June, 1914, and the decision of the court is awaited. 82 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. United States v. Isaac Whiting et al. (Milk Cases.) Demurrer sustained as to counts charging conspiracy and monop- oly. Demurrer overruled as to count charging combination in re- straint of trade and pleas of not guilty were entered on May 4, 1914. United States v. William G. Geer et al. (Paper Board case.) Demurrer overruled May 9, 1913, and the case is being prepared for early trial. United States v. Associated Billposters and Distributors et al. Pending on demurrer. The defendants have indicated a purpose to consent to a decree awarding the relief sought by the Govern- ment, and the form of decree to be entered is under consideration. United States v. Motion Picture Patents Co. et al. The taking of testimony was completed in April, 1914. The case was argued in November, 1914. United States v. The Master Horseshoers' National Protective Associa- tion of America et al. The case was not contested by some of the defendants, and de- crees have been entered as to them. Demurrers of the remain- ing defendants were overruled, and they have indicated a willing- ness to consent to the entry of a decree without further litigation, and the form of the decree to be entered is now under consideration. United States v. Charles S. Mellen et al. The criminal case instituted in December, 1912, charging the de- fendants with conspiring to prevent the construction by or in the interest of the Grand Trunk Railway Co. of certain lines of rail- road in New England, thereby forestalling threatened competition with the New Haven system, is awaiting trial. United States v. Kellogg Toasted Corn Flake Co. et al. Defendants' motion to dismiss the petition on grounds involving the merits of the case was argued in July, 1914, and a decision by the court is awaited. United States v. United Shoe Machinery Company of New Jersey et al. The prosecution of this case has been deferred pending the dis- position of the civil case in the district of Massachusetts against practically the same defendants. 83 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. United States v. Board of Trade of the City of Chicago et al. The motion of the Government to strike out a portion of the de- fendants' answer was granted by the court on July 17, 1914, and the case will be pushed to a conclusion. United States v. The Cleveland Stone Company et al. This case is being prepared for trial. United States v. The D. Iv. & W. B. B. Co. and The D. L. & W. Coal Co. This case was tried in February, 1914, and on April 7, 1914, the court handed down a decison adverse to the Government. An ap- peal has been taken to the Supreme Court and the case is now being prepared for argument. United States v. The McCaskey Begister Company et al. A reinvestigation of the facts upon which this case was based has recently been concluded, and the further action to be taken is now under consideration. United States v. Corn Products Beflning Company et al. The taking of testimony in chief on behalf of the Government is in progress. United States v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis et al. Action in this case has been deferred awaiting the result of the case against the same association now pending on appeal in the Su- preme Court. United States v. Eastman Kodak Co. et al. The introduction of testimony in chief on behalf of the Govern- ment has been completed, and the defendants have begun their case. United States v. The Quaker Oats Co. et al. The testimony in chief on behalf of the Government has been in- troduced, and the taking of testimony on behalf of the defendants is now in progress. 84 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. CASES INSTITUTED SINCE JULY 1, 1913 United States v. Thompson et al. (Southern District of New York.) Indictment returned July 1, 1913, alleging that the defendants conspired to run a corner in cotton on the New York Cotton Ex- change. Defendants entered pleas of nolo contendere in December, 1913, and fines aggregating $18,000 were imposed. United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Company et al. (District of Oregon.) Petition filed July 24, 1913, charging a combination between com- panies of the Bell System and others to monopolize the means of telephonic communication in and between the States of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. After the introduction of part of the testi- mony in chief on behalf of the Government, the defendants agreed to meet the demands of the Government, and a decree sustaining the petition was entered on March 26, 1914. United States v. Reading Company et al. Eastern district of Pennsylvania (anthracite coal combination.) Petition filed September 2, 1913, against a combination consisting of Reading Company and affiliated corporations, charging it with restraining and monopolizing trade in anthracite coal. This case was argued before the circuit judges, under the provisions of the expediting act, in June, 1914, and the decision of the court is awaited. United States v. The National Wholesale Jewelers' Association et al. (Southern District of New York.) Petiton filed November 18, 1913, charging defendants, who were wholesalers and jobbers, with conspiring to prevent manufacturers of jewelry and jewelry products from selling directly to retailers. The case was not contested by the defendants, and a decree grant- ing the relief sought was entered on January 30, 1914. United States v. American Can Company et al. (District of Maryland.) Petition filed November 29, 1913, alleging monopolization of the business of making tin cans. The introduction of testimony in chief on behalf of the Government has been concluded. United States v. John P. White et al. (District of Colorado.) Indictment returned December 1, 1913, alleging a monopoly of mine labor. 