Page images

67. United States v. Alphons Custodis Chimney Constructions Co. et al. Indictment returned December 12, 1919,

. in the District Court, S. D. of New York, charging the defendants with entering into a combination through the instrumentality of the Chimney Builders' Association to suppress and eliminate competition in the business of contracting for the sale of, selling and constructing perforated radial brick chimneys, and to increase prices. Among other things, the members of the Association agreed that each should receive a certain percentage of the total business, established a scale of uniform profits, and allotted particular jobs to certain defendants who named prices below which other members would not bid. On January 28, 1920, a nolle prosequi was entered as to two of the defendants and the remaining defendants entered pleas of nolo contendere and were fined

amounts aggregating $18,325. 68. United States v. American Association of Wholesale Op

ticians et al. Petition filed December 12, 1919, in the District Court, S. D. of New York, charging defendants with combining and conspiring to restrain interstate trade and commerce in optical lenses, cut and uncut blanks, and other like articles, and fixing uniform prices and policies for the sale thereof. The case was not contested, and contemporaneously with the filing of the petition a consent decree was entered prohibiting the further continuance of the combination and the unlaw

ful practices complained of. 69. United States v. American Column & Lumber Company et

al. Petition filed February 14, 1920, in the District Court, W. D. of Tennessee, charging the defendants (603 persons and corporations engaged in the production and sale of hardwood lumber) with combining and conspiring to eliminate competition among themselves and to enhance their selling prices in restraint of trade, contrary to the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The means of accomplishing the conspiracy consisted in joining together as members of a so-called “open

competition plan;" conducting meetings and oral discussions concerning past and future prices, stocks, and production; compiling and distributing among themselves monthly and weekly reports and bulletins concerning prices, stocks, and production; and interchanging monthly predictions that prices would be enhanced.

The case came on for hearing early in March, 1920, on the Government's application for a preliminary injunction against the practices referred to. The court on March 16, 1920, entered a decree granting the injunction.

By a stipulation this decree was made the final decree of the district court. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. The case was argued in October, 1920, and upon order of the court was reargued in October, 1921. On December 19, 1921, an opinion, most favorable, was rendered in favor of the Govern

ment. 70. United States v. Swift & Company et al. Petition filed

February 27, 1920, in the Supreme Court, District of Columbia, to break up the so-called Packers' combination composed of Swift & Company, Armour & Company, Morris & Company, Cudahy Packing Company, Wilson & Co., Inc., their principal subsidiaries, and others. The case was not contested and on the same date an agreed decree was entered which required the defendants, among other things, (1) to dispose of their holdings in public stockyards; (2) to dispose of their interests in stockyard railroads and terminals; (3) to dispose of their interests in market newspapers; (4) to dispose of their interests in public cold storage warehouses, except when necessary for their own meat products; (5) to forever dissociate themselves from the retail meat business; and (6) to forever dissociate themselves from all "unrelated lines" including wholesale groceries, etc. Some of the dispositions of interests required to be made by the defendants have been made after report to and approval by the court. Extensions

[ocr errors]

of time in regard to other dispositions have been granted. Two trustees, with supervisory and visitorial powers, were appointed to represent the public interest during the life of the extension as to the holdings of Swift and Armour interests in stockyards. The extension granted to the Morris defendants, with reference to their stockyard interests, provides for the deposit of the stock and the accumulation of the

dividends during the term of such extension. 71. United States v. Colgate & Company. Indictment re

turned March 24, 1920, in the District Court, District of New Jersey, charging an unlawful combination to. maintain the resale prices of soap manufactured by Colgate & Co. The Supreme Court having held that the former indictment of this company returned December 18, 1917 (No. 55), as interpreted by the District Court, did not charge an offense under the Sherman Act, the Government obtained the present indictment charging in greater detail than the former one the systematic employment of agreement between the company and its distributors to maintain resale prices prescribed by the company. A demurrer to this. indictment has been overruled, and the case is now

awaiting trial. 72. United States v. Barbers' Supply Dealers Association of

America et al. Petition filed May 7, 1920, in the District Court, S. D. of New York, charging defendants with combining and conspiring to restrain and monopolize trade and commerce throughout the United States in barbers' supplies, such as soaps, perfumes, implements, chairs, etc. The petition charges that the means, amongst others, by which the objects of the conspiracy were to be accomplished were the fixing and maintaining of resale prices and terms of discount, advancing resale prices and the elimination of competition.

