ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY OF ILUNOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPA1GN PRODUCTION NOTE University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign library Brittle Books Project, 2014.COPYRIGHT NOTIFICATION In Public Domain. Published 1923-1977 in the U.S. without printed copyright notice. This digital copy was made from the printed version held by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. It was made in compliance with copyright law. Prepared for the Brittle Books Project, Main Library, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign by Northern Micrographics Brookhaven Bindery La Crosse, Wisconsin 2014The FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAWS With Summary of Cases Instituted by the United States and Lists of Cases Decided Thereunder i ■% ]93£ RSIrv o# iiijivsis JANUARY 1938 The FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAWS With Summary of Cases Instituted by the United States and Lists of Cases Decided Thereunder UBftAftY OF THE "NIVERSITY OF iLLINn-. THE UB-RARY OF THE MAR 141938 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS JANUARY 1938UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON I 1938 For »ale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. G. Price 40 centsS rr> i)OC J 1 . a. : An S/5 / 3S CONTENTS Antitrust Laws and Laws relating thereto: Page Sherman Antitrust Act__________________________________________________________________________________1 Clayton Act________________________________________________________________4 Robinson-Patman Act____________________________________________________________________________________31 % Federal Trade Commission Act____________________________________________________________________34 Antitrust Provisions of Wilson Tariff Act__________________________________________________46 Antidumping Provisions of Revenue Act of 1916____________________________________48 Unfair Practices in the Import Trade Provisions of Tariff Act of 1930-.-__________________________________________________________________________________________________50 Webb Export Trade Act________________________________________________________________________________50' Shipping Act, 1916____________________________________________________________________55 Marine Insurance Association Act______________________________________________________________58 Capper-Volstead Act______________________________________________________________________________________58 Cooperative Marketing Act__________________________________________________________________________61 Fisheries Cooperative Marketing Act__________________________________________________________62 Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937________________________________________65 Provisions of Agricultural Adjustment Act Relating to Anti-Hog- Cholera Serum and Hog-Cholera Virus____________________________________67 Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921______________________________________________________________68 Interstate Commerce Act______________________________________________________________________________69 Emergency Railroad Transportation Act of 1933____________________________________70 Motor Carrier Act, 1935________________________________________________________________________________71 Bituminous Coal Act of 1937_________________________________________________71 Communications Act, 1934____________________________________________________________________________7& Federal Power Act__________________________________________________________________________________________74 Panama Canal Act________________________________________________________________________________________75 Judicial Code Provisions________________________________________________________________________________76 Expediting Act.......................................................76 Immunity Provision of 1903________________________________________________________________________78 -tl Act Defining Right of Immunity________________________________________________________________79 Publicity in Taking Evidence Act______________________________________________________________80 ^ Summary of Cases Instituted by the United States Under the Antitrust Laws. 81 ^ Index to Cases Instituted by the United States Under the Antitrust Laws- 271 Index to Cases Instituted by the United States Under the Antitrust Laws ^ by Subject Matter and Commodities Involved____________________________________________279 — Index to All Cases Decided under the Antitrust Laws__________________________________297 (in) 10086 i 0SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT1 26stat.209; 50 Stat. —; Sec. 1. Every contract, combination in the §5iu:_s;c A- form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in re- straint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby de- clared to be illegal: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall render illegal, contracts or agreements prescribing minimum prices for the resale of a commodity which bears, or the label or container of which bears, the trade mark, brand, or name of the producer or dis- tributor of such commodity and which is in free and open competition with commodities of the same general class produced or dis- tributed by others, when contracts or agree- ments of that description are lawful as applied to intrastate transactions, under any statute, law, or public policy now or hereafter in effect in any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia in which such resale is to be made, or to which the commodity is to be transported for such resale, and the making of such contracts or agreements shall not be an unfair method of competition under section 5, as amended and supplemented, of the Act entitled "An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes", approved September 26, 1914: Provided fur- ther, That the preceding proviso shall not make lawful any contract or agreement, providing for the establishment or maintenance of mini- *Act of July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209, 51st Cong., 1st Sess. (S. 2, Public 190), as amended by Act of Aug. 17, 1987, c. 690, 60 Stat. —, 75th Cong., 1st Sess. (H. R. 7472, Public S14). (1)2 12. mum resale prices on any commodity herein involved, between manufacturers, or between producers, or between wholesalers, or between brokers, or between factors, or between re- tailers, or between persons, firms, or corpora- tions in competition with each other. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby de- clared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $5,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. is u!as.' c?I: Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or con- spire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign na- tions, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. ?bu!s:c?a.: Sec. 3. Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any Territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade or commerce between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory or Territories and any State or States or the District of Columbia, or with for- eign nations, or between the District of Colum- bia and any State or States or foreign nations, is hereby declared illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed is.guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punish- ments, in the discretion of the court. Sec. 4. The several district2 courts of the ibu^s-'ca! United States are hereby invested with juris- ,4' diction to prevent and restrain violations of this act; and it shall be the duty of the several dis- trict attorneys of the United States, in their re- spective districts, under the direction of the At- torney-General, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petition setting forth the case and praying that such violation shall be enjoined or otherwise prohib- ited. "When the parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such petition the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing and determi- [210] 8 nation of the case; 26Stat-210- and pending such petition and before final de- cree, the court may at any time make such tem- porary restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed just in the premises. Sec. 5. Whenever it shall appear to the court liu'slcil before which any proceeding under section four 1 of this act may be pending, that the ends of jus- tice require that other parties should be brought before the court, the court may cause them to be summoned, whether they reside in the district in which the court is held or not; and subpoenas to that end may be served in any district by the marshal thereof. J This section as enacted gave "circuit" courts the jurisdiction specified, but the Act of Mar. 3, 1911 (36 Stat 1087) abolished the circuit courts and conferred their powers upon the district courts. Of. § 24 (23) of the Judicial Code, mfra page 76. • Bracketed numbers in text refer to Statutes at Large.4 itutas:ca:. Sec. 6. Any property owned under any con- 5 6' tract or by any combination, or pursuant to any conspiracy (and being the subject thereof) mentioned in section one of this act, and being in the course of transportation from one State to another, or to a foreign country, shall be for- feited to the United States, and may be seized and condemned by like proceedings as those provided by law for the forfeiture, seizure, and condemnation of property imported into the United States contrary to law. (CfStia5'210: Sec. 7. Any person who shall be injured in ?il'an'dAnote). his business or property by any other person or corporation by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful by this act, may sue therefor in any district4 court of the United States in the district in which the defendant re- sides or is found, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the costs of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. ifv.%:ai: Sec. 8. The word "person," or "persons," wherever used in this act, shall be deemed to in- clude corporations and associations existing un- der or authorized by the laws of either the United States, the laws of any of the Terri- tories, the laws of any State, or the laws of any foreign country. { 7. S 12. CLAYTON ACT • i|u!s:c3a: Sec. 1. "Antitrust laws," as used herein, in- cludes the Act entitled "An Act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and 4 See supra page 3, note 2. 5 Act of Oct. 15, 1914, c. 323, 38 Stat. 730, 63d Cong., 2d Sess. (H. R. 15657, Public 212), as amended by Act of May 15, 1916, c. 120, 39 Stat. 121, 64th Cong., 1st Sess. (S. 4432, Public 75); Act of Aug. 31, 1916, c. 427, 39 Stat. 674, 64th Cong., 1st Sess. (S. J. Res. 129, Public Res. 33) ; Act of Sept. 7, 1916, c. 461, 395 monopolies," approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety; sections seventy-three to seventy-seven, inclusive, of an Act entitled "An Act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Government, and for other purposes," of August twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-four; an Act entitled "An Act to amend sections seventy-three and seventy-six of the Act of August twenty-seventh, eighteen hun- dred and ninety-four, entitled 'An Act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Govern- ment, and for other purposes,' " approved Feb- ruary twelfth, nineteen hundred and thirteen; and also this Act. "Commerce," as used herein, means trade or commerce among the several States and with foreign nations, or between the District of Co- lumbia or any Territory of the United States and any State, Territory, or foreign nation, or between any insular possessions or other places under the jurisdiction of the United States, or between any such possession or place and any State or Territory of the United States or the District of Columbia or any foreign nation, or Stat. 752, 64th Cong., 1st Sess. (H. R. 13391, Public 270) ; Act of Mar. 4, 1917, c. 190, 39 Stat. 1201, 64th Cong., 2d Sess. (S. J. Res. 206, Public Res. 55) ; Act of Jan. 12, 1918, c. 8, 40 Stat. 431, 65th Cong., 2d Sess. (S. J. Res. 106, Public Res. 20) ; Act of Dec. 24, 1919, c. 18, 41 Stat 378, 66th Cong., 2d Sess. (S. 2472, Public 106); Act of February 28, 1920, c. 91, 41 Stat. 456, 66th Cong., 2d Sess. (H. R. 10453, Public 152) ; Act of May 26, 1920, c. 206, 41 Stat. 626, 66th Cong., 2d Sess. (H. R. 13138, Public 225) ; Act of Aug. 15, 1921, c. 64, 42 Stat. 159, 67th Cong., 1st Sess. (H. R. 6320, Public 51); Act of Mar. 9, 1928, c. 165, 45 Stat. 253, 70th Cong., 1st Sess. (H. R 6491, Public 120); Act of Mar. 2,1929, c. 581, 45 Stat. 1536, 70th Cong., 2d Sess. (S. 4039, Public 1007) ; Act of June 16,1933, c. 89, 48 Stat. 162, 73d Cong., 1st Sess. (H. R. 5661, Public 66) ; Act of June 19, 1934, c. 652, 48 Stat. 1064, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. (S. 3285, Public 416) ; Act of Aug. 23, 1935, c. 614, 49 Stat. 684, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. (H. R. 7617, Public 305) and Act of June 19, 1936, c. 592, 49 Stat. 1526, 74th Cong., 2d Sess. (H. R. 8442, Public 692).6 within the District of Columbia or any Terri- tory or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States: Provided, That nothing in this Act contained shall apply to the Philippine Islands. The word "person" or "persons" wherever used in this Act shall be deemed to include cor- porations and associations existing under or au- thorized by the laws of either the United States, the laws of any of the Territories, the laws of any State, or the laws of any foreign country. 49 Itat. i52(i; Sec. 2. (a) It shall be unlawful for any per- »i3U('aS) A' son engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to dis- criminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce, where such commodities are sold for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Terri- tory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jur- isdiction of the United States, and where the effect of such discrimination may be substan- tially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any per- son who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with custom- ers of either of them: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall prevent differentials which make only due allowance for differences in the cost of manufacture, sale, or delivery re- sulting from the differing methods or quanti- ties in which such commodities are to such pur- chasers sold or delivered: Provided, however, That the Federal Trade Commission may, after7 due investigation and hearing to all interested parties, fix and establish quantity limits, and revise the same as it finds necessary, as to par- ticular commodities or classes of commodities, where it finds that available purchasers in greater quantities are so few as to render differ- entials on account thereof unjustly discrimin- atory or promotive of monopoly in any line of commerce; and the foregoing shall then not be construed to permit differentials based on dif- ferences in quantities greater than those so fixed and established: And provided further, That nothing herein contained shall prevent persons engaged in selling goods, wares, or merchandise in commerce from selecting their own customers in bona fide transactions and not in restraint of trade: And provided further, That nothing herein contained shall prevent price changes from time to time where in response to chang- ing conditions affecting the market for or the marketability of the goods concerned, such as but not limited to actual or imminent deteriora- tion of perishable goods, obsolescence of sea- sonal goods, distress sales under court process, or sales in good faith in discontinuance of busi- ness in the goods concerned. (b) Upon proof being made, at any hearing JB2e: on a complaint under this section, that there has 118 (b)" been discrimination in price or services or fa- cilities furnished, the burden of rebutting the prima-facie case thus made by showing justifi- cation shall be upon the person charged with a violation of this section, and unless justification shall be affirmatively shown, the Commission is authorized to issue an order terminating the discrimination: Provided, however, That noth- ing herein contained shall prevent a seller re- butting the prima-facie case thus made by show-8 ing that his lower price or the furnishing of services or facilities to any purchaser or pur- chasers was made in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor, or the services or facilities furnished by a competitor. 15 |!as." cfl!: [1527] (c) It shall be unlawful for any per- *13 (c)' son engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to pay or grant, or to receive or ac- cept, anything of value as a commission, broker- age, or other compensation, or any allowance or discount in lieu thereof, except for services ren- dered in connection with the sale or purchase of goods, wares, or merchandise, either to the other party to such transaction or to an agent, representative, or other intermediary therein where such intermediary is acting in fact for or in behalf, or is subject to the direct or indirect control, of any party to such transaction other than the person by whom such compensation is so granted or paid. 113'(!')?'A' (d) It shall be unlawful for any person en- gaged in commerce to pay or contract for the payment of anything of value to or for the bene- fit of a customer of such person in the course of such commerce as compensation or in consider- ation for any services or facilities furnished by or through such customer in connection with the processing, handling, sale, or offering for sale of any products or commodities manufac- tured, sold, or offered for sale by such person, unless such payment or consideration is avail- able on proportionally equal terms to all other customers competing in the distribution of such products or commodities. ii3(e).C A' (e) It shall be unlawful for any person to discriminate in favor of one purchaser against another purchaser or purchasers of a commod- ity bought for resale, with or without process-9 ing, by contracting to furnish or furnishing, or by contributing to the furnishing of, any services or facilities connected with the proc- essing, handling, sale, or offering for sale of such commodity so purchased upon terms not accorded to all purchasers on proportionally equal terms. (f) That it shall be unlawful for any person §5i3'<(>c A- engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, knowingly to induce or receive a dis- crimination in price which is prohibited by this section. Sec. 3. It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such com- 1 u- merce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery,, supplies or other commodities, whether pat- ented or unpatented, for use, consumption or resale within the United States or any Terri- tory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jur- isdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies or other com- modities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement or understanding may be to sub- stantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce. Sec. 4. Any person who shall be injured in ii otas.' c?if his business or property by reason of anything 115' forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue there- for in any district court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides10 or is found or lias an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attor- ney's fee. Seo. 5. A final judgment or decree hereafter rendered in any criminal prosecution or in any suit or proceeding in equity brought by or on behalf of the United States under the antitrust laws to the effect that a defendant has violated said laws shall be prima facie evidence against such defendant in any suit or proceeding brought by any other party against such defend- ant under said laws as to all matters respecting which said judgment or decree would be an es- toppel as between the parties thereto: Provided, This section shall not apply to consent judg- ments or decrees entered before any testimony has been taken: Provided further* This section shall not apply to consent judgments or decrees rendered in criminal proceedings or suits in equity, now pending, in which the taking of testimony has been commenced but has not been concluded, provided such judgments or decrees are rendered before any further testimony is taken. Whenever any suit or proceeding in equity or criminal prosecution is instituted by the United States to prevent, restrain or punish violations of any of the antitrust laws, the run- ning of the statute of limitations in respect of each and every private right of action arising under said laws and based in whole or in part on any matter complained of in said suit or pro- ceeding shall be suspended during the pendency thereof. e This proviso omitted from the Code as temporary legislation.11 Sec. 6. The labor of a human being is not a ?§ vtai'. cii commodity or article of commerce. Nothing! contained in the antitrust laws shall be con- strued to forbid the existence and operation of labor, agricultural, or horticultural organiza- tions, instituted for the purposes of mutual help, and not haying capital stock or conducted for profit, or to forbid or restrain individual members of such organizations from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof; nor shall such organizations, or the members there- of, be held or construed to be illegal combina- tions or conspiracies in restraint of trade, un- der the antitrust laws. Sec. 7.7 No corporation engaged in commerce "Iu^oa! shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or 818, any part of the stock or other share capital of another corporation engaged also in commerce, where the effect of such acquisition may be to substantially lessen competition [732] between s8stat.T82. the corporation whose stock is so acquired and the corporation making the acquisition, or to restrain such commerce in any section or com- munity, or tend to create a monopoly of any line of commerce. No corporation shall acquire, directly or indi- rectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital of two or more corporations engaged in commerce where the effect of such acquisition, or the use of such stock by the vot- ing or granting of proxies or otherwise, may be to substantially lessen competition between such corporations, or any of them, whose stock or other share capital is so acquired, or to restrain such commerce in any section or community, or tend to create a monopoly of any line of com- merce. 7 Restricted by § 3 of the Webb Export Trade Act, infra page 50.12 This section shall not apply to corporations purchasing such stock solely for investment and not using the same by voting or otherwise to bring about, or in attempting to bring about, the substantial lessening of competition. Nor shall anything contained in this section prevent a corporation engaged in commerce from caus- ing the formation of subsidiary corporations for the actual carrying on of their immediate lawful business, or the natural and legitimate branches or extensions thereof, or from owning and holding all or a part of the stock of such subsidiary corporations, when the effect of such formation is not to substantially lessen com- petition. Nor shall anything herein contained be con- strued to prohibit any common carrier subject to the laws to regulate commerce from aiding in the construction of branches or short lines so located as to become feeders to the main line of the company so aiding in such construction or from acquiring or owning all or any part of the stock of such branch lines, nor to prevent any such common carrier from acquiring and own- ing all or any part of the stock of a branch or short line constructed by an independent com- pany where there is no substantial competition between the company owning the branch line so constructed and the company owning the main line acquiring the property or an interest therein, nor to prevent such common carrier from extending any of its lines through the me- dium of the acquisition of stock or otherwise of any other such common carrier where there is no substantial competition between the com- pany extending its lines and the company whose stock, property, or an interest therein is so acquired.13 Nothing contained in this section shall be held to affect or impair any right heretofore legally acquired: Provided, That nothing in this sec- tion shall be held or construed to authorize or make lawful anything heretofore prohibited or made illegal by the antitrust laws, nor to ex- empt any person from the penal provisions thereof or the civil remedies therein provided. Sec. 8. No private banker or director, officer, or employee of any member bank of the Federal 41 jltSt Ul! Reserve System or any branch thereof shall be |tat! 1536; at the same time a director, officer, or employee l5^-s-c A- of any other bank, banking association, savings bank, or trust company organized under the National Bank Act or organized under the laws of any State or of the District of Columbia, or any branch thereof, except that the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may by regulation permit such service as a director, officer, or employee of not more than one other such institution or branch thereof; but the fore- going prohibition shall not apply in the case of any one or more of the following or any branch thereof: (1) A bank, banking association, savings bank, or trust company, more than 90 per cen- tum of the stock of which is owned directly or indirectly by the United States or by any cor- poration of which the United States directly or indirectly owns more than 90 per centum of the stock. (2) A bank, banking association, savings bank, or trust company which has been placed formally in liquidation or which is in the hands of a receiver, conservator, or other official ex- ercising similar functions. (3) A corporation, principally engaged in international or foreign banking or banking in 9878—38-214 a dependency or insular possession of the United States which has entered into an agree- ment with the Board of Governors of the Fed- eral Reserve System pursuant to section 25 of the Federal Reserve Act. (4) A bank, banking association, savings bank, or trust company, more than 50 per centum of the common stock of which is owned directly or indirectly by persons who own di- rectly or indirectly more than 50 per centum of the common stock of such member bank. (5) A bank, banking association, savings bank, or trust company not located and having no branch in the same city, town, or village as that in which such member bank or any branch thereof is located, or in any city, town, or vil- lage contiguous or adjacent thereto. (6) A bank, banking association, savings bank, or trust company not engaged in a class or classes of business in which such member bank is engaged. (7) A mutual savings bank having no capital stock. Until February 1, 1939, nothing in this sec- tion shall prohibit any director, officer, or em- ployee of any member bank of the Federal Re- serve System, or any branch thereof, who is lawfully serving at the same time as a private banker or as a director, officer, or employee of any other bank, banking association, savings bank, or trust company, or any branch thereof, on the date of enactment of the Banking Act of 1935, from continuing such service. stat. 7i8; The Board of Governors of the Federal 15 U. S. C. A. ,19- Reserve System is authorized and directed to enforce compliance with this section, and to prescribe such rules and regulations as it deems necessary for that purpose.15 From and after two years from the date of 38 stat-73S- the approval of Act8 no person at the same time shall be a director in any two or more cor- porations, any one of which has capital, sur- plus, and undivided profits aggregating more than $1,000,000, engaged in whole or in part in commerce, other than banks, banking associa- tions, trust companies and common carriers subject to the Act to regulate commerce, ap- proved February fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, if such corporations are or shall have been theretofore, by virtue of their busi- ness and location of operation, competitors, so that the elimination of competition by agree- ment between them would constitute a violation of any of the provisions of any of the antitrust laws. The eligibility of a director under the foregoing provision shall be determined by the aggregate amount of the capital, surplus, and undivided profits, exclusive of dividends de- clared but not paid to stockholders, at the end of the fiscal year of said corporation next pre- ceding the election of directors, and when a di- rector has been elected in accordance with the provisions of this Act it shall be lawful for him to continue as such for one year thereafter. When any person elected or chosen as a di- rector or officer or selected as an employee of ,19- any bank or other corporation subject to the provisions of this Act is eligible at the time of his election or selection to act for such bank or other corporation in such capacity his eligibil- ity to act in such capacity shall not be affected and he shall not become or be deemed amenable to any of the provisions hereof by reason of any change in the affairs of such bank or other "The preceding words of this paragraph have been omitted from the Code as temporary legislation.16 corporation from whatsoever cause, whether specifically excepted by any of the provisions hereof or not, until the expiration of one year from the date of his election or employment, is iLas.' c. a! Sec. 9. Every president, director, officer or manager of any firm, association or corpora- tion engaged in commerce as a common carrier, who embezzles, steals, abstracts or willfully mis- applies, or willfully permits to be misapplied, any of the moneys, funds, credits, securities, property or assets of such firm, association or corporation, arising or accruing from, or used in, such commerce, in whole or in part, or will- fully or knowingly converts the same to his own use or to the use of another, shall be deemed guilty of a felony and upon conviction shall be fined not less than $500 or confined in the peni- tentiary not less than one year nor more than ten years, or both, in the discretion of the court. Prosecutions hereunder may be in the district court of the United States for the district wherein the offense may have been committed. 38 stat. 734. [734] Nothing in this section shall be held to take away or impair the jurisdiction of the courts of the several States under the laws thereof; and a judgment of conviction or ac- quittal on the merits under the laws of any State shall be a bar to any prosecution hereunder for the same act or acts. 39 stat.' 674I Sec. 10.' After two years from the approval 40 Itlt. : of this Act10 no common carrier engaged in com- 41 Stat. 499. _ 9 The effective date of § 10 was successively postponed by the Acts of Aug. 31,1916 (39 Stat. 674), Mar. 4,1917 (39 Stat. 1201), Jan. 12, 1918 (40 Stat. 431) and Feb. 28, 1920 ( 41 Stat 456, 499). The last extension was to Jan. 1, 1921, with the proviso that the extension "shall not apply in the case of any corporation organ- ized after Jan. 12, 1918." 10 The preceding words in this section have been omitted from the Code as temporary legislation.17 merce shall have any dealings in securities, sup- plies or other articles of commerce, or shall make or have any contracts for construction or maintenance of any kind, to the amount of more than $50,000, in the aggregate, in any one year, with another corporation, firm, partnership or association when the said common carrier shall have upon its board of directors or as its presi- dent, manager or as its purchasing or selling officer, or agent in the particular transaction, any person who is at the same time a director, manager, or purchasing or selling officer of, or who has any substantial interest in, such other corporation, firm, partnership or association, unless and except such purchases shall be made from, or such dealings shall be with, the bidder whose bid is the most favorable to such common carrier, to be ascertained by competitive bid- ding under regulations to be prescribed by rule or otherwise by the Interstate Commerce Com- mission. No bid shall be received unless the name and address of the bidder or the names and addresses of the officers, directors and gen- eral managers thereof, if the bidder be a cor- poration, or of the members, if it be a partner- ship or firm, be given with the bid. Any person who shall, directly or indirectly, do or attempt to do anything to prevent anyone from bidding or shall do any act to prevent free and fair competition among the bidders or those desiring to bid shall be punished as prescribed in this section in the case of an officer or director. Every such common carrier having any such transactions or making any such purchases shall within thirty days after making the same file with the Interstate Commerce Commission a full and detailed statement of the transaction18 showing the manner of the competitive bidding, who were the bidders, and the names and ad- dresses of the directors and officers of the cor- porations and the members of the firm or part- nership bidding; and whenever the said com- mission shall, after investigation or hearing, have reason to believe that the law has been violated in and about the said purchases or transactions it shall transmit all papers and documents and its own views or findings re- garding the transaction to the Attorney General. If any common carrier shall violate this sec- tion it shall be fined not exceeding $25,000; and every such director, agent, manager or officer thereof who shall have knowingly voted for or directed the act constituting such violation or who shall have aided or abetted in such viola- tion shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not exceeding $5,000, or con- fined in jail not exceeding one year, or both, in the discretion of the court. 42 stat! lit - _ Sec. 11. Authority to enforce compliance ilutes.'c!a.' with sections 2, 3, 7, and 8 of this Act by the persons respectively subject thereto is hereby vested: In the Interstate Commerce Commis- sion where applicable to common carriers sub- ject to the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended; in the Federal Communications Com- mission where applicable to common carriers engaged in wire or radio communication or radio transmission of energy; in the Federal Eeserve Board where applicable to banks, banking associations, and trust companies; and in the Federal Trade Commission where ap- plicable to all other character of commerce, to be exercised as follows:19 Whenever the commission or board vested llu^s-'cl: | 21, with jurisdiction thereof shall have reason to believe that stny person is violating or has vio- lated any of the provisions of sections two, three, seven and eight of this Act, it shall issue and serve upon such person a complaint stating its charges in that respect, and containing a notice of a hearing upon a day and at a place therein fixed at least thirty days after the service of said complaint. The person so complained of shall have the right [735] to appear at the place 38 stat. 735. and time so fixed and show cause why an order should not be entered by the commission or board requiring such person to cease and desist from the violation of the law so charged in said complaint. Any person may make application, and upon good cause shown may be allowed by the commission or board, to intervene and ap- pear in said proceeding by counsel or in person. The testimony in any such proceeding shall be reduced to writing and filed in the office of the commission or board. If upon such hearing the commission or board, as the case may be, shall be of the opinion that any of the provi- sions of said sections have been or are being violated, it shall make a report in writing in which it shall state its findings as to the facts, and shall issue and cause to be served on such person an order requiring such person to cease and desist from such violations, and divest it- self of the stock held or rid itself of the di- rectors chosen contrary to the provisions of sections seven and eight of this Act, if any there be, in the manner and within the time fixed by said order. Until a transcript of the record in such hearing shall have been filed in a circuit court of appeals of the United States, as here- inafter provided, the commission or board may20 at any time, upon such notice and in such man- ner as it shall deem proper, modify or set aside, in whole or in part, any report or any order made or issued by it under this section. iluas.'c3l: If such person fails or neglects to obey such order of the commission or board while the same is in effect, the commission or board may apply to the circuit court of appeals of the United States, within any circuit where the vio- lation complained of was or is being committed or where such person resides or carries on busi- ness, for the enforcement of its order, and shall certify and file with its application a transcript of the entire record in the proceeding, including all the testimony taken and the report and order of the commission or board. Upon such filing of the application and transcript the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon such per- son and thereupon shall have jurisdiction of the proceeding and of the question determined therein, and shall have power to make and enter upon the pleadings, testimony, and proceedings set forth in such transcript a decree affirming, modifying, or setting aside the order of the commission or board. The findings of the com- mission or board as to the facts, if supported by testimony, shall be conclusive. If either party shall apply to the court for leave to ad- duce additional evidence, and shall show to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence is material and that there were rea- sonable grounds for the failure to adduce such evidence in the proceeding before the commis- sion or board, the court may order such addi- tional evidence to be taken before the commis- sion or board and to be adduced upon the hear- ing in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as to the court may seem proper.21 The commission or board may modify its find- ings as to the facts, or make new findings, by reason of the additional evidence so taken, and it shall file such modified or new findings, which, if supported by testimony, shall be conclusive, and its recommendation, if any, for the modi- fication or setting aside of its original order, with the return of such additional evidence. The judgment and decree of the court shall be final, except that the same shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court upon certiorari as provided in section two hundred and forty of the Judicial Code. Any party required by such order of the com- mission or board to cease and desist from a vio- lation charged may obtain a review of such order in said circuit court of appeals by filing in the court a written petition praying that the order of the commission or board be set aside. A copy of such petition shall be forthwith served upon the commission or board, and thereupon the commission or board forth-[736] 38 stat. 736, with shall certify and file in the court a tran- script of the record as hereinbefore provided. Upon the filing of the transcript the court shall have the same jurisdiction to affirm, set aside, or modify the order of the commission or board as in the case of an application by the commis- sion or board for the enforcement of its order, and the findings of the commission or board as to the facts, if supported by testimony, shall in like manner be conclusive. The jurisdiction of the circuit court of ap- peals of the United States to enforce, set aside, or modify orders of the commission or board shall be exclusive. Such proceedings in the circuit court of ap- peals shall be given precedence over other cases22 pending therein, and shall be in every way ex- pedited. No order of the commission or board or the judgment of the court to enforce the same shall in any wise relieve or absolve any person from any liability under the antitrust Acts. Complaints, orders, and other processes of the commission or board under this section may be served by anyone duly authorized by the commission or board, either (a) by delivering a copy thereof to the person to be served, or to a member of the partnership to be served, or to the president, secretary, or other executive officer or a director of the corporation to be served; or (b) by leaving a copy thereof at the principal office or place of business of such per- son; or (c) by registering and mailing a copy thereof addressed to such person at his prin- cipal office or place of business. The verified return by the person so serving said complaint, order, or other process setting forth the man- ner of said service shall be proof of the same, and the return post-office receipt for said com- plaint, order, or other process registered and mailed as aforesaid shall be proof of the service of the same. ilu!s:c?a.: Sec. 12. Any suit, action, or proceeding under 522, the antitrust laws against a corporation may be brought not only in the judicial district whereof it is an inhabitant, but also in any dis- trict wherein it may be found or transacts bus- iness; and all process in such cases may be served in the district of which it is an inhabi- tant, or wherever it may be found. ?! utes: C3i: Sec. 13. In any suit, action, or proceeding brought by or on behalf of the United States subpoenas for witnesses who are required to attend a court of the United States in any judi- cial district in any case, civil or criminal, aris- 5 23.23 ing under the antitrust laws may run into any other district: Provided, That in civil cases no writ of subpoena shall issue for witnesses living out of the district in which the court is held at a greater distance than one hundred miles from the place of holding the same without the per- mission of the trial court being first had upon proper application and cause shown. Sec. 14. Whenever a corporation shall violate if u! si'a if any of the penal provisions of the antitrust S24' laws, such violation shall be deemed to be also that of the individual directors, officers, or agents of such corporation who shall have au- thorized, ordered, or done any of the acts con- stituting in whole or in part such violation, and such violation shall be deemed a misdemeanor, and upon conviction therefor of any such direc- tor, officer, or agent he shall be punished by a fine of not exceeding $5,000 or by imprisonment for not exceeding one year, or by both, in the discretion of the court. Sec. 15. The several district courts of the lfu^'cfi! United States are hereby invested with jurisdic- 5 tion to prevent and restrain violations of this Act, and it shall be the duty of the several dis- trict attorneys of the United States, in their respective districts, under the direction of the Attorney General, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petition setting forth the case and praying that such violation shall be enjoined or otherwise pro- hibited. When the parties com- [737] plained 38stat737. of shall have been duly notified of such petition, the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing and determination of the case; and pending such petition, and before final decree, the court may at any time make such tempo-24 rary restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed just in the premises. Whenever it shall appear to the court before which any such pro- ceeding may be pending that the ends of justice require that other parties should be brought before the court, the court may cause them to be summoned, whether they reside in the district in which the court is held or not, and subpoenas to that end may be served in any district by the marshal thereof. ||stagt. 737: Sec. 16. Any person, firm, corporation, or as- {26- sociation shall be entitled to sue for and have injunctive relief, in any court of the United States having jurisdiction over the parties, against threatened loss or damage by a viola- tion of the antitrust laws, including sections two, three, seven and eight of this Act, when and under the same conditions and principles as in- junctive relief against threatened conduct that will cause loss or damage is granted by courts of equity, under the rules governing such pro- ceedings, and upon the execution of proper bond against damages for an injunction im- providently granted and a showing that the danger of irreparable loss or damage is imme- diate, a preliminary injunction may issue: Pro- vided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to entitle any person, firm, corpora- tion, or association, except the United States, to bring suit in equity for injunctive relief against any common carrier subject to the provisions of the Act to regulate commerce, approved Febru- ary fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven,, in respect of any matter subject to the regula- tion, supervision, or other jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission. IIu!as:ca: Sec. 17. No preliminary injunction shall be issued without notice to the opposite party.25 No temporary restraining order shall be granted without notice to the opposite party unless it shall clearly appear from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified bill that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or dam- age will result to the applicant before notice can be served and a hearing had thereon. Every such temporary restraining order shall be in- dorsed with the date and hour of issuance, shall be forthwith filed in the clerk's office and en- tered of record, shall define the injury and state why it is irreparable and why the order was granted without notice, and shall by its terms expire within such time after entry, not to ex- ceed ten days, as the court or judge may fix, unless within the time so fixed the order is ex- tended for a like period for good cause shown, and the reasons for such extension shall be entered of record. In case a temporary re- straining order shall be granted without notice in the contingency specified, the matter of the issuance of a preliminary injunction shall be set down for a hearing at the earliest possible time and shall take precedence of all matters except older matters of the same character; and when the same comes up for hearing the party obtaining the temporary restraining order shall proceed with the application for a preliminary injunction, and if he does not do so the court shall dissolve the temporary restraining order. Upon two days' notice to the party obtaining such temporary restraining order the opposite party may appear and move the dissolution or modification of the order, and in that event the court or judge shall proceed to hear and deter- mine the motion as expeditiously as the ends of justice may require.26 Section two hundred and sixty-three of an Act entitled "An Act to codify, revise, and amend the laws relating to the judiciary," ap- proved March third, nineteen hundred and eleven, is hereby repealed.11 Nothing in this section contained shall be deemed to alter, repeal, or amend section two hundred and sixty-six of an Act entitled "An 38 stat. 738. [738] Act to codify, revise, and amend the laws relating to the judiciary," approved March third, nineteen hundred and eleven. II v.f. c3!: Sec. 18. Except as otherwise provided in sec- ,382' tion 16 of this Act, no restraining order or in- terlocutory order of injunction shall issue, ex- cept upon the giving of security by the appli- cant in such sum as the court or judge may deem proper, conditioned upon the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who may be found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained thereby. If utes.'c3ii Sec. 19. Every order of injunction or re- |383' straining order shall set forth the reasons for the issuance of the same, shall be specific in terms, and shall describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference to the bill of complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be re- strained, and shall be binding only upon the parties to the suit, their officers, agents, serv- ants, employees, and attorneys, or those in ac- tive concert or participating with them, and who shall, by personal service or otherwise, have received actual notice of the same. as stat 738; Sec. 20. No restraining order or injunction «62- ' ' shall be granted by any court of the United States, or a judge or the judges thereof, in any "The last two paragraphs of § 17 have been omitted from the Code.27 case between an employer and employees, or be- tween employers and employees, or between em- ployees, or between persons employed and per- sons seeking employment, involving, or growing out of, a dispute concerning terms or conditions of employment, unless necessary to prevent ir- reparable injury to property, or to a property right, of the party making the application, for which injury there is no adequate remedy at law, and such property or property right must be described with particularity in the application, which must be in writing and sworn to by the applicant or by his agent or attorney. And no such restraining order or injunction shall prohibit any person or persons, whether singly or in concert, from terminating any re- lation of employment, or from ceasing to per- form any work or labor, or from recommending, advising, or persuading others by peaceful means so to do; or from attending at any place where any such person or persons may lawfully be, for the purpose of peacefully obtaining or communicating information, or from peace- fully persuading any person to work or to abstain from working; or from ceasing to patronize or to employ any party to such dis- pute, or from recommending, advising, or per- suading others by peaceful and lawful means so to do; or from paying or giving to, or withhold- ing from, any person engaged in such dispute, any strike benefits or other moneys or things of value; or from peaceably assembling in a law- ful manner, and for lawful purposes; or from doing any act or thing which might lawfully be done in the absence of such dispute by any party thereto; nor shall any of the acts speci-28 fied in this paragraph be considered or held to be violations of any law of the United States.12 II u!as: cfl: Sec. 21. Any person who shall willfully dis- 8 386' obey any lawful writ, process, order, rule, de- cree, or command of any district court of the United States or any court of the District of Columbia by doing any act or thing therein, or thereby forbidden to be done by him, if the act or thing so done by him be of such character as to constitute also a criminal offense under any statute of the United States, or under the laws of any State in which the act was committed, shall be proceeded against for his said contempt as hereinafter provided. II utas; c?i: Sec. 22. Whenever it shall be made to appear § 387 to any district court or judge thereof, or to any judge therein sitting, by the return of a proper officer on lawful process, or upon the affidavit of some credible person, or by information filed by any district attorney, that there is reason- able ground to believe that any person has been guilty of such contempt, the court or judge thereof, or any judge therein sitting, may issue a rule requiring the said person so charged to as stat. 780. [739] show cause upon a day certain why he should not be punished therefor, which rule, to- gether with a copy of the affidavit or informa- tion, shall be served upon the person charged, with sufficient promptness to enable him to pre- pare for and make return to the order at the time fixed therein. If upon or by such return, in the judgment of the court, the alleged con- tempt be not sufficiently purged, a trial shall be directed at a time and place fixed by the court: Provided, however, That if the accused, being a natural person, fail or refuse to make return to 13 See Act of Mar. 23, 1932, c. 90, 47 Stat. 70, 72d Cong., 1st Sess., 29 U. S. C. A., §§ 101-115.29 the rule to show cause, an attachment may issue against his person to compel an answer, and in case of his continued failure or refusal, or if for any reason it be impracticable to dispose of the matter on the return day, he may be re- quired to give reasonable bail for his attendance at the trial and his submission to the final judg- ment of the court. Where the accused is a body corporate, an attachment for the sequestration of its property may be issued upon like refusal or failure to answer. In all cases within the purview of this Act such trial may be by the court, or, upon demand of the accused, by a jury; in which latter event the court may impanel a jury from the jurors then in attendance, or the court or the judge thereof in chambers may cause a sufficient num- ber of jurors to be selected and summoned, as provided by law, to attend at the time and place of trial, at which time a jury shall be selected and impaneled as upon a trial for misdemeanor; and such trial shall conform, as near as may be, to the practice in criminal cases prosecuted by indictment or upon information. If the accused be found guilty, judgment shall be entered accordingly, prescribing the punish- ment, either by fine or imprisonment, or both, in the discretion of the court. Such fine shall be paid to the United States or to the complain- ant or other party injured by the act constitut- ing the contempt, or may, where more than one is so damaged, be divided or apportioned among them as the court may direct, but in no case shall the fine to be paid to the United States ex- ceed, in case the accused is a natural person, the sum of $1,000, nor shall such imprisonment ex- ceed the term of six months: Provided, That in any case the court or a judge thereof may, for 9878—38 330 i 388. good cause shown, by affidavit or proof taken in open court or before such judge and filed with the papers in the case, dispense with the rule to show cause, and may issue an attachment for the arrest of the person charged with contempt; in which event such person, when arrested, shall be brought before such court or a judge thereof without unnecessary delay and shall be admitted to bail in a reasonable penalty for his appear- ance to answer to the charge or for trial for the contempt; and thereafter the proceedings shall be the same as provided herein in case the rule had issued in the first instance. pu!as.'c?aI Sec. 23. The evidence taken upon the trial of any persons so accused may be preserved by bill of exceptions, and any judgment of conviction may be reviewed upon appeal18 in all respects as now provided by law in criminal cases, and may be affirmed, reversed, or modified as justice may require. Upon the granting of such appeal, execution of judgment shall be stayed, and the accused, if thereby sentenced to imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail in such reasonable sum as may be required by the court, or by any jus- tice, or any judge of any district court of the United States or any court of the District of Columbia. 11 u!s:c3i: Sec. 24. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to relate to contempts committed in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, nor to contempts committed in disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or com- mand entered in any suit or action brought or prosecuted in the name of, or on behalf of, the 13 The word "appeal" has been substituted for the words "writ of error." (§ 1 of an Act of Jan. 31, 1928, c. 14, 45 Stat. 54, abolished writs of error and substituted appeals therefor.) § 389.31 United States, but the [740] same, and all other 38 stat 74& cases of contempt not specifically embraced within section twenty-one of this Act, may be punished in conformity to the usages at law and in equity now prevailing. Sec. 25. No proceeding for contempt shall be II utes.' c4i: instituted against any person unless begun with- in one year from the date of the act complained of; nor shall any such proceeding be a bar to any criminal prosecution for the same act or acts; but nothing herein contained shall affect any proceedings in contempt pending at the time of the passage of this Act." Sec. 26. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, ?! utes.' c a! or part of this Act shall, for any reason, be ad- 5 27' judged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder thereof, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, or part thereof directly in- volved in the controversy in which such judg- ment shall have been rendered. 38 Stat 730; 49 Stat. 1626; ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT15 isu.s.e.A. [Section 1 of this Act amends Section 2 of the Clayton Act and appears under that caption] Sec. 2. Nothing herein contained shall affect !! vta£: c5i7' rights of action arising, or litigation pending, §21a' or orders of the Federal Trade Commission is- sued and in effect or pending on review, based on section 2 of said Act of October 15, 1914, prior to the effective date of this amendatory Act: Provided, That where, prior to the effective 14 The last clause of this section has been omitted from the Code as temporary legislation. "Act of June 19, 1936, c. 592, 49 Stat. 1526, 74th Cong., 2d Sess. (H. R. 8442. Public 692).32 date of this amendatory Act, the Federal Trade Commission has issued an order requiring any person to cease and desist from a violation of section 2 of said Act of October 15, 1914, and such order is pending on review or is in effect, either as issued or as affirmed or modified by a court of competent jurisdiction, and the Com- mission shall have reason to believe that such person has committed, used or carried on, since the effective date of this amendatory Act, or is committing, using or carrying on, any act, prac- tice or method in violation of any of the provi- sions of said section 2 as amended by this Act, it may reopen such original proceeding and may issue and serve upon such person its complaint, supplementary to the original complaint, stat- ing its charges in that respect. Thereupon the same proceedings shall be had upon such sup- plementary complaint as provided in section 11 of said Act of October 15, 1914. If upon such hearing the Commission shall be of the opinion that any act, practice, or method charged in said supplementary complaint has been com- mitted, used, or carried on since the effective date of this amendatory Act, or is being com- mitted, used or carried on, in violation of said section 2 as amended by this Act, it shall make a report in writing in which it shall state its find- ings as to the facts and shall issue and serve upon such person its order modifying or amend- ing [1528] its original order to include any ad- ditional violations of law so found. Thereafter the provisions of section 11 of said Act of Oc- tober 15,1914, as to review and enforcement of orders of the Commission shall in all things apply to such modified or amended order. If upon review as provided in said section 11 the court shall set aside such modified or amended33 order, the original order shall not be affected thereby, but it shall be and remain in force and effect as fully and to the same extent as if such supplementary proceedings had not been taken. Sec. 3. It shall be unlawful for any person 15 utes.'c5i8: engaged in commerce, in the course of such |13a" commerce, to be a party to, or assist in, any transaction of sale, or contract to sell, which discriminates to his knowledge against com- petitors of the purchaser, in that, any discount, rebate, allowance, or advertising service charge is granted to the purchaser over and above any discount, rebate, allowance, or advertising serv- ice charge available at the time of such trans- action to said competitors in respect of a sale of goods of like grade, quality, and quantity; to sell, or contract to sell, goods in any part of the United States at prices lower than those ex- acted by said person elsewhere in the United States for the purpose of destroying competi- tion, or eliminating a competitor in such part of the United States; or, to sell, or contract to sell, goods at unreasonably low prices for the purpose of destroying competition or eliminat- ing a competitor. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. Sec. 4. Nothing in this Act shall prevent a |togt. 1528: cooperative association from returning to its ,13b' members, producers, or consumers the whole, or any part of, the net earnings or surplus result- ing from its trading operations, in proportion to their purchases or sales from, to, or through the association.34 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT18 38 stat. 719; Sec. 4. The words defined in this section shall 15 U. S. C. A. # 144* have the following meaning when found in this Act, to wit: "Commerce" means commerce among the several States or with foreign nations, or in any Territory of the United States or in the Dis- trict of Columbia, or between any such Terri- tory and another, or between any such Terri- tory and any State or foreign nation, or between the District of Columbia and any State or Ter- ritory or foreign nation. "Corporation" means any company or asso- ciation incorporated or unincorporated, which is organized to carry on business for profit and has shares of capital or capital stock, and any company or association, incorporated or unin- corporated, without shares of capital or capital stock, except partnerships, which is organized to carry on business for its own profit or that of its members. "Documentary evidence" means all docu- ments, papers, and correspondence in existence at and after the passage of this Act. "Acts to regulate commerce" means the Act entitled "An Act to regulate commerce," ap- proved February fourteenth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, and all acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto. "Antitrust acts" means the Act entitled "An Act to protect trade and commerce against un- lawful restraints and monopolies," approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety; also W Act of Sept. 26, 1914, c. 311, 38 Stat. 717, 63d Cong., 2d Sess. (H. R. 15613, Public 203). In the case of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Acts which appear hereinafter, those sections not relating directly to the Antitrust Laws have been omitted.35 the sections seventy-three to seventy-seven, in- clusive, of an Act entitled. "An Act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Govern- ment, and for other purposes," approved Au- gust twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-four; and also the Act entitled "An Act to amend sections seventy-three and seventy-six of the Act of August twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-four, entitled 'An Act to re- duce taxation, to provide revenue for the Gov- ernment, and for other purposes,' " approved February twelfth, nineteen hundred and thir- teen. Sec. 5. Unfair methods of competition in II It^tl lei' commerce are hereby declared unlawful. §4?'s'a A' The commission is hereby empowered and di- rected to prevent persons, partnerships, or cor- porations, except banks, and common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, from using unfair methods of competition in com- merce. Whenever the commission shall have reason to believe that any such person, partnership, or corporation has been or is using any unfair method of competition in commerce, and if it shall appear to the commission that a proceed- ing by it in respect thereof would be to the interest of the public, it shall issue and serve upon such person, partnership, or corporation a complaint stating its charges in that respect, and containing a notice of a hearing upon a day and at a place therein fixed at least thirty days after the service of said complaint. The per- son, partnership, or corporation so complained of shall have the right to appear at the place and time so fixed and show cause why an order should not be entered by the commission requir- ing such person, partnership, or corporation to36 cease and desist from the violation of the law so charged in said complaint. Any person, partnership, or corporation may make applica- tion, and upon good cause shown may be al- lowed by the commission, to intervene and ap- pear in said proceeding by counsel or in per- son. The testimony in any such proceeding shall be reduced to writing and filed in the office of the commission. If upon such hearing the 38 stat. 720. commission shall [720] be of the opinion that the method of competition in question is pro- hibited by this Act, it shall make a report in writing in which it shall state its findings as to the facts, and shall issue and cause to be served on such person, partnership, or corporation an order requiring such person, partnership, or corporation to cease and desist from using such method of competition. Until a transcript of the record in such hearing shall have been filed in a circuit court of appeals of the United States, as hereinafter provided, the commission may at any time, upon such notice and in such manner as it shall deem proper, modify or set aside, in whole or in part, any report or any order made or issued by it under this section. If such person, partnership, or corporation fails or neglects to obey such order of the com- mission while the same is in effect, the commis- sion may apply to the circuit court of appeals of the United States, within any circuit where the method of competition in question was used or where such person, partnership, or corpora- tion resides or carries on business, for the en- forcement of its order, and shall certify and file with its application a transcript of the entire record in the proceeding, including all the testi- mony taken and the report and order of the commission. Upon such filing of the applica-37 tion and transcript the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon such person, partner- ship, or corporation and thereupon shall have jurisdiction of the proceeding and of the ques- tion determined therein, and shall have power to make and enter upon the pleadings, testi- mony, and proceedings set forth in such tran- script a decree affirming, modifying, or setting aside the order of the commission. The find- ings of the commission as to the facts, if sup- ported by testimony, shall be conclusive. If either party shall apply to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence, and shall show to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence is material and that there were reason- able grounds for the failure to adduce such evi- dence in the proceeding before the commission, the court may order such additional evidence to be taken before the commission and to be ad- duced upon the hearing in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as to the court may seem proper. The commission may mod- ify its findings as to the facts, or make new find- ings, by reason of the additional evidence so taken, and it shall file such modified or new find- ings, which, if supported by testimony, shall be conclusive, and its recommendation, if any, for the modification or setting aside of its original order, with the return of such additional evi- dence. The judgment and decree of the court shall be final, except that the same shall be sub- ject to review by the Supreme Court upon cer- tiorari as provided in section two hundred and forty of the Judicial Code. Any party required by such order of the com- mission to cease and desist from using such method of competition may obtain a review of such order in said circuit court of appeals by38 filing in the court a written petition praying that the order of the commission be set aside. A copy of snch petition shall be forthwith served upon the commission, and thereupon the commission forthwith shall certify and file in the court a transcript of the record as herein- before provided. Upon the filing of the tran- script the court shall have the same jurisdiction to affirm, set aside, or modify the order of the commission as in the case of an application by the commission for the enforcement of its order, and the findings of the commission as to the facts, if supported by testimony, shall in like manner be conclusive. The jurisdiction of the circuit court of ap- peals of the United States to enforce, set aside, or modify orders of the commission shall be exclusive. Such proceedings in the circuit court of ap- peals shall be given precedence over other cases as st«t. 721. pending therein, and shall be in every [721] way expedited. No order of the commission or judgment of the court to enforce the same shall in any wise relieve or absolve any person, part- nership, or corporation from any liability under the antitrust acts. Complaints, orders, and other processes of the commission under this section may be served by anyone duly authorized by the com- mission, either (a) by delivering a copy thereof to the person to be served, or to a member of the partnership to be served, or to the president, secretary, or other executive officer or a director of the corporation to be served; or (b) by leav- ing a copy thereof at the principal office or place of business of such person, partnership, or corporation; or (c) by registering and mailing a copy thereof addressed to such person, part-39 nership, or corporation at his or its principal office or place of business. The verified return by the person so serving said complaint, order, or other process setting forth the manner of said] service shall be proof of the same, and the return post-office receipt for said complaint, order, or other process registered and mailed as aforesaid shall be proof of the service of the same. Sec. 6. The commission shall also have 38 8tat. ra; power— 5 46- (a) To gather and compile information con- cerning, and to investigate from time to time the organization, business, conduct, practices, and management of any corporation engaged in commerce, excepting banks and common car- riers subject to the Act to regulate commerce, and its relation to other corporations and to individuals, associations, and partnerships. (b) To require, by general or special orders, corporations engaged in commerce, excepting banks, and common carriers subject to the Act to regulate commerce, or any class of them, or any of them, respectively, to file with the com- mission in such form as the commission may prescribe annual or special, or both annual and special, reports or answers in writing to specific questions, furnishing to the commission such information as it may require as to the organi- zation, business, conduct, practices, manage- ment, and relation to other corporations, part- nerships, and individuals of the respective cor- porations filing such reports or answers in writ- ing. Such reports and answers shall be made under oath, or otherwise, as the commission may prescribe, and shall be filed with the com- mission within such reasonable period as the40 commission may prescribe, unless additional time be granted in any case by the commission. (c) Whenever a final decree has been entered against any defendant corporation in any suit brought by the United States to prevent and restrain any violation of the antitrust Acts, to make investigation, upon its own initiative, of the manner in which the decree has been or is being carried out, and upon the application of the Attorney General it shall be its duty to make such investigation. It shall transmit to the Attorney General a report embodying its findings and recommendations as a result of any such investigation, and the report shall be made public in the discretion of the commission. (d) Upon the direction of the President or either House of Congress to investigate and re- port the facts relating to any alleged violations of the antitrust Acts by any corporation. (e) Upon the application of the Attorney General to investigate and make recommenda- tions for the readjustment of the business of any corporation alleged to be violating the anti- trust Acts in order that the corporation may thereafter maintain its organization, manage- ment, and conduct of business in accordance with law. (f) To make public from time to time such portions of the information obtained by it here- under, except trade secrets and names of cus- tomers, as it shall deem expedient in the public interest; and to make annual and special reports 38 stat. 722. to the Congress and to submit therewith [722] recommendations for additional legislation; and to provide for the publication of its reports and decisions in such form and manner as may be best adapted for public information and use.41 (g) From time to time to classify corpora- tions and to make rules and regulations for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act. (h) To investigate, from time to time, trade conditions in and with foreign countries where associations, combinations, or practices of manufacturers, merchants, or traders, or other conditions, may affect the foreign trade of the United States, and to report to Congress there- on, with such recommendations as it deems advisable.17 Sec. 7. In any suit in equity brought by or u! H: c2l: under the direction of the Attorney General as 5 47' provided in the antitrust Acts, the court may, upon the conclusion of the testimony therein, if it shall be then of opinion that the complainant is entitled to relief, refer said suit to the com- mission, as a master in chancery, to ascertain and report an appropriate form of decree therein. The commission shall proceed upon such notice to the parties and under such rules of procedure as the court may prescribe, and upon the coming in of such report such excep- tions may be filed and such proceedings had in relation thereto as upon the report of a master in other equity causes, but the court may adopt or reject such report, in whole or in part, and enter such decree as the nature of the case may in its judgment require. Sec. 8. The several departments and bureaus ss stat. 722; of the Government when directed by the Presi- § 48- dent shall furnish the commission, upon its re- 17 An Act of June 16, 1933, c. 101, 48 Stat. 283, 291, 73d Cong., 1st Sess. (H. R. 5389, Public 78) provides in § 1: Hereafter no new investigations shall be initiated by the Commission as a result of a legislative resolution, except the same be a concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Con- gress. [15 U. S. C. A. § 46a.]42 quest, all records, papers, and information in their possession relating to any corporation subject to any of tlie provisions of this Act, and shall detail from time to time such officials and employees to the commission as he may direct. Sec. 9. For the purposes of this Act the com- mission, or its duly authorized agent or agents, shall at all reasonable times have access to, for the purpose of examination, and the right to copy any documentary evidence of any corpora- tion being investigated or proceeded against; and the commission shall have power to require by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of all such docu- mentary evidence relating to any matter under investigation. Any member of the commission may sign subpoenas, and members and exam- iners of the commission may administer oaths and affirmations, examine witnesses, and receive evidence. Such attendance of witnesses, and the pro- duction of such documentary evidence, may be required from any place in the United States, at any designated place of hearing. And in case, of disobedience to a subpoena the commission may invoke the aid of any court of the United States in requiring the attendance and testi- mony of witnesses and the production of docu- mentary evidence. Any of the district courts of the United States within the jurisdiction of which such in- quiry is carried on may, in case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpoena issued to any cor- poration or other person, issue an order requir- ing such corporation or other person to appear before the commission, or to produce docu- mentary evidence if so ordered, or to give evi- dence touching the matter in question; and any43 failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by such court as a contempt thereof. Upon the application of the Attorney Gen- eral of the United States, at the request of the commission, the district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus commanding any person or corpora- tion to comply with the provisions of this Act or any order of the commission made in pursuance thereof. The commission may order testimony to be taken by deposition in any proceeding or in- vestigation pending under this Act at any [723] 38 stat. 723. stage of such proceeding or investigation. Such depositions may be taken before any person designated by the commission and having power to administer oaths. Such testimony shall be reduced to writing by the person taking the dep- osition, or under his direction, and shall then be subscribed by the deponent. Any person may be compelled to appear and depose and to produce documentary evidence in the same manner as witnesses may be compelled to ap- pear and testify and produce documentary evi- dence before the commission as hereinbefore provided. Witnesses summoned before the commission shall be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid witnesses in the courts of the United States, and witnesses whose depositions are taken and the persons taking the same shall severally be entitled to the same fees as are paid for like services in the courts of the United States.18 No person shall be excused from attending and testifying or from producing documentary It ci— 00 tt ci a 00 /?rvrv or\K44 evidence before the commission or in obedience to the subpoena of the commission on the ground or for the reason that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him may tend to criminate19 him or subject him to a pen- alty or forfeiture. But no natural person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he may tes- tify, or produce evidence, documentary or other- wise, before the commission in obedience to a subpoena issued by it: Provided, That no nat- ural person so testifying shall be exempt from prosecution and punishment for perjury com- mitted in so testifying. Sec. 10. Any person who shall neglect or re- fuse to attend and testify, or to answer any law- ful inquiry, or to produce documentary evidence, if in his power to do so, in obedience to the sub- poena or lawful requirement of the commission, shall be guilty of an offense and upon conviction thereof by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be punished by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000, or by imprison- ment for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Any person who shall willfully make, or cause to be made, any false entry or statement of fact in any report required to be made under this Act, or who shall willfully make, or cause to be made, any false entry in any account, rec- ord, or memorandum kept by any corporation subject to this Act, or who shall willfully neg- lect or fail to make, or to cause to be made, full, true, and correct entries in such accounts, rec- "15 U. S. O. A. § 49 (1934 ed.) carries this word as "in- criminate" but the Statutes at Large and the parchment at the State Department give "criminate."45 ords, or memoranda of all facts and transac- tions appertaining to the business of such cor- poration, or who shall willfully remove out of the jurisdiction of the United States, or will- fully mutilate, alter, or by any other means falsify any documentary evidence of such cor- poration, or who shall willfully refuse to submit to the commission or to any of its authorized agents, for the purpose of inspection and taking copies, any documentary evidence of such cor- poration in his possession or within his control, shall be deemed guilty of an offense against the United States, and shall be subject, upon con- viction in any court of the United States of competent jurisdiction, to a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000, or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both such fine and imprisonment. If any corporation required by this Act to file any annual or special report shall fail so to do within the time fixed by the commission for fil- ing the same, and such failure shall continue for thirty days after notice of such default, the cor- poration shall forfeit to the United States the sum of $100 for each and every day of the con- tinuance of such failure, which forfeiture shall be payable into the Treasury of the United States, and shall be recoverable in a civil suit in the name of the United States brought in the district where the corporation has its principal office or in any district in which it shall do busi- ness. It [724] shall be the duty of the various 38 stat. 724. district attorneys, under the direction of the At- torney General of the United States, to prose- cute for the recovery of forfeitures. The costs and expenses of such prosecution shall be paid out of the appropriation for the expenses of the courts of the United States. 9878—38-446 Any officer or employee of the commission who shall make public any information ob- tained by the commission without its authority, unless directed by a court, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceed- ing $5,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. Sec. 11. Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to prevent or interfere with the en- forcement of the provisions of the antitrust Acts or the Acts to regulate commerce, nor shall anything contained in the Act be construed to alter, modify, or repeal the said antitrust Acts or the Acts to regulate commerce or any part or parts thereof. ANTITRUST PROVISIONS OF WILSON TARIFF ACT20 §? Itat! 66? j Sec. 73. Every combination, conspiracy, i5gu. s. c. a. trus^ agreement, or contract is hereby declared to be contrary to public policy, illegal, and void when the same is made by or between two or more persons or corporations either of whom, as agent or principal, is engaged in importing any article from any foreign country into the United States, and when such combination, con- spiracy, trust, agreement, or contract is in- tended to operate in restraint of lawful trade, or free competition in lawful trade or com- merce, or to increase the market price in any part of the United States of any article or ar- ticles imported or intended to be imported into the United States, or of any manufacture into which such imported article enters or is in- 30 Act of Aug. 27, 1894, c. 349, 28 Stat. 509, 53d Cong., 2d sess., (H. R. 4864, Public 227), as amended by Act of Feb. 12, 1913, c. 40, 37 Stat. 667, 62d Cong., 3d Sess. (H. R. 25002, Public 370).47 tended to enter. Every person who is or shall hereafter be engaged in the importation of goods or any commodity from any foreign coun- try in violation of this section of this Act, or who shall combine or conspire with another to violate the same, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof in any court of the United States such person shall be fined in a sum not less than one hundred dollars and not exceeding five thousand dollars, and shall be further punished by imprisonment, in the dis- cretion of the court, for a term not less than three months nor exceeding twelve months. Sec. 74. The several district21 courts of the ff United States are hereby invested with juris- S9> diction! to prevent and restrain violations of section seventy-three of this Act; and it shall be the duty of the several district attorneys of the United States, in their respective districts, under the direction of the Attorney-General, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petitions setting forth the case and praying that such violations shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such petition the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing and determination of the case; and pending such petition and before final decree, the court may at any time make such temporary restraining order or prohibi- tion as shall be deemed just in the premises. Sec. 75. Whenever it shall appear to the |8 stat 570; court before which any proceeding under the 810- seventy-fourth section of this Act may be pend- 21 This section as enacted gave "circuit" courts the jurisdiction specified, but the Act of Mar. 3, 1911 (36 Stat. 1087), abolished the circuit courts and conferred their powers upon the district courts. Cf. § 24 of the Judicial Code, infra page 76.48 ing, that the ends of justice require that other parties should be brought before the court, the court may cause them to be summoned, whether they reside in the district in which the court is held or not; and subpoenas to that end may be served in any district by the marshal thereof. If Itet el? j Sec. 76. Any property owned under any con- s li.' ' ' ' tract or by any combination, or pursuant to any conspiracy, and being the subject [668] thereof, mentioned in section seventy-three of this Act, imported into and being within the United States or being in the course of transportation from one State to another, or to or from a Ter- ritory or the District of Columbia, shall be for- feited to the United States, and may be seized and condemned by like proceedings as those provided by law for the forfeiture, seizure, and condemnation of property imported into the United States contrary to law. Sec. 77. Any person who shall be injured in §i5 and note). his business or property by any other person or corporation by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful by this Act may sue therefor in any district court22 of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover three- fold the damages by him sustained, and the costs of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. 28 Stat. 570 (Cf. 15 ANTIDUMPING PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE ACT OE 191623 if e 1' Sec. 800. When used in this title the term §71' "person" includes partnerships, corporations, and associations. 22 See supra page 47, note 21. 23 Act of Sept. 8, 1916, c. 463, 39 Stat. 756, 64th Cong., 1st sess. (H. R. 16763, Public 271).49 Sec. 801. It shall be unlawful for any person il utas. c9i:. importing or assisting in importing any articles 8 72' from any foreign country into the United States, commonly and systematically to import, sell or cause to be imported or sold such articles within the United States at a price substan- tially less than the actual market value or wholesale price of such articles, at the time of exportation to the United States, in the prin- cipal markets of the country of their produc- tion, or of other foreign countries to which they are commonly exported, after adding to such market value or wholesale price, freight, duty, and other charges and expenses necessarily in- cident to the importation and sale thereof in the United States: Provided, That such act or acts be done with the intent of destroying or injuring an industry in the United States, or of preventing the establishment of an industry in the United States, or of restraining or mo- nopolizing any part of trade and commerce in such articles in the United States. Any person who violates or combines or con- spires with any other person to violate this sec- tion is guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on convic- tion thereof, shall be punished by a fine not ex- ceeding $5,000, or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both, in the discretion of the court. Any person injured in his business or prop- erty by reason of any violation of, or combina- tion or conspiracy to violate, this section, may sue therefor in the district court of the United States for the district in which the defendant resides or is. found or has an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages sustained, and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable at- torney's fee.50 [799] The foregoing provisions shall not be construed to deprive the proper State courts of jurisdiction in actions for damages thereunder. UNFAIR PRACTICES IN IMPORT TRADE PROVISIONS OF TARIFF ACT OF 1930 ** 19 c0H Sec. 337. (a) Unfair methods of competition 5 1337' and unfair acts in the importation of articles into the United States, or in their sale by the owner, importer, consignee, or agent of either, the effect or tendency of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry, efficiently and economically operated, in the United States, or to prevent the establishment of such an indus- try, or to restrain or monopolize trade and com- merce in the United States, are hereby declared unlawful, and when found by the President to exist shall be dealt with, in addition to any other provisions of law, as hereinafter pro- vided.26 WEBB EXPORT TRADE ACT 26 isutas.'ca.; Sec. 1. The words "export trade" wherever '61' used in this Act mean solely trade or commerce in goods, wares, or merchandise exported, or in the course of being exported from the United States or any Territory thereof to any foreign nation; but the words "export trade" shall not "Act of June 17, 1930, c. 497, 46 Stat. 590, 71st Cong., 2d Sess. (H. K. 2667, Public 361). 25 The following paragraphs authorize the United States Tariff Commission to investigate violations, conduct hearings, and make findings which are to be transmitted to the President who is directed to exclude the articles concerned from entry into the United States whenever the existence of any such unfair method or act is established to his satisfaction. 28 Act of Apr. 10, 1918, c. 50, 40 Stat. 516, 65th Cong., 2d Sess. (H. R 2316, Public 126).51 be deemed to include the production, manufac- ture, or selling for consumption or for resale, within the United States or any Territory thereof, of [517] such goods, wares, or merchan- 40 stat-517- dise, or any act in the course of such production, manufacture, or selling for consumption or for resale. The words "trade within the United States" wherever used in this Act mean trade or com- merce among the several States or in any Ter- ritory of the United States, or in the District of Columbia, or between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory or Ter- ritories and any State or States or the District of Columbia, or between the District of Colum- bia and any State or States. The word "association" wherever used in this Act means any corporation or combination, by contract or otherwise, of two or more persons, partnerships, or corporations. Sec. 2. Nothing contained in the Act entitled stat 517; "An Act to protect trade and commerce against § 62- unlawful restraints and monopolies,'' approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety, shall be construed as declaring to be illegal an asso- ciation entered into for the sole purpose of engaging in export trade and actually engaged solely in such export trade, or an agreement made or act done in the course of export trade by such association, provided such association, agreement, or act is not in restraint of trade within the United States, and is not in restraint of the export trade of any domestic competitor of such association: And provided further, That such association does not, either in the United States or elsewhere, enter into any agreement, understanding, or conspiracy, or do any act§ on. 52 which artificially or intentionally enhances or depresses prices within the United States of commodities of the class exported by such asso- ciation, or which substantially lessens competi- tion within the United States or otherwise restrains trade therein. isu.s.'c1!: Sec. 3. Nothing contained in section seven of the Act entitled " An Act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monop- olies, and for other purposes," approved Oc- tober fifteenth, nineteen hundred and fourteen, shall be construed to forbid the acquisition or ownership by any corporation of the whole or any part of the stock or other capital of any corporation organized solely for the purpose of engaging in export trade, and actually engaged solely in such export trade, unless the effect of such acquisition or ownership may be to re- strain trade or substantially lessen competition within the United States. 15c1!: Sec. 4. The prohibition against "unfair methods of competition" and the remedies pro- vided for enforcing said prohibition contained in the Act entitled "An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes," approved Sep- tember twenty-sixth, nineteen hundred and fourteen, shall be construed as extending to un- fair methods of competition used in export trade against competitors engaged in export trade, even though the acts constituting such unfair methods are done without the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Sec. 5. Every association now engaged solely in export trade, within sixty days after the pas- sage of this Act, and27 every association entered 27 The preceding words have been omitted from the Code as temporary legislation. § 64. 40 Stat. 517 ; 15 u. s. c. a. § 65.53 into hereafter which engages solely in export trade, within thirty days after its creation, shall file with the Federal Trade Commission a veri- fied written statement setting forth the location of its offices or places of business and the names and addresses of all its officers and of all its stockholders or members, and if a cor- poration, a copy of its certificate or articles of incorporation and by-laws, and if unincor- porated, a copy of its articles or contract of as- sociation, and on the first day of January of each year thereafter it shall make a like state- ment of the location of its offices or places of business and the names and addresses of all its officers and of all its stockholders or members and of all amendments to and changes in its articles or certificate of incorporation or in its articles or contract of association. It shall also furnish to the com- [518] mission such infor- 40 stat- 51';- mation as the commission may require as to its organization, business, conduct, practices, man- agement, and relation to other associations, cor- porations, partnerships, and individuals. Any association which shall fail so to do shall not have the benefit of the provisions of section two and section three of this Act, and it shall also forfeit to the United States the sum of $100 for each and every day of the continuance of such failure, which forfeiture shall be payable into the Treasury of the United States, and shall be recoverable in a civil suit in the name of the United States brought in the district where the association has its principal office, or in any dis- trict in which it shall do business. It shall be the duty of the various district attorneys, under the direction of the Attorney G-eneral of the United States, to prosecute for the recovery of the forfeiture. The costs and expenses of such54 prosecution shall be paid out of the appropria- tion for the expenses of the courts of the United States. Whenever the Federal Trade Commission shall have reason to believe that an association or any agreement made or act done by such as- sociation is in restraint of trade within the United States or in restraint of the export trade of any domestic competitor of such association, or that an association either in the United States or elsewhere has entered into any agree- ment, understanding, or conspiracy, or done any act which artificially or intentionally en- hances or depresses prices within the United States of commodities of the class exported by such association, or which substantially lessens competition within the United States or other- wise restrains trade therein, it shall summon such association, its officers, and agents to ap- pear before it, and thereafter conduct an inves- tigation into t£e alleged violations of law. Upon investigation, if it shall conclude that the law has been violated, it may make to such associa- tion recommendations for the readjustment of its business, in order that it may thereafter maintain its organization and management and conduct its business in accordance with law. If such association fails to comply with the recom- mendations 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."55 SHIPPING ACT, 191628 Sec. 1. When used in this Act: 46 The term'' common carrier by water in foreign § 801' commerce" means a common carrier, except ferryboats running on regular routes, engaged in the transportation by water of passengers or property between the United States or any of its Districts, Territories, or possessions and a foreign country, whether in the import or ex- port trade: Provided, That a cargo boat com- monly called an ocean tramp shall not be deemed such ''common carrier by water in for- eign commerce." The term "common carrier by water in inter- state commerce" means a common carrier en- gaged in the transportation by water of pas- sengers or property on the high seas or the Great Lakes on regular routes from port to port between one State, Territory, District, or pos- session of the United States and any other State, Territory, District, or possession of the United States, or between places in the same Territory, District, or possession. The term "common carrier by water" means a common carrier by water in foreign commerce or a common carrier by water in interstate com- merce on the high seas or the Great Lakes on regular routes from port to port. The term "other person subject to this Act" means any person not included in the term "common carrier by water," carrying on the business of forwarding or furnishing wharfage, dock, warehouse, or other terminal facilities in connection with a common carrier by water. ***** 28 Act of Sept. 7, 1916, c. 451, 39 Stat. 728, 64th Cong., 1st Sess. (H. R. 15455, Public 260), as amended by Act of July 15, 1918, c. 152, 40 Stat. 900, 65th Cong., 2d Sess. (H. R. 12100, Public 198).56 11 u!as.' c3ii Sec. 15. Every common carrier by water, or § 814- other person subject to this Act, shall file imme- diately with the [United States Shipping] board29 a true copy, or, if oral, a true and com- plete memorandum, of every agreement with another such carrier or other person subject to this Act, or modification or cancellation thereof, to which it may be a party or conform in whole or in part, fixing or regulating transportation rates or fares; giving or receiving special rates, accommodations, or other special privileges or advantages; controlling, regulating, preventing, or destroying competition; pooling or appor- tioning earnings, losses, or traffic; allotting ports or restricting or otherwise regulating the number and character of sailings between ports; limiting or regulating in any way the volume or character of freight or passenger traffic to be carried; or in any manner providing for an exclusive, preferential, or cooperative working arrangement. The term "agreement" in this section includes understandings, confer- ences, and other arrangements. 39 stat. 734. [734] The board may by order disapprove, cancel, or modify any agreement, or any modi- fication or cancellation thereof, whether or not previously approved by it, that it finds to be unjustly discriminatory or unfair as between carriers, shippers, exporters, importers, or ports, or between exporters from the United States and their foreign competitors, or to op- 29 By Executive order June 10, 1933, No. 6166, § 12, the United States Shipping Board was abolished and its functions were transferred to the Department of Commerce. The Act of June 29, 1936, c. 858, 49 Stat. 1985, created the United States Mari- time Commission and transferred to it the functions of the Shipping Board Bureau of the Department of Commerce.57 erate to the detriment of the commerce of the United States, or to be in violation of this Act, and shall approve all other agreements, modifi- cations, or cancellations. Agreements existing at the time of the organ- ization of the board shall be lawful until disap- proved by the board. It shall be unlawful to carry out any agreement or any portion thereof disapproved by the board. All agreements, modifications, or cancella- tions made after the organization of the board shall be lawful only when and as long as ap- proved by the board, and before approval or after disapproval it shall be unlawful to carry out in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, any such agreement, modification, or cancella- tion. Every agreement, modification, or cancella- tion lawful under this section shall be excepted from the provisions of the Act approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety, entitled "An Act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies," and amendments and Acts supplementary thereto, and the provisions of sections seventy-three to seventy-seven, both inclusive, of the Act ap- proved August twenty-seventh, eighteen hun- dred and ninety-four, entitled "An Act to re- duce taxation, to provide revenue for the Gov- ernment, and for other purposes," and amend- ments and Acts supplementary thereto. Whoever violates any provision of this sec- tion shall be liable to a penalty of $1,000 for each day such violation continues, to be recov- ered by the United States in a civil action.58 MARINE INSURANCE ASSOCIATION ACT 80 Sec. 29 (a) Whenever used in this section— (1) The term "association" means any as- sociation, exchange, pool, combination, or other arrangement for concerted action; and (2) The term'' marine insurance companies'' means any persons, companies, or associations, authorized to write marine insurance or rein- surance under the laws of the United States or of a State, Territory, District, or possession thereof. (b) Nothing contained in the "antitrust laws" as designated in Section 1 of the Act entitled "An Act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for other purposes," approved October 15, 1914, shall be construed as declaring illegal an association entered into by marine insurance companies for the following purposes: To trans- act a marine insurance and reinsurance busi- ness in the United States and in foreign coun- tries and to reinsure or otherwise apportion among its membership the risks undertaken by such association or any of the component members. CAPPER-VOISTEAD ACT31 72ussatc'3A : Sec. 1. Persons engaged in the production of § 29i. agricultural products as farmers, planters, ranchmen, dairymen, nut or fruit growers may act together in associations, corporate or other- wise, with or without capital stock, in collec- tively processing, preparing for market, han- MAct of June 5, 1920, c. 250, 41 Stat. 988, 66th Cong., 2d Sess. (H. E. 10378, Public 261). 31 Act of Feb. 18, 1922, c. 57, 42 Stat. 388, 67th Cong., 2d Sess. (H. R. 2373, Public 146).59 dling, and marketing in interstate and foreign commerce, such products of persons so engaged. Such associations may have marketing agencies in common; and such associations and their members may make the necessary contracts and agreements to effect such purposes: Provided, however, That such associations are operated for the mutual benefit of the members thereof, as such producers, and conform to one or both of the following requirements: First. That no member of the association is allowed more than one vote because of the amount of stock or membership capital he may own therein, or, Second. That the association does not pay dividends on stock or membership capital in excess of 8 per centum per annum. And in any case to the following: Third. That the association shall not deal in the products of nonmembers to an amount greater in value than such as are handled by it for members. Sec. 2. If the Secretary of Agriculture shall |2dstsatc3|8; have reason to believe that any such association 8 2®2- monopolizes or restrains trade in interstate or foreign commerce to such an extent that the price of any agricultural product is unduly en- hanced by reason thereof, he shall serve upon such association a complaint stating his charge in that respect, to which complaint shall be at- tached, or contained therein, a notice of hear- ing, specifying a day and place not less than thirty days after the service thereof, requiring the association to show cause [389] why an or- 42 stat. 389. der should not be made directing it to cease and desist from monopolization or restraint of trade. An association so complained of may60 at the time and place so fixed show cause why such order should not be entered. The evi- dence given on such a hearing shall be taken under such rules and regulations as the Secre- tary of Agriculture may prescribe, reduced to writing, and made a part of the record therein. If upon such hearing the Secretary of Agricul- ture shall be of the opinion that such association monopolizes or restrains trade in interstate or foreign commerce to such an extent that the price of any agricultural product is unduly en- hanced thereby, he shall issue and cause to be served upon the association an order reciting the facts found by him, directing such associa- tion to cease and desist from monopolization or restraint of trade. On the request of such asso- ciation or if such association fails or neglects for thirty days to obey such order, the Secre- tary of Agriculture shall file in the district court in the judicial district in which such as- sociation has its principal place of business a certified copy of the order and of all the records in the proceeding, together with a petition ask- ing that the order be enforced, and shall give notice to the Attorney General and to said asso- ciation of such filing. Such district court shall thereupon have jurisdiction to enter a decree affirming, modifying, or setting aside said or- der, or enter such other decree as the court may deem equitable, and may make rules as to plead- ings and proceedings to be had in considering such order. The place of trial may, for cause or by consent of parties, be changed as in other causes. The facts found by the Secretary of Agri- culture and recited or set forth in said order shall be prima facie evidence of such facts, but either party may adduce additional evidence.61 The Department of Justice shall have charge of the enforcement of such order. After the or- der is so filed in such district court and while pending for review therein the court may issue a temporary writ of injunction forbidding such association from violating such order or any part thereof. The court may, upon conclusion of its hearing, enforce its decree by a permanent injunction or other appropriate remedy. Serv- ice of such complaint and of all notices may be made upon such association by service upon any officer or agent thereof engaged in carrying on its business, or on any attorney authorized to appear in such proceeding for such association, and such service shall be binding upon such as- sociation, the officers, and members thereof. COOPERATIVE MARKETING ACT 82 Sec. 1. When used in this Act the term" agri- mH'cA1 cultural products" means agricultural, horti- ,451' cultural, viticultural, and dairy products, live- stock and the products thereof, the products of poultry and bee raising, the edible products of forestry, and any and all products raised or produced on farms and processed or manufac- tured products thereof, transported or intended to be transported in interstate and/or foreign commerce. ***** Sec. 5. Persons engaged, as original pro- 44stat.803; ducers of agricultural products, such as farm- |455S C A' ers, planters, ranchmen, dairymen, nut or fruit growers, acting together in associations, corpo- rate or otherwise, in collectively processing, preparing for market, handling, and marketing 32 Act of July 2, 1926, c. 725, 44 Stat. 802, 69th Cong., 1st Sess. (H. R. 7893, Public 450). 9878—38-562 in interstate and/or foreign commerce such products of persons so engaged, may acquire, exchange, interpret, and disseminate past, pres- ent, and prospective crop, market, statistical, economic, and other similar information by di- rect exchange between such persons, and/or such associations or federations thereof, and/or by and through a common agent created or selected by them. ***** 44stat.so3; Sec. 7. If any provision of this Act is de- T U. b. A. * 8 457- clared unconstitutional or the applicability thereof to any person or circumstance is held in- valid, the validity of the remainder of the Act and the applicability of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby, and nothing contained in this Act is intended, nor shall be construed, to modify or repeal any of the provisions of the Act of Feb- ruary 18, 1922 (chapter 57, Forty-second Stat- utes at Large, page 388) .33 FISHERIES COOPERATIVE MARKETING ACT34 1! utas' c2a3' Sec. 1. Persons engaged in the fishery indus- § 52i. try, as fishermen, catching, collecting, or culti- vating aquatic products, or as planters of aquatic products on public or private beds, may act together in associations, corporate or other- wise, with or without capital stock, in col- lectively catching, producing, preparing for market, processing, handling, and marketing in interstate and foreign commerce, such products of said persons so engaged. 33 The Act referred to is the Capper-Volstead Act, supra page 58. 34Act of June 25, 1934, c. 742, 48 Stat. 1213, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. (H. R. 9233, Public 464).63 The term ''aquatic products" includes all commercial products of aquatic life in both fresh and salt water, as carried on in the several States, the District of Columbia, the several Territories of the United States, the insular possessions, or other places under the jurisdic- tion of the United States. Such associations may have marketing agen- cies in common, and such associations and their members may make the necessary contracts and agreements to effect such purposes: Provided, however, That such associations are operated for the mutual benefit of the members thereof, and conform to one or both of the following requirements: [1214] First. That no member of the asso- 48stat. 1214. ciation is allowed more than one vote because of the amount of stock or membership capital he may own therein; or Second. That the association does not pay dividends on stock or membership capital in excess of 8 per centum per annum, and in any case to the following: Third. That the association shall not deal in the products of nonmembers to an amount greater in value than such as are handled by it for members. Sec. 2. If the Secretary of Commerce shall ?t u a«-}?)?; have reason to believe that any such associa- S52^ tion monopolizes or restrains trade in interstate or foreign commerce to such an extent that the price of any aquatic product is unduly en- hanced by reason thereof, he shall serve upon such association a complaint stating his charge in that respect, to which complaint shall be at- tached, or contained therein, a notice of hear- ing, specifying a day and place not less than64 thirty days after the service thereof, requiring the association to show cause why an order should not be made directing it to cease and desist from monopolization or restraint of trade. An association so complained of may at the time and place so fixed show cause why such order should not be entered. The evidence given on such a hearing shall be taken under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of Commerce may prescribe, reduced to writing, and made a part of the record therein. If upon such hearing the Secretary of Commerce shall be of the opinion that such association monop- olizes or restrains trade in interstate or foreign commerce to such an extent that the price of any aquatic product is unduly enhanced thereby, he shall issue and cause to be served upon the association an order reciting the facts found by him, directing such association to cease and desist from monopolization or re- straint of trade. On the request of such asso- ciation or if such association fails or neglects for thirty days to obey such order, the Secre- tary of Commerce shall file in the district court in the judicial district in which such association has its principal place of business a certified copy of the order and of all the records in the proceedings together with a petition asking that the order be enforced and shall give notice to the Attorney General and to said associa- tion of such filing. Such district court shall thereupon have jurisdiction to enter a decree affirming, modifying, or setting aside said or- der, or enter such other decree as the court may deem equitable, and may make rules as to pleadings and proceedings to be had in consid- ering such order. The place of trial may, for65 cause or by consent of parties, be changed as in other causes. The facts found by the Secretary of Com- merce and recited or set forth in said order shall be prima facie evidence of such facts, but either party may adduce additional evidence. The Department of Justice shall have charge of the enforcement of such order. After the order is so filed in such district court and while pend- ing for review therein, the court may issue a temporary writ of injunction forbidding such association from violating such order or any part thereof. The court shall, upon conclusion of its hearing, enforce its decree by a perma- nent injunction or other appropriate remedy. Service of such complaint and of all notices may be made upon such association by service upon any officer, or agent thereof, engaged in carrying on its business, or on any attorney authorized to appear in such proceeding for such association and such service shall be bind- ing upon such association, the officers and mem- bers thereof. AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937 35 Sec. 8b. In order to effectuate the declared policy of this title, the Secretary of Agriculture Jo ISt.—5;3: 7 U S C A shall have the power, after due notice and op- § eosb, —.' portunity for hearing, to enter into marketing agreements with processors, producers, associa- tions of producers, and others engaged in the 85 Act of May 12, 1933, c. 25, 48 Stat. 31, 73d Cong., 1st Sess. (H. R. 3835, Public 10), as amended by Act of Apr. 7, 1934, c. 103, 48 Stat. 528, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. (H. R. 7478, Public 142), and Act of Aug. 24, 1935, c. 641, 49 Stat. 750, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. (H. R. 8492, Public 320), and reenacted by Act of June 3, 1987, c. 296, 50 Stat. —, 75th Cong., 1st Sess. (H. R. 5722, Public 137).66 handling of any agricultural commodity or product thereof, only with respect to such han- dling as is in the current of interstate or foreign commerce or which directly burdens, obstructs, or affects, interstate or foreign commerce in such commodity or product thereof. The mak- ing of any such agreement shall not be held to be in violation of any of the antitrust laws of the United States, and any such agreement shall be deemed to be lawful: Provided, That no such agreement shall remain in force after the ter- mination of this Act. For the purpose of carry- ing out any such agreement the parties thereto shall be eligible for loans from the Reconstruc- tion Finance Corporation under section 5 of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation Act. Such loans shall not be in excess of such amounts as may be authorized by the agree- ments. ***** Sec. 8d. (1) All parties to any marketing agreement, and all handlers subject to an order, shall severally, from time to time, upon the re- quest of the Secretary, furnish him with such information as he finds to be necessary to enable him to ascertain and determine the extent to which such agreement or order has been carried out or has effectuated the declared policy of this title, and with such information as he finds to be necessary to determine whether or not there has been any abuse of the privilege of exemptions from the antitrust laws. Such information shall be furnished in accordance with forms of reports to be prescribed by the Secretary. For the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of any report made to the Secretary pursuant to this subsection, or for the purpose of obtaining the information required in any such report,67 where it has been requested and has not been furnished, the Secretary is hereby authorized to examine such books, papers, records, copies of income-tax reports, accounts, correspondence, contracts, documents, or memoranda, as he deems relevant and which are within the control (1) of any such party to such marketing agree- ment, or any such handler, from whom such re- port was requested or (2) of any person having, either directly or indirectly, actual or legal con- trol of or over such party or such handler or (3) of any subsidiary of any such party, handler, or person. * * * * * PROVISIONS OF AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT RE- LATING TO ANTI-HOG-CHOLERA SERUM AND HOG- CHOLERA VIRUS Sec. 56. It is hereby declared to be the policy |9DSf.Vi1: of Congress to insure the maintenance of an 8851 adequate supply of anti-hog-cholera serum and hog-cholera virus by regulating the marketing of such serum and virus in interstate and for- eign commerce, and to prevent undue and ex- cessive fluctuations and unfair methods of com- petition and unfair trade practices in such marketing. Sec. 57. In order to effectuate the policy de- fu^c7!1: clared in section 56 of this Act the Secretary of s 852' Agriculture shall have the power, after due no- tice and opportunity for hearing, to enter into marketing agreements with manufacturers and others engaged in the handling of anti-hog- cholera serum and hog-cholera virus only with respect to such handling as is in the current of interstate or foreign commerce or which di- rectly burdens, obstructs, or affects interstate68 or foreign commerce in such serum and virus. Such persons are hereafter in this Act referred to as "handlers". The making of any such agreement shall not be held to be in violation of any of the antitrust laws of the United States, and any such agreement shall be deemed to be lawful. PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT, 192186 7u^ci1: Sec. 202. It shall be unlawful for any packer I192' to: ***** (e) Engage in any course of business or do any act for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices in com- merce, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisi- tion of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any ar- ticle in commerce, or of restraining commerce; or (f) Conspire, combine, agree, or arrange with any other person (1) to apportion terri- tory for carrying on business in commerce, or (2) to apportion purchases or sales of any ar- ticle in commerce, or (3) to manipulate or con- trol prices in commerce; or (g) Conspire, combine, agree, or arrange with any other person to do, or aid or abet the doing of, any act made unlawful by sub- division (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e). 7u^c1!8; Sec. 405. Nothing contained in this Act, ex- cept as otherwise provided herein, shall be con- strued— (a) To prevent or interfere with the enforce- ment of, or the procedure under, the provisions of the Act entitled "An Act to protect trade and 36 Act of Aug. 15, 1921, c. 64, 42 Stat. 159, 67th Cong., 1st Sess. (H. R. 6320, Public 51), as amended by Act of May 5, 1926, c. 240, 44 Stat. 397, 69th Cong., 1st Sess. (H. R. 7818, Public 180). § 225.69 commerce against unlawful restraints and mo- nopolies," approved July 2, 1890, the Act en- titled "An Act to supplement [169] existing «stat. i69. laws against unlawful restraints and monop- olies, and for other purposes," approved Oc- tober 15, 1914, the Interstate Commerce Act as amended, the Act entitled "An Act to promote export trade, and for other purposes," ap- proved April 10,1918, or sections 73 to 77, inclu- sive, of the Act of August 27,1894, entitled "An Act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Government, and for other purposes," as amended by the Act entitled "An Act to amend sections seventy-three and seventy-six of the Act of August twenty-seventh, eighteen hun- dred and ninety-four, entitled 'An Act to re- duce taxation, to provide revenue for the Gov- ernment, and for other purposes,' " approved February 12,1913, or (b) To alter, modify, or repeal such Acts or any part or parts thereof, or (c) To prevent or interfere with any investi- gation, proceeding, or prosecution begun and pending at the time this Act becomes effective. INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT « Sec. 5. (15) The carriers and any corpora- «stat2i9; tion affected by any order made under the fore- 8 5 (15)- going provisions of this section shall be, and they are hereby, relieved from the operation of the antitrust laws as designated in section 1 of the Act entitled "An Act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopo- lies, and for other purposes," approved October "Act of Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, 24 Stat. 379, 380, 49th Cong., 2d Sess. (S. 1532, Public 41), as amended by Act of June 16, 1933, c. 91, 48 Stat. 211, 73d Cong., 1st Sess. (S. 1580, Public 68).70 15, 1914, and of all other restraints or prohibi- tions by or imposed under authority of law, State or Federal, insofar as may be necessary to enable them to do anything authorized or re- quired by such order.38 EMERGENCY RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1933 89 4! itat! 1746; Sec. 10. (a) The carriers or subsidiaries sub- 49utes.'c7A: ject to the Interstate Commerce Act, as 5 260' amended, affected by any order of the Coordi- nator or Commission made pursuant to this title shall, so long as such order is in effect, be, and they are hereby, relieved from the operation of the antitrust laws, as designated in section 1 of the Act entitled "An Act to supplement exist- ing laws against unlawful restraints and mon- opolies, and for other purposes," approved October 15, 1914, and of all other re- straints or prohibitions by law, State or Fed- eral, other than such as are for the protection of the public health or safety, in so far as may be necessary to enable them to do anything au- thorized or required by such order made pur- suant to this title: Provided, however, That nothing herein shall be construed to repeal, amend, suspend, or modify any of the require- ments of the Railway Labor Act or the duties 88 § 201 of the Emergency Railroad Transportation Act, 1938 (48 Stat. 211) which inserted this paragraph, struck out a similar paragraph numbered "(8)" which had been added by § 407 of the Transportation Act of 1920 ( 41 S'tat. 480). 