85 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. United States v. Frank J. Hayes et al. (District of Colorado.) Indictment returned December 1, 1913, charging a combination and conspiracy by mine workers to interfere with the mining of coal in Colorado and its transportation to and sale in other States. United States v. Southern Pacific Company, Central Pacific Railway Company et al. (district of Utah). Petition filed February 11, 1914, seeking to compel the Southern Pacific to relinquish its control of the Central Pacific on the ground that they are naturally competing lines. The taking of testimony in chief on behalf of the Government has been completed. United States v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company et al. (Southern District of New York.) Petition filed March 18, 1914, charging the defendants with hav- ing monopolized the production, transportation, and sale of anthra- cite coal from mines tributary to L,ehigh Valley Railroad Co. in vio- lation of the antitrust act; and charging the railroad company with transporting in interstate commerce coal in which it has an interest, in violation of the commodity clause of the act to regulate com- merce. The trial has been completed, and a decision is awaited. United States v. Knauer et al. (Southern district of Iowa.) Indictment returned June 4, 1914, charging defendants with con- spiring to restrain trade in plumbing supplies. Case has been set for trial on December 8, 1914. United States v. The American Wringer Co. et al. (Western district of Pennsylvania.) Indictment returned May 22, 1914, charging defendants with en- tering into a combination to fix the price of clothes wringers. United States v. Booth Fisheries Co. et al. (Eastern district of Washington.) Indictment returned July 20, 1914, charging defendants with maintaining a combination to fix the price of fish in certain sections. United States v. The New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co. et al. (southern district of New York). Petition filed July 23, 1914, charging defendants with monopoliz- ing transportation facilities in New England. Final decree entered October 17, 1914. 86 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. .United States v. Western Cantaloupe Exchange et al. (Northern district of Illinois.) Indictment returned August 7, 1914, charging defendants with combining to restrain and monopolize interstate trade in cantaloupes. United States v. Collins et al. (District of Columbia.) Indictment returned September 4, 1914, against 31 commission merchants, charging them with engaging in a combination to fix ar- bitrarily and without competition the prices at which country pro- duce is bought and sold in the District of Columbia. United States v. McCoach et al. (Western district of Pennsylvania.) Indictment returned October 5, 1914, against 33 individuals, each a master plumber and retail dealer in plumbing supplies, charging them with entering into a combination to secure a monopoly of the business of selling and installing plumbing supplies. United States v. Irving et al. (District of Utah.) Indictment returned October 31, 1914, against 14 individuals, each a master plumber and retail dealer in plumbing supplies, charg- ing them with entering into a combination to restrain trade in plumb- ing supplies. United States v. Rockefeller et al. (Southern District of New York.) Indictment returned November 2, 1914, against 21 individuals, each at some time a director or officer, or both, of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co., charging them with conspir- ing to monopolize the transportation facilities of New England. 87 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. CASES UNDER THE ACT TO REGULATE COMMERCE. 1. Under the Commodities Clause. The purpose of the commodity clause is to protect shippers from the unlawful discriminations and disadavantages inherent in the ownership by railroads of the property transported by them and to prevent railroads from monopolizing by means of such discrimina- tions the poduction and sale of articles transported over their lines. The statute as construed by the Supreme Court in United States v. Delaware & Hudson Company, 213 U. S., 366, and United States v.' Lehigh Valley Railroad Co., 220 U. S., 257, is not violated unless the railroad has an interest in the articles at the time of transporta- tion. It is not enough that the railroad produced or manufactured the articles, provided it parted with the title before transporting them. Certain railroad companies have sought to bring themselves into conformity with this construction of the