Page images

business in accordance with law. If such association fails to comply with the recommendations of the Federal Trade Commission, said commission shall refer its findings and recommendations to the Attorney General of the United States for such action thereon as he may deem proper.

For the purpose of enforcing these provisions the Federal Trade Commission shall have all the powers, so far as applicable, given it in “An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes.

Approved, April 10, 1918.

[ocr errors]


Enforcement of antitrust laws: For the enforcement of antitrust laws, including not exceeding $10,000 for clerical services and not exceeding $40,000 for compensation of attorneys at the seat of government, $100,000, together with the unexpended balance of the appropriation for this purpose for the fiscal year 1921: Provided, however, That no part of this money shall be spent in the prosecution of any organization or individual for entering into any combination or agreement having in view the increasing of wages, shortening of hours, or bettering the conditions of labor, or for any act done in futherance thereof not in itself unlawful: Provided further, That no part of this appropriation shall be expended for the prosecution of producers of farm products and associations of farmers who cooperate and organize in an effort to and for the purpose to obtain and maintain a. fair and reasonable price for their products. [Sundry Civil Appropriation Act, 1921. Public, No. 389, March 4, 1921.]



President Harrison's Admininstration, March 4, 1889, to March 4, 1893.

(WILLIAM H. MILLER, Attorney General, March 5, 1889, to March 6, 1893.)


United States v. Jellico Mountain Coal Company. Peti

tion filed, October 13, 1890, in the Circuit Court at Nashville, Tenn., against the members of the “Nashville Coal Exchange" composed of various coal-mining companies operating mines in Kentucky and Tennessee and of persons and firms dealing in coal in Nashville, formed for the alleged purpose of fixing prices and regulating the output of coal. In an opinion handed down on June 4, 1891, the court held the combination to be in violation of the antitrust law and enjoined the further carrying out of the agreement. A decree to that effect was entered June 17, 1891.,


United States v. Greenhut et al. Indictment returned May 16, 1892, in the District Court at Boston, Massachusetts, against the officers of the Distilling and Cattle Feeding Co. (Whisky Trust) for alleged monopolization of the manufacture and sale of distilled spirits.

Indictment held insufficient in law and ordered quashed. 2a. In re Corning. 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 dis-

charged. 2b. In re Terrell. Application to Circuit Court, S. D. New

York, June 28, 1892, for a writ of habeas corpus to secure a discharge from arrest and detention upon a warrant for removal from New York to Massachusetts to answer to the indictment found in the Greenhut case. Petitioner discharged.


2c. In re Greene. Petition to Circuit Court, S. D. of 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. 3. United States v. Nelson. Indictment returned January 20,

1892, in the District Court, District of Minnesota, charging a number of lumber dealers with conspiring to raise

the price of lumber. Demurrer to indictment sustained. 4. United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association.

Petition filed January 6, 1892, in the Circuit Court, District of Kansas, to enjoin the operations of a combination of railroads engaged in interstate commerce, formed for the alleged 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. Final decree

entered June 7, 1897. 5. United States v. Workingmen's Amalgamated Council of

New Orleans et al. Petition filed March 25, 1893, in the Circuit Court, E. D. of Louisiana, to restrain defendants, a combination of workmen, draymen, etc., from interfering with the movement of merchandise in interstate and foreign commerce through the city of New Orleans. An injunction was granted on March 27, 1893, and the

decree was later affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 6. United States v. Patterson et al. Indictments returned Feb

ruary 28 and June 7, 1893, in the Circuit Court, District of Massachusetts, charging the defendants with entering into a combination for the alleged purpose of controlling the price of cash registers. Letter of Attorney General dated October 16, 1893, shows case was allowed to lapse because of reconciliation of complaining witness with defendants.

7. United States v. E. C. Knight Company. Petition filed

January 30, 1894, in the Circuit Court, E. D. of Pennsylvania, to enjoin the operations of an alleged Sugar Trust. The petition was dismissed January 30, 1894. On appeal the decree of dismissal was affirmed by both the Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

President Cleveland's Second Administration, March 4, 1893, to March 4,


(RICHARD OLNEY, Attorney General, March 6, 1893, to June 7, 1895; JUDSON HARMON,

Attorney General, June 8, 1895, to March 5, 1897.] 1. United States v. Eugene V. Debs et al. Petition filed

July 3, 1894, in the Circuit Court, 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 force until September 19, 1898, when the case was dismissed at the instance of the

Government. la. United States v. Agler. Information filed July 12, 1894,

in the Circuit Court, District of Indiana, charging contempt of court in disobeying an injunction restraining Agler and others from interfering with interstate commerce and obstructing the mails. Agler was a member of the American Railway Union, the members of which had been enjoined from interfering with the carrying of the mails and from obstructing interstate commerce.

Information quashed. 2. United States v. Elliott. Petitions filed July 6 and October

24, 1894, in the Circuit Court, E. D. of Missouri, to restrain Elliott, Debs, and others, members of the American Railway Union, from carrying out an unlawful conspiracy to interfere 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

temporary injunction made permanent. 3. United States v. Debs et al. Petition filed July 2, 1894,

in the Circuit Court, N. D. of Illinois, alleging conspiracy to obstruct the mails and to interfere with inter


« PreviousContinue »