39 Act of June 16, 1933, c. 91, 48 Stat. 211, 73d Cong., 1st Sess. (S. 1580, Public 68). The effective date of this Act was con- tinued for one year by presidential proclamation No. 2082 of May 2, 1934 (48 Stat. 1740) and was further continued until June 17 1936, by Act of June 14, 1935, c. 247, 49 Stat. 376, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. (S. J. Res. 112, Public Res. 27).71 and obligations imposed thereunder or through contracts entered into in accordance with the provisions of said Act. MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935 40 Sec. 213 (f). The carriers and any person {ff5st5^. affected by any order made under the foregoing 1313s'c A- provisions of this section shall be, and they are hereby, relieved from the operation of the "an- titrust laws," as designated in section 1 of the Act entitled "An Act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints, and monopo- lies, and for other purposes", approved October 15,1914, and of all other restraints or prohibi- tions by or imposed under authority of law, State or Federal, insofar as may be necessary to enable them to do anything authorized or re- quired by such order. BITUMINOUS COAL ACT OF 193741 Sec. 4. The provisions of this section shall be fo stat. — ^ promulgated by the Commission as the "Bitu- 58 8®1,8^2- minous Coal Code", and are herein referred to as the code. ***** (d) No action complying with the provisions of this section taken while this Act is in effect, or within sixty days thereafter, by any code member or by any district board, or officer thereof, shall be construed to be within the pro- hibitions of the antitrust laws of the United States. "Act of Aug. 9, 1935, c. 498, 49 Stat. 543, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. (S. 1629, Public 255). a Act of Apr. 26, 1987, c. 127, 50 Stat. —, 75th Cong., 1st Sess. (H. R. 4895, Public 48).72 Sec. 12. Any combination between producers creating a marketing agency for the disposal of competitive coals in interstate commerce or in intrastate commerce directly affecting inter- state commerce in coal at prices to be deter- mined by such agency, or by the agreement of the producers operating through such agency, shall, after promulgation of the code provided for in section 4, be unlawful as a restraint of interstate trade and commerce within the pro- visions of the Act of Congress of July 2, 1890, known as the Sherman Act, and Acts amenda- tory and supplemental thereto, unless such pro- ducers have accepted the code provided for in section 4 and shall comply with its provisions. Subject to the approval of the Commission, a marketing agency may, as to its members, or such marketing agencies may, as between and among themselves, provide for the cooperative marketing of their coal, at prices not below the effective minimum prices nor above the effec- tive maximum prices prescribed in accordance with section 4: Provided, That no such ap- proval shall be granted by the Commission un- less it shall find that the agreement under which such agency or agencies propose to function (1) will not unreasonably restrict the supply of coal in interstate commerce, (2) will not pre- vent the public from receiving coal at fair and reasonable prices, (3) will not operate against the public interest, and (4) that each such agency and its members have agreed to observe the effective marketing regulations and mini- mum and maximum prices from time to time established by the Commission and otherwise to conduct the business and operations of the agency in conformity with reasonable regula-73 tions for the protection of the public interest, to be prescribed by the Commission. The Commission may, by order, upon com- plaint of any code member, district board, or member thereof, any State or political subdivi- sion thereof, the consumers' counsel or any other interested person, or on its own motion, suspend or revoke its prior approval of any such marketing agency agreement upon finding that the regulations and orders of the Commis- sion or the requirements of this section have been violated. Unless and until the approval of the Commission is suspended or revoked, neither the agreement creating such marketing agency nor any agreement between such agen- cies, which has been approved by the Commis- sion, nor any act done in pursuance thereof, by such agency or agencies, or the members there- of, and not in violation of the terms of the Com- mission's approval, shall be construed to be within the prohibitions of the antitrust laws of the United States. COMMUNICATIONS ACT, 1934 42 Sec. 313. All laws of the United States relat- 4! u!H: c°17 ; ing to unlawful restraints and monopolies and 1313' to combinations, contracts, or agreements in re- straint of trade are hereby declared to be ap- plicable to the manufacture and sale of and to trade in radio apparatus and devices entering into or affecting interstate or foreign commerce and to interstate or foreign radio communica- tions. Whenever in any suit, action, or pro- ceeding, civil or criminal, brought under the "Act of June 19, 1934, c. 652, 48 Stat. 1064, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. (S. 3285, Public 416).74 provisions of any of said laws or in any pro- ceedings brought to enforce or to review find- ings and orders of the Federal Trade Commis- sion or other governmental agency in respect of any matters as to which said Commission or other governmental agency is by law author- ized to act, any licensee shall be found guilty of the violation of the provisions of such laws or any of them, the court, in addition to the penalties imposed by said laws, may adjudge, order, and/or decree that the license of such licensee shall, as of the date the decree or judg- ment becomes finally effective or as of such other date as the said decree shall fix, be revoked and that all rights under such license shall there- upon cease: Provided, however, That such li- censee shall have the same right of appeal or review as is provided by law in respect of other decrees and judgments of said court. FEDERAL POWER ACT43 [This Act creates a Federal Power Commission and empowers it to issue licenses for developing water power] 4i stat io68; Section 10. All licenses issued under this Act 16 U. S. C. A. s 803- shall be on the following conditions: * * * 41 stat io7o; (h) That combinations, agreements, ar- § 803 (h).' rangements, or understandings, express or im- plied, to limit the output of electrical energy, to restrain trade, or to fix, maintain, or increase prices for electrical energy or service are here- by prohibited * * *. 43 Act of June 10, 1920, c. 285, 41 Stat. 1063, 66th Cong., 2d Sess. (H. R. 3184, Public 280), as amended by Act of June 23, 1930, c. 572, 46 Stat. 797, 71st Cong., 2d Sess. (S. 3619, Public 412), and Act of Aug. 26, 1935, c. 687, 49 Stat. 838, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. (S. 2796, Public 333).75 PANAMA CANAL ACT 44 Sec. 11. * * * * * No vessel permitted to engage in the coast- |tas.' a 1: wise or foreign trade of the United States shall 8 31' be permitted to enter or pass through said canal if such ship is owned, chartered, operated, or controlled by any person or company which is doing business in violation of the provisions of the Act of Congress approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety, entitled "An Act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies," or the provisions of sections seventy-three to seventy-seven, both in- clusive, of an Act approved August twenty- seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-four, en- titled "An Act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Government, and for other pur- poses," or the provisions of any other Act of Congress amending or supplementing the said Act of July second, eighteen hundred and ninety, commonly known as the Sherman Anti- trust Act, and amendments thereto, or said sec- tions of the Act of August twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-four. The ques- tion of fact may be determined by the judg- ment of any court of the United States of com- petent jurisdiction in any cause pending before it to which the owners or operators of such ship are parties. Suit may be brought by any ship- per or by the Attorney General of the United States. "Act of Aug. 24, 1912, c. 390, 37 Stat. 560, 62d Cong., 2d Sess.76 JUDICIAL CODE PROVISIONS " II uta&\ c°i1: Sec. 24. The district courts shall have orig- |41' inal jurisdiction as follows: * * * 28trtast'c°A3: Twenty-third. Of all suits and proceedings § 41 (23). arising under any law to protect trade and com- merce against restraints and monopolies. ***** 36 stat. ii57; Sec. 238. A direct review by the Supreme 38 Stat 804 * 4| stat! 938; Court of an interlocutory or final judgment or •34®- decree of a district court may be had where it is so provided in the following Acts or parts of Acts, and not otherwise: (1) Section 2 of the Act of February 11, 1903, "to expedite the hearing and determina- tion" of certain suits brought by the United States under the antitrust or interstate com- merce laws, and so forth. EXPEDITING ACT46 il itat ill j Seo. 1. In any suit in equity pending or iB u. s. c. a. hereafter brought in any district47 court of the United States under the Act entitled "An Act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies," approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety, "An Act to regulate commerce," approved February fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, or any other Acts having a like purpose that here- after may be enacted, wherein the United States is complainant, the Attorney-General may file 46 Act of Mar. 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1087, 61st Cong., 3d Sess. (S. 7031, Public 475), as amended. " Act of Feb. 11, 1903, c. 544, 32 Stat. 823, 57th Cong., 2d Sess. (S. 6773, Public 82), as amended by Act of June 25, 1910, c. 428, 61st Cong., 2d Sess., 36 Stat. 854 (H. R. 26233, Public 310). 47 This section as enacted specified "circuit" courts, but the Act of Mar. 3, 1911 (36 Stat. 1087) abolished the circuit courts and conferred their powers upon the district courts. Cf. § 24 (23) of the Judicial Code, supra.77 with the clerk of such court a certificate that, in his opinion, the case is of general public im- portance, a copy of which shall be immediately furnished by such clerk to each of the circuit judges of the circuit in which the case is pend- ing. Thereupon such case shall be given pre- cedence over others and in every way expedited, and be assigned for hearing at the earliest prac- ticable day, before not less than three of the circuit judges of said court, if there be three or more; and if there be not more than two circuit judges, then before them and such district judge as they may select; or, in case the full court shall not at any time be made up by reason of the necessary absence or disqualification of one or more of the said circuit judges, the justice of the Supreme Court assigned to that circuit or the other circuit judge or judges may desig- nate a district judge or judges within the cir- cuit who shall be competent to sit in said court at the hearing of said suit. In the event the judges sitting in such case shall be equally di- vided in opinion as to the decision or disposi- tion of said cause, or in the event that a major- ity of said judges shall be unable to agree upon the judgment, order, or decree finally disposing of said case in said court which should be en- tered in said cause, then they shall immediately certify that fact to the Chief Justice of the United States, who shall at once designate and appoint some circuit judge to sit with said judges and to assist in determining said cause. Such order of the Chief Justice shall be imme- diately transmitted to the clerk of the district court in which said cause is pending, and shall be entered upon the minutes of said court. Thereupon said cause shall at once be set down for reargument and the parties thereto notified 9878—38-678 in writing by the clerk of said court of the ac- tion of the court and the date fixed for the re- argument thereof. The provisions of this sec- tion shall apply to all causes and proceedings in all courts now pending, or which may here- after be brought.48 Sec. 2. In every suit in equity pending or hereafter brought in any district49 court of the United States under any of said Acts, wherein the United States is complainant, including cases submitted but not yet decided, an appeal from the final decree of the district court will lie only to the Supreme Court and must be taken within sixty days from the entry thereof: Provided/° That in any case where an appeal may have been taken from the final decree of a district court to the circuit court of appeals be- fore this Act takes effect, the case shall proceed to a final decree therein, and an appeal may be taken from such decree to the Supreme Court in the manner now provided by law. IMMUNITY PROVISION OF 1903 51 * * * No person shall be prosecuted or be subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing 48 This sentence omitted from the Code as temporary legislation. 49 See supra page 76, note 47. 50 § 238 of the Judicial Code as amended on February 13, 1925, (43 Stat. 936, 938) provides that: A direct review by the Supreme Court of an interlocutory or final judgment or decree of a district court may be had where it is so provided in the following Acts or parts of Acts, and not otherwise: (1) Section 2 of the Act of February 11, 1903, "To expe- dite the hearing and determination" of certain suits brought by the United States under the antitrust or interstate com- merce laws, and so forth. B1Act of Feb. 25, 1903, c. 755, 32 Stat. 854, 57th Cong., 2d Sess. (H. R. 16021, Public 115).79 concerning which he may testify or produce evi- dence, documentary or otherwise, in any pro- ceeding, suit, or prosecution under ["An Act to regulate commerce," approved February fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, and all Acts amendatory thereof or supplemental thereto, and of the Act entitled " An Act to pro- tect trade and commerce against unlawful re- straints and monopolies," approved July sec- ond, eighteen hundred and ninety, and all Acts amendatory thereof or supplemental thereto, and sections seventy-three, seventy-four, sev- enty-five, and seventy-six of the Act entitled'' An Act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Government, and other purposes," ap- proved August twenty-seventh, eighteen hun- dred and ninety-four]; Provided further: That no person so testifying shall be exempt from prosecution or punishment for perjury com- mitted in so testifying. ACT DEFINING EIGHT OF IMMUNITY 62 Sec. 1. Under the immunity provisions in the 34stat. tos , -LO U» Oi Act entitled "An Act in relation to testimony ,3S- before the Interstate Commerce Commission," and so forth, approved February eleventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-three, in section six of the Act entitled "An Act to establish the Department of Commerce and Labor," ap- proved February fourteenth, nineteen hundred and three, and in the Act entitled "An Act to further regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the States," approved February nineteenth, nineteen hundred and three, and in E Act of June 30, 1906, c. 3920, 34 Stat. 798, 59th Cong., 1st Sess. (S. 5769, Public 389).80 the Act entitled "An Act making appropria- tions for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and four, and for other purposes," approved Feb- ruary twenty-fifth, nineteen hundred and three, immunity shall extend only to a natural person who, in obedience to a subpoena, gives testi- mony under oath or produces evidence, docu- mentary or otherwise, under oath. PUBLICITY IN TAKING EVIDENCE ACT 58 Sec. 1. In the taking of depositions of wit- nesses for use in any suit in equity brought by the United States under the Act entitled'' An Act to protect trade and commerce against unlaw- ful restraints and monopolies," approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety, and in the hearings before any examiner or special master appointed to take testimony therein, the pro- ceedings shall be open to the public as freely as are trials in open court; and no order excluding the public from attendance on any such pro- ceedings shall be valid or enforceable. 13 Act of Mar. 3, 1913, c. 114, 37 Stat. 731, 62d Cong., 3d Sess. (S. 8000, Public 416).SUMMARY OF CASES INSTITUTED BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS 1. United States v. Jellico Mountain Goal & Coke Co.: Pe- tition under the Sherman Act filed October IS, 1890, in the Circuit Court, Middle District of Tennessee, against the members of the Nashville Coal Exchange, an association composed of coal dealers in Nashville, Tennessee, and various coal producers in Kentucky and Tennessee, alleging a combination formed for the purpose of fixing wholesale and retail prices. A tem- porary injunction was refused (43 Fed. 898,1 F. A. D. I).1 On June 4, 1891, the combination was declared illegal (46 Fed. 432, 1 F. A. D. '9), and on June 17, 1891, its further operation was enjoined (1 D. & J. I).2 2. United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association: Petition under the Sherman Act filed January 6,1892, in the Circuit Court, District of Kansas, against the Trans-Missouri Freight Association, an association composed of railroads operating west of the Missouri River and its members, alleging a combination formed for the purpose of fixing uniform rates, rules, and regulations for all freight traffic. On November 28, 1892, the Circuit Court dismissed the petition (53 Fed. 440,1 F. A. D. 80) (1 D. & J. 5). This decree was af- firmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Cir- cuit, on October 2, 1893 (58 Fed. 58, 1 F. A. D. 186) (1D. & J. 5). On March 22,1897, the Supreme Court reversed the decree of dismissal (166 U. S. 290, 1 F. 1F. A. D. refers to Federal Antitrust Decisions published by the government. 2D. & J. refers to Decrees and Judgments in Federal Antitrust Cases published by the government. (81)82 A. D. 648), and on June 7, 1897, a decree was entered dissolving the Association and perpetually enjoining tlie further operation of the combination (1D. & J. 6). 3. United States v. Nelson: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned January 20, 1892, in the District Court, District of Minnesota, against certain lumber dealers, charging an agreement to raise the retail price of lumber. On October 10, 1892, a demurrer to the indictment was sustained (52 Fed. 646,1 F. A. D. 77) (1 D. & J. 679). 4. United States v. E. C. Knight Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed March 4,1892, in the Circuit Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against the E. C. Knight Company, the Franklin Sugar Company, the Spreckels Sugar Refining Company, the Delaware Sugar House, the American Sugar Refining Company, and certain named individuals, alleging that the Amer- ican Sugar Refining Company had theretofore ac- quired control of a large majority of all the sugar refineries in the United States and, in order to obtain complete control of the price of sugar in the United States, had entered into an unlawful scheme to pur- chase the stock, machinery, and real estate of the other four corporate defendants. On January 30,1894, the Circuit Court held that the petition should be dismissed (60 Fed. 306, 1 F. A. D. 250) (1 D. & J. 11). Its de- cree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, on March 26,1894 (60 Fed. 934,1 F. A. D. 258) (1 D. & J. 11), and by the Supreme Court on January 21,1895 (156 U. S. 1,1 F. A. D. 379). 5. United States v. Greenhut: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned March 16, 1892, in the District Court, District of Massachusetts, against the officers of the Distilling and Cattle Feeding Company, charg- ing that they purchased or leased 78 competing dis-83 tilleries which produced 75 per cent of all distilled spirits manufactured and sold in the United States, and sold the products of the distilleries at fixed prices, giving rebates to those distributors who pur- chased exclusively from it. The indictment was quashed for insufficiency on May 16, 1892 (50 Fed. 469,1 F. A. D. 30) (1 D. & J. 675). 5a. In re Coming: Application to the District Court, Northern District of Ohio, on June 11, 1892, for a warrant of removal from Ohio to Massachusetts to answer to the indictment found in the Greenhut case, No. 5, supra. On the same day the application was denied on the ground that the indictment was insuffi- cient (51 Fed. 205,1 F. A. D. 33), and the defendants were discharged (1 D. & J. 676). 5b. In re Terrell: Application to the Circuit Court, South- ern District of New York, on 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, No. 5, supra. On the same day the application was granted on the ground that the indictment was insufficient (51 Fed. 213, 1 F. A. D. 46), and the petitioner was discharged (1 D. & J. 677). 5c. In re Greene: Application to the Circuit Court, South- ern District of Ohio, on August 4, 1892, for a writ of habeas corpus to secure release from the custody of the marshal, by whom the petitioner was held await- ing an order for removal to Massachusetts to answer to the indictment found in the Greenhut case, No. 5, supra. On the same day the application was granted on the ground that the indictment was insufficient (52 Fed. 104, 1 F. A. D. 54), and the petitioner was dis- charged (1D. & J. 678).84 6. United States v. Patterson: Two indictments under the Sherman Act returned July 2 and October 5,1892, in the Circuit Court, District of Massachusetts, against Patterson and others, charging a conspiracy to drive competitors out of the cash register business by mis- representations, intimidation, violence, and other un- lawful acts. On demurrer the indictment was sus- tained in part (55 Fed. 605, 1 F. A. D. 133; 59 Fed. 280, 1 F. A. D. 244). The case was nolle prossed on November 10, 1894 (1 D. & J. 680). 7. United States v. W orkingmen's Amalgamated Council: Petition under the Sherman Act filed March 25,1893, in the Circuit Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, against the Workingmen's Amalgamated Council, an association composed of various labor unions and others, alleging a conspiracy to interfere by violence and intimidation with interstate and foreign com- merce. On March 25, 1893, the conspiracy was de- clared illegal and its operation enjoined (54 Fed. 994, 1F. A. D. 110) (1D. & J. 9). This decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, on June 13,1893 (57 Fed. 85,1 F. A. D. 184). 8. United States v. Debs: Petition under the Sherman Act filed July 2, 1894, in the Circuit Court, Northern Dis- trict of Illinois, against Debs and others, alleging a conspiracy to interfere by violence and intimidation with the transportation of mails and with interstate commerce over certain named railroads. A prelimi- nary injunction was granted the same day (1 D. & J. 13). The petition was dismissed on July 27, 1899, at the instance of the government before a final decree was entered (1 D. & J. 17). 8a. United States v. Debs: Information filed December 14, 1894, in the Circuit Court, Northern District of Illi- nois, against Debs and others, charging a contempt of court by disobeying the preliminary injunction issued85 in the Debs case, No. 8, supra. On December 14,1894, the defendants were found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for terms from three to six months (64 Fed. 724, 1 F. A. D. 322). An application for a writ of error to the Supreme Court was denied on January 17,1895 (158 U. S. 564, 573,1F. A. D. 565, 573). 8b. In re Debs, petitioner: Application to the Supreme Court on January 14,1895, for a writ of habeas corpus to secure a discharge from imprisonment for con- tempt in disobeying the preliminary injunction issued in the Debs case, No. 8, supra. The application was denied on May 27,1895 (158 U. S. 564,1 F. A. D. 565). 9. United States v. Debs: Petition under the Sherman Act filed July 3, 1894, in the Circuit Court, District of Indiana, against Debs and others, alleging a conspir- acy to interfere by violence and intimidation with the transportation of mails and with interstate commerce over certain named railroads. A preliminary injunc- tion was granted the same day (1 D. & J. 19). The case was dismissed at the instance of the government on September 19, 1898, before a final decree was en- tered (1 D. & J. 22). 9a. United States v. Agler: Information filed July 12, 1894, in the Circuit Court, District of Indiana, charging Agler with contempt of court by disobey- ing the preliminary injunction issued in the Debs case, No. 9, supra. On July 12, 1894, the Cir- cuit Court refused to quash the information (62 Fed. 824, 1 F. A. D. 294), and on September 7, 1894, adjudged Agler in contempt, suspending sentence during good behavior (1D. & J. 681). 10. United States v. Elliott: Petitions under the Sherman Act filed July 6 and October 24, 1894, in the Circuit Court, Eastern District of Missouri, against Elliott, Debs, and others, alleging a conspiracy to interfere by violence and intimidation with the transportation of86 mails and with interstate commerce over certain rail- roads. A temporary injunction was granted on July 6, 1894 (62 Fed. 801, 1 F. A. D. 262) (1 D. & J. 23), and, after a demurrer was overruled on October 24, 1894 (64 Fed. 27, 1 F. A. D. 311), the injunction was made perpetual (1 D. & J. 29). 11. United States v. Cassidy: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned in July 1894, in the District Court, Northern District of California, against Cassidy, Mayne, and others, charging a conspiracy to obstruct the mails and to interfere by violence and intimida- tion with the transportation of mails and with inter- state commerce over railroads in California. The trial resulted in a disagreement by the jury (67 Fed. 698, 783, 1 F. A. D. 449, 565), and on July 1, 1895, a nolle prosequi was entered (1 D. & J. 682). 12. United States v. Moore: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned November 4, 1895, in the Dis- trict Court, Third Judicial District of the Terri- tory of Utah, against the members of the Salt Lake Coal Exchange, an association composed of retail distributors of coal in Salt Lake City, Utah, charging that the members of the Exchange and certain wholesale distributors had conspired to fix prices. Utah was admitted into the Union on January 4,1896, and the case was thereafter trans- ferred to the Circuit Court, District of Utah, where the defendants were found guilty and a fine of $200 was imposed on defendant Moore on November 19, 1896 (ID. & J. 683). The Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, reversed the conviction on February 14,1898, on the ground that the court had no jurisdic- tion of the cause after Utah had been admitted into the Union (85 Fed. 465, 1 F. A. D. 815). No formal decree was entered (1 D. & J. 684). 13. United States v. Joint Traffic Association: Petition under the Sherman Act filed January 8, 1896,87 in the Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, against the Joint Traffic Association, an association composed of railroads operating between Chicago and the Atlantic Coast, and its officers, alleging a combination formed for the purpose of fixing rates, rules, and regulations for all traffic. On May 28,1896, the Circuit Court dismissed the petition (76 Fed. 895, 1 F. A. D. 615) (1 D. & J. 31), and on March 19,1897, this decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (89 Fed. 1020, 1 F. A. D. 869) (1D. & J. 31). On October 24,1898, the Supreme Court reversed the decree of dismissal (171 U. S. 505, 1 F. A. D. 869), and a decree was entered perpetually enjoining the practices complained of in the petition (1 D. & J. 32). 14. United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co.: Peti- tion under the Sherman Act filed December 10, 1896, in the Circuit Court, Eastern District of Ten- nessee, against the Addyston Pipe & Steel Company and five other corporations, alleging a conspiracy to enhance prices by eliminating competitive bidding in the sale of cast iron pipe. On February 5, 1897, the Circuit Court dismissed the petition (78 Fed. 712, 1 F. A. D. 631) (1 D. & J. 35). The Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, reversed the decree of dis- missal on February 8, 1898 (85 Fed. 271, 1 F. A. D. 772), and a decree perpetually enjoining the further operation of the conspiracy was entered (1D. & J. 36). This decree was affirmed by the Supreme Court on December 4, 1899, as to interstate business only (175 TJ. S. 211, 1 F. A. D. 1009), and a decree was entered on this mandate (1 D. & J. 39). 15. United States v. Hopkins: Petition under the Sher- man Act filed December 31, 1896, in the Circuit Court, District of Kansas, against Hopkins and the members of the Kansas City Live Stock Ex- change, an association composed of commission88 merchants operating at the Kansas City stock- yards, alleging a combination formed for the purpose of regulating the practices of their businesses, fixing commission rates, and prohibiting members from doing business with non-members. On September 20, 1897, the combination was declared illegal (82 Fed. 529, 1 F. A. D. 725), and a temporary injunction against its further operation was entered (1 D. & J. 41). An appeal was taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, from which it was certified to the Supreme Court (84 Fed. 1018, 1 F. A. D. 748). The Supreme Court reversed the decree on October 24,1898 (171 IT. S. 578,1 F. A. D. 941), and a decree was entered dismissing the petition (1 D. & J. 43). 16. United States v. Anderson: Petition under the Sherman Act filed June 7, 1897, in the Circuit Court, Western District of Missouri, against Anderson and the mem- bers of The Traders' Livestock Exchange, an associa- tion composed of persons buying cattle at the Kansas City stockyards for their own profit. The rules of the Exchange prohibited members from doing busi- ness with non-members or those who did business with non-members. After a temporary injunction had been granted by the Circuit Court on July 19, 1897 (ID. & J. 45), an appeal was taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. The case was certified to the Supreme Court for instructions upon certain ques- tions (82 Fed. 998, 1 F. A. D. 742). On October 24, 1898, the Supreme Court reversed the decree of the Circuit Court (171 U. S. 604, 1 F. A. D. 967), and on December 27, 1898, a decree of dismissal was entered (1 D. & J. 47). 17. United States v. Coal Dealers' Ass'n: Petition under the Sherman Act filed December 16, 1897, in the Cir- cuit Court, Northern District of California, against the Coal Dealers' Association of California, an asso-89 ciation composed of certain retailers and practically all wholesalers of coal in San Francisco and formed for the purpose of fixing prices. On December 16, 1897, a temporary injunction was granted (1 D. & J. 49). The combination was declared illegal January 28, 1898 (85 Fed. 252, 1 F. A. D. 749), and a decree perpetually enjoining its operation was entered May 2,1899 (1D. & J. 51). 18. United States v. Chesapeake & Ohio Fuel Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed May 8,1899, in the Cir- cuit Court, Southern District of Ohio, against the members of the Chesapeake & Ohio Coal Associa- tion, an association composed of the Chesapeake & Ohio Fuel Company and 14 producers of coal and coke in the Kanawha district in West Virginia, alleging an agreement by which the fuel company agreed to take the entire output of the producers and to sell the same in western markets at prices fixed by the Association, retaining a certain sum as compensation for its serv- ices. On August 31, 1900, the combination was de- clared illegal (105 Fed. 93, 2 F. A. D. 34), and on November 22, 1900, a decree was entered dissolving the combination and perpetually enjoining its further operation (1 D. & J. 55). This decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, on April 8,1902 (115 Fed. 610, 2 F. A. D. 151). 19. United States v. Northern Securities Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed March 10, 1902, in the Circuit Court, District of Minnesota, against the Northern Securities Company and certain named in- dividuals, alleging that pursuant to a combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade the Northern Securi- ties Company had acquired and was holding and vot- ing a large majority of the capital stock of the Great Northern Railway Company and Northern Pacific Railway Company, parallel competing lines between90 the Great Lakes and the Pacific Coast. On April 9, 1903, the combination was declared illegal (120 Fed. 721, 2 F. A. D. 215), and a decree was entered which contained provisions, inter alia, enjoining the North- ern Securities Company from acquiring additional stock in the two railway companies, from voting any of the stock which it held, and from exercising any control over the two railway companies (1 D. & J. 57). This decree was affirmed by the Supreme Court on March 14,1904 (193 U. S. 197, 2 F. A. D. 338). 20. United States v. Swift d? Company: Petition under the Sherman Act filed May 10, 1902, in the Circuit Court, Northern District of Illinois, against Swift & Com- pany and others, who together controlled 60 per cent of the fresh meat business in the United States, alleg- ing a conspiracy to eliminate competition by not bid- ding against each other in the purchase of livestock, by bidding up prices for a few days to induce cattle owners to ship cattle to the stockyards, by fixing the selling prices of fresh meat, and by obtaining rebates from railroads, etc. Demurrers to the petition were overruled on April 18, 1903, the combination was de- clared illegal (122 Fed. 529, 2 F. A. D. 237), and a preliminary injunction was entered (1 D. & J. 61). The defendants failed to answer and a decree was en- tered May 26, 1903, perpetually enjoining the combi- nation (1 D. & J. 63). This decree was affirmed, with minor modifications, by the Supreme Court on Janu- ary 30,1905 (196 U. S. 375, 2 F. A. D. 641). 21. United States v. Federal Salt Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed October 15, 1902, in the Circuit Court, Northern District of California, against the Federal Salt Company and others engaged in the salt industry, alleging a combination and conspiracy to eliminate competition in the manufacture and sale of salt in the western states by maintaining uniform91 rules and regulations and rates and prices for the sale of salt. A temporary injunction was granted the same day (1 D. & J. 67), and this was folowed by an injunction pendente lite on November 10, 1902 (1 D. & J. 70). 22. United States v. Federal Salt Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned February 28, 1903, in the Dis- trict Court, Northern District of California, against the Federal Salt Company, charging a monopoly in the manufacture and sale of salt in western states by means of agreements which eliminated competition and permitted the fixing and enhancing of prices. The defendant pleaded guilty and a fine of $1,000 was imposed on May 14,1903 (1 D. & J. 685). 23. United States v. Baker & Holmes Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed September 12, 1903, in the Cir- cuit Court, Southern District of Florida, to dissolve a combination of wholesale grocers. On November 1, 1907, the petition was dismissed (1 D. & J. 73). 24. United States v. General Paper Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed December 27, 1904, in the Cir- cuit Court, District of Minnesota, against the General Paper Company and twenty-three corporations en- gaged in the manufacture and sale of paper, alleging that the General Paper Company was formed for the purpose of acting as the exclusive selling agent for the other corporations, with power to control the output of each corporation and to fix prices and terms and conditions of sale. A decree declaring the combina- tion illegal and perpetually enjoining its further oper- ation was entered June 16, 1906 (1 D. & J. 75). 25. United States v. Armour & Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned July 1, 1905, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against Armour92 & Company and others, charging a conspiracy to re- strain and monopolize interstate trade and commerce in meats. A number of preliminary objections were made and all were disposed of in favor of the govern- ment, except certain special pleas of immunity based upon the fact that the information upon which the defendants were indicted had been given by them to the Bureau of Corporations of the Department of Commerce and Labor. On March 21, 1906, these special pleas were sustained as to the individual de- fendants but were overruled with respect to the cor- porations (142 Fed. 808, 2 F. A. D. 951). A nolle prosequi was entered on February 25,1913 (1 D. & J. 687). United States v. Metropolitan Meat Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed in October 1905, in the Circuit Court, District of Hawaii, against the Metropolitan Meat Company and iothers, alleging a combination of producers and dealers to fix the prices of beef. After demurrers to the petition had been overruled on October 2, 1906 (3 Dist. of Hawaii 110, 13 F. A. D. —),3 the case was discontinued on September 27,1917 (ID. & J. 81). United States v. Nome Retail Grocerymen's Ass'n.: Pe- tition under the Sherman Act filed November 4, 1905, in the District Court, District of Alaska, against members of the Nome Retail Grocerymen's Associa- tion, alleging a conspiracy to fix the retail prices of groceries. On December 7, 1905, a preliminary in- junction was entered (1 D. & J. 83). A decree declar- ing the conspiracy to be illegal, perpetually enjoining its further operation, and dissolving the Association was entered February 8, 1906 (1 D. & J. 86). * Volume 13 of Federal Antitrust Decisions is being prepared for publication.93 28. United States v. Terminal R. E. Ass'n: Petition under the Sherman Act filed December 1,1905, in the Circuit Court, Eastern District of Missouri, against the Ter- minal Railroad Association of St. Louis, an associa- tion composed of certain of the transportation com- panies serving St. Louis, alleging a combination and conspiracy to unify and control terminal facilities, to exclude carriers who were not members of the Asso- ciation from using these facilities, and to fix rates. The Circuit Court dismissed the petition without opinion on June 6,1910 (1 D. & J. 89). The Supreme Court, on April 22, 1912, reversed the decree of dis- missal and directed that a decree be entered in con- formity with its opinion (224 U. S. 383, 4 F. A. D. 473). A decree providing for the reformation of the contract of the Association by the elimination of cer- tain rules was entered March 2, 1914 (1 D. & J. 96). The Supreme Court on February 23, 1915, directed a modification of the decree (236 U. S. 194, 4 F. A. D. 512) (ID. & J. 103). 29. United States v. Allen & Robinson: Petition under the Sherman Act filed in October 1905, in the District Court, District of Hawaii, against certain wholesale lumber dealers operating and controlling 90 per cent of the lumber business in Hawaii, alleging a combina- tion and conspiracy to eliminate competition and to fix prices. On March 30,1911, the District Court held that the petition should be dismissed (3 Dist. of Hawaii 667, 13 F. A. D. —), and on December 16, 1915, a decree of dismissal was entered (1D. & J. 105). 30. United States v. Otis Elevator Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act and under the antitrust provisions of the Wilson Tariff Act filed March 7, 1906, in the 9878—38-794 Circuit Court, Northern District of California, against the Otis Elevator Company and other manu- facturers of elevators, elevator machinery and appli- ances, alleging a combination to eliminate competi- tion. A consent decree perpetually enjoining the combination was entered on June 1, 1906 (1 D. & J. 107). 1. United States v. Amsden Lumber Co.: Indictments un- der the Sherman Act returned May 4 and December 8,1906, in the District Court, Territory of Oklahoma, against the Amsden Lumber Company and others, charging a conspiracy to restrict competition and fix prices in the sale of lumber. On September 25, 1907, the defendants pleaded guilty to one of the indict- ments and fines aggregating $2,000 were imposed The other three indictments, which were different statements of the same offense, were dismissed (1 D. & J*. 693). 2. United States v. Nat'I Ass'n of Retail Druggists: Pe- tition under the Sherman Act filed May 9,1906, in the Circuit Court, District of Indiana, against the Na- tional Association of Retail Druggists and its mem- bers, alleging a combination and conspiracy to con- trol the marketing of drugs and proprietary medi- cines by fixing prices and by blacklisting price-cutters, etc. On May 9,1907, a decree was entered perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (1 D. & J. 115). !. United States v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co.: In- dictment under the Sherman Act returned May 25, 1906, in the Circuit Court, Middle District of Ten- nessee, against the Virginia-Carolina Chemical Com- pany and about 60 others, charging a combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade in fertilizers. The indictment was quashed on July 3, 1908, as to certain defendants who filed pleas in abatement (163 Fed. 66,95 3 F. A. D. 395), and was dismissed on September 23, 1908, as to the remaining defendants at the instance of the government (1D. & J. 689). 34. United States v, MacAndrews <£ Forbes Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned June 18,1906, in the Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, against the MacAndrews & Forbes Company and others, producers of about 85 per cent of the licorice paste manufactured and sold in the United States, charging a combination and conspiracy to restrain competition by fixing prices, limiting production, and apportioning customers. In December 1906, demur- rers to the indictment were overruled (149 Fed. 823, 3 F. A. D. 81). The individual defendants were found not guilty and the two corporate defendants were found guilty. On January 17, 1907, a motion to set aside the verdict was denied and fines aggregating $18,000 were imposed (149 Fed. 836, 3 F. A. D. 100) (1 D. & J. 688). A writ of error was dismissed by the Supreme Court on January 15, 1909 (212 U. S. 585). 35. United States v. American Ice Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned July 12, 1906, in the Su- preme Court of the District of Columbia, against the American Ice Company and others, charging an agree- ment to control prices and restrain competition in the sale of ice within the District of Columbia. A nolle prosequi was entered on August 26, 1912 (1 D. & J. 692). 36. United States v. Chandler Ice & Cold Storage Plant: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned Septem- ber 19,1906, in the District Court, Territory of Okla- homa, against the Chandler Ice & Cold Storage Plant and others, charging a combination to apportion ter- ritory in the sale of ice. The case was not brought to trial prior to the admission of Oklahoma into the Union and was, therefore, dismissed because of the96 decision in Moore v. United States (85 Fed. 465, 1 F. A. D. 815), No. 12, supra page 86 (1 D. & J. 694). 37. United States v. Gloyd: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned September 21, 1906, in the District Court, Territory of Oklahoma, against Gloyd and others, charging a combination to fix prices and re- strict competition in the sale of lumber. This case was not brought to trial prior to the admission of Okla- homa into the Union and was, therefore, dismissed because of the decision in Moore v. United States (85 Fed. 465,1 F. A. D. 815), No. 12, supra page 86 (1 D. & J. 695). 38. United States v. People's Ice & Fuel Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned October 23, 1906, in the District Court, Territory of Arizona, against the People's Ice & Fuel Company and W. B. Lount, charging a combination to fix prices and restrict com- petition in the sale of ice. On January 5, 1907, a motion for a directed verdict was granted and the corporation was found not guilty (1 D. & J. 697). Lount filed a plea in bar which was sustained on Oc- tober 17,1907, and the case against him was dismissed (1 D. & J. 698). 39. United States v. DeMund Lumber Co.: Indictment un- der the Sherman Act returned October 23, 1906, in the District Court, Territory of Arizona, against the DeMund Lumber Company and others, charging a combination to fix prices and restrict competition in the sale of lumber. On January 3, 1907, and May 9, 1907, two corporate defendants were found not guilty (1 D. & J. 701, 702), and on December 15, 1906, and May 9,1907, after pleas in bar were filed, the case was dismissed as to the other defendants (1 D. & J. 700, 703).97 40. United States v. Phoenix Wholesale Meat & Produce Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned Oc- tober 23, 1906, in the District Court, Territory of Arizona, against the Phoenix Wholesale Meat & Prod- uce Company and others, charging a combination and conspiracy to fix prices and restrict competition in the sale of meats. On January 8, 1907, the indict- ment against Hurley, who had been a government wit- ness, was dismissed (1 D. & J. 704). The next day the corporate defendant was found not guilty and the defendant Tribolet was found guilty (1 D. & J. 704) and fined $1,000 (1 D. & J. 705). On March 27, 1908, the Supreme Court of the Territory affirmed the con- viction (95 Pac. 85, 3 F. A. D. 316). 41. United States v. Standard Oil Co. of N. J.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed November 15, 1906, in the Circuit Court, Eastern District of Missouri, against the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, its subsidiary corporations and several individuals, al- leging that the defendants, who produced 30 per cent of the crude oil and controlled more than 75 per cent of the purchasing, refining, transporting, and selling of petroleum and its products in the United States, had combined and conspired to restrain and monopo- lize interstate commerce by the purchase and control of competing oil companies, by securing rebates and preferences from railroads, by controlling pipe lines, by contracting with competitors in restraint of trade, by local price cutting, by espionage, by operating bogus independent companies, by eliminating competition between subsidiary corporations, and by other unfair practices. On March 7, 1907, a motion to quash the service of subpoenas on non-resident defendants was denied (152 Fed. 290, 3 F. A. D. 173). The combina- tion was declared illegal and ordered dissolved on98 November 20, 1909 (173 Fed. 177, 3 F. A. D. 696) (1 D. & J. 129). This decree, with minor modifications, was affirmed by the Supreme Court May 15,1911 (221 U. S. 1, 4 F. A. D. 79), and a final decree was entered on its mandate July 29, 1911 (1 D. & J. 136). A supplemental petition was filed March 24, 1930, in the District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, against the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, the Standard Oil Company of New York, and the Vacuum Oil Company, asking for an injunction against the merger of the Standard Oil Company of New York and the Vacuum Oil Company on the ground that the proposed merger violated the final decree entered on July 29, 1911. On February 7, 1931, the District Court found no violation of the decree (47 F. (2d) 288, 12 F. A. D. 740), and on April 4, 1931, a decree was entered dismissing the supplemental petition (2 D. & J. — ).4 42. United States v. Hogg: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned December 8,1906, in the District Court, Territory of Oklahoma, against Hogg and others, charging a combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce in the sale of lumber. The case was not brought to trial prior to the admission of Ok- lahoma into the Union and was therefore dismissed because of the decision in Moore v. United States (85 Fed. 465, 1 F. A. D. 815), No. 12, supra page 86 (1 D. & J. 696). 43. United States v. Atlantic Investment Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned February 11, 1907, in the District Court, Southern District of Georgia, against the Atlantic Investment Company, five other corporations in which it was the majority stockholder, two European corporations, and their officers, charg- ing a combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade * Volume 2 of Decrees and Judgments in Federal Antitrust Cases is being prepared for publication.99 in the manufacture and sale of turpentine and naval stores. On February 18,1907, four corporate and two individual defendants pleaded guilty and fines aggre- gating $30,000 were imposed (1 D. & J. 707, 708). 44. United States v. American Seating Co.: Indictments under the Sherman Act returned March 12, 1907, in the Circuit Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the American Seating Company and eight other companies engaged in the manufacture and sale of church and school furniture, charging a conspiracy to fix prices and to restrain competition. Eight corpo- rate defendants pleaded guilty and fines aggregating $47,500 were imposed on May 20,1907 (1 D. & J. 709. 710). A demurrer filed by the remaining corporate defendant was overruled and a plea of not guilty was entered. On January 27,1913, the case was dismissed as to this defendant (1 D. & J. 710,712). 45. United States v. American Seating Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed March 12, 1907, in the Circuit Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the American Seating Company, eight other companies engaged in the manufacture and sale of church and school furniture, and 24 individual defend- ants, alleging a conspiracy to fix prices and to restrain competition. A consent decree declaring the con- spiracy illegal and enjoining its further operation was entered on August 5, 1907 (1 D. & J. 145,147). The petition was dismissed on January 27,1913, as against the Stafford Manufacturing Company and three of its officers (2 D. & J. —). (See ease No. 50, infra p. 102.) 46. United States v. Santa Rita Store Co. and Santa Rita Mining Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act re- turned April 4, 1907, in the District Court, Territory of New Mexico, against the defendant companies, charging a conspiracy to coerce and compel the em- ployees of the Santa Rita Mining Company to pur-100 chase supplies exclusively from the store operated by that company. The defendants iwere found guilty and, after motions for a new trial and arrest of judg- ment had been overruled, a fine of $1,000 was imposed on each defendant on April 15, 1907 (1 D. & J. 713). On January 26,1911, the Supreme Court of the Terri- tory reversed the judgment of the District Court (16 N. M. 3, 113 Pac. 620, 13 F. A. D. —), and the case was subsequently dismissed (1. D. & J. 714). 47. United States v. Beading Company: Petition under the Sherman Act filed June 12,1907, in the Circuit Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against the Read- ing Company and other railroad companies, which to- gether owned 90 per cent of the coal deposits in the Pennsylvania anthracite fields, produced 75 per cent of the annual anthracite supply, and controlled all the means of transporting coal from the fields to the market, alleging a conspiracy to control the produc- tion, transportation, sale, and prices of anthracite coal by preventing the construction of a new competing railroad to serve the independent producers, and by en- tering into contracts with the independent producers for the sale of their entire production at 65 per cent of the average market price. On December 8, 1910, the Circuit Court found that the companies had com- bined to prevent the construction of the competing railroad to serve the independent producers, and by en- lating to the 65 per cent contracts and to the control of production by general agreement (183 Fed. 427, 3 F. A. D. 866) (1D. & J. 151). Cross-appeals were taken to the Supreme Court where, on December 16, 1912, the decree was affirmed except as to the 65 per cent contracts which were directed to be cancelled (226 U. S. 324, 4 F. A. D. 694). A decree on this mandate was entered (2 D. & J. —). The question thereafter arose as to whether certain contracts were similar to the 65 per cent contracts and should be cancelled. The Supreme Court, on April 7, 1913, remanded the101 case to the District Court with directions to hear and determine the merits and enter an appropriate decree (228 U. S. 158, 4 F. A. D. 739). The District Court, after hearing, dismissed the original petition as to these contracts on January 29,1914 (1 D. & J. 155). 48. United States v. National Umbrella Frame Co.: Indict- ment under the Sherman Act returned July 1,1907, in the District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against the National Umbrella Frame Company and others, charging a conspiracy to restrain interstate commerce in the manufacture and sale of umbrella material. The defendants pleaded guilty and fines aggregating $3,000 were imposed on July 9,1910 (ID. &J. 715). 49. United States v. American Tobacco Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed July 10, 1907, in the Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, against the American Tobacco Company, certain other domestic and foreign companies, and several individual defend- ants, alleging that the American Tobacco Company had obtained a virtual monopoly of every phase of the tobacco business by buying out competitors, by obtain- ing stock control of other competitors, and by elimi- nating competition through unlawful trade practices, such as local and discriminatory price cutting. On November 7, 1908, the Circuit Court dismissed the petition as to certain defendants and held the combi- nation illegal as to the remaining defendants (164 Fed. 700, 3 F. A. D. 427) (1 D. & J. 157), and on De- cember 15,1908, a decree enjoining its further opera- tion was entered (164 Fed. 1024, 3 F. A. D. 468) (1D. & J. 162). This decree was reversed by the Supreme Court on May 29,1911, and the case was remanded to the Circuit Court with directions to enter a broader decree enjoining all defendants and dissolving the combination in its entirety (221 U. S. 106, 4 F. A. D. 168). A decree, based upon the plan of dissolution102 and reorganization agreed upon by the parties and the Circuit Court, completely dissolving the combina- tion was entered on November 16,1911 (191 Fed. 371, 4 F. A. D. 264) (1D. & J. 165). 50. United States v. Stafford Mfg. Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned July 10, 1907, in the Dis- trict Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the Stafford Manufacturing Company and others engaged in the manufacture and sale of church and school fur- niture, charging a conspiracy to fix prices and to re- strain competition. On January 3,1912, the indictment was dismissed at the instance of the government (1 D. & J. 716). (See case No. 45, supra p. 99.) 51. United States v. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed July 30,1907, in the Cir- cuit Court, District of Delaware, against Du Pont de Nemours & Company, several powder companies, and their officers, alleging that the defendants had acquired a virtual monopoly of the manufacture and sale of gun-powder and other explosives by acquiring the stock of, and in some cases dissolving, competing corporations. On June 21,1911, the combination was declared illegal (188 Fed. 127, 4 F. A. D. 339), and an interlocutory decree ordering the dissolution of the combination was entered the same day (188 Fed. 127, 155, 4 F. A. D. 339, 380) (1 D. & J. 193). A final de- cree carrying into effect a plan of dissolution and re- organization presented by the parties in accordance with the terms of the interlocutory decree was entered on June 13, 1912 (1 D. & J. 195). On February 18, 1913, a supplemental decree was entered approving the dissolution and reorganization pursuant to the final decree and extending the final decree to two new companies formed by the reorganization (1 D. & J. 205). On May 4, 1921, the District Court modified the decree to permit the Hercules Powder Company to acquire the physical properties and other assets of103 the Aetna Explosives Company, Inc. (273 Fed. 869, 9 F. A. D. 267). 52. United States v. One Hundred and Seventy-Five Cases of Cigarettes: Information under the Sherman Act filed October 28, 1907, in the District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, covering the seizure of 175 cases of cigarettes. The cigarettes were released under bond to the British-American Tobacco Company, Ltd., the claimant. A decree dismissing the information was entered on January 31, 1913 (1 D. & J. 717). 53. United States v. Corbett Stationery Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned November 1, 1907, in the District Court, District of Arizona, against the Corbett Stationery Company and others, charging a conspiracy to fix the prices of office supplies. A de- murrer to the indictment was sustained and the de- fendants were bound over to the next grand jury which re-indicted them. On November 6, 1908, the defendants were found not guilty (1 D. & J. 718). 54. United States v. Union Pacific Coal Co.: Indictment under Ihe Sherman Act returned November 20, 1907, in the District Court, District of Utah, against the Union Pacific Coal Company, the Union Pacific Rail- road Company, and others, charging an agreement be- tween the Union Pacific Coal Company and certain railroads and their agents to refuse to sell or to trans- port coal to a retailer who was selling coal at lower prices than those then prevailing in Salt Lake City. The defendants were found guilty and fines aggregat- ing $13,000 were imposed on March 29,1909 (1 D. & J. 720). On November 19, 1909, the convictions were reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Cir- cuit (173 Fed. 737, 3 F. A. D. 731), and on March 21, 1910, the case was dismissed (ID. & J. 721).104 55. United States v. Simmons: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned January 20, 1908, in the District Court, Southern District of Alabama, against Sim- mons and others, charging a combination in restraint of trade in the manufacture and sale of plumbers' supplies. The defendants pleaded guilty, and fines ag- gregating $265 were imposed on December 1, 1910 (1 D. & J. 722). 56. United States v. Union Pacific R. R. Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed February 1, 1908, in the Cir- cuit Court, District of Utah, against the Union Pacific Railroad Company and others, alleging that the pur- chase by the Union Pacific Railroad Company of a controlling stock interest in the Southern Pacific Company created a combination in restraint of trade. On June 24, 1911, the petition was dismissed because of the absence of substantial competition between the railroads (188 Fed. 102, 4 F. A. D. 303), and a decree of dismissal was entered the same day (1 D. & J. 207). The Supreme Court reversed the decree on December 2, 1912 (226 U. S. 61, 4 F. A. D. 652). Upon motion for construction of its mandate, the Supreme Court, on January 6, 1913, held that a transfer of Southern Pacific Company stock to the stockholders of the Union Pacific Railroad Company would not end the combination so as to comply with the decree (226 U. S. 470, 4 F. A. D. 687). A final decree was en- tered on June 30, 1913, dissolving the combination in accordance with the plan of dissolution and reor- ganization agreed upon by the parties and the Circuit Court (1 D. & J. 217). 57. United States v. Ray: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned February 14,1908, in the Circuit Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, against Ray and others, including the members and officers of a certain union, charging a conspiracy to restrain foreign trade by105 refusing to coal and load a ship operating between the United States and the Republic of Honduras. On January 24,1911, three of the defendants were found guilty, fines aggregating $110 were imposed, and the remaining defendants were found not guilty (1 D. & J. 723, 725). The conviction was sustained by the Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (1 D. & J. 727). 