statute by the follow- ing plan, which the Government contends is a mere subterfuge : A railroad company engaged, say, in mining coal, either directly or through a controlled corporation which is but a part of itself, will organize a new corporation, the stock of which will be distributed ratably amongst the stockholders of the railroad, whereupon the railroad will sell to the new corporation at the mouth of the mines the coal produced by it. This plan was attacked in the case instituted in the district of New Jersey in February, 1913, against the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co. and the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Coal Co. under the commodities clause and antitrust act. The Gov- ernment contended that a corporation is but an association of per- sons, and that under the plan in question the same association of persons which mined the coal transported it. The case was decided against the Government by the district court on April 7, 1914. An appeal has been taken to the Supreme Court, and the case has been set for hearing on the first Monday in December. In the cases against the Reading company and the Lehigh Valley company under the Federal antitrust law the defendants are also charged with transporting anthracite coal in which they have an interest. The case against the Reading company was argued in June 1914, and the case against the Lehigh Valley was argued in November, 1914. Decisons are awaited. On July 13, 1914, an indictment was returned at Buffalo, N. Y., charging the Pennsylvania Railroad Co. with transporting in inter- state commerce anthracite coal mined by the Susquehanna Coal Co., 88 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. with which it is united in ownership and management. The case is awaiting trial. 2. Rebates and Unlawful Discriminations. Since the last report 58 cases have been instituted and 80 con- cluded under the provisions of the act to regulate commerce and the so-called Elkins Act prohibiting the giving or receiving of rebates and discriminations. The following is a summary of such cases : (A) Cases Instituted. United States v. Sidney J. Adler (district court, southern New York). January 27, 1914, indictment charging attempted false bill- ing. (2 counts.) United States v. Alabama Great Southern Railway Co. (district court, northern Alabama). March 14, 1914, indictment charging the granting of concessions. (10 counts.) United States v. Alabama Great Southern Railway Co. (district court, northern Alabama). March 14, 1914, indictment charging failure strictly to observe tariff rates. United States v. Ann Arbor Railroad Co. (district court, western Michigan). March 12, 1914, indictment charging granting of con- cessions to the Saginaw Beef Co. (10 counts.) United States v. Morris Biederman (district court, eastern Mis- souri). April 10, 1914, indictment for presenting false claims. (5 counts.) United States v. L. D. Block & Co. (district court, southern New York). January 27, 1914, indictment charging attempted false bill- ing. (2 counts.) United States v. Leonard J. Botting and Simon Lewis, trading as Chas. Broadway Rouse (district court, southern New York). De- cember 19, 1913, indictment charging attempted false billing. (2 counts.) United States v. W. C. Brown, John Carstensen, R. M. Huddle- ston, Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co., Big Four Rail- way Co., Chicago, Indiana & Southern Railway Co., Thos. J. O'Gara, Wm. A. Brewerton, and O'Gara Coal Co. (district court, northern Illinois). July 31, 1914, indictment charging conspiracy to violate Elkins Act. (2 counts.) United States v. Roy A. Campbell (district court, southern Tex- as). October 12, 1914, indictment charging the accepting and re- ceiving a concession. (10 counts.) 89 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. United States v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. (district court, northern Illinois). January 31, 1914, indictment charging the granting of rebates to David Rutter & Co. (6 counts.) United States v. Orton Collins (district court, eastern Wiscon- sin). April 16, 1914, indictment for presentation of false claims in connection with shipments made by Wisconsin Auto Sales Co. (1 count.) United States v. C. Conor and Geo. Nordenholt (district court, southern New York). March 7, 1914, indictment charging false billing. United States v. Louis Camesa, trading as Camesa Bros, (district court, southern New York). December 12, 1913, indictment charg- ing false billing. _ (2 counts.) United States v. Austin Corbin, 2d (district court, southern New York). January 13, 1914, indictment for accepting concessions from Spokane International Railway Co. (17 counts.) United States v. Davidson Bros. Co. (district court, eastern Mis- souri). April 10, 1914, indictment for presenting false claims. (5 counts.) United States v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Coal Co. (dis- trict court, western New York). July 13, 1914, indictment charging the receiving of concessions from the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co. in the nature of rental of trestles at nominal rental. (5 counts.) United States v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co. (district