Page images
PDF
EPUB

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

President. 55. United States v. Colgate & Company. Indictment re

turned December 18, 1917, in the District Court, E. D. of Virginia, charging defendant with combining with wholesale and retail dealers in its products to procure adherence to resale prices fixed by it. It is alleged that defendant indicated to wholesale and retail dealers by letters and circulars and orally the prices it desired to have maintained and that dealers failing to maintain such prices were placed on so-called "suspended lists” and refused further supplies until they gave assurance that the prices indicated would be observed. Argued on demurrer in March, 1918, and demurrer sustained in an opinion handed down on October 29,

The Government appealed to the Supreme Court, which held, on June 2, 1919, that the interpretation of the indictment by the court below could not be reviewed, and, upon that interpretation, affirmed the order sus

taining the demurrer. (See No. 71, infra 56. United States v. Booth Fisheries Company et al. Petition

filed March 13, 1918, in the District Court, W. D. of Washington, charging defendants with combining to restrain and monopolize interstate trade and commerce in halibut. Among other things it is alleged that practically all the halibut brought in on the north

p. 120.)

93278-22-8

Pacific coast is marketed through the defendants, and that they have entered into agreements involving the fixing of maximum prices for buying and minimum prices for selling halibut. An agreed decree granting the relief sought by the Government was entered on

March 13, 1918. 57. United States v. Interlaken Mills et al. Petition filed April 15, 1918, in the District Court, S. D. of New York, charging the defendants with entering into a combination to fix the price of book cloth, of which they control approximately 90 per cent of the quantitv manufactured in the United States. With the consent of the defendants, a decree dissolving the combination

was entered on April 15, 1918. 58. United States v. Victor Talking Machine Co. Petition filed May 3, 1918, in the District Court, S. D. of New York, charging defendant with engaging in a combination in restraint of trade in talking machines, talking machine records and appliances for use in connection therewith. A decree was entered on May 3, 1918, adjudging that the Victor Company had entered into a combination in restraint of trade in violation of the act of July 2, 1890, and enjoining it (1) from carrying out any combination, agreement or understanding with wholesale distributors or retail dealers to adhere to restrictions as to the persons to whom, the territory in which, or the prices at which its products shall be sold and from refusing to sell to distributors or dealers because of failure to observe such restrictions; and (2) from requiring wholesale distributors or retail dealers not to use or deal in or permit to be used talking machines and talking machine records or appliances not

produced by the defendant. 59. United States v. Ironite Co. et al. Indictment returned May 10, 1918, in the District Court, S. D. of New York, charging defendants with conspiring to restrain and monopolize interstate trade in pulverized, powdered or finely divided iron or other like metal or metalcontaining material, used in or in connection with concrete construction work. Among other things, it is alleged that the defendants agreed among themselves to eliminate all competition and from time to time agreed to fix, establish, raise and maintain uniform prices, discounts, terms of credit, and policies and to limit the territory in which certain dealers might sell.

A petition in equity was also filed December 17, 1919, in the District Court, S. D. of New York, asking that the same defendants be enjoined from continuing the acts complained of in the indictment. The defendants having submitted in the civil case to the application of a more radical and efficacious remedy for the restraint involved than would have resulted from a conviction in the criminal proceeding, a consent decree granting fully the relief sought by the Government was entered

and the indictment dismissed March 20, 1920. 60. United States v. A. Schrader's Son, Inc. Indictment re

turned June 19, 1918, in the District Court, N. D. of Ohio, against A. Schrader's Son, Inc., manufacturer of valves and valve parts, pneumatic pressure gauges, and various other accessories for use in connection with pneumatic tires on automobiles and other vehicles. The defendant is charged with requiring tire manufacturers and jobbers to whom it sells its products to execute uniform contracts concerning resales and with refusing to sell to those who do not enter into such contracts and adhere to the uniform resale prices fixed by it. In this way

it is alleged competition was suppressed and prices to retail dealers and the consuming public were maintained and enhanced. Demurrer to the indictment was sustained September 15, 1919, and an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the District Court, remanded the case, and it is now set for trial at the March term, 1922, of the

District Court. 61. United States v. Button Export & Trading Corporation, et al.

Petition filed June 28, 1918, in the District Court, S. D. of Iowa, charging defendants with combining and con

spiring to control the entire fresh-water pearl button in-
dustry from the digging of the shells to the sale of the
finished buttons to the retailer. Among other means
employed to accomplish that end the defendants formed
an association which received and distributed detailed
information as to trade conditions; formed a corporation
which contracted with the sole manufacturer of certain
patented automatic button machines for the entire out-
put of such machines for their own use; and entered into
a plan to purchase their requirements of shells through a
single agency at agreed prices. The case was not con- .
tested, and an agreed decree granting the relief asked in

the Government's petition was entered on June 28, 1918. 62. United States v. The American Cone & Wafer Company. Petition filed July 31, 1918, in the District Court, N. D. of Ohio, charging defendant with entering into a combination to procure the adherence of jobbers to uniform resale prices for its product, commonly called ice-cream cones, by means of contracts and by refusing to make further sales to jobbers failing to adhere to such prices. An agreed decree enjoining the practice complained of

was entered on August 3, 1918. 63. United States v. Sumatra Purchasing Corporation et al.

Indictments returned October 7, 1918 (one under the Sherman Act and one under the Wilson Tariff Act) in the District Court, S. D. of New York, charging the defendants with conspiring to control the entire trade and commerce in the purchase of Sumatra leaf tobacco in foreign countries and the importation of same into and the sale thereof throughout the United States, and to eliminate competition in and monopolize said trade and commerce, and to increase the price of said tobacco in the United States. On April 13, 1920, the corporate defendants pleaded nolo contendere to the indictment under the Sherman Act, and each submitted to the maximum fine of $5,000. Both indictments were dismissed as to the individual defendants, the dismissal of the indictment under the Tariff Act applying also to the corporate defendants.

At the same time the defendants submitted to a decree in equity prohibiting all the illegal acts charged

by the Government. 64. United States v. Western Cantaloupe Exchange et al. Peti

tion filed November 9, 1918, in the District Court, N. D. of Illinois, charging the defendants (growers and distributors of cantaloupes) with having entered into a contract in restraint of interstate trade and commerce in cantaloupes raised in the Imperial Valley of California. On the same date a decree was entered enjoining the defendants, among other things, from holding any membership or interest in the exchange and from taking any concerted action to limit or regulate competition between themselves and to enhance the price of cantaloupes

in the markets of the United States. 65. United States v. Klaxon Horn Company. Petition filed

December 8, 1918, in the District Court, D. of New Jersey, charging defendant with engaging in a combination in restraint of trade in Klaxon warning signals. The form of contract which was the subject of this proceeding required jobbers distribụting the product of the Klaxon Company to resell at prices fixed by it, thus bringing about uniform prices and consequent suppression of competition. Contemporaneously with the filing of the petition a decree was entered enjoining the defendant from making any similar contract or agreement

in the future. 66. United States v. The Atlas Portland Cement Company

et al. Petition filed August 13, 1919, in the District Court, District of New Jersey, charging the defendants with combining and conspiring, through the instrumentality of the Cement Manufacturers' Protective Association, to curtail the production of cement, to reduce the quantity of cement sold under contract for future delivery at a fixed price, and to bring about a uniform and materially increased price for cement regardless of the point of delivery. Because of an indictment returned in Southern District of New York (infra, p. 130), case was discontinued October 31, 1921.

« PreviousContinue »