« PreviousContinue »
80. United States v. Terminal Railroad Association of St.
Louis et al. Petition filed March 4, 1913, in the District Court, E. D. of Missouri, alleging a conspiracy on the part of the members of the St. Louis Coal Traffic Bureau to suppress and eliminate competition in various rates for the transportation of soft coal from the State of Illinois to the city of St. Louis, Missouri. The rates established having been upheld by the Interstate Commerce Commission, the case was dismissed without prejudice on September 20, 1915.
President Wilson's Administration, March 4, 1913, to March 4, 1921 (JAMES C. McREYNOLDS, Attorney General, March 4, 1913, to September 2, 1914; THOMAS WATT GREGORY, Attorney General, September 3, 1914, to March 4, 1919; A. MITCHELL PALMER, March 5, 1919, to March 4, 1921.) 1. United States v. The New Departure Manufacturing Com
pany et al. Petition filed May 27, 1913, in the District Court, W. D. of New York, alleging that defendants entered into a conspiracy and combination and devised a license agreement for the purpose of restraining and monopolizing the manufacture and sale of bicycle and motorcycle parts and coaster brakes. An agreed decree
was entered at Rochester on May 27, 1913. 2. United States v. White et al. Indictment returned June
7, 1913, in the District Court, S. D. of West Virginia, against 19 members of the United Mine Workers of America, alleging a conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce in coal mined in West Virginia. Nolle
prosequi entered on June 20, 1914. 3. United States v. Eastman Kodak Company et al. Peti
tion filed June 9, 1913, in the District Court of Buffalo, W. D. of New York, alleging that defendants have acquired a monopoly of the business of manufacturing, selling, and distributing photographic supplies. A decision favorable to the Government was handed down on August 24, 1915, and a final decree in conformity therewith was entered on January 20, 1916. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. Appeal dismissed by Kodak Co. January 31, 1921. Decree of dissolution and injunction entered by District Court February 1,
1921. 4. United States v. The Quaker Oats Company et al. Peti
tion filed June 11, 1913, in the District Court at Chicago, N. D. of Illinois, alleging a combination to restrain and monopolize interstate trade and commerce in oatmeal products and by-products. Argued before the circuit judges in March, 1916, and decided adversely to the Government. An appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed upon motion of the Government June 1, 1920.
United States v. Hippen et al. Indictment returned June
25, 1913, in the District Court, W. D. of Oklahoma, against The Oklahoma Brokerage Company and two other corporations and the officers thereof, alleging a conspiracy to restrain and monopolize interstate trade and commerce in fruits and vegetables. Demurrer sugtained October 1, 1913.
United States v. Thompson et al. Indictment returned
July 1, 1913, in the District Court, S. D. of New York, alleging that the defendants conspired to run a corner in cotton on the New York Cotton Exchange. Defendants entered pleas of nolo contendere in December, 1913, and fines aggregating $18,000 were assessed.
United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Com
pany et al. Petition filed July 24, 1913, in the District Court at Portland, Oregon, seeking to destroy a monopoly of the telephone business on the Pacific Coast. After the introduction of part of the testimony in chief on behalf of the Government, the defendants agreed to meet the demands of the Government, and a decree sustaining the petition was entered on March 26, 1914.
United States v. Reading Company et al. (Anthracite coal
combination). Petition filed September 2, 1913, in the District Court at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, against a combination consisting of Reading Company and affiliated corporations, charging it with restraining and monopolizing trade in anthracite coal.
The decision of the District Court was favorable to the Government in substantial part, i. e., it was held that the union through a holding company of the Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co. and the Lehigh & WilkesBarre Coal Co., two of the great anthracite coal-producing companies, is a combination in restraint of trade. In some important respects, however, the decision was adverse to the Government. Cross appeals were taken to the Supreme Court. The case was argued during the October term, 1916, and restored to the docket for reargument. It was reargued during the October term, 1917, and again reargued in October, 1919. A decision is now awaited. In an opinion rendered April 26, 1920, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the District Court and granted virtually the full relief prayed for by the Government. A motion by defendants to modify the decree directed to be entered by the Supreme Court was denied June 7, 1920. Final decree entered June 6, 1921. An appeal from this decree was taken to the Supreme Court by a committee representing the common stockholders of Reading Co. This appeal was argued on Jan. 18, 1922, and has been restored to the
docket for reargument on April 10, 1922. 9. United States v. The National Wholesale Jewelers' Associa
tion et al. Petition filed November 18, 1913, in the District Court, S. D. of New York, charging defendants with conspiring to eliminate all competition-except as between wholesalers or jobbers—for the trade of all classes of retail dealers in jewelry and jewelry products. The case was not contested, and on January 30, 1914, a decree was entered enjoining the defendants from further
carrying out the conspiracy. 10. United States v. American Can Company et al. Petition
filed November 29, 1913, in the District Court, D. of Maryland, charging defendants with having monopolized the manufacture and sale of tin cans. In July, 1916, the District Court entered a decree adjudging the defendant a combination in restraint of trade. The only relief granted, however, was the retention of the bill, i. e., keeping the combination under the supervision of the court. Considering that inadequate, the Government appealed to the Supreme Court. Because of similarity of this case with that of the case against United States Steel Corp. (supra, p. 81), the Government dismissed its appeal on June 6, 1921.
11. United States v. John P. White et al. Indictment returned
December 1, 1913, in the District Court, D. of Colorado, charging officials and members of the United Mine Workers of America with monopolizing all diggers of coal and mine laborers and with restraining interstate commerce in coal. Nolle prosequi entered January
8, 1916. 12. United States v. Frank J. Hayes et al. Indictment returned
December 1, 1913, in the District Court, D. of Colorado, charging a combination and conspiracy, by mine workers to interfere with the mining of coal in Colorado and its transportation to and sale in other States. Nolle pros
equi entered January 8, 1916. 13. United States v. Southern Pacific Company, Central Pacific
Railway Company et al. Petition filed February 11, 1914, in the District Court at Salt Lake City, Utah, to compel the Southern Pacific to relinquish its control of the Central Pacific. A decision adverse to the Government having been rendered, an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court where the case was argued April 20, 1921,
and set for reargument March 13, 1922. 14. United States v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company et al.
Petition filed March 18, 1914, in the District Court, S. D. of New York, charging the defendants with having monopolized the production, transportation, and sale of anthracite coal from mines tributary to Lehigh Valley Railroad Company in violation of the Anti-Trust Act, and charging the said railroad company with transporting in interstate commerce coal in which it has an interest in violation of the Commodity Clause of the Act to Regulate Commerce. Argued in November, 1914. Petition dismissed December 21, 1914, principally on the authority of the case of United States v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company et al., decided by the Circuit Judges for the third circuit. However, the latter case has since been reversed by the Supreme Court. The Lehigh Valley Case was argued