court, western New York). July 13, 1914, indictment charging the granting of concessions to the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Coal Co. by leasing of valuable trestle property at nomi- nal rental. (5 counts.) United States v. Eagle Fur Cap Co. (district court, southern New York). February 10, 1914, indictment charging attempted false bill- ing. United States v. D. L. Flory (district court, eastern Virginia). April 7, 1914, indictment charging false billing. United States v.. Joseph Fybush, trading as Fybush & Co. (district court, southern New York). December 1, 1913, indictment charg- ing false billing. (2 counts.) United States v. Gamble-Robinson Commission Co. (district court, Minnesota). October 8, 1914, indictment for presenting false claims to Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. (5 counts.) United States v. Albert Hockheimer & Co. (district court, south- 90 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. em New York). January 20, 1914, indictment charging attempted false billing. (2 counts.) United States v. Illinois Central Railroad Co. (district court, east- ern Illinois). July 17, 1914, indictment for granting switching ser- vice at New Orleans on import shipment of bananas without tariff authority. United States v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co., Big Four Railway Co., Chicago, Indiana & Southern Railway Co., W. C. Brown, John Carstensen, and R. M. Huddleston (district court, northern Illinois). July 31, 1914, indictment charging the granting of concessions to O'Gara Coal Co. (199 counts.) United States v. Lehigh & Hudson River Railway Co., and Mor- ris Rutherford, vice president (district court, New Jersey). Feb- ruary 10, 1914, indictment charging acceptance of concessions on fuel coal. (10 counts.) United States v. Martin Fertilizer Co. (district court, eastern Vir- ginia). April 7, 1914, indictment charging false billing. (12 counts.) United States v. Robert B. Louden, jr. (district court, southern Iowa). October 27, 1914, indicement for false billing. (7 counts.) United States v. John D. Morrissey (district court, eastern Wash- ington). May 21, 1914, indictment charging violation of Elkins Act. (1 count.) United States v. Mark P. Miller Milling Co., and Mark P. Miller, president (district court, Idaho). May 19, 1914, indictment charg- ing false billing. (4 counts.) United States v. John Mirenberg (district court, southern New York). December 30, 1913, indictment charging false billing. (2 counts.) United States v. New Orleans & Northeastern Railroad Co. (dis- trict court, eastern Louisiana). July 18, 1914, indictment charging failure to observe switching tariffs at New Orleans. (10 counts.) United States v. Northern Central Railway Co. (district court, western New York). July 13, 1914, indictment charging the grant- ing of concessions to the Mineral Railroad & Mining Co., by failure to collect royalties. (50 counts.) United States v. Opalescent Bent Glass Co. (district court, south- ern New York). December 19, 1913, indictment charging false bill- ing. (2 counts.) United States v. O'Gara Coal Co., Thomas J. O'Gara and William A. Brewerton (district court, northern Illinois). July 31, 1914, in- dictment charging the receiving of concessions from the Lake Shore 91 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. & Michigan Southern Railway Co., Big Four Railway Co., and Chi- cago, Indiana & Southern Railway Co. (100 counts.) United States v. Potlatch Lumber Co., and Joseph J. Cunningham (district court, eastern Washington). May 21, 1914, indictment charging false billing. (10 counts.) United States v. Potlatch Lumber Co., and Joseph J. Lohrenz (dis- trict court, eastern Washington). May 21, 1914, indictment charg- ing false billing. (5 counts.) United States v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co. (district court, west- ern New York). July 13, 1914, indictment charging violation of the commodities clause of the act by carrying coal for Susquehanna Coal Co., the carrier owning the coal company and its product. (25 counts.) United States v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Rail- way Co. (district court, northern Illinois). January 31, 1914, in- dictment charging the granting of rebates to B. A. Eckhart Milling Co. (12 counts.) United States v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Rail- way Co. (district court, northern Illinois). January 31, 1914, in- dictment for granting rebates to W. H. Merritt & Co. (5 counts.) United States v. Pennsylvania Co. (district court, northern Illi- nois). January 31, 1914, indictment charging the granting of re- bates to W. H. Merritt & Co. (5 counts.) United States v. Frank Rogers and John Ridzewski (district court, western Michigan). February 28, 1914, indictment charging violation of the act by obtaining and using pass. (1 count.) United States v. Southern Texas Truck Growers' Association and Roy A. Campbell (district court, southern Texas). October 12, 1914, indictment for securing concessions. (30 counts.) United States v. Spokane International Railway Co., and Geo. H. Martin, general agent (district court, eastern Washington). Janu- ary 13, 1914, indictment charging granting concessions to Austin Corbin 2d. (17 