58. United States v. May: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned February 15,1908, in the Circuit Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, against Ray and others, including the members and officers of a certain union, charging a conspiracy to restrain interstate commerce under circumstances similar to those presented in the preceding case. On January 24, 1911, the defendants were found not guilty (1 D. & J. 723). 59. United States v. Stiefvater: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned February 15, 1908, in the Circuit Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, against Stief- vater and others, charging a combination in restraint of trade in the manufacture and sale of plumbers' sup- plies. On June 25,1910, a nolle prosequi was entered (1 D. & J. 728). 60. United States v. American Naval Stores Co.: Indict- ment under the Sherman Act returned April 11,1908, in the Circuit Court, Southern District of Georgia, against the American Naval Stores Company, the Na- tional Transportation and Terminal Company, and their officers, charging a conspiracy to restrain and monopolize the manufacture and sale of turpentine and naval stores by eliminating competition through certain unfair and illegal practices. On April 17, 1909, a demurrer to the indictment was overruled as to two counts (186 Fed. 592, 4 F. A. D. 48). Five individual defendants were found guilty May 10,1909106 (1 D. & J. 729). Their conviction was sustained on November 29, 1910, by the Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (186 Fed. 489, 5 F. A. D. 234). On June 9, 1913, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction for errors in the court's charge to the jury (reported in 172 Fed. 455, 3 F. A. D. 679) (229 U. S. 373, 5 F. A. D. 234). The second trial resulted in a verdict of not guilty on June 1,1914 (1 D. & J. 732). 61. United States v. New York, New Haven & Hcurtford B. B. Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed May 22, 1908, in the Circuit Court, District of Massachu- setts, against the New York, New Haven & Hart- ford Railroad Company and others, charging that the New Haven Railroad had combined under common control the steam and electric railway systems in New England. The case was discontinued on June 26,1909 (1 D. & J. 239). (See case No. 158, infra p. 148.) 62. United States v. Parks: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned June 16, 1908, in the Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, against Parks and others engaged in the manufacture and sale of paper, charging a combination and conspiracy to fix prices. The defendants pleaded guilty and fines aggregating $54,000 were imposed on various dates from June 22, 1908, to November 10,1909 (1 D. & J. 733). 63. United States v. Allen Bros. Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed April 16,1909, in the Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, against the Allen Brothers Company and a number of other paper manufacturers, alleging a combination to eliminate competition in the manufacture, sale, shipment, and distribution of fibre, manila, and other papers. The combination was declared illegal, its further operation was enjoined, and a decree dissolving it was entered on May 10,1909 (2 D. & J. —).107 64. United States v. American Sugar Refining Co.: Indict- ment under the Sherman Act returned July 1, 1909, in the Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, against the American Sugar Refining Company and others, charging that they had prevented the Pennsyl- vania Refining Company from engaging in the sugar business by secretly obtaining stock control of the Pennsylvania Company and voting that it discontinue business. The plea of the statute of limitations inter- posed by defendants Kissel and Harned was sustained by the Circuit Court on October 26, 1909 (173 Fed. 823, 3 P. A. D. 744), and overruled by the Supreme Court on December 12,1910 (218 U. S. 601, 3 F. A. D. 816). The trial resulted in a disagreement by the jury and on December 5, 1912, a nolle prosequi was entered (1 D. & J. 735). 65. United States v. Albia Box & Paper Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned December 7, 1909, in the Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, against the Albia Box & Paper Company and others, charging a combination in restraint of trade in paper board. Thirty-three defendants pleaded guilty, fines aggregating $63,000 were imposed, and nolle prosequis were entered as to the remaining defendants between February 7 and December 21,1910 (1 D. & J. 736). 66. United States v. Steers: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned February 17,1910, in the Circuit Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, against Steers and other raisers of tobacco, charging a conspiracy to pre- vent, by threats and intimidation, a certain tobacco farmer from shipping his tobacco in interstate com- merce for the purpose of keeping tobacco from the market until prices should be raised. Eight of the twelve defendants were found guilty and fines aggre- gating $3,500 were imposed April 16, 1910 (1 D. & J.108 739-744). The convictions were affirmed on Decem- ber 5, 1911, by the Circuit Court, of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (192 Fed. 1,4 F. A. D. 427). On May 11,1912, sentences were remitted by the President upon the payment of costs (ID. & J. 745). 67. United States v. Imperial Window Glass Co.: Indict- ment under the Sherman Act returned April 7, 1910, in the District Court, Western District of Pennsyl- vania, against the Imperial "Window Glass Company and fifteen individuals, charging a combination and conspiracy to enhance the price of window glass. De- murrers to the indictment were overruled, pleas of nolo contendere were entered, and fines aggregating $10,000 were imposed on November 10, 1910 (1 D. & J. 748). 68. United Statesy. National Packing Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned March 21,1910, in the Dis- trict Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the National Packing Company and others, charging a combination to restrain trade in fresh meats. On June 23, 1910, a demurrer to the indictment was sus- tained (1 D. & J. 749). 69. United States v. National Packing Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed March 21, 1910, in the Circuit Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the Na- tional Packing Company and others, alleging a com- bination in restraint of trade in fresh meats. On December 27, 1910, the case was dismissed without prejudice in order to facilitate the criminal prosecu- tion against the same defendants (1 D. & J. 241). 70. United States v. Cuddhy Packing Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned April 30, 1910, in the Dis- trict Court, Southern District of Georgia, against the Cudahy Packing Company and others, charging a con- spiracy of meat packers to control prices and restrain109 competition in the sale of meats. After a demurrer was sustained as to the second count of the indictment, a nolle prosequi was entered on March 9, 1915 (1 D. & J. 750). 71. United States v. Missouri Pacific By. Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed May 31,1910, in the Cir- cuit Court, Eastern District of Missouri, against the Missouri Pacific Railway Company and 24 other rail- roads, alleging that the defendants had by agreement filed a tariff with the Interstate Commerce Commis- sion advancing the freight rates in certain western territory. On the same day a temporary injunction was granted (1 D. & J. 243). The Interstate Com- merce Commission subsequently enjoined the rate ad- vances which the temporary injunction had prevented from going into effect, and on June 27, 1910, the petition was dismissed (1 D. & J. 245). 72. United States v. Southern Wholesale Grocers' Ass'n: Petition under the Sherman Act filed June 9, 1910, in the Circuit Court, Northern District of Alabama, against the Southern Wholesale Grocers' Association and others, alleging a conspiracy of wholesale grocers to fix resale prices and to boycott manufacturers and producers who sold to non-members of the Association and to wholesalers and jobbers who did not maintain the fixed prices. On October 17, 1911, a consent de- cree perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination was entered (1 D. & J. 247). On Febru- ary 10, 1913, a petition was filed for a rule to show cause why an attachment for criminal contempt of court for an alleged violation of the terms of the con- sent decree should not issue. The Association and three individual members were found guilty of con- tempt of court on August 4, 1913 (207 Fed. 434, 5 F. A. D. 312), and fines aggregating $5,500 were imposed (ID. & J. 802). 9878—38-8110 73. United States v. Great Lakes Towing Company: Peti- tion under the Sherman Act filed June 19, 1910, in the Circuit Court, Northern District of Ohio, against the Great Lakes Towing Company and others, alleg- ing that they had acquired a virtual monopoly of the towing business in the 14 principal harbors of the Great Lakes by acquisition of competitors and by the use of unfair practices. On February 11, 1913, the combination was declared illegal and its further oper- ation was enjoined, pending the approval of a plan that would eliminate the offending practices (208 Fed. 733, 5 F. A. D. 347; 217 Fed. 656, 5 F. A. D. 368). A final decree was entered on February 13, 1915, per- petually enjoining the defendants in accordance with a plan permitting the company to continue the busi- ness under stringent injunctive regulations (1 D. & J. 253). An appeal to the Supreme Court by the gov- ernment was subsequently dismissed upon its own motion (245 U. S. 675). 74. United States v. Chicago Butter & Egg Board: Peti- tion under the Sherman Act filed June 13,1910, in the Circuit Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the Chicago Butter & Egg Board, its officers and mem- bers, alleging a combination to fix and control the prices of butter and eggs throughout a large section of the United States. A demurrer to the petition was sustained with leave to amend and an amended peti- tion was filed. The combination was declared illegal, its further operation was enjoined, and on October 12, 1914, a decree was entered perpetually enjoining the combination (1 D. & J. 259). 5. United States v. Patten: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned August 4, 1910, in the Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, against Patten and others, charging a conspiracy to obtain a corner inIll cotton. On March 23, 1911, demurrers to the indict- ment were sustained as to certain counts and over- ruled as to others (187 Fed. 664, 4 F. A. D. 274). The Supreme Court, on January 6, 1913, reversed the de- cree of the Circuit Court sustaining demurrers to cer- tain counts of the indictment (226 IT. S. 525, 4 F. A. D. 742). On February 11, 1913, Patten pleaded guilty and a fine of $4,000 was imposed. A nolle prosequi was entered on the remaining counts as to Patten and also on all counts as to the four other defendants (1 D. & J. 751). Another indictment was returned July 1,1913. (See case No. 146, infra p. 142.) 76. United States v. Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed July 22,1910, in the Cir- cuit Court, District of Maryland, against the Stand- ard Sanitary Manufacturing Company and other manufacturers of enameled ware, alleging a combina- tion created by a patent-licensing agreement for the purpose of fixing the wholesale and retail prices of enameled ware. On October 13, 1911, the combina- tion was declared illegal (191 Fed. 172,4 F. A. D. 395), and on November 25, 1911, a decree was entered en- joining its further operation (1 D. & J. 263). The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the Circuit Court on November 18,1912 (226 U. S. 20, 4 F. A. D. 622). 77. United States v. Swift: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned in September 1910, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against Swift and others, representing companies doing approximately 80 per cent of the meat-packing business in the United States, charging a conspiracy to eliminate competition and to fix prices by refusing to bid against each other in the purchase of livestock and by fixing the selling price of dressed meat, etc. Numerous pleas in bar filed by the defendants were denied on March 22,1911 (186 Fed. 1002, 4 F. A. D. 53). The demurrers to112 the indictment were overruled (188 Fed. 92, 4 F. A. D. 288). On March 26,1912, defendants were found not guilty (1 D. & J. 752). 78. United States v. John Reardon & Sons Co.: Three in- dictments under the Sherman Act returned October 17, 1910, in the Circuit Court, District of Massachu- setts, against John Reardon & Sons Company and others, charging a conspiracy to eliminate competi- tion in the purchase of raw materials used in the busi- ness of manufacturing, rendering and producing tal- low, oleo oil, oleosterin and fertilizer. On June 23, 1911, demurrers to these indictments were sustained (191 Fed. 454, 13 F. A. D. —), and on October 31, 1912, two new indictments were returned against sub- stantially the same defendants, charging them with monopolizing interstate trade in rendering materials. A nolle prosequi was entered on November 12, 1912, as to the individual defendants; the corporations pleaded nolo contendere and fines aggregating $8,000 were imposed December 1,1913 (1 D. & J. 754). 79. United States v. Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co.: Indict- ment under the Sherman Act returned December 6, 1910, in the District Court, Eastern District of Michi- gan, against the Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Company and other manufacturers of enameled ware, charging a combination created by a patent-licensing agreement for the purpose of fixing the wholesale and retail prices of enameled ware. A demurrer by the government to the pleas of immunity interposed by defendants on the ground that they could not be prose- cuted on the basis of information given in a previous equity case was sustained March 8,1911 (187 Fed. 229, 4 F. A. D. 251). The first trial resulted in a disagree- ment by the jury, and on a retrial the defendants were found guilty and fines aggregating $51,000 were im- posed February 15,1913 (ID. & J. 755).113 80. United States v. American Sugar Refining Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed November 28, 1910, in the Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, against the American Sugar Refining Company, sev- eral other sugar companies, and their officers, alleging that the defendants had formed a combination to fix prices, to curtail production, and to eliminate competi- tion in the sugar industry and, to achieve the purposes of the combination, had bought stock in competing companies and had caused competitors to cease oper- ating. A demurrer to the petition was overruled and the hearing of the case was postponed pending the outcome of similar cases then before the Supreme Court. After the defendants voluntarily eliminated the unlawful conditions, a consent decree was entered May 9, 1922, perpetually enjoining the American Sugar Refining Company from acquiring any greater proportion of the stock of three other companies than it then held and dismissing the petition as to the re- maining corporate defendants (2 D. & J. —). The decree was modified on February 25, 1927, to permit the National Sugar Refining Company to purchase a refinery owned by the Warner Sugar Corporation (2 —). 81. United States v. Purington: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned September 14, 1910, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against Puring- ton and others, charging a conspiracy to restrain trade in paving products and paving blocks. After a de- murrer to the indictment was overruled, a nolle prosequi was entered June 3,1913 (1 D. & J. 757). 82. United States v. General Electric Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed March 3, 1911, in the Circuit Court, Northern District of Ohio, against the General Electric Company and numerous subsidiaries engaged114 in the manufacture and sale of incandescent electric lamps, alleging that the defendants had combined and conspired to restrain commerce by concealed stock ownership of bogus independent companies and by the use of tying contracts and agreements for the pur- pose of fixing prices and eliminating competition. On October 12,1911, a consent decree dissolving the com- bination and perpetually enjoining its further opera- tion was entered (1 D. & J. 267). On December 16, 1911, the decree was modified to permit a stay of six months (2 D. & J. —). 83. United States v. Hamburg-American Co.: Petition un- der the Sherman Act filed January 4,1911, in the Cir- cuit Court, Southern District of New York, against the Hamburg-American and other steamship lines operating between the United States and Europe, alleging a conspiracy to control steerage traffic by apportioning passengers, by fixing rates, and by cer- tain unfair practices such as the use of "fighting" ships. After demurrers to the petition had been over- ruled December 20, 1911 (200 Fed. 806, 4 F. A. D. 892), the defendants on October 13, 1914, were en- joined solely from using "fighting" ships (216 Fed. 971, 4 F. A. D. 897) (1 D. & J. 275). The Supreme Court, on January 10, 1916, reversed the decree of the District Court and directed that the petition be dismissed without prejudice to the government on the ground that the European War had rendered the questions moot (239 U. S. 466, 4 F. A. D. 903), and on March 21, 1917, a decree dismissing the petition was entered (1 D. & J. 277). 84. United States v. Geer: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned April 28, 1911, in the Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, against Geer and others, charging a conspiracy to restrain /trade in paper board. A demurrer to the indictment was over- ruled and a nolle prosequi was entered as to Geer and115 ten other defendants. The remaining defendants withdrew their former pleas of not guilty and pleaded nolo contendere and fines aggregating $16,000 were imposed on February 5, 1915 (1 D. & J. 758). 85. United States v. Eastern States Retail Lumber Ass'n: Petition under the Sherman Act filed May 19, 1911, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against various retail lumbermen's associations, their members, officers, and agents, alleging a combination and conspiracy to blacklist and boycott wholesale lumber dealers who sold at retail. The combination was declared illegal and its further operation was enjoined January 9, 1913 (201 Fed. 581, 4 F. A. D. 856) (1 D. & J. 281). On June 22, 1914, this decree was affirmed by the Supreme Court (234 U. S. 600, 4 F. A. D. 863). (See case No. 92, infra p. 119.) 86. United States v. Whiting: Two indictments under the Sherman Act returned May 26, 1911, in the District Court, District of Massachusetts, against Whiting and other purchasers of milk produced in the New England States for shipment to the Boston and Wor- cester areas in Massachusetts. The first indictment charged a conspiracy to restrain trade by fixing prices to be paid producers for milk purchased. The second indictment contained two counts: the first charged a combination to restrain trade by agreeing on uniform prices to be paid producers; the second charged an attempt to monopolize trade in milk by depressing the prices to be paid to the producers. A demurrer to the first indictment and to the second count of the second indictment was sustained, but the demurrer to the first count of the second indictment was overruled on March 23, 1914 (212 Fed. 466, 5 F. A. D. 447). Cer- tain defendants pleaded nolo contendere and the ease was continued as to them pending the disposition of the case against the remaining defendants. On Oc- tober 22, 1923, the defendant Whiting paid a fine of116 $500 in lieu of costs and the indictments against the remaining defendants were dismissed (2 D. & J. —). 87. United States v. Holmes: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned June 23,1911, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against Holmes and others who were secretaries of fourteen retail lumber- men's associations, charging a conspiracy to control the marketing of lumber by blacklisting and boy- cotting. After a demurrer to the indictment was filed, a nolle prosequi was entered June 6, 1913 (1 D. & J. 759). 88. United States v. Palmer: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned June 29,1911, in the Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, against Palmer and twenty-five others constituting the Bare Copper Wire Association, charging the operation of a pool to fix prices and to apportion territory. The defendants pleaded nolo contendere and fines aggregating $9,400 were imposed on various dates from July 25 to Sep- tember 14,1911 (1 D. & J. 760). 88a. United States v. Palmer: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned June 29,1911, in the Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, against Palmer and thirty-three others constituting the Weatherproof and Magnet Wire Association, charging the operation of a pool to fix prices and to apportion territory. The de- fendants pleaded nolo contendere and fines aggregat- ing $13,700 were imposed on various dates from July 25 to September 14,1911 (1 D. & J. 762). 88b. United States v. Palmer: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned June 29,1911, in the Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, against Palmer and thirty-eight others constituting the Eubber Covered Wire Association, charging the operation of a pool to fix prices and to apportion territory. The defendants117 pleaded nolo contendere and fines aggregating $37,500 were imposed on various dates from July 25 to August 4,1911 (1D.&J. 764). 88c. United States v. Roebling: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned June 11,1911, in the Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, against Roebling and seventeen others constituting the Fine Magnet Wire Association, charging the operation of a pool to fix prices and to apportion territory. The defendants pleaded nolo contendere and fines aggregating $22,000 were imposed on various dates from July 25 to August 4,1911 (1 D. & J. 770). 88d. United States v. Palmer: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned June 29, 1911, in the Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, against Palmer and fifteen others constituting the Horseshoe Manufac- turers' Association, charging the operation of a pool to fix prices and to apportion territory. The defend- ants pleaded nolo contendere and fines aggregating $18,300 were imposed on various dates from July 25 to October 20,1911 (1 D. & J. 766). 88e. United States v. Smith: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned June 29, 1911, in the Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, against Smith and fourteen others constituting the Underground Power Cable Association, charging the operation of a pool to fix prices and to apportion territory. The defendants pleaded nolo contendere and fines aggregating $10,000 were imposed on various dates from July 25, 1911, to September 14,1916 (1D. & J. 772). 88f. United States v. Philips: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned June 29,1911, in the Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, against Philips and ten others constituting the Telephone Cable Associa- tion, charging the operation of a pool to fix prices and118 to apportion territory. The defendants pleaded nolo contendere and fines aggregating $5,900 were imposed on various dates from July 25 to September 14, 1911 (ID. & J. 774). 88g. United States v. Palmer: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned June 29,1911, in the Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, against Palmer and seventeen others constituting the Lead Incased Rub- ber Insulated Cable Association, charging the opera- tion of a pool to fix prices and to apportion territory. The defendants pleaded nolo contendere and fines ag- gregating $7,700 were imposed on various dates from July 25 to September 14,1911 (1D. & J. 768). 88h. United States v. Jackson: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned June 29,1911, in the Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, against Jackson and seventeen others constituting the Wire Rope Associa- tion, charging the operation of a pool to fix prices and to apportion territory. The defendants pleaded nolo contendere and fines aggregating $7,700 were imposed on various dates from July 25 to August 4, 1911 (1 D. & J. 775). 89. United States v. Periodical Clearing House: Petition under the Sherman Act filed in June 1911, in the Dis- trict Court, Southern District of New York, against the members of the so-called "magazine trust." The case was heard before an expedition court of four judges, which dismissed the petition on May 29, 1913 (1 D. & J. 287). 90. United States v. Pearce: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned July 19, 1911, in the District Court, Northern District of Ohio, against Pearce and others, manufacturers and jobbers, charging a conspiracy to restrain competition in the manufacture and sale of wall paper. After a demurrer to the indictment was119 overruled, the defendants were found not guilty on May 24,1912 (1 D. & J. 777). 91. United States v. Lake Shore By. Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed August 4, 1911, in the District Court, Southern District of Ohio, against the Lake Shore Railway Company, the Michigan Southern and other railroads, and three coal companies, alleging a combination formed for the purpose of monopolizing the production of bituminous coal in the Ohio and the West Virginia fields and the transportation there- from. On December 28, 1912, the combination was declared illegal and its further operation was en- joined pending the determination of the final relief to be granted (203 Fed. 295, 5 F. A. D. 241). A decree was entered on March 14, 1914, in accordance with a plan submitted by the parties, dissolving the combi- nation and perpetually enjoining its further opera- tion (1D. & J. 289). A supplemental petition was filed November 21, 1922, seeking the release of lands of the Buckeye Coal & Railroad Company from the lien of the Hocking Valley general mortgage and also the termination of a sinking fund charge on said lands of 20 a ton on all coal mined therefrom. The District Court on January 18,1924, dismissed the supplemental petition of the government without prejudice to its right to seek relief in the future (5 F. (2d) 240, 10 F. A. D. 469). 92. United States v. Harwich: Petition under the Sherman Act filed August 31, 1911, in the Circuit Court, East- ern District of Michigan, against the members of the Michigan Retail Lumber Dealers' Association, the Scout Publishing Company, and the Lumber Secre- taries Bureau of Information, alleging a conspiracy to boycott and to blacklist wholesale lumber dealers who sold to others than those designated as retailers by the Association. The case was not contested in view120 of the decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. Eastern States Retail Lumber Ass'n, 234 U. S. 600, case No. 85, supra page 115, and a decree was entered on December 4, 1917, perpetually enjoining the de- fendants (1 D. & J. 649). 93. United States v. Hunter Milling Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned September 10,1911, in the District Court, Western District of Oklahoma, against the Hunter Milling Company and others, charging a conspiracy to restrain trade in flour. After a de- murrer to the indictment was overruled, the trial re- sulted in a verdict of guilty and fines aggregating $2,000 were imposed on May 26,1913 (1 D. & J. 779). 94. United States v. Standard Wood Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed September 19,1911, in the Cir- cuit Court, Southern District of New York, against the members of the so-called "kindling wood trust," alleging a combination formed for the purpose of eliminating competition and limiting and restricting the manufacture and sale of bundled kindling wood by fixing and maintaining uniform and non-competitive prices, and by preventing others from engaging in the manufacture and sale of kindling wood. Upon the failure of the defendants to answer, the combina- tion was declared illegal and a decree was entered on March 11, 1912, enjoining its further operation (1 D. & J. 311). 95. United States v. Winslow: Two indictments under the Sherman Act returned September 19, 1911, in the District Court, District of Massachusetts, against Winslow and others, charging a combination and con- spiracy to restrain and monopolize the shoe machinery industry by the consolidation of independent manu- facturers and by a system of leases containing tying clauses. On March 21, 1912, a demurrer to the first121 indictment was sustained and a demurrer to the second indictment was sustained as to one count (195 Fed. 578, 5 F. A. D. 170) (1 D. & J. 782). The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the District Court February 3,1913 (227 U. S. 202, 5 F. A. D. 198). After a nolle prosequi was entered as to the second indictment, the court on November 20, 1918, denied a motion by the defendants to strike the nolle prosequi from the record (2 D. & J. —). 96. United States v. Colorado Wyoming Lumber Dealers' Ass'n: Petition under the Sherman Act filed Septem- ber 25, 1911, in the District Court, District of Colo- rado, against the Colorado & Wyoming Lumber Deal- ers' Association and the Lumber Secretaries' Bureau of Information, alleging a combination and conspir- acy to boycott and blacklist manufacturers of and wholesale dealers in lumber who sold lumber products to those not designated as retailers by the Association. The case was not contested in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. Eastern States Retail Lumber Ass'n, 234 U. S. 600, case No. 85, supra page 115, and a decree was entered on December 29, 1917, perpetually enjoining the operation of the combination (1 D. & J. 663). 97. United States v. Hollis: Petition under the Sherman Act filed in October 1911, in the Circuit Court, District of Minnesota, against the Lumber Secretaries' Bureau of Information, the Lumbermen's Publishing Com- pany, and certain individuals in the retail lumber trade, alleging a combination and conspiracy to boy- cott and blacklist certain manufacturers and whole- sale dealers who sold lumber direct to those not desig- nated as retailers by the Association. The combina- tion was declared illegal on March 14,1917 (246 Fed. 611, 6 F. A. D. 976), and a final decree was entered on August 10, 1917, perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (1 D. & J. 619).122 United States v. U. 8. Steel Corp.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed October 27, 1911, in the District Court, District of New Jersey, against the United States Steel Corporation and others, alleging that the United States Steel Corporation had created a com- bination in restraint of trade by acquiring competing producing companies, which together produced more than 50 per cent of the iron and steel in the United States and controlled a large proportion of available ore, coal, and other properties; and by eliminating existing competition between the consolidated com- panies; and further alleging that the United States Steel Corporation had entered into agreements with the remaining competitors to fix the market prices of iron and steel. On June 3, 1915, the District Court refused to dissolve the combination and entered a de- cree dismissing the petition (223 Fed. 55, 6 F. A. D. 1) (1 D. & J. 313). The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the District Court on March 1, 1920 (251 U. S. 417, 8 F. A. D. 527). A petition for rehearing was denied on May 3,1920. 99. United States v. Cotton: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned November 15,1911, in the District Court, Southern District of Mississippi, against Cotton and others, charging a conspiracy to restrain interstate commerce during the course of a strike on the Illinois Central Railroad. The strike having terminated, the case was not brought to trial (1D. & J. 783). 100. United States v. National Cash Register Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed December 4, 1911, in the Circuit Court, Southern District of Ohio, against the National Cash Register Company and a number of individual defendants, alleging a conspiracy to re- strain trade in cash registers and other registering devices by acquiring patents, plants, and businesses of competitors, by intimidating competitors and their123 purchasers, by "wrongfully obtaining business secrets and names of prospects from competitors, and by espionage and other unfair practices. A consent de- cree was entered on February 1, 1916, enjoining the practices complained of (1 D. & J. 315). An information in contempt was filed November 2, 1925, against Whiffen and 89 other sales agents of the National Cash Register Company, the employees of the sales agents, and two others, charging a violation of the provisions of the consent decree. On Septem- ber 28, 1927, an order of dismissal was entered as to 70 defendants (2 D. & J.;—). On November 28,1927, the District Court granted a motion to dismiss as to 18 of the remaining 22 defendants because of the stat- ute of limitations (23 P. (2d) 352, 12 F. A. D. 312). The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Dis- trict Court on May 14,1928 (277 U. S. 229,12 F. A. D. 323), and the government moved to dismiss the in- formation as to 20 of the defendants on September 4,1928, and tried the two remaining defendants. On November 12, 1928, the District Court found one of these defendants guilty on two counts and imposed a fine of $1,000 on each count. The court dismissed the information against the remaining defendant. A motion for a new trial was denied on January 8, 1929 (2 D.&J. —). On the same day the decree was modified to permit the acquisition of the Ellis Adding-Typewriter Com- pany (2 D. & J. —) and on November 20, 1931, the Remington Cash Register Company (2 D. & J. —). (See case No. 112, infra p. 127.) 101. United States v. United Shoe Machinery Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed December 12,1911, in the District Court, District of Massachusetts, against the United Shoe Machinery Company and others, alleg- ing a combination and conspiracy to restrain and monopolize interstate commerce in patented shoe ma-124 chinery by the consolidation of independent com- panies and by a system of leases containing tying clauses. The petition was dismissed on March 18, 1915 (222 Fed. 349, 5 F. A. D. 686,1D.&J. 321), and on appeal to the Supreme Court the decree of the Dis- trict Court was affirmed on May 20, 1918 (247 U. S. 32, 8 F. A. D. 223). A petition for rehearing was denied. (See case No. 130, infra p. 136.) 102. United States v. Haines: Two indictments under the Sherman Act returned December 16,1911, in the Dis- trict Court, Southern District of Florida, against members of a longshoremen's association, charging a conspiracy to interfere with the interstate operations of the Mason Forwarding Company, which had de- clined to recognize one of the conspirators as the union representative. The defendants pleaded guilty and each was sentenced to four hours' confinement in the custody of the marshal on March 21, 1912 (1. D. & J. 784). 103. United States v. Haines: Two indictments under the Sherman Act returned December 16, 1911, in the Dis- trict Court, Southern District of Florida, against members of a longshoremen's association, charging a conspiracy to restrain commerce by establishing rules, regulations, requirements, etc., with reference to the employment of workmen engaged in loading vessels with lumber for interstate shipment. This case was consolidated for trial with the preceding case. The defendants pleaded guilty and each was sentenced to four hours' confinement in the custody of the marshal on March 21,1912 (1. D. & J. 784). 104. United States v. Pacific Coast Plumbing Supply Ass'n: Petition under the Sherman Act filed December 18, 1911, in the Circuit Court, Southern District of Cali- fornia, against the Pacific Coast Plumbing Supply Association and all of its members, alleging a con-125 spiracy to boycott manufacturers of plumbing sup- plies who sold their products to jobbers who were neither members of nor approved by the Association. A consent decree was entered January 6, 1912, per- petually enjoining the further operation of the com- bination (1 D. & J. 323). 105. United States v. Keystone Watch Case Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed December 20,1911, in the District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against the Keystone Watch Case Company and its officers, alleging a combination in restraint of trade by the consolidation of competing manufacturers of watch cases and by unfair practices, such as resale price fixing and boycotting dealers who purchased the products of other manufacturers. The District Court refused to order a dissolution of the combination but granted an injunction against certain unlawful prac- tices on January 2,1915 (218 Fed. 502, 5 F. A. D. 481) (1 D. & J. 329). By stipulation, the appeals of both parties to the Supreme Court were dismissed on Oc- tober 24, 1921. 106. United States v. American Naval Stores Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed January 8, 1912, in the District Court, Southern District of Georgia, against the American Naval Stores Company and its officers, alleging an unlawful combination and conspiracy in restraint of interstate and foreign commerce in tur- pentine and resin. A demurrer to the petition was overruled on January 2,1913. In March 1913, the de- fendant suspended business because of financial diffi- culties and the case was dismissed without prejudice on June 27,1914 (2 D. & J. —). 107. United States v. New Departure Mfg. Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned January 8, 1912, in the District Court, Western District of New York, against the New Departure Manufacturing Company, 9878—38-9126 five other corporate and eighteen individual defend- ants, charging a conspiracy to restrain and monopo- lize interstate commerce in coaster brakes by fixing uniform prices and terms and conditions of sale, etc., under cover of a pretended patent-licensing arrange- ment. A plea in abatement was overruled on April 2, 1912 (195 Fed. 778), and after a demurrer to the indictment had been overruled on March 12,1913 (204 Fed. 107, 5 F. A. D. 145), certain of the defendants pleaded guilty and others nolo contendere and fines aggregating $81,500 were imposed on May 27, 1913 (1 D. & J. 785). 108. United States v. North Pacific Wharves & Trading Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned Febru- ary 12,1912, in the District Court, District of Alaska, against the North Pacific Wharves & Trading Com- pany and others, charging that the North Pacific Com- pany and the Pacific Coast Company, owners of the only wharves in Skagway, Alaska, entered into an agreement whereby the Pacific Coast Company agreed to close its wharf to the public and the former agreed to pay to the Pacific Coast Company a fixed amount for each ton of coal passing over its wharf and to ship all its coal by boats owned by that company. A de- murrer to the indictment was sustained on April 29, 1912 (4 Alaska 583) (1 D. & J. 787). 109. United States v. Pacific d? Arctic Ry. Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned February 12, 1912, in the District Court, District of Alaska, against the Pacific & Arctic Railway Company and others, charg- ing a conspiracy to monopolize the transportation facilities between Skagway, Alaska, and the head waters of the Yukon River by the purchase and aban- donment of competing carriers. A plea of the statute of limitations was sustained on April 29, 1912 (4 Alaska 574) (1 D. & J. 791).127 110. United States v. North Pacific Wharves & Trading Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned Febru- ary 12,1912, in the District Court, District of Alaska, against the North Pacific Wharves & Trading Com- pany and others, charging an agreement between the owners of all wharf facilities in Skagway, Alaska, whereby all but one wharf was closed to the public. A demurrer to the indictment was overruled on April 29, 1912 (4 Alaska 552). The first trial resulted in a disagreement by the jury on January 27,1913, and on the second trial the indictment was dismissed on Feb- ruary 2, 1914, as to the individual defendants, and after the corporate defendants pleaded guilty fines aggregating $8,500 were imposed (1 D. & J. 788-789). 111. United States v. Pacific & Arctic By. Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned February 13, 1912, in the District Court, District of Alaska, against the Pacific & Arctic Railway Company and others, charg- ing a conspiracy to monopolize transportation be- tween the United States and Yukon River points by refusing to grant through rates to other lines and by exacting exorbitant local transportation and wharf- age charges to shippers using the transportation facilities of competitors. A demurrer to the indict- ment was sustained in part May 3, 1912 (4 Alaska 530), but this decision was reversed by the Supreme Court on April 7,1913 (228 U. S. 87, 5 F. A. D. 213). On February 2,1914, the indictment was dismissed as to the individual defendants, and after the corporate defendants pleaded guilty fines aggregating $19,500 were imposed (1 D. & J. 792-793). 112. United States v. Patterson: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned February 22, 1912, in the District Court, Southern District of Ohio, against Patterson128 and others, officers and agents of the National Cash Register Company, charging that the defendants had conspired to restrain interstate commerce in cash registers by compelling competitors either to go out of business or to sell their businesses to the defend- ants; by acquiring competitors and discontinuing their business; by wrongfully obtaining business secrets from competitors; by injuring the credit of competitors by false statements; and by preventing competitors from selling cash registers through es- pionage and other unfair practices. A demurrer to the indictment was overruled June 26,1912 (201 Fed. 697, 5 F. A. D. 1). The objection by the government to the presentation of certain evidence by the defend- ants was sustained February 3, 1913 (205 Fed. 292, 5 F. A. D. 45). The trial resulted in a verdict of guilty as to twenty-nine defendants. One defendant was granted a new trial. Sentences to imprisonment for terms from nine months to one year were imposed on twenty-seven defendants, and Patterson was sentenced to imprisonment for one year and was fined $5,000 (1D. & J. 795) . On March 13,1915, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, reversed the judgment of the District Court (222 Fed. 599, 5 F. A. D. 60). The Supreme Court denied certiorari (238 U. S. 635), and a nolle prosequi was entered February 1,1916 (1 D. & J. 798). (See also case No. 100, supra p. 122.) 113. United States v. American-Asiatic S. S. Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed March 30, 1912, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the American-Asiatic and other steamship companies operating from New York and Boston to ports in the Far East, alleging a combination to fix rates by entering into pooling arrangements, by grant- ing rebates to shippers using such lines exclusively, and by using "fighting" ships. On February 3,1915, the District Court refused to order a dissolution of the combination and the petition was dismissed (220 Fed.129 230, 5 F. A. D. 675) (1 D. & J. 333). The Supreme Court on January 22,1917, reversed the decree of the District Court and directed that the petition be dis- missed without prejudice to the government on the ground that the European War had rendered the issues moot (242 TJ. S. 537, 5 F. A. D. 684) (ID. & J. 334). 114. United States v. Miller: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned April 2,1912, in the District Court, East- ern District of New York, against Miller and others, charging them with restraining interstate commerce in charcoal. A demurrer to the indictment was sus- tained and the indictment was dismissed on October 25,1912 (1 D. & J. 799). 115. TJnited States v. International Harvester Company: Pe- tition under the Sherman Act filed April 30, 1912, in the District Court, District of Minnesota, against the International Harvester Company and others, alleg- ing that five competing corporations, producing be- tween 80 and 85 per cent of the harvesting and agri- cultural machinery and implements used in the United States, had, by consolidation and purchases of stock, formed a combination in restraint of trade. On Au- gust 12,1914, the combination was declared illegal and a decree of dissolution was entered on August 15,1914 (214 Fed. 987, 5 F. A. D. 637) (1 D. & J. 337). The decree was modified slightly upon the defendants' motion October 3,1914 (1 D. & J. 339). The defend- ants dismissed their appeal to the Supreme Court (248 U. S. 587), and a final decree was entered on November 2, 1918, dissolving the combination (2 D. & J. —). A supplemental petition was filed July 17, 1923, against the International Harvester Company and others, alleging that although the declared purpose of the original decree was to restore competitive condi- tions in the harvesting and agricultural machinery130 industry, it had not achieved its purpose, and seeking a further dissolution of the harvester company into three units, as recommended in Report of Federal Trade Commission on the Causes of High Prices of Farm Implements, 1920, c. 10. The District Court refused to grant this additional relief (10 F. (2d) 827, 10 F. A. D. 989), and this decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court on June 6,1927 (274 U. S. 693, 10 F. A. D. 1053). 6. United States v. Aluminum Co. of America: Petition under the Sherman Act filed May 16, 1912, in the District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, against the Aluminum Company, alleging a combina- tion and conspiracy to restrain and monopolize inter- state and foreign trade and commerce in aluminum and aluminum products by acquiring, through stock own- ership, leases and contracts, control of more than 90 per cent of the supply of bauxite used in the manu- facture of aluminum, about 78 per cent of the alumi- num cooking utensil business, and more than 50 per cent of the aluminum castings, aluminum goods and novelties manufactured and sold in the United States; by fixing and controlling prices; by eliminating and preventing competition; by preventing imports and exports; by dividing territory; and by refusing to sell to competitors. The petition further alleged that the defendants attempted to accomplish these objects by threats and by economic coercion. A consent decree was entered on June 7,1912, voiding certain contracts and perpetually enjoining certain illegal activities (1 D. & J. 341). On October 25, 1922, the decree was modified to permit the Aluminum Company to pur- chase the Norslce Aluminum Company of Norway (2 D. & J. —). On April 29, 1937, the defendant filed a petition praying for an injunction restraining the United States and certain designated government officers from131 proceeding with or prosecuting an equity suit under the Sherman Act filed in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Aluminum Com- pany of America and certain other defendants. (See case No. 423, inf ra p. 266.) A temporary restraining order was entered the same day (2 D. & J. —), and a preliminary injunction was granted on Mav 14,1937 (19 F. Supp. 374, 2 D. & J. —). On June 8, 1937, an application was made by the United States to the District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, for an order establishing an expedition court to de- termine the issues raised by the petition of the defend- ant. On June 14, 1937, an order was entered establishing an expedition court, pursuant to the pro- visions of the Act of February 11, 1913, c. 544, as amended. The Expedition Court, on July 21, 1937, dismissed the petition of the Aluminum Company, vacated the temporary restraining order and prelimi- nary injunction previously granted, and denied the petition for a permanent injunction (20 F. Supp. 608, 13 F. A. D. —). On July 27,1937, a final decree was entered by the Expedition Court (2 D. & J. —). On December 6,1937, the decree of the Expedition Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court. 7. United States v. Sielcken: Petition under the Sherman Act filed May 18,1912, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against Sielcken and others, alleging a conspiracy to reduce the production of coffee, especially in the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil, and to withdraw a large percentage of coffee from the world market by purchase so as to control and en- hance the world market price of coffee. A motion for a temporary injunction was denied. Upon the advice of the Department of State that representations had been made by the Brazilian Government to the effect that the entire quantity of coffee which was being withheld from the market had been sold to a large132 number of dealers throughout the United States, a decree dismissing the petition was entered on May 29,1913 (1 D. & J. 351). 118. United States v. Prince Line, Ltd.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed June 5,1912, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Prince Line and other steamship companies, operating the only steamship lines from New York and New Orleans to ports in Brazil, alleging an agreement among the steamship lines to fix rates, to grant rebates to ship- pers using defendants' lines exclusively, and to refuse freight offered by shippers who did not use defend- ants' lines exclusively. The District Court, on Febru- ary 3, 1915, enjoined the refusal to accept cargo and dismissed the petition in all other respects (220 Fed. 230, 5 F. A. D. 675) (1 D. & J. 353). On January 22, 1917, the Supreme Court reversed the decree of the District Court and directed that the petition be dis- missed without prejudice to the government on the ground that the European War had rendered the is- sues moot (242 U. S. 537, 5 F. A. D. 684) (1 D. & J. 357). 119. United States v. Central-West Publishing Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed August 3, 1912, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the Central-West Publishing Company and others, alleging an attempt to monopolize interstate trade in the business of shipping ready-print papers, matrices, and stereotyped plates by underselling competitors and by obtaining business through threats, intimida- tions, and other unfair competitive practices. A de- cree was entered on August 3, 1912, perpetually en- joining the practices complained of (1 D. & J. 359). On May 9,1917, the American Press Association filed a petition asking for a modification of the decree to permit the sale of its assets to the Western Newspaper Union. After the District Court dismissed the peti- tion (1 D. & J. 367), the Circuit Court of Appeals,133 Seventh Circuit, reversed the decree and authorized the sale on August 25, 1917 (245 Fed. 91, 8 F. A. D. 52) (1 D. & J. 368), and the decree was modified on September 5,1917 (1 D. & J. 370). 120. United States v. Associated Bill Posters: Petition under the Sherman Act filed August 3, 1912, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the Association and its members who owned billboards in many of the most desirable cities in the United States, alleging a conspiracy to monopolize the busi- ness of national poster advertising by refusing to ac- cept advertising from persons who patronized compet- itors and by arbitrarily fixing prices. The conspiracy was declared illegal March 14, 1916 (235 Fed. 540, 6 F. A. D. 646), and a decree was entered July 6,1916, perpetually enjoining its further operation (1 D. & J. 373). The defendants' appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed on March 27, 1922, by a stipulation of the parties. 121. United States v. Motion Picture Patents Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed August 15, 1912, in the District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against the Motion Picture Patents Company and others, alleging that the defendants, who' were the producers, importers, and manufacturers of all mo- tion picture films, cameras, projection machines, and equipment in the United States, had combined through the instrumentality of the Motion Picture Patents Company to fix minimum prices and to re- strain trade in motion pictures. The petition further alleged that the defendants had attempted to carry out the purposes of the combination by transferring patent rights on cameras, etc., to the Motion Picture Patents Company, and by leasing films only to licensed rental exchanges which agreed (a) to handle only the defendants' films and (b) to sublease them only to li- censed exhibitors who agreed to pay royalties on pro-134 jection machines even when such machines were pur- chased without conditions attached to the sale. On October 1, 1915, the combination was declared illegal (225 Fed. 800, 6 F. A. D. 204), and on January 24, 1916, a decree was entered perpetually enjoining its further operation (1 D. & J. 377). The defendants' appeal to the Supreme Court was subsequently with- drawn. 122. United States v. Payne: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned August 29, 1912, in the District Court, Northern District of Texas, against Payne and others, charging a conspiracy to restrain interstate and for- eign commerce in oils and oil products. A nolle prosequi was entered February 25, 1913 (1 D. & J. 800). 123. United States v. Master Horseshoers' Nat'I Protective Ass'n: Petition under the Sherman Act filed Decem- ber 12,1912, in the District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, against the Master Horseshoers' National Protective Association and others, alleging a combi- nation and conspiracy in restraint of trade and com- merce in drilled horseshoes, adjustable calks, and rub- ber hoof pads. After demurrers to the petition were overruled, consent decrees were entered in March and April 1914, and in January 1916, perpetually enjoin- ing the further operation of the combination (ID. & J. 383-396). 124. United States v. Philadelphia Jobbing Confectioners' Ass'n: Petition under the Sherman Act filed Decem- ber 13,1912, in the District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against the Philadelphia Jobbing Con- fectioners' Association and others, alleging a conspir- acy to restrain trade in candies and confections by refusing to purchase from manufacturers who sold to non-members of the Association. A consent decree was entered February 17,1913, perpetually enjoining135 the further operation of the combination (1 D. &. J". 397). 125. United States v. Elgin Board of Trade: Petition under the Sherman Act filed December 14, 1912, in the Dis- trict Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the Elgin Board of Trade and others, alleging a conspir- acy to restrain interstate commerce in butter and but- ter fats by arbitrarily fixing prices. The petition was dismissed as to some defendants and a consent decree was entered on April 27, 1914, against the remaining defendants enjoining the further operation of the combination (1 D. & J. 401). 126. United States v. Mellen: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned December 23,1912, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against Mellen and two others, charging a conspiracy to prevent the con- struction of subsidiary lines of the Central Vermont Railroad. A nolle prosequi was entered on December 13, 1919, as to defendants Chamberlain and Smith- ers, and on March 30, 1920, as to defendant Mellen (2 D. & J. —). 127. United States v. Kellogg Com Flake Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed December 26, 1912, in the District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, against the Kellogg Corn Flake Company and its officers, al- leging that the defendants were fixing resale prices in reliance upon a patent on a container in which corn flakes were sold. On April 14, 1915, the court held the resale price plan of the defendants illegal (222 Fed. 725, 5 F. A. D. 850), and on September 20, 1915, a decree was entered perpetually enjoining it (1 D. & J. 405). 128. United States v. Page: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned February 5, 1913, in the District Court, District of Oregon, against Page and fourteen others,136 charging a combination and conspiracy to control un- lawfully the purchase, distribution, and sale of ap- proximately 90 per cent of the produce, fruits, and vegetables shipped into the State of Oregon, through the instrumentality of the Produce Merchants' Ex- change of Portland. On February 21, 1913, the de- fendants pleaded guilty and fines aggregating $8,450 were imposed (1 D. & J. 801). 129. United States v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co.: Peti- tion under the Sherman Act filed February 7,1913, in the District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, against the Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Company and others, alleging a conspiracy to fix the prices of shoe and boot lasts, both patented and unpatented, by means of licensing agreements. A consent decree was entered on the same day perpetually enjoining the practices complained of O D. & J. 407). 130. United States v. United Shoe Machinery Co. of N. J.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed February 8, 1913, in the District Court, District of New Jersey, against the United Shoe Machinery Company and others, alleging a conspiracy to restrain and monop- olize interstate commerce in patented inseam trim- ming machinery by acquiring control of competing manufacturers and by a system of leases containing tying clauses. This case was collateral to case No. 101, supra page 123, and after the petition in that case was dismissed, the petition in this case was dismissed in April 1919 (2 D. & J. —). 131. United States v. Chicago Board of Trade: Petition under the Sherman Act filed February 11,1913, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the Chicago Board of Trade, its officers and directors, alleging a conspiracy to fix the prices of all corn, oats, wheat, and rye arriving in Chicago when the Board of Trade was not in session. The combination was de-137 clared illegal and its further operation was per- petually enjoined on December 28, 1915 (1 D. & J. 413). The Supreme Court reversed the decree of the District Court on March 4,1918 (246 U. S. 231, 8 F. A. D. 180). 132. United States v. Cleveland Stone Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed February 12, 1913, in the District Court, Northern District of Ohio, against the Cleve- land Stone Company and others, alleging a combina- tion to fix jobbing and retail prices in the stone busi- ness. A consent decree was entered February 11, 1916, perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (1 D. & J. 417). 133. United States v. Lackatvanna B. R. Co.: Petition filed under the Sherman Act and the commodities clause of the Interstate Commerce Act, February 13, 1913, in the District Court, District of New Jersey, against the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company and the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Coal Com- pany, alleging that the railroad company, one of the largest producers of anthracite coal in the fields which it alone served, had caused the coal company to be organized to avoid the effect of the commodities clause, and had then entered into a contract with the coal company whereby the latter agreed to purchase, f. o. b. the mines, such quantities of coal as the railroad company should mine or acquire and not to purchase coal from other producers. It was alleged that the contract violated the Sherman Act and that the trans- portation of coal sold to the coal company violated the commodities clause. The contract was declared to be valid and the petition was dismissed on April 7, 1914 (213 Fed. 240, 6 F. A. D. 225) (1 D. & J. 421). The Supreme Court, on June 21,1915, reversed the decree of the District Court with directions to grant an injunction (238 U. S. 516, 6 F. A. D. 260). A decree was entered on August 6,1915, enjoining the138 railroad company from transporting in interstate commerce coal mined or purchased by it and purport- ing to have been sold to the coal company under the contract, and enjoining both the railroad and the coal company from carrying out the provisions of the contract (1 D. & J. 423). 134. United States v. McCaskey Register Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed February 20,1913, in the District Court, Northern District of Ohio, against the McCaskey Register Company and others, alleging a conspiracy to restrain and monopolize the manufac- ture and sale of account registers and appliances. The case was dismissed without prejudice on January 7,1915 (1 D. & J. 425). 135. United States v. Internat'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers: Petition under the Sherman Act filed Feb- ruary 24,1913, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the two local unions of the Inter- national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, their of- ficers and members, alleging a conspiracy to interfere by force and intimidation with the interstate business of the Postal Telegraph Company. A decree tempo- rarily enjoining the further operation of the conspir- acy was entered on March 11, 1913 (1 D. & J. 427), and after a hearing the injunction was made perma- nent by a consent decree on February 27, 1914 (ID. & J. 430). 136. United States v. Corn Products Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed March 1,1913, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Corn Products Company and others, alleging that the Corn Products Company, for the purpose of eliminating competition, had acquired control of all the glucose plants in the United States and of starch factories producing 64 per cent of the total production in the United States, and had used certain unfair trade prac-139 tices, such as rebates for exclusive dealing. An inter- locutory consent decree was entered on May 14, 1915, ordering a dissolution of the combination of two of the defendants (1 D. & J. 433). On June 24, 1916, the combination was declared illegal and its dissolu- tion was ordered on November 13,1916 (234 Fed. 964, 6 F. A. D. 557) (1 D. & J. 440). The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the defendants and a final decree of dissolution was entered on March 31, 1919 (2 D. & J. —). The decree was modified with the con- sent of the government on October 18, 1921 (2 D. & J.-). 137. United States v. American Thread Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed March 3, 1913, in the District Court, District of New Jersey, against the American Thread Company and others, alleging that the defend- ants had combined to restrain trade in the thread in- dustry by means of intercorporate stockholdings, by agreements to fix prices, to restrict output, and to divide territory, and by other unfair trade practices. A consent decree was entered on June 2, 1914, dis- solving the combination and enjoining the use of cer- tain unfair trade practices against independent manufacturers (1 D. & J. 449). Subsequently an order was entered modifying the decree to permit compliance with the National Recovery Administra- tion code for the cotton textile industry, approved July 16,1933 (2 D. & J. —). 138. United States v. Burroughs Adding Machine Go.: Peti- tion under the Sherman Act filed March 3,1913, in the District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, against the Burroughs Adding Machine Company and others, alleging a conspiracy to monopolize trade and com- merce in adding machines by means of certain unfair trade practices. A consent decree was entered on the same day perpetually enjoining such practices and for- bidding the future acquisition of competing com-140 panies (1 D. & J. 457). The decree was modified on September 7,1922, to permit the defendants to acquire a controlling interest in a company to be organized for the purpose of taking over the adding machine busi- ness of a German concern (2 D. & J. —). 139. United States v. American Coal Products Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed March 3, 1913, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the American Coal Products Company and others, alleging a combination to restrain and monop- olize the supply of coal tar by the elimination of com- petition in the purchase of coal tar and in the manu- facture and sale of tarred roofing felts, coal tar pitch, and other coal tar products. A consent decree was entered on March 4, 1913, ordering a dissolution of some of the defendants and perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (1 D. & J. 461). 140. United States v. Terminal B. R. Ass'n: Petition under the Sherman Act filed March 4, 1913, in the District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, against the Ter- minal Railroad Association and certain named rail- roads which organized and became members of the St. Louis Coal Traffic Bureau, alleging a conspiracy to eliminate competition in 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 petition was dismissed without prejudice on Sep- tember 20,1915 (1 D. & J. 469). 141. United States v. New Departure Mfg. Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed May 27, 1913, in the District Court, Western District of New York, against the New Departure Manufacturing Company and others, alleging a conspiracy to restrain and monopo- lize the manufacture and sale of bicycle and motor- cycle parts and coaster brakes by means of license141 agreements. A consent decree was entered the same day perpetually enjoining the conspiracy and order- ing the dissolution of the Association of Coaster Brake Licensees (1D. & J. 471). 142. United States v. White: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned June 7, 1913, in the District Court, Southern District of West Virginia, against White and eighteen other members of the United Mine Workers of America, charging a conspiracy to inter- fere with interstate commerce in coal mined in West Virginia. A nolle prosequi was entered on June 14, 1914 (1 D. & J. 804). 143. United States v. Eastman Kodak Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed June 9, 1913, in the District Court, Western District of New York, against the Eastman Kodak Company, its subsidiaries and offi- cers, alleging a monopoly of the manufacture, sale, and distribution of photographic supplies by ac- quisition of about twenty competitors, by acquisition of the exclusive right to sell the only domestic and foreign-made paper suitable for photographic pur- poses, and by price fixing and exclusive dealing arrangements, etc. On August 24, 1915, the combi- nation was declared illegal (226 Fed. 62, 5 F. A. D. 881). A proposed decree for the dissolution of the monopoly submitted by the government was ac- cepted (230 Fed. 522, 5 F. A. D. 910), and a final decree was entered on January 20, 1916, perpetually enjoining the combination and ordering a plan of dissolution to be presented (1 D. & J. 477). On Jan- uary 31,1921, the defendants dismissed their appeal to the Supreme Court, and on February 1,1921, a decree was entered dissolving the combination (2 D. & J. —). Subsequently, supplemental decrees were entered May 13, 1926, January 10, 1929, and June 25, 1935, construing and modifying the decree of dissolution and injunction (2 D. & J. —, —, —). 9878—38——10142 144. United States v. Quaker Oats Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed June 11,1913, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the Quaker Oats Company and others, alleging a combination to re- strain and monopolize the manufacture and sale of rolled oats through the acquisition of the Western Cereal Company by the Quaker Oats Company. The District Court dismissed the petition on April 21, 1916 (232 Fed. 499, 6 F. A. D. 429) (1 D. & J. 481). The government dismissed its appeal to the Supreme Court on June 1,1920 (253 U. S. 499). 145. United States v. Hippen: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned June 25,1913, in the District Court, Western District of Oklahoma, against Hippen, the Oklahoma Brokerage Company and two other compa- nies, and their officers, charging a conspiracy to re- strain and monopolize interstate trade and commerce in fruits and vegetables. A demurrer to the indict- ment was sustained and the indictment was dismissed on October 1,1913 (1 D. & J. 805). 146. United States v. Thompson: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned July 1, 1913, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against Thompson and others, charging a conspiracy to obtain a corner in cotton on the New York Cotton Exchange. The defendants pleaded nolo contendere and fines aggre- gating $18,000 were imposed in December 1913 (ID. & J. 807). (See case No. 75, supra p. 110.) 147. United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed July 24,1913, in the District Court, District of Oregon, against the American Telephone & Telegraph Company and others, alleging that the American Telephone & Tele- graph Company, through its subsidiaries, had ac-143 quired a monopoly of the telephone business on the Pacific Coast by means of exclusive contracts, etc. During the trial the defendants agreed to comply with the demands of the government, and a consent decree was entered March 26, 1914, perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination and cancel- ing the exclusive contracts (1 D. & J. 483). The de- cree was modified September 7, 1914, to permit the consolidation of two telephone exchanges in Spokane, Washington (1 D. & J. 497). 148. United States v. Beading Company: Petition under the Sherman Act and the commodities clause of the Inter- state Commerce Act filed September 2, 1913, in the District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against the Reading Company and its subsidiary and affiliated companies, alleging a conspiracy to restrain and monopolize trade in anthracite coal by the union of two producing companies through a holding com- pany, and by the use of leases requiring lessees to ship coal exclusively by rail; and further alleging that the combination was in violation of the commodi- ties clause. On July 3, 1915, the court rendered a decision in part favorable and in part unfavorable to the government (226 Fed. 229, 6 F. A. D. 290), and on October 28, 1915, a decree enjoining the further operation of the combination and ordering the disso- lution of the holding company (but dismissing the remainder of the petition) was entered (1 D. & J. 501). On cross-appeals, the Supreme Court, on April 26,1920, affirmed the decree of the lower court in part and reversed it in part, so as to grant the government virtually the full relief asked (253 U. S. 26, 9 F. A. D. 1). After a motion to modify the mandate of the Supreme Court had been denied, an interlocutory de- cree giving injunctive relief pending the adoption of a plan for dissolution was entered by the District Court on June 6, 1921 (2 D. & J. —). The District144 Court, after several hearings, approved a compromise plan (273 Fed. 848, 9 P. A. D. 36), and a final decree on mandate was entered (2 D. & J. —). Subse- quently a committee representing the common stock- holders of the Reading Company appealed to the Su- preme Court, which on May 29, 1922, modified and affirmed the decree and remanded the case to the Dis- trict Court (259 U. S. 156, 9 F. A. D. 588), where on June 28, 1923, a final decree on this mandate was en- tered (2 D. & J. —). An intervening petition to set aside a sale of stock required by the decree was dis- missed on August 8, 1923 (295 Fed. 551, 10 F. A. J). 234). On June 16, 1933, the decree was modified to permit the transfer of certain securities held by the trustee to the Reading Company (2 D. & J. —). 149. United States v. National Wholesale Jewelers' Ass'n: Petition under the Sherman Act filed November 18, 1913, in the District Court, Southern District of New „ York, against the National Wholesale Jewelers' Asso- ciation, the National Association of Manufacturing Jewelers, and their officers and members, alleging a conspiracy to prevent the sale of jewelry and jewelry products to those not classified by the wholesalers' as- sociation as legitimate wholesalers or jobbers. On January 30,1914, a consent decree perpetually enjoin- ing the further operation of the conspiracy and the acts complained of was entered (1 D. & J. 509). 150. United States v. American Can Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed November 29, 1913, in the District Court, District of Maryland, against the American Can Company and others, alleging a combination in restraint of trade through the acquisition by the American Can Company of competing plants which produced almost 90 per cent of the tin cans then manu- factured and sold in the United States. On Febru- ary 23,1916, the District Court held that the American Can Company had been formed to monopolize the tin145 can business, but that it now produced little more than the aggregate of its competitors (230 Fed. 859, 6 P. A. D. 450), and on July 7, 1916, refused to dissolve the combination (234 Fed. 1019, 6 F. A. D. 518). A decree dismissing the petition was entered (1 D. & J. 525). The government dismissed its appeal to the Supreme Court after the decision in United States v. U. S. Steel Corp., 251 TJ. S. 417, 8 F. A. D. 527, case No. 98, supra page 122. 151. United States v. White: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned December 1, 1913, in the District Court, District of Colorado, against White and other of- ficers and. members of the United Mine Workers of America, charging a combination of coal miners and mine laborers to restrain interstate commerce in coal. A nolle prosequi was entered January 8, 1916 (1 D. & J. 808). 152. United States v. Hayes: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned December 1, 1913, in the District Court, District of Colorado, against Hayes and other mine workers, charging a conspiracy to interfere with the mining of coal in Colorado and its transportation to and sale in other states. A nolle prosequi was en- tered (1 D. & J. 809). 153. United States v. Southern Pacific Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed February 11, 1914, in the Dis- trict Court, District of Utah, against the Southern Pacific Company and others, alleging that the con- trol of the Central Pacific by the Southern Pacific through a lease and stock ownership created a com- bination in restraint of trade. On March 9,1917, the District Court dismissed the petition (239 Fed. 998, 6 F. A. D. 845) (1 D. & J. 601). The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the District Court on May 29,1922, and ordered that the control be relinquished (259 U. S. 214, 9 F. A. D. 612). On February 6,1923, the Interstate Commerce Commission found the con-146 trol to be in the public interest and issued an order authorizing it (76 I. C. C. 508). The District Court upheld this order on June 18, 1923 (290 Fed. 443, 9 P. A. D. 999), and entered a final decree in conform- ity therewith (2 D. & J. —). 154. United States v. Lehigh Valley R. B. Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act and the commodities clause of the Interstate Commerce Act, filed March 18,1914, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Lehigh Valley Railroad and others, alleg- ing that the Lehigh Valley Railroad had acquired a virtual monopoly of the mining, transportation, and sale of anthracite coal by purchasing and leasing coal lands and by purchasing stock of corporations owning such lands; and further alleging that the Lehigh Val- ley Railroad was transporting coal in violation of the commodities clause. On December 21, 1914, the Dis- trict Court dismissed the petition (225 Fed. 399, 6 F. A. D. 280) (1 D. & J. 527). The Supreme Court, on December 6, 1920, reversed the decree of the Dis- trict Court and remanded the case with instructions to enter a decree dissolving the combination (254 U. S. 255, 9 F. A. D. 96). After the issuance of an interlocutory decree on February 24, 1921 (2 D. & J. —), a final decree was entered on November 7, 1923, dissolving the combination (2 D. & J. —). A supple- mental decree was entered December 12, 1928, ap- proving the unification of the Lehigh Valley Coal Company and the Lehigh Valley Coal Sales Company (2 D. & J. —). On November 28, 1932, a supple- mentary decree was entered modifying the final decree to permit the adoption of a plan for the pay- ment and refunding of mortgage bonds of the Le- high Valley Coal Company maturing January 1,1933 (2 D. & J. —). On August 20, 1937, a decree was entered declaring that an agreement dated December 23,1924, between Coxe Brothers & Company, Inc. and the Lehigh Valley Coal Company, which increased the147 royalty rates payable under an earlier lease, violated the decree of November 7, 1923, and was void, and directing repayment of the difference between the royalty rates (2 D. & J. —). On November 18,1937, a supplementary decree was entered modifying the final decree to permit a five-year extension of the five-year notes of the Lehigh Yalley Coal Company maturing January 1, 1938, which had been issued pursuant to the refunding plan authorized by the supplementary decree of November 28, 1932. An appeal taken from the decree of August 20,1937, was allowed on October 18,1937, and was subsequently dismissed after the ex- ecution of a compromise agreement with the approval of the District Court. 155. United States v. Knauer: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned June 4,1914, in the District Court, Southern District of Iowa, against Knauer and other members of the National Association of Master Plumbers, charging a conspiracy to boycott manu- facturers and dealers in plumbing supplies who sold to persons not members of the Association. The de- fendants were found guilty March 31, 1915 (1. D. & J. 810), the Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, sustained the conviction September 16, 1916 (237 Fed. 8, 6 F. A. D. 685), and fines aggregating $8,500 were imposed December 2, 1916 (1 D. & J. 812). 156. United States v. American Wringer Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned May 22,1914, in the District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania,, against the American Wringer Company and others, charging a combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade in clothes wringers. On November 10, 1914, the defendants pleaded nolo contendere and fines ag- gregating $6,000 were imposed (1 D. & J. 822). 157. United States v. Booth Fisheries Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned July 20, 1914, in the Dis- trict Court, Western District of Washington, against148 the Booth Fisheries Company and others, charging a combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade in fresh fish. The indictment was dismissed as to all in- dividual defendants and one corporate defendant. The remaining defendants pleaded nolo contendere and fines aggregating $13,000 were imposed (2 I). & J. —). 158. United States v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. B. Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed July 23, 1914, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the New York, New Haven & Hart- ford Railroad Company, the New England Navigation Co., the Boston Railroad Holding Co., and the Provi- dence & Danielson Railway Co., alleging a conspiracy to monopolize transportation by railroad, trolley, and steamboat in New England. On October 17, 1914, a consent decree enjoining the conspiracy was entered (1 D. & J. 529). The government, because of adverse business conditions, has on several occasions consented to an extension of time for compliance with the decree, and the decree has been modified on several occasions (1 D. & J. 562-584). (See case No. 61, supra p. 106.) 159. United States v. Western Cantaloupe Exchange: Indict- ment under the Sherman Act returned August 7,1914, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against growers and distributors, charging a combina- tion to restrain and monopolize trade in cantaloupes. The indictment was dismissed and the desired relief was sought by a bill in equity (see case No. 204, infra p. 167) (2 D. & J. —). 160. United States v. Collins: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned September 4,1914, in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, against Collins and thirty other commission merchants, charging a combination to fix, arbitrarily and without competition, the prices at which country produce should be sold in the District149 of Columbia. A nolle prosequi was entered as to one of the defendants on December 23,1914, and as to an- other on May 1, 1915 (1 D. & J. 824, 825). After a demurrer to the indictment had been overruled (ID. & J. 825), the remaining defendants pleaded nolo con- tendere and fines aggregating $650 were imposed (ID. & J. 826-827). 161, United States v, McCoaeh: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned October 5, 1914, in the District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, against Mc- Coach and thirty-two other master plumbers and retail dealers in plumbing supplies, charging a combination to monopolize the business of selling and installing plumbing supplies. A nolle prosequi was entered as to one defendant and the remaining 32 defendants pleaded nolo contendere and fines aggregating $5,265 were imposed on December 28,1916 (1D. & J. 828). 162. United States v. Irving: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned October 31, 1914, in the District Court, District of Utah, against Irving and thirteen other master plumbers and retail dealers in plumbing sup- plies, charging a combination to monopolize the busi- ness of selling and installing plumbing supplies. A demurrer to the indictment was overruled and a mo- tion to quash the indictment was denied on January 25,1915. A nolle prosequi was entered on October 9, 1916, as to two of the defendants, and the remaining defendants were found guilty and fines aggregating $7,250 were imposed (1 D. & J. 829-832). 163. United States v. Rockefeller: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned November 2, 1914 (which was superseded by an indictment returned February 26, 1915), in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against Rockefeller and others, directors or officers or both, of the New York, New Haven & Hart- ford Railroad Company, charging a conspiracy to150 monopolize the transportation facilities of New Eng- land. On April 16, 1915, several defendants were granted separate trials (222 Fed. 584, 5 P. A. D. 844). After the disposition of numerous demurrers, pleas in abatement and other dilatory defenses, the trial re- sulted on January 9, 1916, in a disagreement by the jury as to five defendants and six defendants were found not guilty (1 D. & J. 833). Pleas of immunity were sustained as to four defendants, and a nolle pro- sequi was entered as to the remaining defendants (2 D. & J. —). 164. United States v. Chapman: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned January 27, 1915, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against Chap- man and others, charging a combination and con- spiracy to monopolize interstate trade and commerce in the derrick, lighterage, and wrecking business in New York Harbor and vicinity, and along the Atlantic Coast of the United States. On April 13,1915, a de- murrer to the indictment was sustained (1 D. & J. 834). 165. United States v. King: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned March 4, 1915 (which was superseded by an indictment returned December 15,1915), in the District Court, District of Massachusetts, against King and other members of the Aristook Potato Ship- pers Association, charging a conspiracy to boycott producers, receivers, or dealers who were adjudged undesirable by the Association and those who dealt with such undesirables. On October 23, 1915, a de- murrer to the indictment was overruled (229 Fed. 275, 6 F. A. D. 415). The defendants were found guilty and fines aggregating $3,500 were imposed on May 25, 1917 (1D.& J. 835). 166. United States v. Artery: Eight indictments under the Sherman Act returned in January and April 1915, in151 the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against Artery and other so-called "business agents" of Chicago labor unions, charging a conspiracy to pre- vent the unloading in Chicago of goods shipped from other states. After demurrers to the indictments were overruled, three of the defendants were found guilty, and after a motion in arrest of judgment had been overruled on December 20, 1918, fines aggre- gating $2,500 were imposed (2 D. & J. —). Several defendants under other indictments pleaded guilty on March 8, 1919, and fines aggregating $2,000 were im- posed (2 D. & J. —). A nolle prosequi was entered as to the remaining indictment (2 D. & J. —). 167. United States v. Boyle: Two indictments under the Sherman Act returned April 27,1915, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, the first against Boyle and others, the second against Feeney and others, charging a conspiracy among labor unions and manufacturers in Chicago to eliminate competition and to aid the Chicago manufacturers who had signed wage agreements with the labor unions by preventing, through coercion, boycott, and destruction of prop- erty, the installation in Chicago of electrical appli- ances and lighting fixtures manufactured elsewhere. After demurrers to the indictment had been overruled, Boyle and 15 of his co-defendants were found guilty and fines aggregating $20,000 were imposed March 22, 1917 (1 D. & J. 836). Boyle and one co-defendant were each sentenced to imprisonment for one year (1 D. & J. 836). The Circuit Court of Appeals, Sev- enth Circuit, affirmed the conviction on June 30, 1919 (259 Fed. 803, 8 F. A. D. 488). An application for a rehearing was denied June 30, 1919, and Boyle's sen- tence was commuted to four months' imprisonment. A nolle prosequi was entered as to eight of the defend- ants (2 D. & J. —). The trial of the Feeney case was postponed awaiting the outcome of the Boyle case. On October 31, 1923, motions to dismiss, etc., were152 denied, three of the individual defendants and five of the corporate defendants pleaded guilty and fines ag- gregating $6,000 were imposed, the ease being dis- missed as to the remaining defendants (2 D. & J. —). 168. United States v. Bowser & Co.: Petition under the Sher- man Act filed June 10,1915, in the District Court, Dis- trict of Indiana, against Bowser & Company and oth- ers, alleging a combination to eliminate competition and to monopolize interstate commerce in pumps, tanks, and equipment for the storage and handling of gasoline and other inflammable liquids by unfair and illegal practices. A consent decree was entered the same day enjoining the further operation of the com- bination and the practices complained of (1 D. & J. 587). 169. United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp.: Peti- tion under the Clayton Act filed October 18, 1915, in the District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, against the United Shoe Machinery Corporation and others, alleging that the United Shoe Machin- ery Corporation, which manufactured 95 per cent of the shoe machinery used in the United States, some of which it manufactured exclusively, leased such machinery on the condition that the lessee should not use the machinery or supplies of a competitor. A temporary injunction against the en- forcement of any of the tying clauses in the leases was granted on November 12, 1915 (227 Fed. 507, 5 F. A. D. 784) (1 D. & J. 593-594). On May 1,1916, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, denied the government's motions to strike out certain parts of the record and to dismiss the appeal, whereupon the government consented to an order reversing the decree of the District Court granting the preliminary in- junction (1 D. & J. 598). Subsequently, a motion to dismiss the petition was denied by the District Court (234 Fed. 127, 5 F. A. D. 791). On March 31, 1920,153 the District Court held the Clayton Act constitutional and the leases in question unlawful (264 Fed. 138, 8 F. A. D. 683), and on May 12, 1920, a final decree was entered perpetually enjoining the use of such leases (2 D. & J. —). The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the District Court on April 17,1922 (258 U. S. 451, 8 F. A. D. 737), and defendant's motion to interpret this opinion was denied on October 9, 1922. 170. United States v. Bintelen: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned December 28, 1915, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against Rintelen and others, charging a conspiracy to prevent the shipment of munitions of war and military and naval stores to foreign nations by creating labor trouble in various manfacturing plants. On June 29, 1916, a motion to quash the indictment was denied (233 Fed. 793, 6 F. A. D. 524). Three of the de- fendants were found guilty and each was sentenced to imprisonment for one year; the trial of the remain- ing defendants resulted in a disagreement by the jury (1 D.& J. 839). The Circuit Court of Appeals, Sec- ond Circuit, affirmed the convictions on June 4, 1919 (260 Fed. 561, 8 F. A. D. 508), and the Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 27,1919 (250 U. S. 673). A nolle prosequi was entered as to the defendant Fowler on May 3,1920 (2 D. & J. —). 171. United States v. Bopp: Indictments under the Sherman Act returned February 11,1916, in the District Court, Northern District of California, against Bopp and others, charging a conspiracy to prevent the shipment of munitions of war and military and naval stores to foreign nations at war with Germany and Austro- Hungary by bombing manufacturing plants, rail- roads, and ships. On March 3, 1916, a demurrer to the indictment was sustained (230 Fed. 723). The next day the defendants were re-indicted and a plea in154 abatement was overruled, and on March 23,1916, a mo- tion to quash the indictment was denied (232 Fed. 177). A motion to consolidate the two indictments was granted on November 11,1916 (237 Fed. 283, 6 F. A. D. 705). Five defendants were found guilty on January 10,1917, and each was sentenced to imprisonment for one year, and fines aggregating $20,000 were imposed on four of the defendants on January 22,1917 (1 D. & J. 840-848). 172. United States v. Cowett: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned October 27, 1916, in the District Court, District of Oregon, against Cowell and other officers and agents of nine companies engaged in the manu- facture and sale of Portland cement, charging a con- spiracy to apportion territory and to fix prices. On April 30 and December 10,1917, a majority of the de- fendants pleaded guilty and fines aggregating $17,500 were imposed (1 D. & J. 849, 851). The demurrers of the two remaining defendants were overruled on July 16,1917 (243 Fed. 730, 6 F. A. D. 1003), and the trial resulted in a disagreement by the jury. Upon a re-trial, the defendants were found guilty and fines aggregating $7,500 were imposed (2 D. & J. —). The Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, sustained the . convictions February 26, 1924 (295 Fed. 577, 10 F. A. D. 216). 173. United States v. Pan-American Commission Corp.: Pe- tition under the Sherman Act filed July 30, 1917, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Pan-American Commission Corporation and others, alleging a combination to monopolize the sale and increase the price of sisal which is used in the manufacture of binder twine. The contract form- ing the basis of this suit was cancelled by agreement of the parties in January 1918, and the Pan-American Commission Corporation was dissolved in February 1918. The defendants, in July 1918, made a motion to155 dismiss the petition on the ground that the questions in issue had become moot. The District Court granted the motion and a decree was entered on September 20, 1918, dismissing the petition without prejudice (2 D. &J.—). 174. United States v. Jensen Creamery Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned February 24, 1917, in the District Court, District of Idaho, against the Jensen Creamery Company and others, charging a combination and conspiracy to restrain and monop- olize interstate trade and commerce in creamery and dairy products in the Northwestern States. In Feb- ruary 1919, the Jensen Company pleaded guilty and a fine of $7,500 was imposed. The remaining defend- ants were found not guilty (2 D. & J. —). 175. United States v. Aileen Coal Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned March 5, 1917, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Aileen Coal Company and others, charging a combina- tion to fix minimum prices and terms of sale of semi- bituminous coal. The indictment was dismissed as to some of the defendants and the remaining defend- ants were found not guilty on July 12, 1917 (1 D. & J. 853). 176. United States v. Algoma Coal cfe Coke Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned March 5,1917, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Algoma Coal & Coke Company and others, charg- ing a combination to eliminate competition in the sale of semi-bituminous coal by an agreement providing for the sale of coal through a common sales agency at uniform prices and terms of sale. In view of the verdict of acquittal in the preceding case, a nolle prosequi was entered on July 19,1917 (1 D. & J. 855).156 177. United States v. Baker-Whiteley Coal Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned April 9,1917, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Baker-Whiteley Coal Company, charging a combination to fix uniform maximum prices and uniform terms of sale of bunker coal. About one-half of the defendants, who were likewise defendants in the Aileen case, No. 175, supra page 155, entered pleas in bar of autrefois acquit on the ground that the transactions constituted part of the offenses charged in the Aileen case. These pleas were sustained by the District Court on July 20, 1917, and a nolle prosequi was entered as to the remaining defendants on Novem- ber 1,1917 (1 D. & J. 856). 178. United States v. Simpson: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned April 2,1917, in the Supreme Court of the' District of Columbia, against Simpson and others, charging an agreement to fix the price of milk in the District of Columbia. A nolle prosequi was entered on April 23,1923 (2 D. & J. —). 179. United States v. Mead: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned April 12, 1917, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against Mead and others, charging a combination to increase the price of newsprint paper by eliminating competition, by cooperating to discourage the erection of new mills or the installation of new machinery, by making simul- taneous representations as to the alleged increased cost of production and the alleged shortage of paper, and by curtailing production. On November 26,1917, five of the defendants pleaded nolo contendere and fines aggregating $11,000 were imposed. The case was dis- missed as to one of the defendants for lack of evidence and continued as to the remaining defendant until he returned to the United States (1 D. & J. 860). On November 20,1923, a nolle prosequi was entered as to157 the remaining defendant (2 D. & J. —). (See case No. 192, infra p. 161.) 180. United States v. Chicago Mosaic dc Tiling Co.: Indict- ment under the Sherman Act returned May 5,1917, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the Chicago Mosaic & Tiling Company and other members and representatives of members of the Chicago Mantel & Tile Contractors Association, charging a conspiracy to restrain trade in wall and floor tiles by refusing to deal with non-members, by inducing manufacturers to refuse to sell tiles to non- members, and by maintaining uniform prices, etc. After a demurrer to the indictment was overruled on February 12, 1918, the indictment was dismissed as to all individual defendants on February 11, 1924, and the remaining twelve corporate defendants pleaded guilty and fines aggregating $7,500 were im- posed (2 D. & J. —). 181. United States v. National Ass'n of Master Plumbers: Petition under the Sherman Act filed May 19, 1917, in the District Court, Western District of Pennsyl- vania, against the National Association of Master Plumbers, its affiliated state and local associations, and their officers and members, alleging a combination to restrain trade in plumbing supplies by concertedly refusing to sell goods which they did not themselves install and by refusing to patronize manufacturers and wholesale dealers who sold plumbing supplies di- rectly to consumers or to non-member retailers. A consent decree was entered the same day perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (ID. & J. 603). 182. United States v. M. Piowaty & Sons: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned May 24, 1917, in the Dis- trict Court, District of Massachusetts, against M. Pio- waty & Sons and other members of the National Onion 9878—38-11158 Association, charging a combination to control the northern onion crop and to regulate the quantity placed on the market by fixing and raising the prices of onions withheld by them until the onions owned by non-members had been sold. On September 12, 1917, a demurrer to the indictment was sustained as to the first count and overruled as to the second count (251 Fed. 375, 8 F. A. D. 217). Five of the defendants pleaded nolo contendere and fines aggregating $1,250 were imposed. A nolle prosequi was entered as to the remaining defendants (2 D. & J. —). 183. United States v. Gilman: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned June 2, 1917, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against Gilman and others, each a dealer in eggs and a member of the Chicago Butter & Egg Board, charging a conspiracy to restrain trade by purchasing large quantities of eggs as dealers and then concertedly adopting and fol- lowing a practice of making fictitious trades on the Board at prices higher than the true market prices, thereby artificially enhancing the price of eggs throughout a large section of the country. On Febru- ary 27, 1918, a demurrer to the indictment was over- ruled and in September 1921, a nolle prosequi was en- tered (2 D. & J. —). 184. United States v. New England Fish Exchange: Petition under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act filed June 21,1917, in the District Court, District of Massa- chusetts, against the New England Fish Exchange and others, alleging that practically all the fresh fish brought in on the North Atlantic Coast were marketed through the Exchange, and that the exclusion of non- members from trading privileges, the fixing of maxi- mum buying prices and minimum selling prices, and certain other regulations of the Exchange violated the Sherman Act; and further alleging that the acquisi- tion of stock control by two of the member companies159 of the great majority of the remaining member com- panies substantially lessened competition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. On July 11, 1919, the combination was declared illegal (258 Fed. 732, 8 F. A. D. 427), and on December 4,1919, a decree was entered perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination and effecting the dissolution of several of the defendants in accordance with a plan suggested by the court (2 D. & J. —). A motion to modify the decree was denied on January 16, 1923 (292 Fed. 511,8 F. A. D. 456). 185. United States v. St. Clair: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned July 6,1917, in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, against St. Clair and others, agents of two baking companies, charging a conspiracy to fix and raise arbitrarily the price of bread and to refuse to sell bread to dealers who de- clined to maintain the established price. A nolle prosequi was entered on February 21,1918 (2 D. & J. -)• 186. United States v. National Retail Monument Dealers Ass'n: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned July 24, 1917, in the District Court, District of Mary- land, against the National Retail Monument Dealers Association and others, charging a combination to boycott producers, manufacturers, and wholesalers of monuments and memorials who sold to those not re- garded by the Association as legitimate dealers. On September 12,1917, the defendants pleaded nolo con- tendere and fines aggregating $6,255 were imposed (1 D. & J. 858). 187. United States v. Nash Bros.: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned July 30,1917, in the District Court, District of North Dakota, against Nash Brothers and others, charging a conspiracy to monopolize trade in fruit by seeking to prevent competitors from purchas-160 ing fruit from growers and distributors and by cut- ting prices to cause competitors to sustain losses in the sale of any fruit purchased. A demurrer to the indictment was overruled in September 1917, and after a new indictment was returned on February 27, 1918, a demurrer to this indictment was sustained (2 D.& J. —). 188. United States v. Webster: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned August 30, 1917, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against Web- ster and other members of the National Association of Automobile Accessory Jobbers, an association com- posed of the principal manufacturers and jobbers of automobile accessories in the United States, charging a combination to restrain and monopolize trade in au- tomobile accessories. After a demurrer to the indict- ment was overruled, the defendants were found not guilty in February 1919 (2 D. & J. —). 189. United States v. Kltige: Petition under the Sherman Act filed October 8,1917, in the District Court, South- ern District of New York, against Kluge and others as members of the Woven Label Manufacturers Asso- ciation, an association composed of practically all the woven label manufacturers in the United States, al- leging a combination and conspiracy to adopt rules, regulations, and policies designed to control, dominate, and direct the entire trade in labels, hangers, tabs, and like articles. A consent decree was entered the same day dissolving the Association and enjoining the acts complained of (1 D. & J. 631). 190. United States v. Paris Medicine Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed November 12, 1917, in the District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, against the Paris Medicine Company, alleging that it furnished quan- tities of free goods to dealers who signed agreements161 to maintain fixed resale prices. A consent decree was entered on November 13, 1917, enjoining the defend- ant from further attempting to control the resale price of its products by this means (1 D. & J. 635). 191. United States v. Barton: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned November 14, 1917, in the District Court, Western District of Virginia, against Barton and others, wholesale and retail dealers in groceries at Danville, Virginia, charging a combination and conspiracy to interfere with the business of the Pied- mont Cash Grocery Company in that city. The Dis- trict Court on November 16,1917, directed the jury to find the defendants not guilty on the ground that no interstate commerce was involved (1 D. & J. 859). 192. United States v. Mead: Petition under the Sherman Act filed November 26, 1917, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against Mead and others, members of the News Print Manufacturers' Association, alleging a combination to increase the price of newsprint paper by eliminating competition; by cooperating to discourage the erection of new mills or the installation of new machinery; by making si- multaneous representations as to the alleged increased cost of production and the alleged shortage of paper; and by curtailing production. A consent decree was entered the same day dissolving the Association and perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (1 D. & J. 637). In addition, the de- fendant manufacturers, who produced more than 50 per cent of the total newsprint paper consumed in the United States, entered into an agreement the same day with the Attorney General of the United States, as trustee, covering a period beginning April 1, 1918, and continuing until three months after the European War, by which they agreed to abide by prices and terms of sale to be fixed by the Federal Trade Commission (subject to review by a Circuit162 Judge for the Second Circuit as arbitrator) and to charge certain fixed prices during the month that the Commission was making the necessary investigations (1 D. & J. 640). The Commission fixed the prices for rolled newsprint paper in carload and less than car- load lots, and the manufacturers thereafter asked that the prices be reviewed by the Circuit Judge. On September 25, 1918, the Circuit Judge ordered that the award of the Federal Trade Commission be mod- ified. (See case No. 179, supra p. 156.) )3. United States v. Discher: Petition under the Sherman Act filed December 4, 1917, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against Discher and others, members of the Automobile Bumper Associa- tion, alleging that the defendants had formed a com- bination to eliminate competition and control trade in automobile bumpers by organizing the Automobile Bumper Association and assigning to it all letters patent controlled by members and by issuing to the members identical manufacturing licenses with re- strictive provisions which enabled them to control prices and practically all of the details of their busi- ness. A consent decree was entered the same day dis- solving the Association and perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (1 D. & J. 645). On January 22, 1919, a motion by certain of the de- fendants for a modification of the decree was denied (255 Fed. 719, 8 F. A. D. 349). 4. United States v. Belfi: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned December 6, 1917, in the District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against Belfi and others, officers and members of the Philadelphia Tile, Mantel & Grate Association, charging a conspiracy to prevent other persons and firms from engaging in business as retailers of tile by refusing to admit others to the Association, by refusing to buy from manu- facturers who sold to non-members, and by inducing163 members of the Tile Layers' Union to threaten to refuse to set tiles if sold to non-members. On April 8, 1918, ten defendants were found guilty and fines aggregating $9,000 were imposed (2 D. & J. —). After a motion for a new trial was granted as to eleven of the remaining defendants, the government dis- missed the indictment as to them (2 D. & J.—). On June 18, 1919, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, affirmed the conviction of eight of the ten defendants and ordered a new trial for the remaining defendants (259 Fed. 822, 8 F. A. D. 496). On May 10,1920, the fines imposed were remitted by the Presi- dent (2 D. & J. —). 195. United States v. Colgate d Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned December 18, 1917, in the District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, against Colgate & Company, charging that the defendant was restraining trade in soaps and toilet articles by indi- cating to dealers, orally and through letters and circu- lars, the prices it desired to have maintained, and by placing dealers who failed to maintain such prices on so-called "suspended lists" and refusing them further supplies until they gave assurance that the prices fixed would be maintained. On October 29, 1918, a demur- rer to the indictment was sustained (253 Fed. 522, 8 F. A. D. 320), and on June 2,1919, this decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court (250 U. S. 300, 8 F. A. D. 331) (2 D. & J. —). (See case No. 212, infra p. 171.) 196. United States v. Booth Fisheries Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed March 13, 1918, in the District Court, Western District of Washington, against the Booth Fisheries Company and others marketing hali- but on the North Pacific Coast, alleging a conspiracy to fix maximum buying and minimum selling prices for halibut. A consent decree was entered the same164 day perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). 197. United States v. Interlaken Mills: Petition under the Sherman Act filed April 15,1918, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against Interlaken Mills and others controlling 90 per cent of the book cloth manufactured in the United States, alleging a combination to fix the price of such cloth. A consent decree was entered the same day dissolving the combi- nation (2 D. & J. —). This decree was modified by the District Court on July 24, 1919 (2 D. & J. —). Subsequently the decree was again modified to permit compliance with the National Recovery Administra- tion code for the leather cloth and lacquered fabrics, window shade cloth and roller, and book cloth and im- pregnated fabric industries, approved May 3, 1934 (2 D. & J. —). 198. United States v. Victor Talking Machine Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed May 3, 1918, in the Dis- trict Court, Southern District of New York, against the Victor Talking Machine Company, alleging a com- bination to restrain trade in talking machines, talking machine records, and appliances for use in connection therewith. A consent decree was entered the same day enjoining the further operation of the combina- tion (2 D. & J. —). 199. United States v. Ironite Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned May 10, 1918, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Ironite Company and others, charging a conspiracy to restrain and monopolize interstate trade in pul- verized, powdered, and finely divided iron and other like metal or metal-contained material used in, or in connection with, concrete construction work. A peti- tion in equity was also filed to enjoin the same defend-165 ants from continuing the acts complained of in the indictment (see case No. 209, infra p. 168). The in- dictment was dismissed on March 20, 1920, after the defendants had consented to an entry of a decree in the civil case (2 D. & J. —). 200. United States v. Schrader's Son: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned June 19, 1918, in the District Court, Northern District of Ohio, against A. Schrad- er's Son, Inc., a manufacturer of valves, valve parts, pneumatic pressure gauges, and various other acces- sories for use in connection with pneumatic tires, charging that the defendants had combined with tire manufacturers and with jobbers to suppress competi- tion and to raise and maintain prices by the execution of uniform resale price contracts, which required the manufacturers and jobbers to resell such products to retailers and consumers at prices fixed by the defend- ant ; and by refusing to sell to those manufacturers and jobbers who did not enter into such contracts or who did not maintain the prices fixed by defendant. A demurrer to the indictment was sustained September 24,1919 (264 Fed. 175, 8 P. A. D. 571). The Supreme Court, on March 1, 1920, reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings (252 U. S. 85, 8 F. A. D. 586). The de- fendant, having consented to a decree in a civil suit instituted by the government, which enjoined the un- lawful practice (see case No. 260, infra p. 192), and having paid all the costs and expenses in both the civil and criminal cases, a nolle prosequi was entered on October 11,1923 (2 D. & J. —). 201. United States v. Button Export & Trading Corp.: Peti- tion under the Sherman Act filed June 28, 1918, in the District Court, Southern District of Iowa, against the Button Export & Trading Corporation and others, alleging a combination to control all phases of the166 fresh water pearl button industry by forming an asso- ciation which received and distributed detailed infor- mation as to trade conditions, by forming a corpora- tion which contracted with the sole manufacturer of certain patented automatic button machines for the entire output of such machines for their own use; and by entering into a plan to purchase their requirements of shells through a single agency at agreed prices. A consent decree was entered the same day dissolving the combination and enjoining the practices complained of (2 D. & J. —). 202. United States v. American Gone & Wafer Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed July 31, 1918, in the Dis- trict Court, Northern District of Ohio, against the American Cone & Wafer Company, a manufacturer of ice cream cones, alleging a combination to fix and maintain uniform resale prices by contracts with job- bers and by refusing to make sales to jobbers who did not maintain such prices. A consent decree was en- tered on August 3, 1918, enjoining the further opera- tion of the combination (2 D. & J. —). 203. United States v. Sumatra Purchasing Corporation: In- dictments under the Sherman Act and the Wilson Tariff Act returned October 7, 1918, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Sumatra Purchasing Corporation and others, charging a conspiracy to monopolize the purchase of Sumatra leaf tobacco in foreign countries and its importation into and sale throughout the United States. On April 13, 1920, the corporate defendants pleaded nolo con- tendere to the indictment under the Sherman Act and a fine of $5,000 was imposed on each defendant (2 D. & J. —). Both indictments were dismissed as to the individual defendants, and the indictment under the Wilson Tariff Act was dismissed as to the cor- porate defendants (2 D. & J. —). (See case No. 213, infra p. 172.)167 204. United States v. Western Cantaloupe Exchange: Peti- tion under the Sherman Act filed November 9, 1918, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against growers and distributors of cantaloupes, al- leging a combination to restrain interstate trade and commerce in cantaloupes grown in the Imperial Val- ley of California by means of contracts between the Western Cantaloupe Exchange and its members. A consent decree was entered the same day enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). 205. United States v. Klaxon Horn Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed December 8, 1918, in the District Court, District of New Jersey, against the Klaxon Horn Company, alleging a combination to fix and maintain uniform resale prices of automobile horns by means of contracts requiring jobbers to sell at fixed prices. A consent decree was entered the same day enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). 206. United States v. Atlas Portland Cement Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed August 13, 1919, in the District Court, District of New Jersey, against the Atlas Portland Cement Company and other members of the Cement Manufacturers' Protective Association, alleging a combination to curtail the production of Portland cement, to reduce the quantity of Portland cement sold under contracts for future delivery, and to bring about a uniform and materially increased price for such cement regardless of the point of de- livery. The case was discontinued on October 31, 1921, after an indictment was returned in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the same defendants (2 D. & J. —). (See case No. 238, infra p. 182.)168 207. United States v. Alphons Custodis Chimney Construc- tion Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned December 12, 1919, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Alphons Custodis Chimney Construction Company and others, members of the Chimney Builders' Association, charging a com- bination to eliminate competition in the business of contracting for the sale and construction of perfo- rated radial brick chimneys and to increase prices. A nolle prosequi was entered on January 28,1920, as to two of the defendants, and the remaining defendants pleaded nolo contendere and fines aggregating $18,352 were imposed (2 D. & J. —). 208. United States v. American Ass'n of Wholesale Opti- cians: Petition under the Sherman Act filed December 12, 1919, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the American Association of Wholesale Opticians and its members, alleging a com- bination to restrain interstate trade and commerce in optical lenses and like articles by fixing uniform prices. A consent decree was entered the same day enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). Subsequently the decree was modified to permit compliance with the National Recovery Ad- ministration code for the optical wholesale industry and trade, approved May 31,1934 (2 D. & J. —). 209. United States v. Ironite Co.: Petition under the Sher- man Act filed December 17,1919, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Ironite Company and others, alleging a conspiracy to restrain and monopolize interstate trade in pulverized, pow- dered, and finely divided iron and other like metal or metal-contained material used in, or in connection with, concrete construction work. A consent decree was entered on March 20,1920, perpetually enjoining169 the further operation of the combination (2 D, & J. —). (See case No. 199, supra p. 164.) 210. United States v. American Column & Lumber Co.: Peti- tion under the Sherman Act filed February 14, 1920, in the District Court, Western District of Tennessee, against the American Column & Lumber Company and others engaged in the production and sale of hardwood lumber, alleging a combination to eliminate competi- tion and enhance prices by a so-called "open compe- tition plan"; by conducting meetings and oral discus- sions concerning past and future prices, stocks and production; by compiling and distributing among themselves monthly and weekly reports and bulletins concerning prices, stocks and production; and by in- terchanging monthly predictions that prices would be enhanced. On March 16, 1920, a preliminary injunc- tion was granted enjoining the further operation of the combination (263 Fed. 147, 8 F. A. D. 750) and, by stipulation, the order granting the preliminary injunction was made the final decree of the District Court (2 D. & J. —). The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the District Court on December 19, 1921 (257 U. S. .377, 8 F. A. D. 763). Subsequently the final decree was modified to permit compliance with the National Recovery Administration code for the lumber and timber products industry, approved Au- gust 19,1933 (2 D. & J. —). On March 13,1935, this order was modified (2 D. & J. —). 211. United States v. Swift & Company: Petition under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act filed February 27, 1920, in the Supreme Court of the District of Colum- bia, against Swift & Company and four other large meat packers, their subsidiaries and certain of their officers and directors, alleging that the defendants had combined to restrain trade and to suppress com- petition in the purchase of livestock and in the sale of170 dressed meats and, to achieve the purposes of the com- bination, had bought stock in competitive companies and public stockyards, substantially lessening compe- tition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, and had acquired and operated retail meat markets, stock- yard terminal railroads, and market newspapers; and further alleging that defendants were attempting to dominate trade in products not related to the meat- packing business. A consent decree was entered the same day enjoining the further operation of the com- bination and prohibiting the packers, among other things, from holding stock in public stockyard com- panies, public cold-storage plants, stockyard terminal railroads, or market newspapers, from handling and dealing in commodities not related to the meat- packing business, and from selling meats, fresh milk, and cream at retail (2 D. & J. —). On motion of California Co-operative Canneries Companies, leave to intervene on the ground that the decree prevented performance by the defendants of contracts to buy canned fruits was denied on October 16, 1922 (10 F. A. D. 352). The Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia on June 2,1924, reversed the decree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, with the mandate that the petitioner be allowed to intervene (299 Fed. 908, 10 F. A. D. 354). On April 23, 1925, the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia allowed the California Canneries to intervene and suspended the operation of the consent decree pending further hearing on the merits (10 F. A. D. 364). On March 19, 1928, the Supreme Court held the consent decree was valid (276' U. S. 311, 12 F. A. D. 419), and on May 20,1929, it vacated the intervention of California Canneries (279 U. S. 553, 12 F. A. D. 683). By a decree on mandate from the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia restored the consent decree to full effect (2 D. & J. —). On April 2, 1930, two of the defendant meat packers, to-171 gether with the respective officers and subsidiaries thereof, filed two petitions to modify the consent decree in the light of changed conditions by eliminat- ing some of the restraints previously imposed. The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia modified the decree by permitting the defendants to deal in groceries at wholesale (United States Daily, Jan. 6, 1931) (2 D. & J. —). On May 2, 1932, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decree of the lower court modifying the original consent decree (286 U. S. 106, 13 F. A. D. —). A final decree on this mandate was entered on June 15, 1932, vacating the order modifying the consent decree, and granting the defendants one year within which to dispose of unrelated lines of business, as required by the decree (2 D. & J. —). Trustees were appointed to take over and dispose of shares of stock owned by Swift & Com- pany in corporations furnishing stockyard facilities on June 16,1932 (2 D. & J. —), and in Libby, McNeill & Libby on July 8, 1933 (2 D. & J. —). (For other orders, see Volume 2, Decrees and Judgments in Fed- eral Antitrust Cases.) 212. United States v. Colgate & Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned March 24,1920, in the District Court, District of New Jersey, against Colgate & Com- pany, charging that the defendant was restraining trade in soaps and toilet articles by indicating to deal- ers, orally and through letters and circulars, the prices it desired to have maintained, and by placing dealers who failed !to maintain such prices on so- called "suspended lists" and refusing them further supplies until they gave assurance that the prices fixed would be maintained. The Supreme Court having held that the former indictment returned December 18, 1917, against this company did not charge an of- fense under the Sherman Act (see case No. 195, supra172 p. 163), the government obtained this present indict- ment charging in greater detail than the former in- dictment the systematic employment of agreements between the company and its dealers to maintain re- sale prices prescribed by the company. After a demurrer to the indictment had been overruled, a ver- dict for the defendant was directed on December 20, 1924 (2 D. & J. —). 213. United States v. Sumatra Purchasing Corporation: Pe- tition under the Sherman Act and the Wilson Tariff Act filed April 13, 1920, in the District Court, South- ern District of New York, against the Sumatra Pur- chasing Corporation and others, alleging a conspiracy to monopolize the purchase of Sumatra leaf tobacco in foreign countries and its importation into and sale throughout the United States. A consent decree was entered on the same day perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). (See case No. 203, supra p. 166.) 214. United States v. Barbers' Supply Dealers Ass'n: Peti- tion under the Sherman Act filed May 7, 1920, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Barbers' Supply Dealers Association and its members, alleging a combination to fix and main- tain uniform resale prices and terms of discount, to advance resale prices, and to eliminate competition in barbers' supplies. A consent decree was entered the same day perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). Subsequently the decree was modified to permit compliance with the National Recovery Administration code for the whole- saling or distributing trade, approved January 12, 1934, and with the supplemental code for the beauty and barber equipment and supplies trade, a division of the wholesaling or distributing trade, approved April 4,1934 (2 D. & J. —).173 215. United States v. American Linseed Oil Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed June 30, 1920, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the American Linseed Oil Company and other pro- ducers of linseed oil, alleging that the defendants, who constituted most of the important producers of linseed oil in the United States, had combined by means of a so-called "open competition plan" which, among other things, required each defendant to fur- nish to the Armstrong Bureau of Related Industries its price list for distribution , among all the other defendants, to report daily all carload sales with the price at which each sale had been made, and to give assurances that prices would not be lowered. The District Court dismissed the petition on November 3, 1921 (275 Fed. 939, 9 F. A. D. 298); on appeal the Supreme Court reversed the decree of dis- missal on June 4,1923 (262 IT. S. 371, 9 F. A. D. 309), and a final decree perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination was entered on Decem- ber 27.1923 (2 D. & J. —). 216. United States v. Consolidated Music Corp.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed August 3, 1920, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Consolidated Music Corporation and other manufacturers and publishers of copyrighted sheet music and player rolls for automatic pianos, alleging that certain of the defendants had transferred to the music corporation all player roll and sheet music rights in copyrighted compositions acquired by them, had made the music corporation their sole agent, and had agreed upon prices at which player rolls and sheet music should be sold to the public. The Dis- trict Court, after dismissing the petition on the mo- tion of the defendants, granted a rehearing at the 9878—38-12174 request of the government and rendered an opinion on February 27, 1922, sustaining all the contentions of the government. The defendants were then per- mitted formally to disclaim their intention to con- tinue to do the things with which they were charged, with the admonition that if such disclaimer were not made an injunction would be entered against them. After the disclaimer was made the case was dismissed on March 29,1922 (2 D. & J. —). 217. United States v. Moore: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned August 30, 1920, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the members of the Steamship Freight Brokers' Asso- ciation and the Trans-Atlantic Associated Freight Conferences, charging a conspiracy to restrain and monopolize commerce by an agreement providing for the allowance of a special brokerage fee by steam- ship companies to members of the Association. A demurrer to the indictment was sustained on October 27, 1920 (275 Fed. 992, 9 F. A. D. 327), and a nolle prosequi was entered (2 D, & J. —). 218. United States v. Moore: Petition under the Sher- man Act filed August 30, 1920, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the members of the Steamship Freight Brokers' Association and the Trans-Atlantic Associated Freight Conferences, alleging a conspiracy to restrain and monopolize com- merce by an agreement providing for the allowance of a special brokerage fee by steamship companies to members of the Association. After argument, a de- cree dismissing the petition was entered on December 20,1920, (2 D. & J. —). 219. United States v. California Associated Raisin Co.: Peti- tion under the Sherman Act filed September 8, 1920, in the District Court, Southern District of California,175 against the California Associated Raisin Company, its officers, directors, and agents, alleging a combination to restrain and monopolize interstate trade in raisins by obtaining contracts through coercion, by exclusive dealing arrangements, by fixing prices, and by curtail- ing the supply of raisins on the market. On Septem- ber 22,1920, a stipulation was entered into, in lieu of a preliminary injunction, requiring the raisin company to release to competitors more than one-fourth of its available stock of raisins, to abandon certain so-called "firm at opening price contracts," and to release all growers from the exclusive purchase contracts con- taining renewal options. A consent decree was entered on January 18, 1922, enjoining the practices com- plained of (2 D. & J. —). 220. United States v. Goodwin-Gallagher Sand & Gravel Corp.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned December 29, 1920, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Goodwin-Gallagher Sand & Gravel Corporation and other wholesalers and retailers engaged in digging, selling, and transporting sand used in building and construction work in inter- state commerce, charging a conspiracy to eliminate competition by obtaining control of competitors and by agreeing to fix and maintain prices for the sale and resale of sand. On January 10, 1921, the defendants pleaded guilty and fines aggregating $40,000 were im- posed (2 D. & J.—). (See case No. 222, infra p. 176.) 221. United States v. Albany Chemical C,o.: Petition un- der the Sherman Act filed January 10, 1921, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, alleg- ing that the Albany Chemical Company had attempted to eliminate competition in the manufacture and sale of aspirin by having the word "aspirin" registered as a trademark and by attempting by other means to ap- propriate to itself the exclusive use of that word. A176 consent decree was entered on the same day providing, among other things, for the cancellation and relin- quishment of the alleged trademark rights (2 D. & J.-). 222. United States v. Goodwin-Gallagher Sand & Gravel Corp.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed January 18, 1921, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Goodwin-Gallagher Sand & Gravel Corporation and other wholesalers and re- tailers engaged ini digging, selling, and transporting sand used in building and construction work in inter- state commerce, alleging a conspiracy to eliminate competition by obtaining control of competitors and by agreeing to fix and maintain prices for the sale and resale of sand. A consent decree was entered the same day perpetually enjoining the continuation of the conspiracy (2 D. & J. —). (See case No. 220, supra p. 175.) 223. United States v. Andrews Lumber & Mill Co.: Indict- ment under the Sherman Act returned January 21, 1921, in the District Court, Northern District of Illi- nois, against the Andrews Lumber & Mill Company and substantially all the manufacturers in Chicago of sash, doors, and interior finish, a number of build- ing contractors, and members of the United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, a labor union whose members installed substantially all of the products of the manufacturers, charging a conspiracy to eliminate competition and to exact excessive prices for sash, doors and interior finish by agreeing among themselves that the manufacturers would not employ persons not members of the union and that members of the union would not install material made by man- ufacturers in other states. Demurrers and motions to quash the indictment were filed on March 12, 1921. A superseding indictment was returned September177 2, 1921, to remove a possible objection concerning the authority of the grand jury which returned the origi- nal indictment. (See case No. 240, infra p. 183.) 224. United States v. Poster Advertisers Ass'n: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned January 26,1921, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the Poster Advertisers Association and its members, charging that the defendants had monopo- lized interstate commerce in bill posters by requiring billboard owners who were members of the Association to receive for exhibition only those posters furnished by Poster Advertising Company, and by causing the Poster Advertising Company to refuse to supply post- ers to others not members of the Association or to serve any advertisers dealing with its competitors. After removal proceedings against a number of in- dividual defendants residing in New York City had proved unsuccessful, a nolle prosequi was entered as to all the defendants on December 18, 1925 (2 D. &. J. —). 225. United States v. Miller: Petition under the Sherman Act filed January 28, 1921, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against Miller and other manufacturers of rubber heels, alleging a com- bination and conspiracy to fix uniform sales prices and to require dealers to maintain such prices. A consent decree was entered on the same day enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. -). 226. United States v. Corrugated Paper Manufacturers' Ass'n: Petition under the Sherman Act filed Febru- ary 2, 1921, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Corrugated Paper Manu- facturers Association, alleging a combination and con- spiracy to fix and maintain uniform sales prices, dis- counts, terms and conditions of sale, and policies. A178 consent decree was entered on the same day enjoining the acts complained of (2 D. & J. —). 227. United States v. Southern Pine Association: Petition under the Sherman Act filed February 23,1921, in the District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, against the Southern Pine Association and 130 of its members, who produced more than 35 per cent of the yellow pine lumber manufactured in the United States, alleging a combination and conspiracy to restrain interstate com- merce in such lumber by establishing uniform prices, terms and conditions of sale, commissions, and other details. On June 3,1927, the case was dismissed upon stipulation in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. Maple Flooring Mfrs.' Ass'n (268 U. S. 563,10 F. A. D. 188) (2 D. & J. —). (See case No. 274, infra p. 198.) 228. United States v. Jones: Indictment under the Sherman Act filed February 25, 1921, in the District Court, District of Indiana, against Jones, operators of bitu- minous coal mines, and the officials of a mine workers' union, charging a conspiracy to create shortages in the supply of bituminous coal by closing mines, limit- ing production and distribution, and establishing a uniform accounting system to increase wages and the price of coal. A nolle prosequi was entered on June 28,1923 (2 D. & J. —). 229. United States v. Alpha Portland Cement Co.: Indict- ment under the Sherman Act returned March 1, 1921, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Alpha Portland Cement Company and 73 corporate and 40 individual defendants, manufactur- ers of Portland cement, charging a conspiracy to restrain and monopolize interstate commerce in Port- land cement. Because additional suits were filed in New York, Chicago, Kansas City, and Denver, against179 practically the same defendants, no further action was taken in this case. A nolle prosequi was entered on July 11,1923 (2 D. & J. —). 230. United States v. Smith: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned March 3,1921, in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, against Smith and others, constituting all the large wholesale and retail coal dealers in the city of Washington, D. C., charging a conspiracy to restrain trade by inducing all persons engaged in the local retail coal trade to become mem- bers of the Coal Merchants Board of Trade and to refrain from competing by selling to each other's cus- tomers or reducing rates and by preventing those who failed to cooperate from obtaining coal. After a plea in abatement was sustained on October 20, 1923, the indictment was quashed (2 D. & J. —), and this deci- sion was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Dis- trict of Columbia on December 1,1924 (2 F. (2d) 925, 13 F. A. D. —). 231. United States v. Kern: Petition under the Sherman Act filed March 8, 1921, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against Kern and other dealers in perforated paper music rolls, alleging a combina- tion and conspiracy to restrain interstate commerce in music rolls principally by fixing retail prices. A consent decree was entered on the same day enjoin- ing the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). 232. United States v. American Coated Paper Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed March 14, 1921, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the American Coated Paper Company and several other manufacturers of white glazed paper, alleging a combination and conspiracy to restrain and monopolize interstate trade and commerce by an agree-180 ment to fix and maintain uniform prices by using a common selling agency and by employing other means calculated to control the trade. A consent decree was entered on the same day enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). 233. United States v. American Lithographic Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed March 26, 1921, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the American Lithographic Company and four corporations manufacturing lithographed labels and like articles, alleging a combination and conspiracy to restrain and monopolize interstate trade and com- merce by an agreement to fix and maintain uniform and minimum prices and to adopt uniform sales poli- cies, and by exchanging and discussing information relative to costs, selling prices, and kindred subjects. A consent decree was entered on the same day enjoin- ing the further operation of the combination (2. D. & J. —). This decree was modified on June 9, 1926, to permit the exchange of certain information (2 D. & J. -). 234. United States v. Clow c& Sons: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned April 1, 1921, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against Clow & Sons, 15 other corporations and 25 individuals, charg- ing a combination and conspiracy to eliminate com- petition and to restrain interstate trade and commerce in plumbing and heating materials and apparatus and fittings used in the installation thereof in Chicago by agreements to fix and to maintain uniform and non- competitive prices and by other means. Demurrers to the indictment were overruled on October 17, 1921. On October 30, 1923, the District Court dismissed the first count of the indictment as to all the defendants and the second count as to all the individual defend- ants. The 16 corporate defendants pleaded guilty to181 the second count and fines aggregating $20,000 were imposed (2 D. & J. —). 235. United States v. Chicago Master Steam Fitters' Ass'n: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned April 30, 1921, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the Chicago Master Steam Fitters' Association and others, including the business man- ager of the Steam Fitters' Protective Association, charging a monopoly in restraint of interstate trade in furnishing and installing heating apparatus in Chi- cago. Demurrers to the indictment were overruled October 17, 1921. A nolle prosequi was entered on May 28,1926 (2 D. & J. —). 236. United States v. Biegler Company: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned April 30, 1921, in the Dis- trict Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the Biegler Company, 10 corporate and 18 individual de- fendants, including representatives of the Amal- gamated Sheet Metal Workers' Union, charging a monopoly in restraint of interstate trade and com- merce in furnishing and installing heating apparatus in Chicago. Demurrers to the indictment were over- ruled October 17,1921. A nolle prosequi was entered on May 28,1926 (2 D. & J. —). 237. United States v. Cement Mfrs.' Protective Ass'n: Peti- tion under the Sherman Act filed June 30,1921, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Cement Manufacturers' Protective Asso- ciation and 19 corporate and 4 individual defendants, members of the Association and manufacturers of Portland cement, alleging a combination to curtail production, to reduce the quantity of Portland cement sold under contracts for future delivery at a fixed price, and to bring about uniform and materially in- creased prices by the compilation and dissemination of information furnished by and to the defendants.182 The Association was but one of five similar organiza- tions covering different sections of the country, all having a like plan and purpose and all auxiliary to the Portland Cement Association, a national association whose membership included practically every com- pany manufacturing Portland cement in the United States. By stipulation the case was tried on the record made on the trial of the criminal case of United States v. Atlas Portland Cement Co. (case No. 238, infra). On October 23, 1923, the combina- tion was declared illegal (294 Fed. 390, 10 F. A. D. 156) and a decree was entered dissolving the Asso- ciation and perpetually enjoining the future opera- tion of the combination (2 D. & J. —). On June 1, 1925, the Supreme Court reversed the decree of the District Court (268 U. S. 588, 10 F. A. D. 171) and on October 12, 1925, a rehearing was denied. A final decree on this mandate was entered on Novem- ber 12, 1925, dismissing the petition (2 D. & J. —). 238. United States v. Atlas Portland Cement Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned August 8,1921, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Atlas Portland Cement Company, the 18 corpo- rate defendants in the preceding case, and, in addi- tion, 44 individuals managing or conducting the busi- ness of the corporate defendants, charging that the defendants combined and conspired through the in- strumentality of the Cement Manufacturers' Pro- tective Association to curtail production, to reduce the quantity of Portland cement sold under contracts for future delivery at a fixed price, and to bring about uniform and materially increased prices by the com- pilation and dissemination of information. The trial resulted in a disagreement by the jury and on Decem- ber 14, 1925, a nolle prosequi was entered in view of the decision in the civil case, No. 237, supra (2 D. & J. —). (See case No. 206, supra p. 167.)183 239. United States v. Alexander & Reid Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned August 31, 1921, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against Alexander & Reid Company, 24 corporations and 40 individuals, engaged in the business of fur- nishing and installing in buildings in and near New York City wall and floor tiles shipped in interstate commerce from other states, charging a combination to restrain trade by agreeing to furnish and install tiles only at non-competitive, arbitrary, and excessive prices, by agreeing with manufacturers that the man- ufacturers should sell only to the defendants, and by agreeing with various workers' organizations that the workers would install only tiles sold by the defend- ants. On November 14, 1921, 52 of the defendants pleaded guilty, four defendants were sentenced to im- prisonment, and fines aggregating $122,000 were im- posed. At the same time a nolle prosequi was entered as to five defendants (2 D. & J. —), and subsequently nolle prosequis were entered as to the remaining de- fendants (2 D. & J. —). The sentence of one defend- ant was commuted and the three remaining defendants served their sentences. 240. United States v. Andrews Lumber & Mill Co.: Indict- ment under the Sherman Act returned September 2, 1921, in the District Court, Northern District of Il- linois, against the Andrews Lumber & Mill Company, substantially all the manufacturers in Chicago of sash, doors, and interior finish, a number of building contractors, and members of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, a labor union whose members installed in Chicago substantially all of the products of the manufacturers, charging a con- spiracy to eliminate competition and to exact excessive prices for sash, doors, and interior finish in Chicago by agreeing among themselves that the manufacturers would employ only members of the union and that184 members of the union would not install material made by manufacturers in other states. The case was dis- missed as to several of the defendants and the remain- ing defendants were found guilty on June 30, 1923, and fines aggregating $58,300 were imposed (2 D. & J. —). On June 4,1925, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, reversed the conviction of the Dis- trict Court and remanded the case for further pro- ceedings (6 F. (2d) 98, 10 F. A. D. 760). The Su- preme Court reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals on November 23, 1926, and re- manded the case to that court for further proceedings (272 U. S. 549, 10 F. A. D. 764). The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on October 24,1927 (21 F. (2d) 889,11 F. A. D. 305). (See case No. 223, supra p. 176.) 241. United States v. Atlantic Terra Cotta Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned September 28, 1921, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Atlantic Terra Cotta Company, six other corporations engaged in the manufacture of terra cotta and twelve individuals, charging a com- bination and conspiracy in restraint of trade by means of a so-called "open-price" or "open-competi- tion plan," whose effect was to eliminate competition and to induce and maintain arbitrary and excessive prices. Seventeen of the defendants pleaded guilty on December 15, 1921, and fines aggregating $51,000 were imposed (2 D. & J. —). A nolle prosequi was entered on November 20, 1923, as to the remaining defendants, and another nolle prosequi was entered on August 29, 1927, to cure defects in the previous entry (2 D. & J. —). (See cases No. 242, infra, and No. 256, infra p. 190.) 242. United States v. American Terra Cotta & Ceramic Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned Septem- ber 28, 1921, in the District Court, Southern District185 of New York, against the American Terra Cotta & Ceramic Company, twenty-one other corporations and twenty-seven individuals, engaged in manufac- turing more than 95 per cent of all the terra cotta building material produced in the United States, charging that the defendants had combined, through the instrumentality of The National Terra Cotta Society, to restrain interstate trade and commerce in terra cotta. Indictments against the same defendants involving practically the same facts having been dis- posed of by pleas of guilty (see case No. 241, supra p. 184, and case No. 256, infra p. 190), nolle prosequis were entered on November 28, 1923, as to all the de- fendants (2 D. & J. —, —). 243. United States v. Norcross: Petition under the Sherman Act filed October 25,1921, in the District Court, West- ern District of Missouri, against Norcross, the sole owner and manager of The Norcross Audit and Sta- tiscal Bureau, and six subscribers to the Bureau, alleging that the defendants had combined to restrain interstate trade and commerce in Portland cement by gentlemen's agreements, the interchange of statistics, uniform cost accounting systems, restriction of pro- duction, and withholding cement from the market. A final decree was entered on April 2,1924, dissolving the combination, perpetually enjoining its further op- eration, and granting other relief (2 D. & J. —). This decree was modified on February 14, 1927, to permit the exchange of certain information (2 D. & J. —). 244. United States v. Mid-West Cement Credit & Statistical Bureau: Petition under the Sherman Act filed in Oc- tober 1921, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the Mid-West Cement Credit & Sta- tistical Bureau and others, alleging a combination and conspiracy to restrain trade in Portland cement by gentlemen's agreements, by the interchange of statis- tics, by uniform accounting systems, and by withhold-186 ing cement from the market. The petition was dismissed at the instance of the government on Jan- uary 21, 1926 (2 D. & J. —), in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. Cement Mfrs.' Protective Ass'n (268 U. S. 588, 10 F. A. D. 171). (See case No. 237, supra p. 181.) 245. United States v. Johnston Brokerage Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned November 28, 1921, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Johnston Brokerage Company and others engaged in the manufacture and sale of approximately two-thirds of all the hand-blown window glass used in the United States, charging a combination and con- spiracy to enhance prices and suppress competition. A demurrer to the indictment was sustained in Febru- ary 1922, and a nolle prosequi was entered on August 29, 1927 (2 D. & J. —). (See case No. 254, infra p. 189.) 246. United States v. Central Foundry Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned December 28, 1921, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Central Foundry Company and members of the Eastern Soil Pipe Manufacturers' Association, charging that the defendants had combined, through the instrumentality of an open-price plan, to restrain interstate trade in cast-iron soil pipes and fittings, to maintain arbitrary and excessive prices, and to elim- inate competition. A nolle prosequi was entered on August 10,1925 (2 D. & J. —). 247. United States v. Cement Securities Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed January 10,1922, in the District Court, District of Colorado, against the Cement Secur- ities Company and a number of Portland cement man- ufacturers, alleging a combination by the securities company and certain cement manufacturing compan- ies which it controlled to monopolize the Portland187 cement business in the Rocky Mountain States and to enhance prices. A motion to dismiss the petition was denied and, after a hearing, a final decree was entered on December 13, 1924, dissolving the securities com- pany in part and perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). In June 1927, the successor to the Cement Securities Company was ordered to sell certain properties at public auction but, due to economic conditions, an order was entered on November 25, 1933, cancelling the auction (2D. & J. —). 248. United States v. Tile Mfrs.' Credit Ass'n: Petition under the Sherman Act filed January 10, 1922, in the District Court, Southern District of Ohio, against the Tile Manufacturers' Credit Association and its mem- bers, manufacturers of approximately 80 percent of the encaustic tile in the United States, alleging that the defendants had combined, through the instrumen- tality of the Association, to restrain the manufacture, transportation, and sale of tile by fixing and maintain- ing prices, and by furnishing its members with in- formation concerning the credit of purchasers. A consent decree was entered on November 26,1923, dis- solving the Association and perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). On April 23, 1928, a supplemental decree permitting the exchange of certain information was entered (2 D. & J. —). 249. United States v. Peters: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned February 13,1922, in the District Court, District of Arizona, against Peters and four others, charging a conspiracy to restrain and monopolize in- terstate commerce in hay. The indictment was dis- missed on March 6,1923 (2 D. & J. —). 250. United States v. National Enameling cfr Stamping Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed February 14, 1922, in the District Court, Southern District of New188 York, against the National Enameling & Stamping Company and others, alleging that the defendants had combined to restrain and monopolize interstate trade in galvanized ware, such as pails, tubs, etc., by organ- izing the Sheet Metal Ware Exchange; by using an open-price plan to fix uniform price lists, terms and conditions of sale, freight allowances and special dis- counts ; and by engaging in various other illegal prac- tices. A consent decree was entered on the same day dissolving the combination and enjoining the acts complained of (2 D. & J. —). This decree was modi- fied in minor respects May 1,1924, and November 23, 1927 (2D.& J.—,—). 251. United States v. Bricklayers', Masons' & Plasterers' International Union: Petition under the Sherman Act filed February 28, 1922, in the District Court, South- ern District of New York, against the Bricklayers', Masons' & Plasterers' International Union, composed of more than 100,000 members, its executive officers, and representatives of numerous local unions, alleging a combination and conspiracy to restrain interstate trade and commerce in marble, cut stone, brick, and other articles used in the construction of buildings. A consent decree was entered on the same day enjoin- ing the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. -). 252. United States v. United Gas Improvement Co.: Indict- ment under the Sherman Act returned March 6, 1922, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the United Gas Improvement Company, 2 other corporations and 8 individuals, charging that the defendants had conspired to restrain and monopo- lize interstate trade in incandescent lamps, fixtures and appliances, by securing control of a number of valuable patents and excluding others from the use of those patents, by acquiring and combining com-189 peting companies, and by intimidating competitors. A nolle prosequi was entered on December 2, 1922 (2 D. & J. —). 253. United States v. Lehigh Portland Cement Co.: Indict- ment under the Sherman Act returned March 9, 1922, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the Lehigh Portland Cement Company, 25 other corporations and 48 individuals, charging that the defendants had conspired, through the instrumen- tality of the Mid-West Cement Credit and Statistical Bureau, to restrain interstate trade in Portland ce- ment by exchanging minute and comprehensive details with respect to their businesses. A nolle prosequi was entered on January 21, 1926 (2 D. & J. —), in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. Cement Mfrs.' Protective Ass'n (268 U. S. 588, 10 F. A. D. 171). (See case No. 237, supra p. 181.) 254. United States v. American Window Glass Company, Johnston Brokerage Co.: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned March 17, 1922 (superseding the indictment returned November 28, 1921, see case No. 245, supra p. 186), in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the American Window Glass Company, the Johnston Brokerage Company, and others engaged in the manufacture and sale of approximately 80 per cent of all the window glass used in the United States, charging a combination and conspiracy to curtail production, to enhance prices, and to suppress competition by an interchange of price information, by arbitrarily fixing prices, by apportion- ing sales, and by agreements entered into between the manufacturers and certain labor unions. A demurrer to the indictment was overruled on June 29, 1922. A nolle prosequi was entered on September 16, 1926 (2 D. & J. —), in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. Nat'I Ass'n of Window 9878—38-13190 Glass Mfrs. (263 U. S. 403,10 F. A. D. 27) and because of changed conditions in the industry. (See ease No. 269, infra p. 196.) 255. United States v. Wickwire Spencer Steel Corp.: Peti- tion under the Sherman Act filed March 20, 1922, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Wickwire Spencer Steel Corporation and others, alleging a combination and conspiracy to re- strain and monopolize interstate trade in flour sifters, dish covers, kitchen utensils, etc., by means of an as- sociation conducted along the lines of the Eddy plan, by a patent pool, and by agreements as to uniform freight allowances. A consent decree was entered on the same day dissolving the association and perpetu- ally enjoining the further operation of the combina- tion (2 D. & J. —). 256. United States v. American Terra Gotta & Ceramic Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned March 27, 1922, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the American Terra Cotta & Ceramic Company, 6 other corporations and 7 individuals, charging a combination and conspiracy to restrain and monopolize interstate trade and commerce in terra cotta through the instrumentality of the National Terra Cotta Society. On August 4, 1923, the indict- ment was dismissed as to all but one of the individual defendants, and all but two of the corporate defend- ants pleaded guilty and fines aggregating $13,500 were imposed (2 D. & J. —). On June 30, 1925, the remaining corporate defendant pleaded nolo conten- dere, a fine of $1,500 was imposed, and a nolle prosequi was entered as to the remaining individual defendant (2 D. & J. —). (See cases Nos. 241 and 242, supra p. 184.)191 257. United States v. O'Brien: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned in April 1922, in the District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, against O'Brien and four others, charging a conspiracy to prevent, by means of threats and intimidation, the transportation by motor truck of a steel billet from the plant of the Andrews Steel Company, Newport, Kentucky, to Cin- cinnati, Ohio. The defendants were found guilty at the same term of court, and four were sentenced to imprisonment for eight months each and one was sen- tenced to imprisonment for a term of 30 days (2 D. & J. —). The four defendants appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, which on June 5, 1923, affirmed the conviction (290 Fed. 185, 9 F. A. D. 974). A petition for rehearing was denied on July 18, 1923. 258. United States v. United Gas Improvement Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed April 20,1922, in the Dis- trict Court, Southern District of New York, against the United Gas Improvement Company, 2 other corpo- rations and 8 individuals, alleging a conspiracy to re- strain and monopolize interstate trade in incandescent lamps, fixtures, and appliances by securing control of a number of valuable patents and excluding others from the use of those patents, by acquiring and combining competing companies, and by intimidating competi- tors. A decree of discontinuance was entered on March 26,1923 (2 D. & J. —). 259. United States v. Trenton Potteries Co.: Indictment un- der the Sherman Act returned August 8, 1922, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Trenton Potteries Company, 22 other cor- porations and 23 individuals, engaged in the manufac-192 ture and sale of 85 per cent of all the sanitary pottery in the United States, charging that the defendants had combined to restrain trade by fixing prices and by con- fining the sales of their products to certain parties termed "legitimate jobbers,'' all others being compelled to trade through these jobbers at increased prices. Twenty individuals and 23 corporations were found guilty and the remaining three individual defendants were found not guilty (2 D. & J. —). On April 20, 1923, sentences to imprisonment for terms aggregat- ing 52 months were imposed on 8 individual defend- ants and fines aggregating $169,000 were imposed on the remaining individual and corporate defendants (2 D. & J. —). The Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, reversed the conviction on May 9, 1924 (300 Fed. 550, 10 F. A. D. 907). On certiorari, the Su- preme Court reinstated the judgment of the District Court on February 21,1927 (273 IT. S. 392,10 F. A. D. 994). On petition of the defendants, the District Court on April 15, 1927, directed the payment of fines and suspended sentences, and upon the completion of 10 months' probation the defendants were formally discharged (2 D. & J. —). 260. United States v. Schroder's Son: Petition under the Sherman Act and under the Clayton Act filed August 31, 1922, in the District Court, Eastern District of New York, against A. Schrader's Son, Inc., a manu- facturer of brass fittings for valves, pneumatic pres- sure gauges, etc., used on automobile tires and tubes, and its officers, alleging a combination in restraint of interstate trade by means of a licensing agreement; by the imposition upon purchasers of conditions of sale which permitted resale only at fixed prices and to designated purchasers; by requiring discriminatory prices in certain instances; and by requiring that the articles be used only in connection with others manu- factured by the defendants. A final decree was en-193 tered on July 14, 1923, perpetually enjoining the im- position of the conditions complained of (2 D. & J. —). 261. United States v. Railway Employees' Department of A. F. of L.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed September 1, 1922, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the Railway Employees' Department of the American Federation of Labor, composed of organizations of railway shopmen and certain individuals, alleging a conspiracy to obstruct the operation of railroads and to interfere with the transportation of the mails by violence, intimidation, and destruction of property. A temporary restrain- ing order was issued on September 1,1922 (2 D. & J. —). The government's motion for a preliminary in- junction was granted on September 25,1922 (283 Fed. 479, 9 F. A. D. 707), and a decree was entered (2 D. & J. —). On October 5, 1922, a second preliminary in- junction was granted (2 D. & J. —). The District Court, on January 5,1923, denied the defendants' mo- tion to dissolve the injunction (286 Fed. 228,9 F. A. D. 831). After a final hearing, the conspiracy was de- clared illegal on July 12,1923 (290 Fed. 978, 9 F. A. D. 852), and on the same day a decree was entered per- petually enjoining the further operation of the con- spiracy (2 D. & J. —). 262. United States v. Clements: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned September 25, 1922, in the District Court, Southern District of California, against Clem- ents and seven others, charging a conspiracy to inter- fere with interstate commerce by inducing employees of the Santa Fe Railroad to abandon certain trains which they were operating near Needles, California. After a demurrer to the indictment was sustained, a second indictment was returned November 8, 1922. On December 20, 1922, the defendants were found guilty and fines aggregating $10,000 were imposed194 (2 D. & J. —). On March 17,1924, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed the conviction (297 Fed. 206, 13 F. A. D. —), and on October 13, 1924, the Supreme Court denied certiorari (266 U. S. 605). 263. United States v. Williams: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned September 27,1922, in the District Court, Western District of Texas, against Williams and eight others, charging a conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce by injuring and disabling locomotives. After a mistrial, a second indictment was returned under which five of the defendants were found guilty, one of the defendants was found not guilty, and the indictment was dismissed as to the re- maining defendants (2 D. & J. —). On September 3, 1923, each of the defendants was sentenced to impris- onment for 10 months and fined $2,500 (2 D. & J. —). On December 1, 1923, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, affirmed the conviction (295 Fed. 302, 10 F. A. D. 211), and on June 9, 1924, the Supreme Court denied certiorari (265 U. S. 591). 264. United States v. Powell: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned October 18, 1922, in the District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, against Powell and others, charging a conspiracy to restrain interstate trade and commerce by setting fire to certain freight carloads of coal. On October 19,1922, Powell pleaded guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 days (2 D. & J. —). The other conspirators were never identified. 265. United States v. Fur Dressers' and Fur Dyers' Ass'n: Petition under the Sherman Act filed November 8, 1922, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Fur Dressers' and Fur Dyers' As- sociation and its members who were engaged in the195 business of dressing and dyeing furs for manufac- turers and dealers, alleging that the defendants had combined, through the instrumentality of the Associa- tion, to restrain interstate trade by refusing to give discounts, by furnishing to the Association for dis- tribution among the members a list of the customers who failed to pay their accounts when due, and by cer- tain other methods. On May 2, 1925, the District Court declared the Association legal (5 F. (2d) 869, 10 F. A. D. 511), and the petition was dismissed (2 D. & J. —). 266. United States v. Hudnut: Petition under the Sherman Act filed November 8, 1922, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against Richard Hud- nut, Inc., a manufacturer of perfumes and toilet ar- ticles, alleging a combination and conspiracy to fix resale prices by means of coercion. On July 2, 1925, the combination was declared legal (8 F. (2d) 1010, 10 F. A. D. 633) and the petition was dismissed (2 D. & J. —). On June 29, 1925, the government's peti- tion for a rehearing was denied. 267. United States v. Harvel: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned December 13, 1922, in the District Court, Western District of Louisiana, against Harvel and others, charging a combination and conspiracy in restraint of interstate commerce in pursuance of which an assault was made upon a roadmaster of the Kansas City Southern Railroad. On December 17, 1923, a nolle prosequi was entered as to one defend- ant and the two remaining defendants pleaded guilty and were fined $25 each (2 D. & J. —). 268. United States v. Gypsum Industries Ass'n: Petition under the Sherman Act filed December 27,1922, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Gypsum Industries Association and its196 members, alleging that the defendants had combined, through the instrumentality of the Association, to re- strain interstate commerce in gypsum products by the distribution of statistical data relating to prices, sales, orders, etc. A consent decree was entered on the same day dissolving the Association and perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). On July 20,1928, a supplemental de- cree permitting the exchange of certain information was entered (2 D. & J. —). 269. United States v. Nat'I Ass'n of Window Glass Mfrs.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed January 5,1923, in the District Court, Northern District of Ohio, against the National Association of Window Glass Manufacturers and its members, composed of all the manufacturers of hand-blown window glass, and the National Window Glass Workers' Association and its members, comprising all the labor available for such work in the United States, alleging a combination in restraint of trade by means of a so-called "wage-scale contract" between the manufacturers' association and the workers' association, which provided for the limita- tion of production by dividing all manufacturers into two groups, each of which was to be in operation one- half of the year so that only one-half of the factories would be in operation at any one time during the year. On January 5,1923, a temporary restraining order was granted (2 D. & J. —) ; on February 2, 1923, the com- bination was declared illegal (287 Fed. 228, 9 F. A. D. 895) ; and on April 19, 1923, a decree was entered en- joining the further operation of the contract and the operation of any similar combination (2 D. & J. —). On December 10, 1923, the Supreme Court reversed the decree of the District Court (263 U. S. 403, 10 F. A. D. 27), and a decree dismissing the petition was entered (2 D. & J. —).197 270. United Stales v. Bastin: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned January 5, 1923, in the District Court, Northern District of Ohio, against Bastin, the Na- tional Association of Window Glass Manufacturers and its members, composed of all the manufacturers of hand-blown window glass, and the National Win- dow Glass Workers' Association and its members, comprising all of the labor available for such work in the United States, charging a combination in re- straint of trade by means of a so-called "wage-scale contract" between the manufacturers' association and the workers' association, which provided for the divi- sion of all manufacturers into two groups, each of which was to be in operation only one-half of the year so that only one-half of the factories would be in operation at any one time during the year. On De- cember 10,1925, a nolle prosequi was entered (2 D. & J. —), in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. Nat'l Ass'n of Window Glass Mfrs. (263 U. S. 403, 10 F. A. D. 27), case No. 269, supra page 196. 271. United States v. Reilly: Two indictments under the Sherman Act returned January 5,1923, in the District Court, Western District of New York, against Reilly and thirteen others, charging a conspiracy to dyna- mite the high-speed line of the International Railway. A third indictment was returned January 7, 1924, to which four defendants pleaded guilty on January 9, 1924, the sentences being suspended pending the trial of four other defendants who pleaded not guilty. On January 21, 1924, the latter defendants were found guilty and each was sentenced to imprisonment for one year and fines aggregating $13,000 were imposed (2 D. & J. —). On March 4,1925, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, affirmed the convictions (6 P. (2d) 188, 10 F. A. D. 555). A nolle prosequi was198 entered on June 14, 1926, as to all but four of the re- maining defendants, certain of whom were made par- ties to a further indictment. (See case No. 295, infra p. 208.) A nolle prosequi was entered on November 23,1926, as to the remaining defendants (2 D. & J. —). 272. United States v. Hency: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned January 16, 1923, in the District Court, Northern District of Texas, against Hency and others, charging a conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce by injuring and disabling locomotives. On February 9, 1923, a demurrer to the indictment was sustained (286 Fed. 165,9 F. A. D. 823) (2 D. & J. —). 273. United States v. Kryptok Co.: Petition under the Sher- man Act filed January 22,1923, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Kryptok Company and others, who controlled approximately three-fourths of the business in fused bifocal lenses and blanks in the United States, alleging that the de- fendants had combined to restrain interstate trade by the granting of licenses by the Kryptok Company under certain basic patents, which empowered the licensor to fix uniform prices to jobbers if the licensees could not themselves agree upon such prices. On July 28,1925, the petition was dismissed owing to the expiration on May 5,1925, of the patents under which the licenses were issued (11 F. (2d) 874, 10 F. A. D. 673) (2D. & J.—). 274. United States v. Maple Flooring Mfrs.' Ass'n: Petition under the Sherman Act filed March 5, 1923, in the District Court, Western District of Michigan, against the Maple Flooring Manufacturers' Association and its members, engaged in producing 70 per cent of the hardwood flooring sold in the United States, alleging that the defendants had combined through the instru- mentality of the Association to restrain interstate com-199 merce in maple, beech, and birch flooring by compiling and disseminating detailed information as to the cost of their product, the volume of production, the actual price which the product brought in past transactions, the stocks of merchandise on hand, and the approxi- mate cost of transportation from points of shipment to points of consumption; and by discussing such in- formation and statistics at meetings without, however, reaching any agreement with respect to prices, produc- tion, or restraints on competition. On December 19, 1923, the combination was declared illegal, and on Jan- uary 4,1924, a final decree was entered dissolving the combination and enjoining the practices complained of (2 D. & J. —). The Supreme Court reversed the decree of the District Court June 1, 1925 (268 U. S. 563,10 F. A. D. 188), a petition for rehearing was de- nied October 12, 1925, and a final decree was entered on this mandate January 6,1926 (2 D. & J. —). 275. United States v. New York Coffee & Sugar Exchange, Inc.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed April 19, 1923, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the New York Coffee & Sugar Ex- change, the New York Coffee and Sugar Clearing Association, and their members, alleging a combina- tion and conspiracy to establish artificial and unwar- ranted prices, not governed by the law of supply and demand but based wholly on fictitious and speculative transactions which did not contemplate actual delivery of sugar. An application for a preliminary injunction was denied on April 30, 1923. In accordance with a stipulation, a final hearing was had on the petition, the answers, and the affidavits which had been submit- ted. A decree dismissing the petition was entered (2 D. & J. —). On January 28,1924, the Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the District Court (263 U. S. 611,10 F. A. D. 125).200 276. United States v. Western Pine Mfrs'. Ass'n: Petition under the Sherman Act filed April 30,1923, in the Dis- trict Court, District of Minnesota, against the West- ern Pine Manufacturers' Association and its members, alleging a combination and conspiracy to restrain in- terstate commerce in lumber manufactured from Idaho white pine, western white pine, and other woods. On November 6, 1925, the petition was dismissed by stipulation (2 D. & J. —), in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. Maple Flooring Mfrs/ Ass'n (268 U. S. 563, 10 F. A. D. 188), case No. 274, supra page 198. 277. United States v. Industrial Ass'n of San Francisco: Petition under the Sherman Act filed May 26, 1923, in the District Court, Northern District of California, against the Industrial Association of San Francisco, the Builders' Exchange, and their members, alleging a combination and conspiracy to restrain trade and suppress competition in building materials by the so- called "American plan," which provided for the em- ployment of union and non-union foremen in equal proportions with a non-union foreman on each job; and by collusive bidding, coercion, intimidation, black- listing, etc. On June 19,1923, an injunction pendente lite was denied (2 D. & J. —). On November 10,1923, the District Court enjoined certain of these activities 293 Fed. 925,10 F. A. D. 94) (2 D. & J.—). On April 13,1925, the Supreme Court reversed the decree of the District Court (268 U. S. 64,10 F. A. D. 98), and the petition was dismissed on this mandate (2 D. & J. —). 278. United States v. American Chain Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed July 16, 1923, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the American Chain Company and ten other manufac- turers, alleging a combination and conspiracy to re- strain interstate trade and commerce in spring-bar201 bumpers for automobiles and other vehicles by means of the acquisition of patents and the granting of licenses thereunder. On March 15,1927, the petition was dismissed without prejudice (2 D. & J. —), in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. General Electric Go. (272 U. S. 476, 10 F. A. D. 799), case No. 281, infra page 202. 279. United States v. Live Poultry Dealers' Protective Ass'n: Petition under the Sherman Act filed January 18, 1924, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Live Poultry Dealers' Protective Association, whose membership included more than one-half of all wholesale buyers of live poultry in New York City, and certain of its officers and members, al- leging a combination to fix and maintain uniform prices and to boycott and otherwise discriminate against those who failed to adhere to these prices. On April 7, 1924, the combination was declared illegal (298 Fed. 139, 10 F. A. D. 316) and an injunction pendente lite was granted (2 D. & J. —). On De- cember 3, 1924, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, affirmed the decree of the District Court (4 F. (2d) 840,10 F. A. D. 454). The case was tried on its merits and, by direction of the court, a consent de- cree was entered on December 15, 1925, perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination. (2 D.& J. —). 280. United States v. Mitchell Brothers' Company: Indict- ment under the Sherman Act returned January 18, 1924, in the District Court, Northern District of Il- linois, against Mitchell Brothers' Company and others, who produced 70 per cent of the hardwood flooring sold in the United States, charging that the defend- ants had combined, through the instrumentality of the Maple Flooring Manufacturers' Association, to re- strain interstate commerce in maple, beech, and birch flooring by compiling and disseminating information202 as to the cost of their product, the volume of produc- tion, the actual price which the product brought in past transactions, the stocks of merchandise on hand, and the approximate cost of transportation from points of shipment to points of consumption; and by discuss- ing such information and statistics at meetings with- out, however, reaching any agreement with respect to prices, production, or restraints on competition. On July 26, 1926, the indictment was dismissed (2 D. & J. —), in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. Maple Flooring Mfrs.' Ass'n (268 U. S. 563,10 F. A. D. 188), case No. 274, supra page 198. 281. United States v. General Electric Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed March 20, 1924, in the District Court, Northern District of Ohio, against the General Electric Company, the owner of the basic patents for incandescent electric lamps, and others, alleging a combination to fix and maintain resale prices of elec- tric lamps by means of a system of so-called "agency contracts" with retailers and by means of licensing agreements with other manufacturers containing similar restrictive provisions. On April 3, 1925, the combination was declared legal (15 F. (2d) 715, 10 F. A. D. 790), and a decree dismissing the petition was entered (2 D. & J. —). On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the District Court on November 23,1926 (272 U. S. 476,10 F. A. D. 799). 282. United States v. Nat'I Malleable & Steel Castings Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned March 27, 1924, in the District Court, Northern District of Ohio, against the National Malleable & Steel Castings Company and others, engaged in the manufacture of 75 per cent of the malleable iron castings made in the United States, charging that the defendants had com- bined, through the instrumentality of the American Malleable Castings Association of Cleveland, to elimi- nate competition by fixing non-competitive prices,203 terms ana conditions of sale; and by apportioning customers, etc. Demurrers to the indictment and the motions to quash the indictment interposed by certain defendants were overruled on July 15, 1924, (6 P. (2d) 40, 10 F. A. D. 520). After the remaining de- fendants refused to appear for trial in Cleveland, it was necessary to prosecute removal proceedings against them before local federal courts in each of 14 judicial districts in which they resided or were found. In some cases it was necessary for the government to resist habeas corpus proceedings. All of these ancil- lary proceedings were decided in favor of the govern- ment (6 F. (2d) 149, 10 F. A. D. 527; 6 F. (2d) 156, 10 F. A. D. 541; 7 F. (2d) 734, 10 F. A. D. 545; 10 F. (2d) 212,10 F. A. D. 560; 11 F. (2d) 843,12 F. A. D. 224; 11 F. (2d) 845, 12 F. A. D. 228; 11 F. (2d) 847,10 F. A. D. 566). Before September 13,1926, the date set for trial, practically all the defendants pleaded guilty or nolo contendere, fines aggregating $227,000 were imposed, and the indictment was dis- missed as to the remaining defendants (2 D. & J. —). 283. United States v. Southern Calif. Grocers' Ass'n: Peti- tion under the Sherman Act filed April 2,1924, in the District Court, Southern District of California, against the Southern California Grocers' Association and its members, alleging a combination to fix prices, to exchange information, and to exclude competitors, especially chain stores, by an agreement not to deal with manufacturers who sold directly to such com- petitors. On August 28, 1925, the combination was declared illegal (7 F. (2d) 944,10 F. A. D. 622), and on September 22, 1925, a decree was entered per- petually enjoining its further operation (2 D. & J. —). 284. United States v. California Wholesale Grocers' Ass'n: Petition under the Sherman Act filed April 2, 1924, in the District Court, Southern District of California,204 against the California Wholesale Grocers' Association and its members, alleging a combination to fix prices, to exchange information, and to exclude competitors, especially chain stores, by an agreement not to deal with manufacturers who sold directly to such competi- tors. On September 25, 1924, the case was dismissed as to one defendant (2 D. & J. —), and on May 5,1926, a consent decree was entered perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. ■—). 285. United States v. Utah-Idaho Wholesale Grocers' Ass'n: Petition under the Sherman Act filed April 9, 1924, in the District Court, District of Utah, against the Utah-Idaho Wholesale Grocers' Association and its members alleging that the defendants had combined, through the instrumentality of the Association, to fix and enhance prices and to suppress competition in groceries and other like articles. After certain pre- liminary motions had been overruled, a consent decree was entered on September 27, 1926, perpetually en- joining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). 286. United States v. Jeffrey Manufacturing Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed May 3,1924, in the Dis- trict Court, Southern District of Ohio, against the Jeffrey Manufacturing Company and other manu- facturers of coal-cutting machinery, alleging a com- bination and conspiracy to restrain interstate com- merce by means of a patent pool, cross-licenses con- taining price-fixing agreements, and other provisions regulating and restricting competition. The District Court denied a motion to dismiss the petition on June 30, 1925, but sustained a motion to strike out certain portions of the petition unless the government elected to file an amended petition. An amended petition was filed on September 24, 1925, and motions to dismiss this petition were denied on July 12, 1926. On May205 25,1934, the petition was dismissed because the issues had become moot (2 D. & J. —). 287. United States v. Wheeler-Osgood Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed May 5, 1924, in the District Court, District of Oregon, against the Wheeler-Os- good Company and others, alleging a combination and conspiracy to restrain interstate commerce in fir doors by eliminating competition in their manufac- ture and sale. A consent decree was entered on June 18, 1925, perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). 288. United States v. Standard Oil Co. (Indiana): Petition under the Sherman Act filed June 25,1924, in the Dis- trict Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the Standard Oil Company and others, engaged in refin- ing 94 per cent of all gasoline produced by the so- called "cracking process" in the United States, alleg- ing that the defendants had combined to restrain in- terstate and foreign commerce in gasoline, kerosene, and other hydrocarbon products by a series of licens- ing and cross-licensing agreements, which regulated the use of the patents on the cracking process and which contained burdensome and oppressive cove- nants and conditions, such as agreements to fix and maintain royalties, to divide royalties, etc. On May 21, 1925, the District Court overruled objections to evidence introduced by the government relating to the patents of the defendants, and on May 29,1925, it overruled objections to the government's interroga- tories. Pursuant to an order entered May 3,1926, the government filed a supplemental petition, alleging that certain of the patents of the Texas Company were obtained from the Patent Office by fraud. Testimony was taken before a Special Master in Chancery and his report, containing findings and conclusions in favor of the defendants, was filed December 7, 1927. The District Court reversed the Master's findings 9878—38-14206 June 11,1929, declared that the cross-licensing agree- ments were illegal and enjoined their further per- formance (33 P. (2d) 617, 12 F. A. D. 690). On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the decree of the District Court April 13, 1931 (283 U. S. 163, 12 F. A. D. 722). On June 25, 1931, a final decree was entered on this mandate dismissing the petition (2 D. &J.—). 289. United States v. Seattle Produce Ass'n: Petition under the Sherman Act filed July 18, 1924, in the District Court, Western District of Washington, against the Seattle Produce Association and its members, alleging a combination to restrain trade by fixing and main- taining prices for fruits, vegetables, and produce; and by limiting arbitrarily the amount of produce reach- ing the market. A consent decree was entered on March 21,1925, dissolving the Association and enjoin- ing the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J.-). 290. United States v. Sisal Sales Corp.: Petition under the Sherman Act and the Wilson Tariff Act filed July 23, 1924, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Sisal Sales Corporation and others, engaged in the growing, marketing, and financing of sisal, a fibre grown principally in Mexico and used in the manufacture of binder twine, alleging that the Sisal Corporation had acquired a monopoly in sisal by agreeing to act as the exclusive selling agent of Comi- sion Exportadora de Yucatan. The Comision Expor- tadora de Yucatan was a Mexican corporation which bought sisal from producers in Yucatan with funds furnished by the Sisal Sales Corporation, and which, by reason of local legislation, enjoyed a preferential position in Yucatan. On the defendants' motion, the District Court dismissed the petition on June 4,1925 (2 D. &. J. —). The Supreme Court reversed this de- cree on May 16,1927 (274 U. S. 268,10 F. A. D. 1033).207 The District Court, with the consent of the govern- ment, on March 29, 1928, discontinued the case with- out prejudice since the issues had become moot C2 D. & J. —). 291. United States v. Oregon Wholesale Grocers' Ass'n: Peti- tion under the Sherman Act filed September 29,1924, in the District Court, District of Oregon, against the Oregon Wholesale Grocers' Association and its mem- bers, alleging that the defendants had combined, through the instrumentality of the Association, to fix and maintain prices, to exchange price lists, and to exclude certain competitors by agreeing not to deal with manufacturers who sold directly to such competi- tors. A consent decree was entered on June 4, 1926, enjoining the further operation of the combination and any acts tending to restrict the freedom of manu- facturers in selling their products (2 D. & J. —). 292. United States v. Colgate & Co.: Petition under the Sher- man Act filed December 1,1924, in the District Court, District of New Jersey, against Colgate & Company, a manufacturer of soaps, perfumes, and other toilet articles, and a large number of wholesalers and re- tailers, alleging a combination to restrain trade by fixing and maintaining resale prices. A decree was entered on December 3, 1925, dismissing the petition without prejudice (2 D. & J. —). 293. United States v. Lindsley Bros. Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act filed December 20, 1924, in the Dis- trict Court, Eastern District of Washington, against Lindsley Brothers Company and other dealers in west- ern red cedar poles, charging that the defendants had combined to restrain trade by agreeing on uniform terms and conditions of sale, on f. o. b. basing prices, on freight charges, and on delivered prices; and by maintaining the Western Lumber & Coal Company, the Western Red Cedar Association, and the Western208 Red Cedarmen's Information Bureau for the purpose of distributing statistical data, uniform freight rate sheets, and price lists. On October 20, 1925, the cor- porate defendants pleaded guilty and fines aggregat- ing $37,300 were imposed. The case was dismissed as to all of the individual defendants (2 D. & J. —). 294. United States v. Nat'l Peanut Cleaners & Shelters Ass'n: Petition under the Sherman Act filed January 5,1925, in the District Court, Eastern District of Vir- ginia, against the National Peanut Cleaners & Shellers Association and its members, engaged in cleaning and shelling peanuts, alleging that the defendants had combined to restrain trade by establishing and main- taining uniform and arbitrary terms and conditions of sale, brokers' commissions, and grades; by blacklisting and boycotting producers who failed to maintain them; by interchanging trade information for the purpose of controlling buying and selling prices; and by attempt- ing to prevent the orderly marketing of peanuts by the Peanut Growers' Association. A consent decree was entered on June 15, 1925, enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). On June 1,1933, the decree was modified so as to lessen the re- straints previously imposed in view of changed com- petitive conditions (2D. & J. —). On April 2, 1934, this decree was modified to permit compliance with the National Recovery Administration code for the raw peanut milling industry, approved January 12, 1934 (2 D. & J. —). 295. United States v. Fitzgerald: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned May 20, 1925, in the District Court, Western District of New York, against Fitz- gerald and 24 other officers and members of railway employees' organizations, including certain of the de- fendants named in the indictment previously returned in connection with the dynamiting of the high-speed209 line of the International Railway (see case No. 271, supra p. 197). The indictment was dismissed as to six of the defendants during the course of the trial, four defendants were found not guilty on January 21,1926, and a nolle prosequi was entered as to the remaining defendants in June 1926 (2 D. & J. —). 296. United States v. Coye: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned May 29,1925, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against Coye and 18 manufacturers of refrigerators and ice boxes, charging that the defendants had combined, through the instru- mentality of the National Refrigerator Manu- facturers' Association, to eliminate and prevent com- petition among the members of the Association and to fix prices. On June 30, 1925, the indictment was dis- missed as to the defendant Coye, and all but two of the remaining defendants pleaded guilty and fines aggre- gating $68,000 were imposed (2 D. & J. —). On Octo- ber 18,1925, one corporate defendant pleaded nolo con- tendere and a fine of $2,000 was imposed (2 D. & J. —). On October 22, 1930, a nolle prosequi was entered as to the remaining defendant (2 D. & J. —). 297. United States v. Baker: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned May 29,1925, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against Baker and 55 manufacturers of chairs, charging that the defendants had combined, through the instrumentality of the Na- tional Association of Chair Manufacturers, to elimi- nate competition among the members of the Associa- tion and to fix prices. The indictment was dismissed as to one defendant; all but two of the remaining de- fendants pleaded guilty, and fines aggregating $176,- 000 were imposed. On October 7, 1925, a nolle prose- qui was entered as to the remaining defendant (2 D. & J.-).210 298. United States v. Brown: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned May 29, 1925, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against Brown and 190 manufacturers of dining-room and bed-room furni- ture, radio cabinets, and clock cases, charging that the defendants had combined, through the instrumen- tality of the National Alliance of Furniture Manu- facturers, to eliminate competition among themselves, to fix prices, and to curtail production. During July 1925, 93 defendants pleaded guilty and fines aggre- gating $209,000 were imposed (2 D. & J. —). After superseding indictments were returned on July 25, 1925 (see cases Nos. 302 and 303, infra pp. 211, 212), a nolle prosequi was entered as to each of the remaining defendants (2 D. & J. —). 299. United States v. One-Piece Bifocal Lens Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed June 5,1925, in the Dis- trict Court, District of Indiana, against the One-Piece Bifocal Lens Company and others, alleging that the defendants had combined to eliminate competition in the manufacture, sale, and resale of one-piece bifocal lenses and blanks by patent-licensing agreements and by fixing, establishing, and maintaining uniform re- sale prices, discounts, and terms of sale. By stipula- tion, a decree was entered on June 30,1927, dismissing the petition without prejudice (2 D. & J. —). 300. United States v. Tanners Products Co.: Petition un- der the Sherman Act filed June 11, 1925, in the Dis- trict Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the Tanners Products Company and 115 tanning com- panies, alleging that the defendants had combined to restrain trade by pooling all the cattle and calf hair produced by the tanneries to be sold through the Tan- ners Products Company. A consent decree was en- tered on October 3,1927, enjoining the further opera-211 tion of the combination (2 D. & J. —). On August 22, 1933, a petition for suspension of the decree in the light of the enactment of the National Industrial Re- covery Act was dismissed without prejudice. 301. United States v. Carson Brewing Company: Petition under the Sherman Act filed June 12, 1925, in the District Court, District of Nevada, against the Carson Brewing Company and others, alleging that the de- fendants had conspired to restrain interstate com- merce in ice manufactured, purchased, and sold in California and shipped to various states, particularly Nevada, by means of agreements to fix, maintain, and enhance prices, and to apportion territory. After the death of the Judge before whom certain preliminary motions were argued, the petition was dismissed on June 30,1929 (2 D. & J. —). 302. United States v. Berhey & Gay Furniture Co.: Indict- ment under the Sherman Act returned July 25, 1925, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the Berkey & Gay Furniture Company, 35 other manufacturers of dining-room furniture and 37 individuals, alleging that the defendants had com- bined, through the instrumentality of the National Alliance of Furniture Manufacturers, to restrain trade by fixing prices and by curtailing production. This indictment included certain defendants who had not pleaded guilty to the indictment returned against them on May 29,1925 (see case No. 298, supra p. 210). On October 25,1925, one corporate defendant pleaded guilty and a fine of $1,000 was imposed (2 D. & J. —). After demurrers to the indictment had been overruled on December 18, 1925, the remaining defendants pleaded not guilty on January 18,1926. The case was consolidated for trial with case No. 303, infra page 212. The jury was discharged on March 21,1927, for failure to reach a verdict. Thirty-six defendants pleaded nolo212 contendere on March 26, 1928, and fines aggregating $57,950 were imposed and a nolle prosequi was entered as to the remaining defendants (2 D. & J. —). 303. United States v. Aulsbrook & Jones Furniture Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned July 25, 1925, in the District Court, Northern District of Illi- nois, against the Aulsbrook & Jones Furniture Com- pany, 46 other manufacturers of bed-room furniture and 37 individuals, alleging that the defendants had combined, through the instrumentality of the Na- tional Alliance of Furniture Manufacturers, to re- strain trade by fixing prices and by curtailing produc- tion. This indictment included certain defendants who had not pleaded guilty to the indictment returned against them on May 29,1925 (see case No. 298, supra p. 210). On November 14,1925, and on April 14,1926, two corporations pleaded guilty and fines aggregating $2,000 were imposed (2 D. & J. —). At various in- tervals nolle prosequis were entered as to 47 defend- ants (2 D. & J. —). The case was consolidated for trial with case No. 302, supra page 211. After the jury was discharged for failure to reach a verdict on March 21,1927, the remaining defendants pleaded nolo con- tendere on March 6, 1928, and fines aggregating $44,950 were imposed (2 D. & J. —). 304. United States v. Lay Fish Company: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned July 29, 1925, in the Dis- trict Court, Southern District of New York, against the Lay Fish Company, 16 other corporations and 12 individuals, charging a combination of wholesale deal- ers in and receivers on consignment of dead fresh- water fish, caught in western states and in the Do- minion of Canada, to eliminate competition in the purchase of such fish and to fix and maintain prices to retail dealers in and around New* York City. On January 4,1926, demurrers to the special pleas in bar of the individual defendants were sustained, and on213 May 12, 1926, all the defendants pleaded guilty and fines aggregating $31,000 were imposed (2 D. & J. —). (See case No. 311, infra p. 215.) 305. United States v. Porcelain Appliance Corp.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed October 16, 1925, in the District Court, Northern District of Ohio, against the Porcelain Appliance Corporation and others, alleging a combination to monopolize the trade in assembled two-part porcelain insulators by pooling competing patents and by granting licenses containing price-fix- ing provisions. A consent decree was entered on Feb- ruary 25, 1930, enjoining the further operation of the combination and requiring the re-assignment of the outstanding constituent patents to their former owners (2 D. & J. —). 306. United States v. Krewoski: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned October 20, 1925, in the District Court, Northern District of West Virginia, against Krewoski and Dosen, charging a conspiracy in re- straint of interstate commerce in connection with the dynamiting of a bridge on the Baltimore & Ohio Rail- road. On December 2,1926, Krewoski pleaded guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment for six months (2 D. & J. —). On June 20, 1927, a nolle prosequi was entered as to the defendant Dosen (2. D. & J. —). 307. United States v. Flower Producers Cooperative Ass'n: Petition under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act filed December 15,1925, in the District Court, South- ern District of New York, against the Flower Pro- ducers Cooperative Association, its members, and 39 other growers and wholesalers of cut flowers, alleging that the defendants had combined, through the in- strumentality of the Association, and had used intimi- dation and threats of boycott to prevent cut flowers not grown by members of the Association from com- ing into the New York market. A consent decree was214 entered on January 15, 1926, dissolving the Associ- ation and perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). 308. United States v. Ward Food Products Corp.: Petition under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act filed Feb- ruary 8,1926, in the District Court, District of Mary- land, against the Ward Food Products Corporation and others engaged in the baking industry, alleging a combination and conspiracy to monopolize interstate commerce by the acquisition of stock control of com- peting companies and by other means. A consent decree was entered on April 3, 1926, dissolving the Ward Food Products Corporation and enjoining the other acts complained of (2 D. & J. —). 309. United States v. National Food Products Corp.: Petition under the Clayton Act filed February 13, 1926, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the National Food Products Corporation and others, alleging a combination in restraint of trade by the acquisition of stock in competing chain grocery stores and other companies engaged in the transporta- tion of milk, ice cream, and other dairy products. A consent decree was entered on March 4, 1926, requir- ing the National Food Products Corporation to divest itself of stock ownership in certain other corporations, and enjoining the further operation of the combina- tion (2 D. & J. —). 310. United States v. Noland Company, Inc.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed April 13, 1926, in the District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, against the No- land Company and thirteen other manufacturers and jobbers of plumbing supplies, alleging a combination to fix and enhance prices. On April 19,1926, the entry of a decree was consented to by all but one defend- ant (2 D. & J. —). On June 2, 1926, a final consent215 decree was entered binding upon all of the defendants and perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). 311. United States v. Lay Fish Company: Petition under the Sherman Act filed May 12,1926, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Lay Fish Company, sixteen other corporations and twelve indi- viduals, alleging a combination of wholesale dealers in and receivers on consignment of dead fresh-water fish, caught in western states and in the Dominion of Canada, to eliminate competition in the purchase of fish and to fix and maintain prices to retail dealers in and around New York City. A consent decree was entered on the same day dissolving the Fish Purchas- ing Corporation and perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). On de- cember 14, 1926, an order was entered permitting voluntary bankruptcy proceedings by the Fish Pur- chasing Corporation in lieu of the dissolution required by the decree (2 D. & J. —). (See case No. 304, supra p. 212.) 312. United States v. Slur eve, Treat & Eacret: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned May 28, 1926, in the District Court, Southern District of California, against Shreve, Treat & Eacret, a corporation; mem- bers of the Eighteen Karat Club, an organization composed of the principal retail jewelers in Cali- fornia; and individuals representing the corporate members of the Club, charging a conspiracy to elimi- nate the competition of so-called "up-stairs" and "price-cutting" jewelers by the means, among others, of forcing and requiring the manufacturers to refuse to sell to such jewelers. On March 4, 1927, prelimi- nary motions were denied and a demurrer was over- ruled; on May 4, 1927, eighteen defendants pleaded nolo contendere, fines aggregating $26,850 were im*216 posed, and the indictment was dismissed as to the three remaining defendants (2 D. & J. —). (See ease No. 317, infra p. 217.) 313. United States v. Leibner &• Company: Petition under the Sherman Act filed July 2, 1926, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against Leib- ner & Company and others, alleging a combination and conspiracy to restrain and monopolize interstate trade in live fresh-water fish caught in western states and in the Dominion of Canada and transported to other states in tank cars. A consent decree was en- tered on the same day enjoining the further operation of the combination and requiring Leibner & Company to dispose of two of its tank cars to independent inter- ests (2 D. & J. —). On March 8,1927, an order was entered approving the sale of such cars to the North- west Fish Company (2 D. & J. —), and on October 28, 1927, an order was entered construing the decree (2 D. & J. —). 314. United States v. Mitchell: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned July 7, 1926, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against Mitchell and four other officers of stone-cutting trade unions, charging a conspiracy to prevent the use of cast stone on buildings within the metropolitan district of New York which had been manufactured outside of that area. On July 5, 1927, the government's demurrers to special pleas in bar were sustained. A nolle prose- qui was entered on February 4, 1930 (2 D. & J. —), in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. Journeymen Stone Cutters Ass'n (278 U. S. 566), case No. 323, infra page 220. 315. United States v. Southern Hardware Jobbers' Ass'n: Petition under the Sherman Act filed August 9, 1926, in the District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, against the Southern Hardware Jobbers' Association217 and its members, alleging that the defendants had com- bined, through the instrumentality of the Association, to restrain trade by fixing and maintaining resale prices. A consent decree was entered on August 12, 1926, perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination and the specific acts complained of (2 D. & J. —). Subsequently, orders modifying the final decree were entered to permit the defendants to op- erate under the National Recovery Administration code for the iron and steel industry, approved August 19.1933 (2 D. & J. —), and to permit compliance with the National Recovery Administration code for the wholesaling or distributing trade, approved January 12.1934 (2 D. & J. —). An additional order was en- tered withdrawing notice of objection to an amend- ment to the code for the iron and steel industry, modi- fying the final decree, and superseding the two previ- ous orders (2 D. & J. —). On December 29,1937, the final decree was modified to permit the defendants to take advantage of the provisions of the Miller-Tydings amendment to the Sherman Act, approved August 17,1937. 316. United States v. Band Kardex Bureau: Petition under the Clayton Act filed October 21, 1926, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Rand Kardex Bureau and others, alleging the acquisi- tion of stock in companies engaged in the office-furni- ture and filing-equipment business, thus substantially lessening competition in violation of Section 7 of this Act; and further alleging unlawful interlocking direc- torates in violation of Section 8. A consent decree was entered on December 9, 1926, ordering the Rand Kardex Bureau to divest itself of stock in the Globe- Wernicke Company and appointing a trustee of that stock (2 D. & J.—). 317. United States v. Eighteen Karat Club: Petition under the Sherman Act filed November 24, 1926, in the Dis-218 trict Court, Southern District of California, against Shreve, Treat & Eacret, a corporation; members of the Eighteen Karat Club, an organization composed of the principal retail jewelers in California; and in- dividuals representing the corporate members of the Club, alleging a conspiracy to eliminate the competi- tion of so-called "up-stairs" and ''price-cutting" jewelers by the means, among others, of forcing and requiring the manufacturers to refuse to sell to such jewelers. After the Club had voluntarily dissolved, a consent decree was entered on May 4,1927, prohibiting the further organization of any similar club or associ- ation and perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). (See case No. 312, supra p. 215.) 318. United States v. American Agricultural Chemical Co.: Information under the Sherman Act filed December 10, 1926, in the District Court, District of Maryland, against the American Agricultural Chemical Company and other manufacturers of fertilizer, charging a com- bination to eliminate competition in terms and condi- tions of sale. On December 13 and 21, 1926, thirty- seven defendants pleaded nolo contendere, fines aggre- gating $90,500 were imposed, and a nolle prosequi was entered as to the remaining defendants (2 D. & J. —). 319. United States v. American Amusement Ticket Mfrs.' Ass'n: Petition under the Sherman Act filed Decem- ber 16,1926, in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, against the American Amusement Ticket Manufacturers' Association and its members, engaged in the manufacture of approximately 85 per cent of the amusement tickets printed in the United States, al- leging that the defendants had combined, through the instrumentality of the Association, to restrain trade by assigning and allotting customers and by exchang- ing information with regard to sales and prices. A consent decree was entered on December 30.1926, per-219 petually enjoining the further operation of the combi- nation (2 D. & J. —). Subsequently, the final decree was modified to permit compliance with the National Recovery Administration code for the graphic arts industries, approved February 27,1934 (2 D. & J. —). 320. United States v. California Retail Hardivare & Imple- ment Ass'n: Petition under the Sherman Act filed Feb- ruary 4,1927, in the District Court, Northern District of California, against the California Retail Hardware & Implement Association and its members, dealers in hardware and implements, alleging that the defend- ants had combined, through the instrumentality of the Association, to boycott manufacturers and wholesalers who sold directly to consumers. A consent decree was entered on May 12, 1927, perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). 321. United States v. National Gum & Mica Co.: Petition under the Clayton Act filed February 18, 1927, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the National Gum &Mica Company and others, alleging that the acquisition of the stock of other corporations engaged in the manufacture of paste, glue, and other adhesive compounds, substantially re- strained competition in violation of Section 7 of the Act. A consent decree was entered on May 27, 1927, requiring the National Gum & Mica Company to di- vest itself of stock in the General Adhesive Manufac- turing Company, and enjoining the other acts com- plained of (2 D. & J. —). 322. United States v. National Sat Frame Association, Inc.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed February 23, 1927, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the National Hat Frame Association, its unincorporated predecessor, and six individuals as representatives of all the members of the associations, alleging that the defendants had combined to restrain220 interstate trade in hat frames and other products used in the manufacture thereof by fixing prices, terms, and conditions of sale; by refusing to sell to non-members; and by threats and other discriminatory acts. A con- sent decree was entered on March 22,1927, perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). 323. United States v. Journeymen Stone Gutters Ass'n: Peti- tion under the Sherman Act filed February 28, 1927, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Journeymen Stone Cutters Association, five local stone-cutting and setting unions in the met- ropolitan district of New York, a building trades council, and certain union officials, alleging a conspir- acy to restrain interstate commerce by refusing to per- mit the use of any cast stone manufactured outside this area on buildings within the limits of the area. On September 28,1927, the combination was declared illegal, and on October 24, 1927, a consent decree was entered perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). On November 19, 1928, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the Association and certain of its officers for lack of a showing of service of summons and severance upon the defendants who did not join in the appeal (278 U. S. 566). On November 22, 1928, the final decree was modified to permit the District Court to retain jurisdiction, and on January 4, 1929, an order was entered on mandate confirming the final decree (2 D. & J. —). 324. United States v. Northwest Shoe Finders Credit Bureau: Petition under the Sherman Act filed on March 29, 1927, in the District Court, Western District of Wash- ington, against the Northwest Shoe Finders Credit Bureau, its members and others, wholesalers and job- bers in shoe findings, alleging a combination and con-221 spiraey to eliminate competition in terms and condi- tions of sale and credit, and in prices; and to coerce and require manufacturers of shoe findings to refuse to sell to competing wholesalers in the States of Wash- ington and Oregon who were not approved by the Bureau. A consent decree was entered on January 11, 1928, perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J.-). 325. United States v. Deutsch.es Kalisyndihat Gesellsehaft: Petition under the Sherman Act and the Wilson Tariff Act filed April 7, 1927, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against a group of German and French producers of potash, alleging a combination and conspiracy to divide business in the United States and to select an agency with which they would agree upon prices to be charged for potash in the United States. A motion by the government to strike the petition of the French Ambassador, as inter- vener, was sustained on January 8, 1929. A consent decree was entered on February 27,1929, binding upon the foreign corporate defendants, enjoining the fur- ther operation of the combination and dismissing the petition as to the remaining defendants (2 D. & J. —). 326. United States v. Richmond Distributing Corp.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed April 13, 1927, in the District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, against the Richmond Distributing Corporation and other candy jobbers, alleging that the defendants had com- bined, through the instrumentality of the corporation and the Wholesale Confectioners Club of Richmond, to eliminate competition in the confectionery products business by maintaining prices and by boycotting man- ufacturers who sold to jobbers not members of the club nor stockholders in the corporation. A consent de- cree was entered on the same day perpetually enjoin- ing the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. — 9878—38—15222 United States v. Allied Clemiers & Dyers of Seattle: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned June 2, 1927, in the District Court, Western District of Wash- ington, against the Allied Cleaners & Dyers Associa- tion and its members, charging a conspiracy to restrain interstate trade in steam garment-pressing machinery by boycotting manufacturers of machinery in New York, Ohio, Missouri, and California who sold and continued to sell to non-members and price-cutters. On October 13, 1927, demurrers to the indictment were overruled. On May 2, 1928, the Association pleaded nolo contendere, a fine of $750 was imposed, and the indictment was dismissed as to the remaining defendants (2 D. & J. —.) . 328. United States v. Gillette Safety Razor Co.: Petition un- der the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act filed August 4, 1927, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Gillette Safety Razor Com- pany and the United, Schulte, and Liggett chain stores, alleging a combination to restrain and monopo- lize interstate commerce in safety razors and safety- razor blades, and further alleging unlawful price- dis- criminations in violation of Section 2 of the Clayton Act. A consent decree was entered on the same day perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). 329* United States v. Maine Co-Operative Sardine Co.: Peti- tion under the Sherman Act filed October 4, 1927, in the District Court, District of Maine, against the Maine Co-Operative Sardine Company, 17 other cor- porations, and 24 individuals, alleging that the de- fendants had combined through the instrumentality of the Maine Co-Operative Sardine Company, an ex- clusive sales agency, to restrain interstate commerce in standard sardines by curtailing and allotting pro-223 duction, by fixing prices, and by eliminating competi- tion. A consent decree was entered on the same day dissolving the Maine Co-Operative Sardine Company and perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). 330. United States v. Columbus Confectioners' Ass'n: Peti- tion under the Sherman Act filed November 4, 1927, in the District Court, Southern District of Ohio, against the Columbus Confectioners' Association and its members, alleging that the defendants had com- bined, through the instrumentality of the Association, to restrain trade in candy by boycotting or threatening to boycott manufacturers located in various states who sold and shipped their products to jobbers not mem- bers of the Association within the city of Columbus, the purpose of the combination being to eliminate the so- called "cash and carry" jobbers who sold candy at prices lower than those fixed and maintained by the Association. A consent decree was entered on the same day perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). 331. United States v. Baumgart/ner: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned November 22,1927, in the Dis- trict Court, Northern District of Illinois, against Baumgartner and others, alleging that the defendants had combined, through the instrumentality of the Chicago Association of Candy Jobbers, to restrain trade in candy by boycotting and threatening to boy- cott candy manufacturers who sold and shipped their products to non-members or to members not main- taining the prices fixed by the Association, and by acts and threats of violence against jobbers who did not maintain prices and who did not join in the boy- cott. Seventeen defendants were found guilty, and sentences aggregating 36 months' imprisonment and fines aggregating $20,000 were imposed (2 D. & J. —).224 Certain defendants appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, where the judgment of con- viction was affirmed as to 8 defendants and was re- versed as to one defendant on April 15, 1930 (40 F. (2d) 49,11 F. A. D. 544). After a rehearing had been denied, the Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 13, 1930 (282 U. S. 857). On October 29, 1935, a fine of $10 was imposed upon one defendant whose sentence had previously been suspended (2 D. & J. —). 332. United States v. Berger Manufacturing Co.: Informa- tion under the Sherman Act filed December 6, 1927, in the District Court, Northern District of California, against the Berger Manufacturing Company and other manufacturers of metal lath, charging a combination in restraint of interstate trade and commerce by fix- ing the prices of metal lath sold in California. The defendants pleaded guilty on the same day and fines aggregating $10,850 were imposed (2 D. & J. —). 333. United States v. The Fernald Co. and Soule Steel Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed December 6, 1927, in the District Court, Northern District of Cali- fornia, against the Fernald Company and the Soule Steel Company, distributors of metal lath on the Pacific Coast, alleging that the defendants had com- bined to restrain trade by participating with the man- ufacturers named in the information filed in U. S. v. Berger Manufacturing Co., case No. 332, supra, in fixing the prices of metal lath sold in California. A consent decree was entered on the same day perpetu- ally enjoining the further operation of the combina- tion (2 D. & J. —). 334. United States v. Chicago Ass'n of Candy Jobbers: Peti- tion under the Sherman Act filed February 20, 1928, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the Chicago Association of Candy Jobbers and225 its members, alleging that the defendants had com- bined, through the instrumentality of the Association, to restrain trade in candy by boycotting manufactur- ers who sold to blacklisted jobbers and particularly to tobacco jobbers who dealt in candy products. On December 22,1932, the petition was dismissed without prejudice at the instance of the government in view of the convictions in United States v. Baumgartner, case No. 331, supra page 223 (2 D. & J. —). 335. United States v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd.: Petition under the Sherman Act and the Wilson Tariff Act filed March 3, 1928, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against 4 American and 3 Cana- dian corporations and 4 individuals, alleging that the defendants had combined to restrain interstate and foreign trade in asbestos by eliminating competition and enhancing prices in the importation, distribution, and sale of asbestos in the United States. Gn June 14, 1929, the District Court, in confirming the report of a special master, quashed the service of process on Asbestos Corporation, Ltd. On February 25,1931, the District Court dismissed the petition without preju- dice because the issues had become moot (2. D. & J.—). 336. United States v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Distributing Corp.: Information under the Sherman Act filed March 24, 1928, in the District Court, Northern Dis- trict of Illinois, against Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Dis- tributing Corporation and 10 other corporations en- gaged in the business of distributing motion picture films, 12 individual exchange managers in Chicago em- ployed by the distributors, the Motion Picture Ex- hibitors' Association and two of its officers, charging a conspiracy in restraint of interstate trade and com- merce by an agreement between the exchange man- agers and the Exhibitors' Association and its officers to refuse to release, transport, supply, and deliver226 motion-picture films to any and all motion picture theatres in Chicago, in accordance with pre-existing contracts therefor, during the existence of a labor dis- pute between the Exhibitors' Association and the Mo- tion Picture Operators' Union in August and Septem- ber 1927. On December 15,1932, the information was dismissed at the instance of the government (2 D. & J. —). 337. United States v. Amsterdamsche Chininefabriek: Peti- tion under the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Wilson Tariff Act filed March 29,1928, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against 41 European and American corporations and individuals, alleging that the defendants had combined to restrain interstate and foreign commerce in the sale and im- portation of cinchona bark and quinine derivatives in the United States by price fixing, by resale price main- tenance, by price discrimination, and by boycotting. A consent decree was entered on September 20, 1928, binding upon the various European defendants and perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). On March 2, 1929, all the American defendants except one consented to the final decree previously entered affecting the European defendants, and on August 18, 1929, the petition was dismissed as to that defendant (2 D. & J. —). 338. United States v. Amsterdamsche Chininef abriek: In- dictment under the Sherman Act and the Wilson Tariff Act returned March 30, 1928, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against several European and American corporations and individuals, charging a combination and conspiracy to restrain in- terstate and foreign commerce in the sale and importa- tion of cinchona bark and quinine derivatives in the United States by means of agreements involving price fixing, resale price maintenance, price discrimination, and boycotting. Nolle prosequis were entered on July227 16 and September 20, 1928, in view of the decree in United States v. Amsterdamsche Chininefabriek, case No. 337, supra page 226 (2 D. & J. —, —). 339. Uwited States v. Great Lakes Steamship Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed April 7,1928, in the Dis- trict Court, Northern District of Ohio, against the Great Lakes Steamship Company and other Great Lakes bulk-freight carriers, alleging a combination in restraint of trade by means of agreements to delay beyond the normal date the spring transportation of grain and to fix rates on such shipments. After an amended petition was filed on May 8, 1928, a consent decree was entered the next day perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. -)• 340. United States v. Wallace: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned April 18,1928, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against Wallace and other officers and business agents of the Painters' Dis- trict Council No. 14 of Chicago and Vicinity of the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, and Paper- Hangers of America, charging a conspiracy to restrain interstate trade and commerce in the shipment and sale of completely finished built-in kitchen equipment in the city of Chicago and vicinity. After demurrers to the indictment had been overruled on August 17, 1928, and after the jury had been discharged on Janu- ary 23,1929, for failure to reach a verdict, the indict- ment was dismissed on April 19, 1932, (2 D. & J. —). ( See case No. 372, infra p. 242.) 341. United States v. 383,340 Ounces of Quinine Derivatives: Libel on information under the Sherman Act filed April 23,1928, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, covering the seizure of 383,340 ounces of quinine derivatives imported into the United States228 in connection with the combination and conspiracy in restraint of interstate and foreign trade and commerce charged in the cases of United States v. Amster- damsche Ghininefabriek (cases Nos. 337 and 338, supra p. 226). The libel was dismissed on Septem- ber 20, 1928, in view of the decree in the civil case, No. 337 (2 D. & J. —). 342. United States v. Paramount Famous Lasky Corp.: Peti- tion under the Sherman Act filed April 27, 1928, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Paramount Famous Lasky Corporation and other producers and distributors, who controlled 60 per cent of the motion-picture films exhibited in the United States, alleging that the defendants had con- spired to restrain trade by means of an agreement to impose a uniform form of contract upon all exhibitors, the uniform contract providing, among other things, for compulsory joint action by the defendants with respect to dealings with any exhibitor failing to ob- serve the contract and for the arbitration of contro- versies between the exhibitors and distributors. On October 15, 1929, the conspiracy was declared illegal (34 P. (2d) 984, 12 P. A. D. 844), and on January 22, 1930, a decree was entered perpetually enjoining the further operation of the conspiracy and of the acts complained of (2 D. & J. —). On November 24,1930, the Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the District Court (282 U. S. 30,12 F. A. D. 857). 343. United States v. First National Pictures, Inc.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed April 27, 1928, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against First National Pictures, Inc., and other pro- ducers and distributors, who controlled 60 per cent of the motion-picture films exhibited in the United States, alleging that the defendants had conspired, through the instrumentality of credit committees of film boards229 of trade, to restrain trade by compelling the perform- ance of all incompleted contracts entered into by previous owners or operators of motion-picture theatres whenever the ownership of such theatres changed. On September 25, 1929, the District Court declared the agreements legal (34 F. (2d) 815, 12 P. A. D. 819), and on December 23,1929, a decree was entered dismissing the petition (2 D. & J. —). On November 24, 1930, the Supreme Court reversed the decree of the District Court (282 IT. S. 44,12 P. A. D. 829), and on July 21,193J, after a hearing (51 F. (2d) 552, 12 F. A. D. 838), a final decree on mandate was entered perpetually enjoining the further operation of the conspiracy and acts complained of (2 D. & J. -). t4. United States v. Candy Supply Company: Petition un- der the Sherman Act filed June 8,1928, in the District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, against the Candy Supply Company and other candy jobbers, al- leging a combination and conspiracy to fix and main- tain the price of candy and candy products by pre- venting manufacturers located in various states from selling their products to any other jobber or wholesale dealer by means of a boycott and threats. A consent decree was entered on the same day perpetually en- joining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). 5. ■■■■■ United States v. Meyers: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned June 28, 1928, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against Meyers, other officers and employees of the Glaziers' Local Union No. 27, and Beris, President of the American Glass Company, charging a conspiracy to restrain inter- state commerce in glazed bathroom cabinets and other glazed products by means of strikes and threats to declare strikes. On December 6,1928, four defend-230 ants pleaded guilty. On February 19, 1929, tines ag- gregating $10,000 were imposed and the indictment was dismissed as to defendant Beris (2D. & J. —). (See case No. 359, infra p. 236.) 346. United States v. General Outdoor Advertising Co.: Peti- tion under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act filed July 23,1928, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the General Outdoor Advertis- ing Company and others, alleging a combination in restraint of interstate commerce in outdoor advertis- ing by means of price discriminations and rebates; and further alleging unlawful interlocking directo- rates in violation of Section 8 of the Clayton Act. A consent decree was entered on May 7,1929, perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination and the acts complained of as to all but three of the de- fendants, and as to them the petition was dismissed (21). & J. —). 347. United States v. Barnard & Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed August 8, 1928, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against Barnard & Company and others engaged in the busi- ness of converting so-called grey cloth into shirting cloth and purchasing and selling grey cloth and shirt- ing cloth, alleging a combination to prevent certain competitors from engaging in the same business by means of a boycott. A consent decree was entered on the same day, perpetually enjoining the further opera- tion of the combination (2 D. & J. —). 348. United States v. Greater N. Y. Live Poultry Cham, of Comm.: Information under the Sherman Act filed Au- gust 20, 1928, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Greater New York Live Poultry Chamber of Commerce, a trade association whose members comprised 65 per cent of all wholesale231 live poultry dealers in Greater New York, a butchers' union, a truckmen's union, and certain individuals, charging a conspiracy to restrain interstate commerce in the shipment and sale of poultry in New York City by price fixing, intimidation, violence, and boycotting, and by other unlawful means. On November 7,1928, certain preliminary motions interposed by the defend- ants were denied (30 P. (2d) 939,12 P. A. D. 586), and on June 10,1931, a nolle prosequi was entered in view of the convictions obtained under the indictment in United States v. Greater N. Y. Live Poultry Cham, of Comm., case No. 356, infra page 234 (2 D. & J. —). 349. United States v. Painters' Dist. Council No. 14 of Chi- cago, etc.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed August 22,1928, in the District Court, Northern Dis- trict of Illinois, against the Painters' District Council No. 14, other painters' unions, and their officers and members, alleging a combination and conspiracy in restraint of interstate commerce by preventing the shipment into Chicago of built-in kitchen cabinets which were already painted and by agreeing not to work on such cabinets or in places where such cabinets were being installed. After a motion to dismiss the peti- tion was denied on April 27,1929, a supplemental peti- tion was filed on October 7, 1929, alleging that the original conspiracy had been enlarged to include fin- ished interior woodwork and trim. A motion to dis- miss the supplemental petition was denied on March 4,1930. On October 9,1930, the combination was de- clared illegal (44 P. (2d) 58,12 P. A. D. 987), and on February 3, 1931, a final decree was entered perpetu- ally enjoining the further operation of the combina- tion (2 D. & J. —). On November 2, 1931, the Su- preme Court affirmed the decree of the District Court in a per curiam opinion (284 U. S. 582, 12 F. A. D. 996).232 350. United States v. Confectioners' Club of Baltimore: Peti- tion under the Sherman Act filed September 14,1928, in the District Court, District of Maryland, against the Confectioners' Club of Baltimore and certain job- bers and dealers in candy, alleging that the defend- ants had combined to restrain trade by fixing and maintaining wholesale and retail prices and by boy- cotting manufacturers who sold to competing non- member jobbers and dealers at less than the prices fixed by the Club. On January 3,1930, a consent de- cree perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination was entered as to all but twenty of the defendants, and as to them the petition was dis- missed (2 D. & J. —). 351. United States v. West Coast Theatres, Inc.: Information under the Sherman Act filed September 28, 1928, in the District Court, Southern District of California, against the West Coast Theatres, Inc. and the eight principal distributors of first-class motion-picture films in Southern California, charging a combination and conspiracy to limit the exhibition of films by in- dependent exhibitors through means of a clearance schedule. A nolle prosequi was entered on August 21, 1930, in view of the decree obtained in United States v. West Coast Theatres, Inc., case No. 376, infra page 243 (2 D. & J. ■—). (See case No. 363, infra p. 237.) 352. United States v. Alden Paper Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed October 1, 1928, in the District Court, Northern District of New York, against the Alden Paper Company and others, alleging a combi- nation and conspiracy to monopolize interstate com- merce in union-made water-marked paper, through the appointment of an exclusive agent for the pur- chase of such paper from the mills and its sale and dis- tribution to consumers. After certain preliminary233 motions interposed by the defendants had been denied, the petition was amended in certain minor particulars and a consent decree was entered on February 6,1930, perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). 353. United States v. Balaban & Katz Corp.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed December 15, 1928, in the Dis- trict Court, Northern District of Illinois, against Balaban & Katz Corporation, its subsidiaries, and the thirteen principal distributors of first-class motion- picture films in the Chicago area, alleging a combina- tion and conspiracy to limit the exhibition of films by independent exhibitors through means of a clearance agreement and long-term exclusive contracts. After an amended petition was filed on April 6,1932, a con- sent decree was entered perpetually enjoining the fur- ther operation of the combination (2D. & J. —). On May 3,1932, the decree was modified to exclude Colum- bia Pictures Corporation from its operation and to continue the case as to that defendant (2 D. & J. —). 354. United States v. Motion Picture Theatre Owners of Ok- lahoma: Petition under the Sherman Act filed Decem- ber 26,1928, in the District Court, "Western District of Oklahoma, against the Motion Picture Theatre Own- ers of Oklahoma, alleging a combination and conspir- acy in restraint of interstate trade and commerce in motion-picture films by means of an understanding and agreement to prevent every so-called "non-theatri- cal exhibitor" of motion pictures in Oklahoma and Northern Texas from securing film service out of the exchange maintained at Oklahoma City by the distrib- utors of motion pictures. A consent decree was en- tered on the same day enjoining the performance of the agreement and the further operation of the com- bination (2 D. & J. —).234 355. United States v. Bates Valve Bag Corp.: Petition un- der the Clayton Act filed January 4, 1929, in the Dis- trict Court, District of Delaware, against the Bates Valve Bag Corporation, a manufacturer of a patented bag-filling machine, alleging that the corporation disposed of its machines under a license contract which provided that the licensee must use valve bags obtained from persons specified by the corporation. An amended petition under the Sherman Act was filed January 23, 1929, and a supplemental petition making the St. Regis Paper Company and the Bates Valve Bag Corporation (N. J.) parties defendant was filed November 19,1929. After a motion to quash the return of service on the added defendants was denied on March 11, 1930 (39 F. (2d) 162, 11 P. A. D. 481), a consent decree was entered on January 30, 1931, declaring the contracts null and void and perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). 356. United States v. Greater N. Y. Live Poultry Cham, of Comm.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned January 17,1929, in the District Court, Southern Dis- trict of New York, against the Greater New York Live Poultry Chamber of Commerce, a trade association whose members comprised 65 per cent of all wholesale live poultry dealers in Greater New York, a butchers' union, a truckmen's union, and certain indi- viduals, charging a conspiracy to restrain interstate commerce in the shipment and sale of poultry in New York City by price fixing, intimidation, violence, boy- cotting, and other unlawful means. On November 20, 1929, after various preliminary pleas interposed by the defendants had been denied (33 F. (2d) 1005, 12 F. A. D. 589; 34 F. (2d) 967, 12 F. A. D. 591), sixty- six defendants were found-guilty and two defendants not guilty. Fines aggregating $40,650 were imposed and fines amounting to $5,250 were suspended. Twenty235 defendants were sentenced to imprisonment for terms from ten days to four months (2 D. & J. —). On January 12, 1931, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Sec- ond Circuit, affirmed the convictions (47 P. (2d) 156, 12 F. A. D. 600), and on April 20, 1931, the Supreme Court denied certiorari (283 IT. S. 837). (See case No. 348, supra p. 230, and case No. 368, infra p. 239.) 357. United States v. Great Western Sugar Co.: Information under the Sherman Act filed February 6, 1929, in the District Court, District of Nebraska, against the Great Western Sugar Company and its officers, charging a conspiracy to restrain interstate trade and commerce in beet sugar in Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, and Nebraska, by preventing the building of projected competitive factories and by raising the prices of sugar beets to such a level that a projected competi- tor would be unable to operate at a profit. A demur- rer to the information and a special plea of the stat- ute of limitations were sustained by the District Court on June 18, 1929 (39 F. (2d) 149, 12 F. A. D. 805) (2 D. & J. —). (See case No. 364, infra p. 238.) 358. United States v. Atlantic Gleaners & Dyers, Inc.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed February 7, 1929, in the Supreme Court of the District of Colum- bia, against the Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers, Inc., and others engaged in the business of cleaning and dyeing in the District of Columbia, alleging that the defend- ants had combined to restrain trade by raising and fixing prices and by assigning and allotting the busi- ness of retail dealers. On July 24, 1929, a motion to dismiss the petition was denied, and on November 5, 1931, the District Court entered a decree perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination as to four corporate and six individual defendants and dismissing the petition as to the remaining defend- ants (2 D. & J.—). On appeal, the Supreme Court236 of the United States affirmed the decree of the lower court on May 23,1932 (286 U. S. 427,13 F. A. D. —). 359. United States v. Glaziers Local No. 27 of Chicago, etc.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed February 20, 1929, in the District Court, Northern District of Illi- nois, against Glaziers Local No. 27 and four others named in the criminal case of United States v. Meyers, case No. 345, supra page 229, alleging a combination and conspiracy to restrain interstate trade in glazed bathroom cabinets and other glazed commodities. On July 25,1929, the District Court entered an order tak- ing the bill as confessed against the defendants for failure to answer the petition, and on January 8,1930, a decree pro confesso was entered perpetually enjoin- ing the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). On motion of the defendants, the District Court on May 8, 1930, granted leave to offer evidence on condition that the decree remain in effect until modified or set aside by further order of the court. 360. United States v. Evansville Confectioners' Ass'n: Peti- tion under the Sherman Act filed February 21, 1929, in the District Court, Southern District of Indiana, against the Evansville Confectioners' Association and its members, alleging a combination and conspiracy to restrain interstate commerce in confections by means of fixing prices and by boycotting manufacturers who sold their products to non-member jobbers in Evans- ville, Indiana. A consent decree was entered on the same day perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). 361. United States v. Ludowici-C eladon Co.: Information un- der the Sherman Act filed March 12,1929, in the Dis- trict Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the Ludowici-Celadon Company, charging a conspiracy to monopolize interstate commerce in the manufacture237 and sale of roofing tile by the acquisition of the busi- ness, property, and assets of competing corporations, and by various unlawful acts and agreements to ex- clude and prevent competition in the sale and installa- tion of roofing tile. On March 18,1929, the defendant pleaded nolo contendere and a fine of $5,000 was im- posed (2 D. & J. —). 