36.

37.

38.

39.

formation of an association and agreement among its members as to certain trade, credit, and discount practices; circulation of "unpaid account lists," upon which appeared the names of debtors considered undesirable credit customers, and exaction of penalties from members of the association who sold to dealers on this list except for cash. Case is awaiting trial.

United States v. Richard Hudnut, Inc. Petition filed November 8, 1922, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging defendant has engaged in a combination and conspiracy to maintain fixed prices on its products (toilet articles) and has used means of coercion to compel dealers to sell only at such prices, thereby violating the Sherman Act. Case awaiting trial.

United States v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern R. R. Co. et al. (See No. 30, p. 88 supra.) Supplemental petition filed in the Southern District of Ohio, November 21, 1922, seeking release from the lien of the Hocking Valley general mortgage of the lands of the Buckeye Coal & Railroad Co., and also the termination of sinking-fund charge on said lands of 2 cents a ton on all coal mined therefrom. Hearing was had on June 8, 1923, and decision is awaited.

United States v. A. L. Harvel et al. Indictment returned December 13, 1922, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisana, charging defendants with entering into a combination or conspiracy in restraint of interstate commerce, in pursuance of which an assault was made upon a roadmaster of the Kansas City Southern Railroad. This indictment resulted from the activities of defendants in connection with the railroad shopmen's strike of 1922. Awaiting trial.

United States v. Gypsum Industries Assn. et al. Petition filed January 3, 1923, in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging a combination and conspiracy in restraint of interstate commerce among defendants, dealers in gypsum products. The

40.

41.

restraint is alleged to have been accomplished through the distribution of statistical data relating to prices, sales, orders, etc. Contemporaneous with the filing of the petition an uncontested decree was entered prohibiting the practices complained of.

United States v. Frank Bastin et al.

Indictment returned

January 5, 1923, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against 66 corporations and 16 individuals. The charges in this indictment are practically the same as the allegations in the petition against the National Association of Window Glass Manufacturers et al. (infra, No. 41). Pending on demurrers and motions to quash. (Awaiting decision of Supreme Court in No. 41, infra.)

United States v. National Association National Association Window Glass Manufacturers et al. Petition filed January 5, 1923, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, praying for a restraining order to prevent the further performance of a so-called wage scale contract. This contract was entered into between manufacturers of hand-blown window glass and representatives of their employees for the purpose of limiting production in such product. It was therein agreed that certain manufacturers should operate only during specified periods, such periods being so regulated that about one half of the glass factories would be operating while the other half were closed. In this manner the output of the product was curtailed and trade in interstate commerce was restrained. Temporary restraining order granted January 5, 1923. It was agreed that the hearing on the application for a preliminary injunction should be a final hearing on the merits. The case was tried in January, 1923, and a decision favorable to the Government was handed down on February 2, 1923. A final decree granting the relief prayed for was entered April 19, 1923, whereupon defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, where the case was argued on November 23, 1923. Decree of the District Court reversed by the Supreme Court on December 10, 1923.

42.

43.

44.

United States v. Tom Hency et al. Indictment re-returned January 16, 1923, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleging an unlawful combination and conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce by injuring and disabling locomotives through the introduction into the boilers of such locomotives of quicksilver and other injurious chemicals and materials. Demurrer to the indictment sustained by the District Court February 9, 1923. This case grew out of the shopmen's strike.

United States v. Kryptok Co. et al.

Petition filed January 22, 1923, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. It is alleged that defendants restrained interstate commerce by means of price-fixing agreements; trade practices concerning discounts; issuing lists of jobbers and retailers to whom their product (fused bifocal lenses) should be sold, etc. Case is awaiting trial.

United States v. Maple Flooring Manufacturers Association et al. Petition filed March 5, 1923, in the District. court of the United States for the Western District of Michigan, alleging that the 22 manufacturers who are members of the defendant association and 24 individuals are engaged in a combination and conspiracy in restraint of interstate trade and commerce in maple, beech, and birch flooring. The defendant association has as members practically all of the manufacturers of such flooring in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, and New York, representing about 70 per cent of the total manufacturing capacity in the United States. The petition charges that the defendants agree upon and establish uniform minimum prices, uniform terms of sale, uniform regulations regarding the allowance of cash discounts, and uniform commissions; that they use a common trade-mark and uniform grading rules; that they calculate the freight in making delivered prices from a freight basing point and agree upon and maintain uniform delivered prices; and that they also operate

45.

46.

under a so-called "open-price" reporting plan or " open competition" plan. Alternative motion to dismiss the petition and to strike out various portions thereof filed by the defendants argued June 25, 1923, and denied in all respects. Trial of case commenced on November 26, 1923. Awaiting decision.

United States v. New York Coffee & Sugar Exchange, Incorporated et al. Petition filed April 19, 1923, in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, charging that the exchange, its officers and members and their clients or principals, by means of purported purchases and sales of raw sugar on the exchange, sought to establish, and did establish, artificial and unwarranted prices not governed by the law of supply and demand but based wholly on speculative transactions not contemplating delivery of the quantities of sugar represented. A certificate of expedition having been filed, the application for a preliminary injunction came up for hearing before the circuit judges for the Second Circuit on April 30, 1923. Upon the denial of the application for a preliminary injunction it was stipulated that the case go to final hearing on the petition, answers, and affidavits which had been submitted; whereupon the petition was dismissed. The Government immediately appealed the case to the Supreme Court, filed a motion to advance on May 21, 1923, and the appeal was argued on November 16, 1923. Awaiting decision.

United States v. Western Pine Manufacturers Association et al. Petition filed April 30, 1923, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that the members of the defendant association and individuals representing them are engaged in a combination and conspiracy to restrain the interstate trade and commerce in lumber manufactured from Idaho white pine, western white pine, and other woods. The petition alleges that this has been accomplished through the preparation and use of basic price lists, the establishment and maintenance in various ways of

47.

uniform and noncompetitive prices and of uniform manufacturing and trade practices, and through the maintenance of an 'open price exchange" or "open competition plan," with voluminous and detailed reports as the prices, orders, production, and stocks on hand of the lumber sold by the defendants. Dismissed as to two individual defendants and one corporate defendant on October 29, 1923. Case to be tried as to remaining defendants in January, 1924.

United States v. Industrial Association of San Francisco et al. Petition filed May 26, 1923, in the Northern District of California, charging the defendant association and other associations, corporations, and indivduals, with engaging in a combination to restrain interstate trade and commerce in various building materials. The petition alleged that the restraint was effected by numerous agreements, among which were refusing to sell or permit others to sell said building materials to any persons unless they agreed to employ a foreman and at least 50 per cent of the laborers on buildings which they desired to erect who were not in any way affiliated with any labor union; collusively bidding for the furnishing of said building materials; determining arbitrarily the persons who shall engage in the furnishing of building materials and in the construction of buildings or parts thereof; agreeing among themselves that no persons or corporations, except members of the builders' exchange or the industrial association, shall engage in the business of erecting buildings or parts thereof or of supplying building materials therefor, and intimidating and preventing others from engaging as competitors in said business; distributing black lists containing the names of those who have refused to join in said conspiracy and become members of said associations, and of those who fail to abide by their by-laws, rules, and regulations; discriminating against laborers engaged in building operations because they were affiliated with a labor union. The petition alleged that the said building materials are shipped from other States and foreign countries to California