counts.) United States v. Louis Seligman, trading as American Bud Co. (district court, southern New York). December 12, 1913, indict- ment charging false billing. (2 counts.) United States v. Solar Light Co. (district court, southern New York). January 27, 1914, indictment charging false billing. (2 counts.) United States v. Stock Yards Cotton & Linseed Oil Co., and H. G. Cherry, manager (district court, Kansas). October 5, 1914, in- 92, PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. dictment charging the soliciting of information from carriers' agents concerning shipments of competitors. United States v. Southern Pacific Co. (district court, southern California). May 25, 1914, indictment charging the granting of a concession to the Redlands Golden Orange Association by rental of a warehouse at a nominal sum. United States v. South Dakota Central Railway Co. (district court, South Dakota). April 10, 1914, indictment for accepting concessions on fuel coal. (10 counts.) United States v. South Dakota Railway Co. (district court, South Dakota). April 10, 1914, indictment for failure to strictly observe demurrage tariffs. (10 counts.) United States v. Peter Solow and Stanley Ridzewski (district court, western Michigan). February 16, 1914, indictment charging violation of antipass section of the act. (1 count.) United States v. Star Manufacturing Co. (district court, southern New York). January 16, 1914, indictment charging false billing. (2 counts.) United States v. Swift & Co. (district court, northern Illinois). January 31, 1914, indictment for receiving concessions from the Ann Arbor Railroad Co. (60 counts.) United States v. Saginaw Beef Co. (district court, western Michi- gan). March 12, 1914, indictment for receiving concessions from the Ann Arbor Railroad Co. (10 counts.) United States v. Tower Manufacturing & Novelty Co. (district court, southern New York). December 5, 1913, indictment charg- ing false billing. (2 counts.) United States v. Herbert Taggessell (district court, Oregon). August 22, 1914, indictment for procuring interstate pass for per- sons not lawfully entitled thereto. (1 count.) United States v. Washington, Idaho & Montana Railway Co., and Jno. D. Morrissey, superintendent (district court, eastern Washing- ton). May 21, 1914, indictment for granting free transportation of property. (3 counts.) United States v. The Will & Baumer Co. (district court, southern New York). January 15, 1914, indictment charging false billing. (2 counts.) United States v. Wisconsin Auto Sales Co. (district court, eastern Wisconsin). April 16, 1914, indictment charging the presentation of false claims. (1 count.) 93 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. (B) Cases Concluded. United States v. Adams Express Co. (district court, western New York.) Indictment for granting rebates under guise of allowance to cover drayage performed by shipper. January 10, 1914, plea of nolo contendere and fine of $500 imposed. United States v. American Express Co. (district court, western New York). Indictment for collecting more than published rates. January 10, 1914, plea of nolo contendere and fine of $500 imposed. United States v. Sidney J. Adler (district court, southern New York). Indictment charging attempted false billing. January 27, 1914, plea of guilty enterd and fine of $250 imposed. United States v. Adams Express Co. (district court, southern Ohio). Indictment for collecting more than published rate. Janu- ary 17, 1914, plea of nolo contendere and fine of $1,000 imposed. United States v. Ann Arbor Railroad Co. (district court, western Michigan). Indictment for granting concessions to Saginaw Beef Co. April 28, 1914, plea of guilty entered and fine of $8,000 im- posed. United States v. Alabama Great Southern Railway Co. (district court, northern Alabama). Indictment for granting concessions. May 16, 1914, plea of guilty entered and fine of $5,000 imposed. United States v. Alabama Great Southern Railway Co. (district court, northern Alabama). Indictment for failure strictly to observe tariff rates. May 16, 1914, nolle prosequi entered. United States v. L. D. Block & Co. (district court, southern New York). Indictment for attempted false billing. January 27, 1914, plea of guilty entered and fine of $100 imposed. United States v. Leonard J. Botting and Simon Lewie, trading as Chas. Broadway Rouse (district court, southern New York). In- dictment for false billing. December 19, 1913, plea of guilty entered and fine of $300 imposed. United States v. Louis Camesa, trading as Camesa Bros, (dis- trict court, southern New York) . Indictment for false billing. De- cember 12, 1913, plea of guilty entered and fine of $200 imposed. United States v. C. Conner and George Nordenholt (district court, southern New York). Indictment for false billing. March 7, 1914, plea of guilty entered by Nordenholt and fine of $1,000 imposed. Connor not yet located. United States v. Columbia Amusement Co., R. K. Hynicka, secre- tary, and Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. (district court, northern Illinois). Indictment for conspiracy to 94 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. violate act to regulate commerce. March 18, 1914, plea of nolo con- tendere by Columbia