The case was not contested, and contemporaneously with the filing of the petition a consent decree was entered prohibiting the further continuance of the com-bination and the unlawful practices complained of.

[ocr errors]

73. United States v. American Linseed Oil Co. et al. Petition filed June 30, 1920, in the District Court for the N. D. of Illinois at Chicago, charging the defendants, who constitute nearly all of the most important producers of linseed oil in the United States, with combining and conspiring to suppress competition and enhance prices in restraint of trade contrary to the Sherman Act.

The restraint was imposed by means of a so-called “Open Competition Plan," in pursuance of which, amongst other things, each defendant, as required by contracts with the Armstrong Bureau of Related Industries, furnished the bureau its price lists for distribution amongst all the other defendants, and reported daily all carload sales, with the price at which each sale had been made and interchanged assurances through the bureau that prices would not be lowered. Case was dismissed for want of equity in November, 1921, and an appeal

to the Supreme Court has been noted. 74. United States v. Consolidated Music Corporation et al.

Petition filed August 3, 1920, in the District Court, S. D. of New York, charging defendants (seven corporations and seven individuals manufacturing and publishing sheet music with words and music rolls for automatic pianos) with engaging in a conspiracy to restrain and monopolize the trade in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. It was charged that defendants dominated the trade, amongst other means, by combining and acting solely through the Consolidated Music Corporation, thus accomplishing a uniformity of conduct amongst themselves in respect of the trade; by transferring to the corporation copyrights acquired by them; and by agreeing upon prices at which sheet music and music rolls should be sold to the public.

Upon motion of the defendants the case was dismissed. At the request of the Government a reconsideration was had and on February 27, 1922, an opinion was rendered sustaining all of the contentions of the Government. The defendants were permitted to formally disclaim their intention to continue to do the things with which they were charged, with the admonition that if such disclaimer were not made an injunction would be entered against them. Disclaimer

filed. Case dismissed March 29, 1922. 75. United States v. Moore et al. Indictment returned August

30, 1920, in the District Court, S. D. of New York, charging defendants, members of the Steamship Freight Brokers' Association and members of the Trans-Atlantic Associated Freight Conferences, engaged, respectively, in forwarding freight in interstate commerce to the port of New York and thence to foreign countries and vice versa, and in operating steamships carrying transAtlantic commerce, with conspiring to restrain and monopolize such commerce in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. It was alleged that 80 per cent of such commerce passing through the port of New York, in·cluding lumber, grain, oil, coal, and manufactured articles, is handled by brokers, and that the restraint and monopoly thereof was being brought about by agreements among the defendants for the payment of brokerage fees only to members of the above-mentioned brokers' association, and for adherence by those brokers to the freight rates established by the steamship companies, and by other means, eliminating competition among the brokers. At the same time a petition in equity was filed against the same defendants seeking an injunction prohibiting the acts complained of in the indictment. Demurrers to the indictment were

sustained by the district court in October, 1920. 76. United States v. California Associated Raisin Co. et al.

Petition filed September 8, 1920, in the District Court, S. D. of California, at Los Angeles, charging the Raisin Company, which is engaged in the business of packing, shipping, and selling raisins in interstate commerce, and its officers and directors, with monopolizing and restraining the trade in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. It was alleged that by means of contracts with growers of raisin grapes requiring them to deal only with the Raisin Company in respect of the crop to

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »