Page images
PDF
EPUB

gaged in a combination and conspiracy in restraint of interstate trade and commerce in Portland cement. The end is alleged to have been accomplished by“gentlemen's agreements,” restriction of production, interchange of statistics, withholding cement from the

market, uniform cost accounting systems, etc. 14. United States v. Mid West Cement Credit & Statistical

Bureau et al. Petition filed in October, 1921, in the District Court, N. D. of Illinois, charging defendants with combining and conspiring to restrain interstate trade and commerce in Portland cement by means of “gentlemen's agreements," interchange of trade statistics, withholding of cement from the market, uniform systems of accounting, etc. The apparent chief characteristics of the association is to enable each member to know what his competitors are doing, but it is alleged that in fact the association is not open and there is no

competition. 15. United States v. Johnston Brokerage Co. et al. Indictment

returned November 28, 1921, in United States District Court, S. D. of New York, presenting that the defendants, manufacturers and sellers of approximately twothirds of all the hand-blown window glass used in the construction of dwellings, hotels, office buildings, etc., in the United States, were combining and conspiring to enhance prices and suppress competition. The end is alleged to have been accomplished by constituting the Johnston Brokerage Co., a sole selling agency for all of the defendants, and that in such capacity the Johnston Co. arbitrarily fixed and dictated prices and apportioned sales. It is further alleged that through the aid and cooperation of one Neenan and the labor organization of which he was executive certain "wage scales" were devised, by means of which production was curtailed. Demurrer sustained, February, 1922. (See No.

23, infra, p. 136.) 16. United States v. The Central Foundry Co. et al. Indict

ment returned in the Southern District of New York,

[ocr errors]

December 28, 1921, presenting that defendants, all members of the Eastern Soil Pipe Manufacturers' Association, through the instrumentality of the “open-price plan” were combining and conspiring to restrain interstate trade in cast-iron soil pipes and fittings. It is further charged that arbitrary and excessive price schedules are maintained and that. the practices complained of have resulted in the elimination of practically all

competition. 17. United States v. Cement Securities Co. et al. Petition filed

in United States District Court, District of Colorado, in January, 1922. It is alleged that through acquisition of the majority stock of several cement manufacturing companies the Cement Securities Co. was enabled to eliminate competitors, monopolize the cement business in the Rocky Mountain States, and through these prac

tices enhance prices and stand off new competition. 18. United States v. Tile Manufacturers Credit Association et

al. Petition filed January 10, 1922, in the S. D. of Ohio, charging defendants with combining and conspiring to restrain the manufacture of encaustic tile, its transportation in interstate and foreign commerce, and its sale in the United States and Canada. The members of this association manufacture approximately 80 per cent of the commodity; the principal function of the association is to fix and maintain the prices at which the products of its members are sold, and it also furnishes to its members information concerning the credit of

purchasers of tile. 19. United States v. National Enameling & Stamping Company

et al. Petition filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the defendants, members of an unincorporated association operating along the lines of the “Open-price plan,” had combined and conspired to monopolize and restrain interstate trade and commerce in galvanized ware, such as pails, tubs, and other like articles. The end was alleged to have been attained through uniform price lists, uniform terms of sale, uniform freight allowances,

and special discounts. Meetings were held from time to time at which various illegal practices were advocated and indulged in. Contemporaneous with the filing of the petition a decree was entered restraining the acts

complained of. 20. United States v. Bricklayers'; Masons' & Plasterers' International Union of America et al. Petition filed February 28, 1922, in the Southern District of New York, charging the defendant association, comprising more

than 100,000 members, its executive officers, and representatives of numerous local unions with combining and conspiring to restrain interstate trade and commerce in marble, cut stone, brick, and other commodities used in the construction of buildings. The petition alleged that the restraint was effected by numerous agreements with national and local employers' associations and by divers arbitrary working rules and illegal practices of the international and local unions. These agreements granted exclusive rights and unlawful preferences to members of the employers' associations, with repsect to engaging the services of members of defendant union, illegally and arbitrarily dictated the conditions under which the material should be fabricated and installed by members of the union, and enforced boycotts and blacklists against owners, builders, and general contractors. The working rules prescribed limitations and substantial curtailment of the amount of work to be done within a stated period of time. The illegal practices included blacklisting, secondary boycotts, and unlawful threats to strike. Contemporaneously with the filing of the petition a consent decree was entered against the international union, the executive officers of the international union, and all the representatives of the local

unions except Nos. 4, 34, and 37, New York. 21. United States v. United Gas Improvement Company et al.

Indictment returned March 6, 1922, in the United States District Court, S. D. of New York. Three corporate and eight individual defendants are named, and it is charged that they conspired to restrain and

monopolize interstate trade and commerce in manufacturing, selling, furnishing, and maintaining incandescent lamps, together with fixtures and appliances appurtenant thereto. The end is alleged to have been attained through defendants having secured control of a number of valuable patents and excluded others from the use of those 'patents; by their having acquired and combined competing companies; and by their having instituted tortuous litigation against competitors, thereby so intimidating them as to prevent

their continuing in the industry. 22. United States v. Lehigh Portland Cement Company et al.

Indictment returned March 9, 1922, in the District Court, N. D. of Illinois, charging 26 corporations and 48 individuals with combining and conspiring to restrain interstate commerce in Portland cement. Among other things, the defendants organized and maintained the Mid-West Cement Credit and Statistical Bureau, through which they exchanged minute and compre

hensive details with respect to their businesses. 23. United States v. American Window Glass Company,

Johnston Brokerage Company et al. Indictment returned March 17, 1922, United States District Court, Southern District of New York, presenting that the defendant manufacturers and sellers of approximately 80 per cent of all the window glass used in the construction of dwellings, hotels, office buildings, etc., in the United States were combining and conspiring to curtail production and enhance prices and suppress competition, the American Window Glass Company maintaining its own selling agency, and the Johnston Brokerage Company acting as selling agent for all the other defendant manufacturers, by an interchange of price information arbitrarily fixed and dictated prices and apportioned sales. The combination and conspiracy is further alleged to have been accomplished through agreements entered into between the manufacturers with the aid and cooperation of three union labor leaders, Neenan, Zellers, and Andorfer, and the labor organizations of which they were presidents, whereby certain wage scales were devised, through the aid of which production was curtailed. (This indict

ment supersedes No. 14, supra, p. 133.) 24. United States v. Wickwire Spencer Steel Corporation et al.

Petition filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, March 20, 1922. It is alleged that the defendants combined and conspired to restrain and monopolize interstate trade and commerce in flour sifters, dish covers, kitchen utensils, etc. An association was conducted along the lines of the Eddy plan. It is also charged that the defendants had a pooling arrangement as to patents and agreements as to uniform freight allowances. Coincident with the filing of the petition a consent decree was entered prohibiting the acts complained of and directing that the association be dis

solved. 25. United States v. American Terra Cotta & Ceramic Com

pany et al. Indictment filed March 27, 1922, in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, presenting that seven corporations and seven individuals had conspired and combined for the purpose of restraining and monopolizing interstate rade and commerce in terra cotta. It is alleged that defendants, with others, formed the National Terra Cotta Society; that such society divided the United States into sections, for trade purposes, with certain “open” territory; that the different members of the Society were designated to deal in one division and prohibited from doing business with persons in other sections. The Corporations all entered into agreements along the line of the “Eddy Plan," submitting reports regarding prices, trade conditions, etc., which were redistributed in summarized form, thereby furnishing each member with full information as to the other members' business.

« PreviousContinue »