Page images
PDF
EPUB

which such contracts apply and containing an option for subsequent like contracts in favor of the company, into which many growers were coerced by improper methods, and by the acquisition through various means of control over competing packing businesses, the defendant company obtained more than 80 per cent of the total annual production of raisin grapes in the United States. It was also alleged that the company perfected and enforced its monopoly by requiring purchasers of raisins to enter into so-called "firm at opening price” contracts early in the year at prices to be subsequently fixed by it, and that by these means it was enabled to exact excessively high prices for raisins.

On September 22, 1920, a stipulation was entered into, in lieu of a preliminary injunction, requriing the Raisin Company to release to competitors more than onefourth of its holdings of raisins at that time, to abandon the “firm at opening price” contracts, and to release all growers from the exclusive purchase contracts containing the renewal options. On January 18, 1922, the case was finally terminated by the entry of a consent

decree. 77. United States v. Goodwin-Gallagher Sand & Gravel Corpora

tion et al. Indictment returned December 29, 1920, in the District Court, S. D. of New York, charging defendants, four corporations, and eleven individuals, wholesalers and retailers engaged in digging, selling, and transporting in interstate commerce sand used in building and construction work, with conspiring to restrain and monopolize interstate commerce, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Law. It was charged, among other things, that the defendants eliminated competition by obtaining control of competitors, by purchase or otherwise, and agreeing to fix and maintain prices for the sale and resale of sand; and that they enhanced prices and otherwise dominated the trade. On January 18, 1921, the defendants pleaded guilty and paid fines aggregating $40,000. At the same time a suit in equity was filed and a decree entered prohibiting the acts complained of in the indictment.

78.

United States v. Albany Chemical Company et al. Petition

filed January 10, 1921, in the District Court, S. D. of New York, charging the defendants, the Albany Chemical Company and two individuals, engaged in manufacturing and selling aspirin in interstate commerce, with combining and conspiring to restrain and monopolize trade, contrary to the Sherman Act. It was charged that the defendants sought to improperly appropriate to themselves the exclusive use of the word “aspirin” by having it registered as a trade-mark, and by other means eliminating competition. At the same time an agreed decree was entered ordering, among other things, the cancellation and relinquishment of the alleged trade

mark rights. 79. United States v. Poster Advertising Association (Inc.) et al.

Indictment returned January 26, 1921, in the District Court at Chicago, charging the Poster Advertising Association, whose membership is confined to one of the owners of billboards occupying practically all of the suitable and available sites in each of the larger towns and cities of the United States, and the Poster Advertising Company, (Inc.), which is engaged in the business of preparing and furnishing posters for advertisers and shipping them in interstate commerce to members of the association for exhibition upon their billboards, together with 31 officers and directors of the association and the advertising company, with monopolizing interstate trade and commerce in bill posters in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The indictment charges that the monopolization was effected by the practice of the billboard owners, members of the association, of receiving for exhibition only posters furnished by the advertising company and by the refusal of the advertising company to supply posters except to members of the association or to serve any advertiser

dealing with its competitors. 80. United States v. Robert E. Miller (Inc.), et al. Petition

filed January 28, 1921, in the District Court, S. D. of

[ocr errors]

New York, charging the defendants, manufacturers of rubber heels, with conspiring among themselves and with dealers to restrain and monopolize interstate trade and commerce by fixing and agreeing to maintain uniform sale prices, and requiring dealers to maintain such prices. At the same time a decree was entered pro

hibiting the acts complained of in the petition. 81. United States v. Corrugated Paper Manufacturers Associa

tion (Inc.). Petition filed February 2, 1921, in the District Court, S. D. of New York, charging defendant, a combination of corrugated paper manufacturers, with conspiring to restrain and monopolize interstate trade and commerce by fixing and agreeing to maintain uniform sales prices, discounts, conditions, and policies. At the same time a decree was entered prohibiting the

acts complained of in the petition. 82. United States v. Southern Pine Association et al. Petition

filed February 23, 1921, in the District Court, E. D. of Missouri, at St. Louis, charging the association and 130 of its members, who produce more than 35 per cent of the yellow pine lumber manufactured in the United States, with combining and conspiring to restrain interstate commerce in lumber, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Among the means employed were the adoption by defendants of an arbitrary uniform costs system, the establishment of minimum selling prices upon the basis of an average cost of production, the distribution by the association of information as to the condition of supply and demand showing current production, sales, stocks on hand, etc., which it is charged the defendants agreed to use as a guide for the regulation or curtailment of

production. 83. United States v. Jones et al. Indictment filed February 25,

1921, in the District Court at Indianapolis, charging defendants, operators of bituminous coal mines and officials of the mine workers' union, with conspiring to restrain interstate trade and commerce, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Among many means by which the restraint was to be effected, the indictment charged an agreement among the defendants to create shortages and by various means, including closing down mines, to limit production and distribution, to establish a uniform accounting system, and to act in

concert to increase wages and prices of coal. 84. United States v. Alpha Portland Cement Company. Indict

ment returned March 1, 1921, in the District Court, S. D. of New York, against 74 corporate and 40 individual defendants, manufacturers of Portland cement, charging them with engaging in a combination and conspiracy to restrain and monopolize interstate trade and commerce.

Among the many means of effecting the restraint and monopolization, the indictment charges that the defendants concertedly divided the territory, adopted uniform selling prices, withheld cement from the market, curtailed production by suspending the manufacture of cement for given periods, and acquired and dismantled

mills. 85. United States v. Smith et al. Indictment returned March

3, 1921, in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, charging the defendants, all the large wholesale and retail dealers in coal in the City of Washington, with engaging in a conspiracy in restraint of trade, effected among other means, by inducing all persons engaged in the local retail coal trade to become members of The Coal Merchants Board of Trade and then to refrain from competition either by selling to each other's customers or to the customers of defendants or by reducing prices, and by preventing those who refused from obtaining a supply of coal. The case is now awaiting hearing on a plea in abatement.

President Harding's Administration-March 4, 1921.

[HARRY M. DAUGHERTY, Attorney General, March 4, 1921, to ----]

1.

United States v. Kern et al. Petition filed March 8, 1921,

in the District Court, S. D. of New York, against six defendants, dealers in perforated paper music rolls, charging them with engaging, together with other persons, in a conspiracy to restrain and monopolize interstate trade and commerce, principally by fixing retail prices for music rolls. At the same time an uncontested decree was entered prohibiting the practices complained of.

2.

United States v. American Coated Paper Company et al. Petition filed March 14, 1921, in the District Court, S. D. of New York, charging defendants, several manufacturers of white glazed paper, with engaging in a combination and conspiracy to restrain and monopolize interstate trade and commerce, effected by an agreement to fix and observe uniform prices, the use of a common selling agency, and by other means calculated to dominate and control the trade. At the same time an uncontested decree was entered prohibiting the employment of a common selling agency and the other acts complained of.

3.

United States v. American Lithographic Company et al.

Petition filed March 26, 1921, in the District Court, S. D. of New York, charging the defendants, five corporations manufacturing lithographed labels and like articles, with engaging in a combination and conspiracy to restrain and monopolize interstate trade and commerce in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. It was charged that the restraint and monopoly was to be effected principally by an agreement among the defendants to fix and maintain uniform and minimum prices, to adopt uniform sales policies, and by exchang

« PreviousContinue »