Amusement Co. and Hynicka and fine of $7,500 imposed. (Case against carrier previously disposed of.) United States v. S. B. Cox (district court, eastern Texas). In- dictment for making false entries in records of St. Louis South- western Railway Co. March 18, 1914, plea of guilty entered and fine of $2,000 imposed. United States v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Rail- way Co., and Chicago, Indiana & Southern Railway Co. (district court, eastern Illinois). Indictment for granting concessions to O'Gara Coal Co. May 14, 1914, pleas of guilty entered and fines of $3,000 against the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co., and $6,000 against Chicago, Indiana & Southern Rail- way Co., imposed; total, $9,000. United States v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Rail- way Co. (district court, eastern Illinois). Indictment under the Elkins Act for granting discrimination. May 14, 1914, plea of guilty entered and fine of $3,000 imposed. United States v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Rail- way Co., and Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada (district court, eastern Illinois). Indictment for conspiracy to grant concessions, May 19, 1914, plea of guilty entered on behalf of O'Gara Coal Co, and fine of $2,000 imposed. United States v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Rail- way Co., Chicago, Indiana & Southern Railway Co., O'Gara Coal Co., and Grand Trunk Railway Co. (district court, eastern Illinois), Indictment for conspiracy to grant concessions to O'Gara Coal Co. May 14, 1914, plea of guilty on, behalf of Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co., and Chicago, Indiana & Southern Railway Co., and fine of $1,500 each imposed; total, $3,000. United States v. Austin Corbin, 2d (district court, eastern Wash- ington). Indictment for accepting concessions from Spokane Inter- national Railway Co. May 23, 1914, plea of guilty and fine of $5,000 imposed. United States v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co. (district court, western New York). Indictment for violation of commodities clause of the act. March 18, 1912, verdict of guilty and fine of $2,000 imposed. Affirmed by Supreme Court of the United States. United States v. Delaware & Hudson Co. (district court, northern New York). Indictment for violation of commodities clause of the 95 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. act. February 12, 1914, pleas of nolo contendere and fine of $1,500 imposed. United States v. A. L. Dennis Salt & Lumber Co. (district court, western Michigan) . Indictment for accepting rebates in connection with transit shipments of lumber. June 29, 1914, plea of guilty and fine of $1,000 imposed. United States v. A. L. Dennis Salt & Lumber Co. (district court, western Michigan). Indictment for false billing in connection with transit shipments of lumber. June 29, 1914, nolle prosequi entered. United States v. Dennis Lumber Co. (district court, western Michigan). Indictment for accepting rebates in connection with transit shipments of lumber. June 29, 1914, plea of guilty entered and fine of $2,000 imposed. United States v. Dennis Lumber Co. (district court, western Michigan). Indictment for false billing in connection with transit shipments of lumber. June 29, 1914, nolle prosequi entered. United States v. Eagle Fur Cap Co. (district court, southern New York). Indictment for attempted false billing. February 11, 1914, plea of guilty entered and fine of $150 imposed. United States v. Erie Railroad Co. and W. S. Cowie, general east- ern freight agent (district court, New Jersey). Indictment for granting concessions to Marden, Orth & Hastings. April 2, 1914, verdict of guilty as to Erie Railroad and acquittal as to Cowie. United States v. G. H. Evans (district court, eastern Tennessee). Indictment for violation of section 10 of the act in connection with substitution of shipments of lumber in transit. May 18, 1914, plea of guilty entered and fine of $500 imposed. United States v. Joseph Fybush, trading as Fybush & Co. (district court, southern New York. Indictment for false billing. December 1, 1913, plea of guilty entered and fine of $400 imposed. United States v. D. L. Flory (district court, eastern Virginia). Indictment for false billing. June, 1914, plea of nolo contendere and fine of $100 imposed. United States v. Grand Trunk Western Railway Co. (district court, southern Ohio). Indictment for obtaining concessions on fuel coal. December 13, 1913, plea of nolo contendere and fine of $5 imposed. United States v. Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada; Cleve- land, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.; and Chicago,. Indiana & Southern Railway Co. (district court, eastern Illinois). Indictment for conspiracy to grant and give concessions out of pub- 96 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. lished rate to O'Gara Coal Co. March 17, 1914, plea of nolo con- tendere and fine of $2,500 imposed against Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada. United States v. Grand Trunk Railway Co. and O'Gara Coal Co. (district court, eastern Illinois). Indictment for accepting and re- ceiving concessions from the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. and Chicago, Indiana & Southern Railway Co. March 17, 1914, Grand Trunk Railway Co. plea of nolo contendere and fine of $2,500 imposed. United States v. Albert Hockheimer & Co. (district court, south- ern New York). Indictment for attempted false billing. January 20, 1914, plea of guilty entered and fine of $250 imposed. United States v. Hocking Valley Railway Co. (district court, northern Ohio). Indictment for discrimination in favor of Sunday Creek Coal Co. by unlawful extension of credit. June 11, 1912, plea of nolo contendere and fine of $42,000 imposed. February 3, 1914, decision affirmed by circuit court of appeals. United States v. Keystone Elevator & Warehouse Co. and John F. McLaughlin (district court, eastern Pennsylvania). Indictment for violation of section 10 of act in permitting L. F. Miller & Sons to make false report of weights. September, 1914, nolle prosequi entered. United States v. Lehigh & Hudson River Railway Co. and Morris Rutherford, vice president (district court, New Jersey). Indict- ment for receiving concessions on fuel coal. May 9, 1914, plea of guilty and fine of $10,000 imposed against corporation. Against Rutherford, nolle prosequi entered. United States v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co. (district court, west- ern New York). Indictment for granting concessions to Yates- Lehigh Coal Co. in connection with lease of certain land for coal yard. Verdict of acquittal. United States v. Lumber Products Co. (district court, eastern Tennessee). Indictment for violation of section 10 of the act in connection with transit shipments. May 18, 1914, plea of guilty entered and fine of $500 imposed. United States v. John Mirenberg (district court, southern New York). Indictment for false billing. December 30, 1913, plea of guilty and fine of $100 imposed. United States v. Martin Fertilizer Co. (district court, eastern Vir- ginia) . Indictment for false billing. June, 1914, plea of guilty en- tered and fine of $1,400 imposed. 97 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. United States v. Frank G. Miller (district court, northern Ohio). Indictment for inducing an agent to discriminate in his favor by issuing bills of lading prior to receipt of shipment. June, 1914, plea of guilty entered and fine of $300 imposed. United States v. Glen B. Miller (district court, northern Ohio). Indictment for making false entry in the records of the Erie Rail- road. June, 1914, plea of guilty entered ; sentence suspended. . United States v. Harvie C. Miller, J. Elsie Miller, Morris F. Miller, Thos. M. Sloan, and John F. McLaughlin (district court, eastern Pennsylvania). Indictment for conspiracy. September, 1914, nolle prosequi entered. United States v. Harvie C. Miller, J. Elsie Miller, Morris F. Miller, and Thos. M. Sloan (district court, eastern Pennsylvania). Indictment for accepting rebates. September, 1914, nolle prosequi entered. United States v. John D. Morrissey (district court, eastern Wash- ington). Indictment for violation of Elkins Act. Nolle prosequi entered. United States v. O'Gara Coal Co. (district court, eastern Illinois). Indictment for accepting and receiving concessions from Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. and Chicago, Indiana & Southern Railway Co. May 19, 1914, plea of guilty on behalf of O'Gara Coal Co. and fine of $3,000 imposed. United States v. Opalescent Bent Glass Co. (district court, south- ern New York). Indictment for false billing. December 19, 1913, plea of guilty entered and fine of $350 imposed. United States v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., Harvie C. Miller, and John F. McLaughlin (district court, eastern Pennsylvania). Indictment for failure to observe elevation and storage charges. September 15, 1914, pleas of guilty entered and fines of $4,000 against each defendant imposed. Total, $12,000. United States v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., Harvie C. Miller, and John F. Mclaughlin (district court, eastern Pennsylvania). Indict- ment for granting rebates. September 15, 1914, nolle prosequi en- tered. United States v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co. (district court, east- ern Pennsylvania). Indictment for failure to observe demurrage tariffs. September 15, 1914, nolle prosequi entered. United States v. Potlatch Lumber Co. and Joseph B. Cunningham (district court, eastern Washington). Indictment for false billing. 98 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. October 1, 1914, plea of guilty entered by lumber company and fine of $2,000 imposed. Indictment against Cunningham still pending. United States v. Potlatch Lumber Co. and Joseph J. Lohrenz (dis- trict court, eastern Washington). Indictment for false billing. Oc- tober 1, 1914, plea of guilty entered by lumber company and fine of $1,000 imposed. Indictment against Lohrenz still pending. United States v. Harvey J. Rhein, James E. Fennessey, the Henck Opera House Co., the Empire Circuit Co., and the Cleveland, Cin- cinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. (district court, northern Illinois). Indictment for conspiracy to violate passenger tariffs. March, 1914, plea of guilty by Fennessey and fine of $3,500 imposed. Case against carriers previously disposed of. United States v. Frank Rodgers and John Ridzewski (district court, western Michigan). Indictment for violation of pass provi- sions of the act. March 3, 1914, plea of guilty entered and fine of $25 each imposed; total, $50. United States v. Roberts & Hamner (district court, western Ten- nessee). Indictment for receiving concessions in connection with transit shipments of grain. May 30, 1914, plea of guilty and fine of $180 imposed. United States v. Louis Seligman, trading as American Bud Co. (district court, southern New York). Indictment for false billing. December 12, 1913, plea of guilty entered and fine of $300 imposed. United States v. Solar Light Co. (district court, southern New York). Indictment for attempted false billing. January 27, 1914, plea of guilty entered and fine of $25 imposed. United States v. Star Fur Manufacturing Co. (district court, southern New York). Indictment for false billing. February 19, 1914, plea of guilty entered and fine of $200 imposed. United States v. Sunday Creek Coal Co. (district court, northern Ohio). Indictment for accepting rebates from Hocking Valley Railroad Co. June 11, 1912, plea of nolo contendere and fine of $20,000 imposed. February 3, 1914, affirmed by circuit court of appeals. United States v. Seaboard Air Line Railway (district court, south- ern Georgia). Indictment for receiving concessions in connection with shipments of fuel coal. November 24, 1913, plea of guilty en- tered and fine of $2,000 imposed. (This case was not reported until February 26, 1914, and not included in 1913 report.) United States v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Co. (district court, eastern Missouri). Indictment for charging more than law- 99 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. ful rate. April 3, 1914, plea of guilty entered and fine of $500 im- posed. United States v. Saginaw Beef Co. (district court, western Mich- igan). Indictment for receiving concessions from Ann Arbor Rail- road Co. April 28, 1914, plea of guilty entered and fine of $8,000 imposed. United States v. Peter Solow and Stanley Ridzewski and wife (district court, western Michigan). Indictment for unlawful use of interstate pass. March 3, 1914, plea of guilty and fine of $25 each against Peter Solow and Stanley Ridzewski and $1 against Mrs. Ridzewski; total, $51. United States v. Spokane International Railway Co. and Geo. H. Martin, general agent (district court, eastern Washington). In- dictment for granting concessions to Austin Corbin 2d. May 23, 1914, plea of guilty as to carrier was entered and fine of $5,000 was imposed. As to Martin, nolle prosequi entered. United States v. Southern Pacific Co. (district court, southern California). Indictment for granting concession to shipper by means of nominal rental of storage house. September 28, 1914, plea of guilty entered and fine of $1,000 imposed. United States v: South Dakota Central Railway Co. (district court, South Dakota). Indictment for failure to strictly observe demurrage tariffs. September 28, 1914, plea of guilty entered and fine of $1,000 imposed. United States v. South Dakota Central Railway Co. (district court, South Dakota). Indictment for soliciting and accepting con- cessions on fuel coal. September 28, 1914, plea of guilty entered and fine of $1,000 imposed. United States v. Tower Mfg. & Novelty Co. (district court, south- ern New York). Indictment for false billing. December 5, 1913, plea of guilty entered and fine of $300 imposed. United States v. Herbert Taggessell (district court, Oregon). In- dictment for procuring interstate pass for persons not lawfully en- titled thereto. September 8, 1914, plea of guilty entered and fine of $100 imposed. United States v. Vandalia Railroad Co. (district court, eastern Illinois). Indictment for granting rebates to Lumaghi Coal Co. by way of loans in consideration of the routing of traffic via its line. May 20, 1914, verdict of guilty. July 6, 1914, motion for new trial overruled and fine of $2,000 imposed. 100 PROSECUTIONS UNDER SHERMAN ACT. \ •'•''' United States v. Valley City Lumber Co. (district court, western Michigan). Indictment for accepting rebates in connection with ■ traffic shipments of lumber. June 29, 1914, plea of guilty entered and fine of $1,000 imposed. United States v. Valley City Lumber Co. (district court, western Michigan). Indictment for false billing in connection with transit shipments of lumber. June 29, 1914, nolle prosequi entered. United States v. Van Keulen & Winchester Lumber Co. (district court, western Michigan). Indictment for accepting rebates in con- nection with transit shipments of lumber. June 29, 1914, plea of guilty entered and fine of $1,000 imposed. United States v. Van Keulen & Winchester Lumber Co. (district court, western Michigan). Indictment for false billing in connec- tion with transit shipment of lumber. June 29, 1914, nolle prosequi entered. United States v. Will & Baumer Co. (district court, southern New York). Indictment for false billing. January 16, 1914, plea of guilty entered and fine of $400 imposed. United States v. Wichita Falls & Northwestern Railway Co. (dis- trict court, western Oklahoma). Indictment for granting a conces- sion to