362. United States v. Ludowici-Celadon Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed March 12, 1929, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the Ludo- wici-Celadon Company, alleging a combination and conspiracy to monopolize interstate trade and com- merce in the manufacture and sale of roofing tile by the acquisition of the business, property, and assets of competing corporations; by agreements to exclude competition in the sale and installation of roofing tile; and by various other unlawful acts. A consent decree was entered on March 18,1929, perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. -)• 363. United States v. West Coast Theatres, Inc.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned April 19,1929, in the District Court, Southern District of California, against the West Coast Theatres, Inc. and 10 major motion picture producing and distributing companies, charging a conspiracy to restrain interstate trade and commerce in motion-picture films by limiting the ex- hibition of first-class motion pictures in Southern Cali- fornia by independent exhibitors through the instru- mentality of a series of so-called "zoning" and "clear- ance" schedules. This indictment superseded the in- formation filed September 28,1928, case No. 351, supra page 232. A nolle prosequi was entered on August 21, 1930, in view of the entry of a consent decree against the same defendants, case No. 376, infra page 243 (2D. &J. —). 9878—38-16238 364. United States v. Great Western Sugar Company: In- formation under the Sherman Act filed October 30, 1929, in the District Court, District of Nebraska, against the Great Western Sugar Company and its officers, charging a conspiracy to restrain interstate trade and commerce in beet sugar by selling it iat a loss, and by paying a higher price for sugar beets than was warranted by trade conditions. On January 30,1930, a demurrer to the information was sustained (39 P. (2d) 152,12 F. A. D. 812), the information was dismissed and the defendants discharged (2 D. & J. —). (See case No. 357, supra p. 235.) 365. United States v. Fox Theatres Corporation: Petition under the Clayton Act filed November 27, 1929, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Fox Theatres Corporation, the Fox Film Corporation, and William Fox, alleging that Fox Film Corporation had substantially lessened competition by acquiring a controlling stock interest in Loew's, Inc., which in turn controlled Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Dis- tributing Corporation and Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corporation. A consent decree was entered on April 15, 1921, requiring the defendants to divest them- selves of this stock and approving a plan for- the transfer of the stock to a new corporation (2 D. & J. —). On July 10, 1931, a supplemental decree was entered directing a further divestment of control of Loew's, Inc., and appointing three disinterested trus- tees to administer the divestment (2 D. & J. —). On March 11, 1935, the divestment having been virtually completed, an order was entered discharging the trus- tees (2 D. & J. —). 366. United States v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.: Petition under the Clayton Act filed November 27,1929, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against Warner Brothers Pictures and others, alleg-239 ing that Warner Brothers had substantially lessened competition by acquiring a controlling stock interest in First National Pictures, Inc. The petition was dismissed on June 5,1934, at the instance of the gov- ernment (2 D. & J. —). 367. United States v. Pittsburgh-Erie Sato Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed December 23,1929, in the District Court, Southern District of California, against the Pittsburgh-Erie Saw Company and its of- ficers, alleging an attempt to monopolize interstate trade and commerce in the manufacture, sale, trans- portation, leasing, and repairing of saw frames and blades by various illegal trade practices. A consent decree was entered on the same day, perpetually en- joining the further attempts at monopoly and the practices complained of (2 D. & J. —). 368. United, States v. Greater N. Y. Live Poultry Cham, of Comm.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed Febru- ary 7, 1930, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Greater New York Live Poultry Chamber of Commerce, a trade association whose members comprised 65 per cent of all wholesale dealers in live poultry in Greater New York, a butch- ers' union, a truckmen's union, and certain individ- uals, alleging a combination and conspiracy to control the live poultry market in New York City by allocat- ing retailers, fixing prices, spying, boycotting, violence, and intimidation, the requisite enforcement funds be- ing obtained by levying a fee of one cent per pound upon all poultry sold by the wholesalers. An amended petition was filed on April 16, 1930. On August 9, 1930, the court sustained in part a motion by the gov- ernment to strike as sham certain allegations of the defendants' answer (44 F. (2d) 393,12 F. A. D. 596). During the course of the trial, consent decrees per- petually enjoining the further operation of the com- bination were entered as to 47 defendants (2 D. &240 J. —). The District Court dismissed the petition as to two defendants, granted an injunction as to the remaining defendants, and entered a decree on Feb- ruary 6, 1932, perpetually enjoining the further op- eration of the combination (2 D. & J. —). On ap- peal, the Supreme Court affirmed this decree on Feb- ruary 5, 1934 (291 U. S. 293, 13 F. A. D. —), and a final decree on this mandate was entered on April 13, 1934 (2 D. & J. —). (See case No. 348, supra p. 230, case No. 356, supra p. 234, and case No. 391, infra p. 252.) 369. United States v. Standard Oil Co. of California: Peti- tion under the Sherman Act filed February 15, 1930, in the District Court, Northern District of California, against the Standard Oil Company of California and 19 other oil companies engaged in business on the Pacific Coast, alleging a conspiracy to restrain inter- state commerce by fixing and maintaining prices for gasoline. A consent decree was entered on Septem- ber 15, 1930, perpetually enjoining the practices com- plained of (2 D. & J. —). On September 25, 1933, the District Court modified this decree to permit the defendants to operate under the National Recovery Administration code for the petroleum industry, ap- proved August 19,1933 (2 D. & J. —). 370. United States v. Foster & Kleiser Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed April 22, 1930, in the District Court, Southern District of California, against Foster & Kleiser Company, its officers, and its subsidiary, the Restop Realty Company, alleging that the defendants had acquired a monopoly of interstate commerce in the outdoor advertising business in the states of Califor- nia, Washington, Oregon, and Arizona, by the acquisi- tion of control of two competing companies and by various coercive practices. A consent decree was en- tered on March 13, 1931, ordering the sale of the two241 competing companies and perpetually enjoining tlie continuation of the monopoly and the practices com- plained of (2 D. & J. —). 371. United States v. Radio Corporation of America: Peti- tion under the Sherman Act filed May 13,1930, in the District Court, District of Delaware, against the Radio Corporation of America and others, alleging a combi- nation and conspiracy to restrain and monopolize in- terstate trade and commerce in radio communication and radio apparatus by means, among others, of pat- ent cross-licensing agreements. An amended and sup- plemental petition was filed March 7,1932, naming ad- ditional defendants and adding allegations relative to foreign patent-licensing agreements and foreign com- munications agreements. An amendment to the amended and supplemental petition was filed Novem- ber 21, 1932. A consent decree was entered on the same day requiring the General Electric and Westing- house companies to dispose of their stock interests in the Radio Corporation of America, enjoining the de- fendants from restraining trade in the future by means of exclusive patent licenses, agreements to divide fields or territory, or other similar devices, and reserving the issues with respect to contracts with foreign companies and governments for disposition at the end of two and one half years (2 D. & J. —). On the basis of a stipu- lation wherein the defendants waived the exclusive features of licenses and agreements with foreign com- panies owning United States patents, thus removing the objections of the government, a decree was entered on May 25, 1934, dismissing the petition so far as it affected the issues arising out of the exclusive licenses and sales agreements in foreign commerce (2 D. & J. —). On February 25, 1935, a second amendment to the amended and supplemental petition was filed, and on July 2, 1935, an amendment to the consent decree Was entered perpetually enjoining the defendants242 from enforcing any of their foreign traffic or com- munication agreements with foreign companies and governments by which exclusive radio circuits were established and dismissing this cause as to the other defendants (2 D. & J. —). 372. United States v. Painters' District Council No. 2, etc.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed June 10, 1930, in the District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, against Painters' District Council No. 2, other paint- ers' unions and their officers and members, alleging a combination and conspiracy to coerce and compel per- sons interested in building construction in St. Louis, Missouri, to refrain from purchasing "built-in" kitchen equipment, finished building trim, interior woodwork, etc., from manufacturers located outside of the State of Missouri. A consent decree was entered on December 31, 1930, perpetually enjoining the fur- ther operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). 373. United States v. 5,898 Cases Sardines: Libel of informa- tion under the Wilson Tariff Act. filed June 11, 1930, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, covering the seizure of 5,898 cases of sardines, 1,082 cases of herring, and 500 cases of kippered snacks, imported from Norway. The libel was dismissed on January 16, 1931, in view of the entry of a consent decree in United States v. A. B. C. Canning Co., case No. 374, infra (2 D. & J. —). 374. United States v. A. B. C. Canning Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act and the Wilson Tariff Act filed June 12, 1930, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the A. B. C. Canning Company, other importers, and the members of the Norwegian Canners Price Committee, alleging that the defendants had conspired to restrain interstate and foreign com- merce in Norwegian sardines by fixing prices. A con- sent decree was entered on January 16,1931, perpetu-243 ally enjoining the continuation of the conspiracy and the making of any agreement relating to the practices complained of as to all but one of the defendants (2 D. & J. —), and a decree pro confesso was entered on April 7,1931, as to that defendant (2 D. & J. —). 375. United States v. Wool Institute, Inc.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed June 27,1930, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Wool In- stitute, Inc. and its officers and members, alleging that the defendants had combined to restrain interstate commerce in woolen goods and woolen yarns by fixing and maintaining non-competitive prices. A consent de- cree was entered on the same day perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). Subsequently an order modifying the decree to permit compliance with the National Recovery Administra- tion code for the wool textile industry, approved July 26,1933, was entered (2 D. & J. —). 376. United States v. West Coast Theatres, Inc.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed August 21, 1930, in the District Court, Southern District of California, against the West Coast Theatres, Inc., its president, and 10 major motion picture producing and distribut- ing companies, alleging a conspiracy to monopolize and restrain interstate trade and commerce in motion- picture films by limiting the exhibition of motion pic- ture films by independent exhibitors through a series of so-called "zoning" and "clearance" schedules. A consent decree was entered on the same day perpetu- ally enjoining the continuation of the conspiracy and the practices complained of (2 D. & J. —). (See case No. 351, supra p. 232, and case No. 363, supra p. 237.) 377. United States v. Asphalt Shingle & Roofing Institute: Petition under the Sherman Act filed December 30, 1930, in the District Court, Southern District of New244 York, against the Asphalt Shingle & Roofing Institute and its members, manufacturers of non-patented as- phalt shingle and roofing products, alleging a combina- tion in restraint of interstate trade and commerce by means of a reporting plan tending to fix uniform and non-competitive prices, and by various agreements fix- ing uniform maximum discounts, uniform terms, freight equalization, classification of customers and credit rules, etc., all of which were enforced by provi- sions compelling compulsory arbitration. The peti- tion was dismissed without prejudice at the instance of the government, because the issues originally relied upon had become moot (2 D. & J. —). 378. United States v. Bolt, Nut & Rivet Manufacturers Ass'n: Petition under the Sherman Act filed March 17, 1931, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Bolt, Nut & Rivet Manufacturers' Association, composed of practically all the manufac- turers of bolts, nuts, and rivets in the United States, its president and 50 member corporations, alleging a combination and conspiracy to restrain interstate trade and commerce in such products by fixing prices, terms and conditions of sale; by equalizing freight charges through the basing point system; and by es- tablishing preferential lists and blacklists of custom- ers, etc. A consent decree was entered on the same day, declaring the combination illegal, providing for the dissolution of the Association, and perpetually enjoining its further operation (2 D. & J. —-). 379. United States v. Sugar Institute: Petition under the Sherman Act filed March 30, 1931, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Sugar Institute, an association composed of practi- cally all the cane sugar refiners in the United States, formed for the purpose of eliminating unfair trade practices, secret rebates, etc.; the member corpora- tions ; and the officers of the Institute and the refining245 corporations. The petition alleged that the defend- ants had combined through the instrumentality of the Institute to enhance and maintain uniform and op- pressive prices by reporting prices, terms and condi- tions of sale as a condition precedent to any sale, and by adhering to them until changed upon notice; by prohibiting long-term contracts and abolishing quan- tity discounts; by enforcing a system of delivered prices with freight charges based upon arbitrary rail rates; by restricting the activities of brokers and ware- housemen ; by withholding from purchasers part of the statistical information collected by the Institute for its members; and by blacklisting and other coercive de- vices. The District Court did not dissolve the Insti- tute, but perpetually enjoined the further operation of the combination in 45 stated activities on March 7, 1934 (15 F. Supp. 817, 13 P. A. D. —), and a decree was entered on October 9, 1934, together with special findings of fact (15 F. Supp. 817, 907,13 F. A. D. —) (2 D. & J. —). On March 30,1936, the Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the District Court with minor modifications (297 U. S. 553, 13 F. A. D. —), and a final decree on this mandate was entered on October 19,1936 (2 D. & J. —). 380. United States v. Mercer: Two indictments under the Sherman Act returned May 5, 1931, in the District Court, District of New Jersey, against Mercer, Duffy, and another, charging that the defendants had con- spired, through the instrumentality of the Motor Freight Transportation Association, to restrain com- merce in motor trucking between the cities of Phila- delphia and New York by fixing rates and eliminating competition, by using violence and threats to compel trucking companies to become members of the Asso- ciation, and by coercing shippers through destruction of property to use the facilities of member companies. A nolle prosequi was entered on May 26,1931, as to the first indictment (2 D. & J. —). On September 14,246 1931, Mercer was found guilty on the second indict- ment, sentenced to imprisonment for three months, and a tine of $250 was imposed (2 D. & J. —). On August 26,1932, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, affirmed the conviction (61 P. (2d) 97, 13 P. A. D. —). A nolle prosequi was entered on Novem- ber 21,1932, as to the remaining defendants who died before trial (2 D. & J. —). 381. United States v. International Business Machines Corp.: Petition under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act filed March 26, 1932, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the International Busi- ness Machines Corporation and Remington-Rand, Inc., engaged in the manufacture of tabulating ma- chines and tabulating cards, and 2 of their selling sub- sidiaries, alleging that the defendants had combined to restrain commerce by entering into an agreement (1) not to sell machines but to lease them on condition that the lessee purchase at fixed prices and use the tabulating cards made by the lessor, or pay an addi- tional rental for the machines, and (2) to sell cards only to lessees. The agreement between the defend- ants was cancelled by stipulation before trial. The subsidiaries were eliminated from the suit by dissolu- tion and merger with the parent companies. By stip- ulation, Remington-Rand agreed to consent to any decree entered against the International Business Ma- chines Corporation, which elected to contest the case. On December 2,1935, the District Court declared the tying clauses in the leases of the International Busi- ness Machines Corporation void (13 P. Supp. 11, 13 F. A. D. —), and on December 26, 1935, a decree was entered perpetually enjoining the further enforcement of the agreement (2 D. & J. —). On January 29, 1936, the same decree was entered by consent against Remington-Rand (2 D. & J. —). On April 27, 1936, the Supreme Court affirmed the decree entered by the247 District Court against the International Business Machines Corporation (298 U. S. 131,13 F. A. D. —). 382* United States v. Corn Derivatives Institute: Petition under the Sherman Act filed April 6, 1932, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against the Corn Derivatives Institute and fifteen member cor- porations engaged in the manufacture and sale of 98 per cent of the corn syrup, corn starch, and corn sugar manufactured and sold in the United States, alleging a combination and conspiracy to restrain interstate trade and commerce by eliminating competition, by granting concessions and special terms, and by fixing prices. These objects were accomplished partially through the open-price plan and partially through the reporting plan, by which members interchanged in- formation regarding their prices, terms and condi- tions of sale, etc., in advance and adhered to them until changed upon notice. A consent decree was entered on the same day dissolving the Institute and perpetu- ally enjoining the further operation of the combination in more than 15 stated activities (2 D. & J. —). 383. United States v. Appalachian Coals, Inc.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed June 29, 1932, in the District Court, Western District of Virginia, against Appa- lachian Coals, Inc., and 137 bituminous coal produc- ers, alleging that the defendants had combined, through the instrumentality of Appalachian Coals, Inc., to monopolize interstate commerce in bituminous coal by setting up an exclusive and common selling agency with power to fix prices, terms and conditions of sale, allot production, and divide business for the purpose of obtaining a higher average price for their output. On October 3,1932, the combination was de- clared illegal (1 F. Supp. 339, 13 F. A. D. —), and on October 17, 1932, a decree was entered dissolving Appalachian Coals, Inc., declaring the sales agency248 contracts void, and enjoining the further operation of the combination (2D. & J. —). On March 13, 1933, the Supreme Court reversed the decree of the District Court and remanded the case with instructions to dis- miss the petition without prejudice, with the provision that the District Court should retain jurisdiction of the case wdth power to set aside the decree if the actual operation of the plan should later prove to be in violation of the Sherman Act (288 U. S. 344, 13 F. A. D. —). On March 29, 1933, a decree on this man- date was entered (2 D. & J. —). 384. United States v. United Theatres, Inc.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed July 16, 1932, in the District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, against United Theatres, Inc., which owned and operated eighteen theatres in New Orleans, and eleven major motion picture producing and distributing companies, which in turn owned six theatres in New Orleans, alleging that the defendants had acquired a monopoly of the exhibition of the second, third, and subsequent run of all feature motion pictures in the city of New Orleans by agreements entered into between United Theatres, Inc., and the producers and distributors, containing schedules arbitrarily fixing the time and the order in which such motion pictures should be shown in the fifty-one theatres in New Orleans. On September 2, 1932, the petition was dismissed as to three defend- ants. 385. United States v. Fox West Coast Theatres: Petition under the Sherman Act filed November 16, 1932, in the District Court, Southern District of California, against Fox West Coast Theatres, which operated more than 250 theatres in the Pacific Coast area, and six distributing corporations, alleging a combination and conspiracy to restrain and monopolize interstate commerce in motion-picture films by means of so-249 called "zoning" and "clearance" schedules, which gave to the theatres operated by Pox West Coast Theatres undue preferences and privileges to the detriment of competing independent exhibitors. A consent decree was entered on the same day, enjoining the further enforcement of the zoning and clearance schedules or any schedule of like character (2 D. & J. —). 386. United States v. Millinery Quality Guild, Inc.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed March 23, 1933, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against Millinery Quality Guild, Inc., and its members, engaged in the manufacture of reproductions of wom- en's hats, alleging that the defendants had combined to restrain interstate trade in hats by eliminating com- petition, by agreeing upon, fixing, and maintaining wholesale and retail prices, and by selling and furnish- ing labels to members for use on hats. A consent de- cree was entered on June 9,1934, perpetually enjoin- ing the further operation of the combination and per- mitting the defendants to operate under the National Recovery Administration code for the millinery in- dustry, approved December 15, 1933, and amended March 24,1934 (2 D. & J. —). 387. United States v. Union Pacific Produce Co.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned April 7, 1933, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Union Pacific Produce Company, a part- nership, and its officers, charging a conspiracy to re- strain and monopolize interstate commerce in arti- chokes by preventing, through threats, intimidation and violence, artichoke receivers, jobbers, retailers, push-cart peddlers and others, their customers and employers, from dealing in artichokes in the metro- politan area of New York except through the company. After the jury was discharged for failure to reach a verdict on February 12, 1936, one defendant pleaded250 guilty on March 24, 1936, and was sentenced to im- prisonment for one year, sentence being suspended (2 D. & J. —). A second trial also resulted in a dis- agreement by the jury on April 18, 1936. On June 7, 1937, before the opening of the third trial, the court accepted pleas of guilty from all defendants as to the first two counts of the indictment and dismissed the indictment as to counts three and four (2 D. & J. —). On July 6, 1937, a fine of $1,000 was imposed on the company and a sentence of six months imprisonment was imposed on each of two individual defendants. The sentences of two other defendants were suspended and those defendants were paced on probation for a period of five years (2 D. & J.—). 388. United States v. Nevada Northern Railway Co.: Indict- ment under the Sherman Act returned April 14,1933, in the District Court, District of Nevada, against the Nevada Northern Railway Company and 8 of its offi- cers, charging a conspiracy in restraint of interstate trade and commerce by preventing, through intimida- tion and boycott, the shipment of goods from other states into Nevada by any common carrier other than the company. On May 7,1934, the defendants pleaded nolo contendere and fines aggregating $557 were imposed (2 D. & J. —). 389. United States v. Fish Credit Association, Inc.: Indict- ment under the Sherman Act returned June 5, 1933, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Fish Credit Association, Inc., 24 corpora- tions engaged in the wholesale fish business, 54 of their officers, agents and employees, three trade associations and one union, charging a conspiracy to restrain and monopolize interstate trade and commerce in fresh- water fish by fixing uniform prices, terms and condi- tions of sale, by eliminating competition, and by boycotts, threats, intimidation, and other acts of vio-251 lence. A superseding indictment was returned June 5, 1934, naming all except three of the defendants previously indicted, two new corporate defendants, one new individual defendant, and charging the use of additional means to effectuate the same conspiracy. On December 3,1934, the defendants' motion to quash the original and superseding indictments was denied, and on January 14,1935, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, dismissed the appeal of the defendants from the decision of the District Court. The District Court on July 11, 1935, declared a mistrial owing to the misconduct of a juror. On October 23, 1935, all but six of the defendants pleaded guilty, and on a re- trial the remaining defendants were found guilty on November 16,1935 (2 D. & J. —). Fines aggregating $48,387 were imposed on 58 defendants on Decem- ber 3 and 4, 1935, and 11 defendants were sentenced to imprisonment for terms from six months to two years, the sentences of eight of them being suspended (2 D. & J. —). On appeal by one defendant, the Cir- cuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, sustained the conviction on August 13, 1936 (85 F. (2d) 544, 13 F. A. D. —), and the Supreme Court denied certiorari on December 14,1936 (299 U. S. 609). 390. United States v. National Retail Credit Ass'n: Petition under the Sherman Act filed June 12,1933, in the Dis- trict Court, Eastern District of Missouri, against the National Retail Credit Association and 8 of its officers and agents, alleging a combination and conspiracy to restrain and monopolize interstate trade and com- merce in the retail credit reporting and credit informa- tion business by allotting exclusive territory to be served by member agencies, by eliminating competi- tion, and by boycotting. A consent decree was en- tered on October 6, 1933, perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (2D. & J. —). See case No. 410, infra p. 260.)252 391. United States v. Weiner: Information under the Sher- man Act filed July 31, 1933, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against Weiner and others, charging criminal contempt of court in violat- ing the decree of the District Court in the case of United States v. Greater N. Y. Live Poultry Cham, of Comm., case No. 368, supra page 239. On March 29, 1934, five defendants were found guilty and two de- fendants not guilty and sentences to imprisonment for terms of from three months to three years were im- posed (2. D. & J. —). On appeal by four defendants, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, on No- vember 5, 1934, affirmed the conviction (73 F. (2d) 1001). The case of U. S. ex rel. Weiner v. Hill was incidental to these proceedings. In May 1935, Weiner, who had been sentenced to two years' imprison- ment, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on the ground that Sections 21 and 22 of the Clayton Act limited sentences for contempt of antitrust de- crees to 6 months. On June 25, 1935, the writ was granted (11 F. Supp. 195, 13 F. A. D. —). On Jan- uary 8, 1936, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, affirmed the order of the District Court dis- charging the defendant (84 F. (2d) 27, 13 F. A. D. —). On petition of the government, the case was re- argued before the Circuit Court of Appeals, which re- affirmed the decision of the District Court on June 8, 1936. On February 1, 1937, the Supreme Court re- versed the judgment of the lower courts on the ground that Section 24 of the Clayton Act excepted con- tempts of government decrees from the 6 months' limitation. (300 U. S. 105, 13 F. A. D. —.) 392. United States v. Market Truckmen's Ass'n: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned August 3, 1933, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Market Truckmen's Association, the253 Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association of New York, a teamsters' union and. several individuals, charging a conspiracy to restrain the shipment, sale, transpor- tation, and delivery of produce in interstate com- merce except upon terms and conditions dictated, fixed, and agreed upon by the defendants, which were enforced by coercion and intimidation and by exact- ing pier-head delivery charges from receivers and jobbers. 393. United States v. Local No. 202 of the Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned August 3,1933, in the District Court, South- ern District of New York, against Local No. 202 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc., and two of its officers, charging a combination and con- spiracy in restraint of interstate trade and commerce in fruit by enforcing, through intimidation and co- ercion, terms and conditions of sale, transportation, and delivery. The case is awaiting trial. 394. United States v. Protective Fur Dressers Corp.: In- dictment under the Sherman Act returned November 6, 1933, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Protective Fur Dressers Cor- poration, its officers, members, and stockholders, charg- ing a conspiracy to restrain and monopolize interstate commerce in rabbit skins by fixing uniform terms, conditions, and prices, and by enforcing those terms, conditions, and prices through violence and intimida- tion. After a demurrer had been overruled and a mo- tion to quash the indictment denied on March 18,1935, 23 defendants pleaded guilty and two defendants pro- ceeded to trial, the indictment having been dismissed as to the remaining defendants (2 D. & J. —). On November 8, 1936, two defendants were found guilty and on November 12, 1936, each was sentenced to im- prisonment for two years and fined $10,000 (2 D. & 9878—38-17254 J. —). On March 8, 1937, the Circuit Court of Ap- peals, Second Circuit, affirmed the conviction of one of the defendants and reversed it as to the other (88 F. (2d) 625,13 F. A. D. —). On April 9,1937, a peti- tion for a rehearing by defendant Shapiro was denied by the Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 1,1937, the Supreme Court denied certiorari (301 U. S. 708, 13 F. A. D. —). On January 17,1938, fines aggregating $18,000 were imposed on 10 of the 23 defendants who pleaded guilty, and the other defendants received sus- pended sentences. The 2 defendants previously found guilty are fugitives. 395. United States v. Needle Trades Workers Industrial Union: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned November 6,1933, in the District Court, Southern Dis- trict of New York, against the Needle Trades Workers Industrial Union and its members, charging a con- spiracy to restrain interstate trade and commerce in raw, dressed, and dyed fur skins by dictating terms and conditions of sale and transportation, and by en- forcing such terms and conditions through violence and intimidation. A demurrer to the indictment was overruled on March 18,1935, and the case is awaiting trial. 396. United States v. Fur Dressers Factor Corp.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned November 6, 1933, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against Fur Dressers Factor Corporation, three unions, and certain of their respective officers and rep- resentatives, charging a conspiracy to restrain and monopolize interstate trade and commerce in the ship- ping, dressing, and dyeing of fur skins, by dictating prices, terms and conditions of sale and transporta- tion, and by enforcing such terms and conditions through violence and intimidation. A motion to quash the indictment was denied on March 18, 1935, and a255 demurrer to the indictment was overruled. Prior to and during the trial all of the 52 corporate and 43 individual defendants pleaded guilty with the excep- tion of the three unions and ten individuals, includ- ing the two defendants who are fugitives. On Decem- ber 16, 1937, the jury returned a verdict of guilty as to all but two defendants who wTere acquitted. On January 10 and 17, 1938, 10 defendants were sen- tenced to imprisonment for terms ranging from 2 to 15 months, fines were imposed on 28 defendants, and the remaining defendants received suspended sen- tences, 6 of whom were placed on probation for a period of 3 years. 397. United States v. United Sea Food Workers Union: In- dictment under the Sherman Act returned February 5, 1934, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the United Sea Food Workers Union, a teamsters' union, a patrol association, and their respective officers, charging that the defendants had conspired to restrain interstate trade and com- merce in salt water fish by imposing various illegal re- strictions upon the loading, handling, trucking, and delivery of such fish, by exacting tribute from whole- salers, retailers, hotel purveyors, and other persons engaged in trucking fish, and by intimidation, threats, and violence. The case is awaiting trial. 398. United States v. Lockwood & Winant: Indictment un- der the Sherman Act returned February 5, 1934, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against Lockwood & Winant and others engaged in the wholesale salt water fish business, charging that the defendants had conspired to restrain interstate commerce in fish by fixing the prices, terms, and con- ditions upon which fish were received on consignment by wholesalers from the shippers, and by imposing illegal charges upon sea captains. On December 16,256 1935, the indictment was dismissed as to three defend- ants, the remaining defendants pleaded nolo conten- dere (2 D. & J. —), and on April 24,1936, fines aggre- gating $12,000 were imposed (2 D. & J. —). 399. United States v. McGlone: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned February 28, 1934, in the District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against McGlone and others, charging a conspiracy to restrain interstate motor trucking between the cities of New York and Philadelphia by intimidation, violence, and the destruction of merchandise, and by compelling truck owners to enter into agreements giving the de- fendants complete control over trucking between New York and Philadelphia. On October 17, 1934, the District Court, at the conclusion of the trial, directed a verdict of not guilty as to all the defendants (2 D. & J. —). (See case No. 405, infra p. 258.) 400. United States v. Kansas City Ice Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed June 5,1934, in the District Court, Western District of Missouri, against the Kansas City Ice Company (a holding company) and others, alleg- ing a combination and conspiracy to restrain and mo- nopolize interstate commerce in ice within the greater Kansas City area by restrictive and oppressive con- tracts, by discrimination, and by elimination of cash- and-carry stations. A consent decree was entered on the same day against all but two corporate and two individual defendants. The decree perpetually en- joined the further operation of the combination, can- celed certain contracts and leases, and ordered the dissolution of the Kansas City Ice Company (2 D. & J. —). On November 26, 1934, a supplemental con- sent decree was entered, canceling certain contracts to which the corporate defendants were parties and dismissing the petition as to the individual defendants (2 D. & J. —).257 401. United States v. Dress Creators League of America, Inc.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed August 13, 1934, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Dress Creators League of America and its members, alleging a combination and conspir- acy to restrain interstate trade and commerce in dresses by agreeing to maintain uniform prices. After a motion to dismiss the petition had been denied on December 7, 1934, the defendants consented, on December 29, 1936, to an order striking out their affirmative defenses, and the defendants' motion for a bill of particulars was denied on the same day. The case is awaiting trial. 402. United States v. Party Dress Guild, Inc.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed August 13,1934, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Party Dress Guild, Inc., and its members, alleging a combination and conspiracy to restrain interstate trade and commerce in dresses by agreeing to main- tain uniform prices. After a motion to dismiss the petition had been denied on December 7, 1934, the de- fendants consented, on December 29,1936, to an order striking out their affirmative defenses. The case is awaiting trial. 403. United States v. Half-Size Dress Guild, Inc.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed August 13, 1934, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Half-Size Dress Guild, Inc., and its mem- bers, alleging a combination and conspiracy to restrain interstate trade and commerce in dresses by agreeing to maintain uniform prices. After a motion to dis- miss the petition had been denied on December 7,1934, the defendants consented, on December 29,1936, to an order striking out their affirmative defenses. The case is awaiting trial.258 404. United States v. American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers: Petition under the Sherman Act filed August 30,1934, in the District Court, South- ern District of New York, against the American So- ciety of Composers, Authors & Publishers, the Music Publishers Protective Association, the Music Dealers Service, Inc., and their members, alleging that the de- fendants, by pooling individual copyrights, were at- tempting to restrain, monopolize, and control inter- state and foreign commerce in the public performance of music for profit by radio broadcasting and in other entertainment industries. On June 11,1935, the peti- tion was dismissed as to Music Dealers Service, Inc., and on June 19, 1935, by consent of the parties, the trial of the case was adjourned to a later date. 405. United States v. McGlone: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned September 5, 1934, in the District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against Mc- Grlone and others, charging that the defendants had conspired to restrain interstate motor trucking be- tween the cities of New York and Philadelphia by in- timidation, violence, destruction of merchandise, and by compelling truck owners to enter into agreements giving the defendants complete control over trucking between New York and Philadelphia. The case is awaiting trial. (See case No. 399, supra p. 256.) 406. United States v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.: Indict- ment under the Sherman Act returned January 11, 1935, in the District Court, Eastern District of Mis- souri, against Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. and other motion picture producers, charging that the defend- ants had conspired to restrain interstate trade in mo- tion pictures by preventing the operators of three first- class theatres from obtaining a supply of pictures,259 and by engaging in unfair competition to destroy their business. After certain preliminary motions had been argued, the District Court on July 30,1935, overruled a demurrer but sustained a motion for a bill of par- ticulars. On November 11,1935, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty as to all but one of the defend- ants, as to whom a severance was granted (2 D. & J. —), and on July 6,1936, the indictment was dismissed as to this defendant (2 D. & J. —). (See cases No. 411 and No. 413, infra pp. 260, 261.) 407. United States v. Republic Steel Corp.: Petition under the Clayton Act filed February 7,1935, in the District Court, Northern District of Ohio, against the Republic Steel Corporation and the Corrigan, McKinney Steel Corporation and its subsidiaries, alleging that a pro- posed merger of these companies would substantially lessen competition in violation of Section 7 of the Act. On May 2, 1935, the District Court declared the pro- posed merger legal (11 F. Supp. 117,13 F. A. D.—), and on June 14,1935, a decree was entered dismissing the petition (2 D. & J. —). 408. United States v. Mather: Petition under the Clayton Act filed February 7,1935, in the District Court, Northern District of Ohio, against Mather, six other individuals, and ten competing steel corporations, alleging that each individual defendant held interlocking director- ships in two or more of the ten corporate defendants in violation of Section 8 of the Act. On December 2, 1935, the petition was amended and motions to dis- miss the petition were granted as to five defendants and denied as to three defendants (2 D. & J. —). On February 11, 1936, following the resignation of most of the interlocking directors from one or more boards of directors, a decree was entered dismissing the peti- tion without prejudice (2 D. & J. —).260 409. United States v. Columbia Gas & Electric Corp.: Peti- tion under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act filed March 6,1935, in the District Court, District of Dela- ware, against the Columbia Gas & Electric Corpora- tion, the Columbia Oil & Gasoline Corporation, and their directors, alleging a conspiracy to restrain inter- state trade and commerce in natural gas, and further alleging the acquisition of the stock and bonds of the Pan Handle Eastern Pipe Line Company, a public utility engaged in the production, transportation, and sale- of natural gas, by the two corporate defendants, substantially lessening competition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. An amended and sup- plemental petition was filed on October 30, 1935. A consent decree was entered on January 29, 1936, per- petually enjoining the continuation of the conspiracy, requiring the Columbia interests to divest themselves of their securities in the Pan Handle Eastern Pipe Line Company, and appointing a trustee to hold legal title to such securities (2 D. & J. —). On June 19, 1936, the decree was amended with regard to the com- pensation of the trustee (2 D. & J. —). 410. United States v. Hulse: Information filed on April 5, 1935, in the District Court, Eastern District of Mis- souri, against Hulse and 14 others, charging criminal contempt of court in violating the decree entered in United States v. National Retail Credit Ass'n, case No. 390, supra page 251. After motions to quash were overruled on September 28, 1935, 10 defendants pleaded guilty on May 6,1936, fines aggregating $4,000 were imposed, and the case was dismissed as to the remaining defendants (2 D. & J. —). 411. United States v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed August 6, 1935, in the District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, against261 Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc., and other motion picture producers, alleging a continuation of the acts charged in the indictment returned January 11,1935 (see case No. 406, supra p. 258), and further alleging the mak- ing of contracts for motion pictures for the 1935-1936 season which would prevent the operators of the thea- tres involved from procuring pictures. On January 27, 1936, the defendants' motion to strike certain tes- timony was granted (13 P. Supp. 614,13 P. A. D. —). By a decree entered on January 29, 1936, the court granted the government's motion to withdraw its peti- tion without prejudice (2 D. & J. —). On appeal, the Supreme Court on May 25, 1936, in a per curiam opinion, granted the government's motion to affirm the decree of the District Court (298 U. S. 643.) (See case No. 413, infra.) 412. United States v. Local No. 202 of the Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned January 16, 1936, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against Local No. 202 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc., seven of its officers, certain trucking concerns, and others, charging a combination and conspiracy in re- straint of interstate trade and commerce in butter, eggs, and other dairy products, by dictating terms and conditions of sale and transportation, by enforcing such terms and conditions through coercion and intim- idation, and by levying unwarranted fees and charges upon shipments received. The case is awaiting trial. 413. United States v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed February 25,1936, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc. and other mo- tion picture producers, the case constituting a reopen- ing of the suit formerly filed at St. Louis, case No. 411, supra page 260. On the filing of a stipulation between the parties, which provided for the execution and en-262 forcement of contracts whereby the operators of the theatres involved were able to procure pictures, a con- sent decree was entered on April 30, 1936, dismissing the case (2 D. & J. —). 414. United States v. Textile Refinishers Ass'n, Inc.: Peti- tion under the Sherman Act filed May 1, 1936, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Textile Refinishers Association, Inc., and its members, and two unions and their members, all engaged in the business of examining and sponging cloth, alleging a combination and conspiracy in re- straint of interstate trade and commerce in cloth by fixing prices, by allocating business among the various members of the Association, and by otherwise elimi- nating competition. Pursuant to a stipulation filed with the court, a consent decree was entered on the same day perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination (2 D. & J. —). 415. United States v. Standard Oil Co. {Indiana): Indict- ment under the Sherman Act returned July 28, 1936, in the District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, against the Standard Oil Company (Indiana), 23 other major oil companies, three trade journal pub- lishing companies, and 58 individuals, charging that the defendants had combined and conspired to re- strain interstate trade and commerce in gasoline, by using concerted buying pools to raise artificially and to fix tank car prices for gasoline manufactured in the Mid-Continent and East Texas fields and dis- tributed mainly in 10 mid-western states during the period between February 1935 and the date of the in- dictment. On December 7, 1936, pleas in abatement alleging irregularities in the drawing of the grand jury were filed. (Because of these pleas, a new in- dictment was returned on December 22, 1936. See case No. 419, infra p. 265). On January 14,1937, the263 court overruled the pleas in abatement, and on March 31, 1937, a decree was entered overruling demurrers and motions to quash the indictment. 416. United States v. So cony-Vacuum Oil Co., Inc.: Indict- ment under the Sherman Act returned November 6, 1936, in the District Court, Western District of Wis- consin, against the Socony-Vacuum Oil Company, 24 other major oil companies, and 46 individuals, charg- ing a combination and conspiracy in restraint of inter- state trade and commerce in gasoline in 10 mid-west- ern states by fixing and maintaining the limited gross margins allowed to gasoline jobbers, by adopting and maintaining uniform jobber contracts, and by adopt- ing and maintaining uniform policies with respect to dealing with jobbers. On December 7, 1936, pleas in abatement alleging irregularities in the drawing of the grand jury were filed. (Because of these pleas, a new indictment was returned on December 22,1936. See case No. 420, infra p. 265.) On January 14,1937, the court overruled the pleas in abatement, and the case is awaiting argument on demurrers. 417. United States v. Gramlich: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned December 8, 1936, in the Dis- trict Court, Southern District of Illinois, against Gramlich and 40 others, charging a conspiracy to re- strain trade in coal and other commodities by bomb- ing railroads carrying coal for mines not employing members of the Progressive Miners of America. Two additional indictments were returned the same day charging the same defendants with conspiracies to violate the Anti-Racketeering Act and the Obstruction of the Mails Act. On May 21, 1937, the court over- ruled motions to quash the indictment under the Sher- man Act. On December 18, 1937, 36 of the 41 de- fendants who were tried under the Sherman Act and the Obstruction of the Mails Act indictments were264 found guilty. Four defendants obtained dismissals of the indictment upon motions for a directed verdict, and the remaining defendant obtained a mistrial be- cause of an alleged heart attack during the trial. On December 22, 1937, the court denied a motion for a new trial as to all of the 36 defendants. On Decem- ber 28, 1937, each of the 36 defendants was fined $20,000 and each was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of four years. On December 29,1937, the de- fendants were allowed an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. 418. United States v. Interstate Circuit, Inc.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed December 15, 1936, in the District Court, Northern District of Texas, against Interstate Circuit, Inc., another theatre chain, two officers of the chains, eight major motion picture distributors and two subsidiaries thereof, alleging a combination and conspiracy to restrain and monopo- lize interstate trade and commerce in motion pictures by entering into licensing agreements which provided minimum admission prices for second and subsequent run pictures and by prohibiting the use of such pictures as a part of- any double-feature program. On May 7, 1937, an amended petition was filed. On September 25, 1937, the District Court held that the distributor and exhibitor defendants were engaged in an illegal combination and conspiracy and that the restrictions imposed by the distributors, acting in con- cert and as a result of the conspiracy, upon the exhibi- tors of subsequent-run pictures were illegal (20 F. Supp. 463, 13 F. A. D. —). On October 13, 1937, a decree was entered perpetually enjoining the further operation of the combination and conspiracy and the enforcement of the restrictive provisions of the license agreements. 419. United States v. Standard Oil Co. (Indiana): Indict-265 ment under the Sherman Act returned December 22, 1936, in the District Court, Western District of Wis- consin, against the Standard Oil Company (Indiana), 24 other major oil companies, three trade journal pub- lishing companies, and 56 individuals, charging that the defendants had combined and conspired to restrain interstate trade and commerce in gasoline by using concerted buying pools to raise and to fix artificially tank car prices for gasoline manufactured in the Mid- Continent and East Texas fields and distributed mainly in 10 mid-western states during the period between February 1935 and the date of the indictment. (See case No. 415, supra p. 262.) After numerous de- murrers and motions to quash the indictment were overruled, motions for bills of particulars were granted in part on June 3, 1937. During the trial of the case, which began on October 4, 1937, 8 oil com- panies, 3 trade journal companies, and 17 individuals obtained dismissals of the indictment and 9 individu- als were not brought to trial. On January 22,1938, the jury found the remaining 16 corporate and 30 indi- vidual defendants guilty. 420. United States v. Socony-Yacuum Oil Company, Inc.: Indictment under the Sherman Act returned Decem- ber 22, 1936, in the District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, against the Socony-Yacuum Oil Com- pany, 23 other major oil companies, and 46 individ- uals, charging a combination and conspiracy in re- straint of interstate trade and commerce in gasoline in 10 mid-western states by fixing and maintaining limited gross margins allowed to gasoline jobbers, by adopting and maintaining uniform jobber contracts, and by adopting and maintaining uniform policies with regard to dealing with jobbers. (See case No. 416, supra p. 263.) After numerous demurrers and motions to quash the indictment were overruled, mo- tions for bills of particulars were granted in part on June 3,1937. The case is awaiting trial.266 421. United States v. McGlone: Indictment under the Sher- man Act returned February 11, 1937, in the District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against Mc- Glone and Romm, charging a conspiracy to restrain interstate commerce by interfering with the business of a trucking company, and by threatening to prevent the operation of its trucks unless the trucking com- pany complied with certain requirements imposed by McGlone, business manager of the Teamsters' Union, or paid substantial bribes to McGlone through Romm, an attorney. On April 14, 1937, the court directed a verdict of acquittal as to both defendants (2 D. & J. —). On the same day an indictment was returned by the same grand jury charging the same defendants with conspiracy to extort money from the trucking company in violation of the Anti-Racketeering Act. On April 21,1937, a demurrer by McGlone to the gov- ernment's evidence was sustained, and two days later defendant Romm was found guilty. On June 21,1937, the court denied the government's motion for a new trial as to McGlone. The case is awaiting argument on defendant Romm's motion for a new trial. 422. United States v. Ethyl Gasoline Corporation: Petition under the Sherman Act filed February 19, 1937, in the District Court, against the Ethyl Gasoline Cor- poration and certain of its principal officers, alleging a combination and conspiracy to restrain interstate commerce in gasoline through the misuse of patents by means of an illegal licensing system. Defendants' answer has been filed and the case is awaiting trial. 423. United States v. Aluminum Company of America: Peti- tion under the Sherman Act filed April 23,1937, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Aluminum Company of America, 25 of its subsidiary and affiliated companies, and 37 of its267 officers, directors and stockholders, alleging a monop- oly of tlie manufacture of virgin aluminum in the United States and of the sale in the United States of aluminum sheets, aluminum alloys, extruded and structural shapes, wires, cables, bars, rods, tubes, etc., and further alleging that the monopoly has been pre- served and protected by the purchase of plants abroad and by cartel agreements with foreign producers, and that the monopoly was acquired by restrictive con- tracts and oppressive tactics, including discriminatory prices and the narrowing of the spread between the price of virgin ingot and aluminum sheet to eliminate new competitors. On July 16,1937, the District Court held that the defendant Aluminium Limited, a Cana- dian corporation, was subject to process in the United States within the meaning of Section 12 of the Clay- ton Act, and dismissed its motion to quash service of process on it (20 F. Supp. 13). (See also case No. 116, supra p. 130.) 424. United States v. Ox Fibre Brush Co.: Petition under the Sherman Act filed July 30,1937, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Ox Fibre Brush Company and 20 others, alleging that the de- fendants had combined to restrain trade in the manu- facture and sale of household and industrial brushes by fixing and maintaining minimum prices, by allot- ting customers, by agreeing upon the specifications and construction of brushes, and by employing an agent to investigate breaches of and to compel con- formance to the agreements. A consent decree was entered the same day perpetually enjoining the com- bination (2 D. & J. —). 425. United States v. Dairymen's Association, Ltd.: Indict- ment under the Sherman Act returned August 27, 1937, in the District Court, Territory of Hawaii, against the Dairymen's Association, Ltd., two other268 corporations, and seven individuals, controlling 85 per cent of the business of producing, distributing, and selling milk at wholesale and retail in the city and county of Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii, charging a combination, conspiracy, and agreement to restrain trade by fixing, controlling, and maintaining prices; by operating a dairy which sold milk at low prices in order to eliminate competition; and by other unfair and coercive means. On October 5, 1937, demurrers to the indictment were sustained on the ground that the indictment was indefinite, uncertain, and duplic- itous and the case was dismissed as to all but one of the defendants upon whom process had not been served. A new indictment was returned on October 8,1937. (See case No. 426, infra.) 426. United States v. Dairymen's Association, Ltd.: Indict- ment under the Sherman Act returned October 8, 1937, in the District Court, Territory of Hawaii, against the Dairymen's Association, Ltd., two other corporations, and seven individuals, controlling 85 per cent of the business of producing, distributing, and selling milk at wholesale and retail in the city and county of Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii, charging a combination and conspiracy to restrain trade and com- merce through the instrumentality of the Milk Council by fixing, controlling, and maintaining prices; by operating a dairy which sold milk at low prices in order to eliminate competition; and by other unfair and coercive means. On October 21, 1937, demurrers to the indictment were filed and the case is awaiting argument on the demurrers. 427. United States v. Postal Telegraph & Cable Corp.: Peti- tion under the Sherman Act filed December 1,1937, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Postal Telegraph & Cable Corporation, 35 affiliated operating companies, three principal officers,269 The Mackay Companies and three trustees in bank- ruptcy, who handled 20 per cent of all telegraph busi- ness in the United States, alleging a combination and conspiracy and an attempt to monopolize interstate trade and commerce in telegraphic communications by entering into contracts and agreements with rail- roads and building owners which provided for the establishment of exclusive telegraph offices in railroad stations, office buildings, hotels, clubs, and other stra- tegic locations to which the public had access; and which provided for the exclusive right to maintain telegraph poles and lines along railroad rights-of-way. On January 21, 1938, the answer to the petition was filed and the case is awaiting trial. 428. United States v. Western Union Telegraph Company: Petition under the Sherman Act filed December 1, 1937, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, against the Western Union Telegraph Company and three of its officers, who handled 60 per cent of all telegraph business in the United States, alleging a combination and conspiracy and an attempt to mo- nopolize interstate trade and commerce in telegraphic communications by entering into contracts and agree- ments with railroads and building owners which pro- vided for the establishment of exclusive telegraph offices in railroad stations, office buildings, hotels, clubs, and other strategic locations to which the pub- lic had access; and which provided for the exclusive right to maintain telegraph poles and lines along rail- road rights-of-way. On December 20, 1937, the an- swer to the petition was filed and the case is awaiting trial.INDEX TO CASES INSTITUTED BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS Page A. B. C. Canning Co______________________________________________________________________________________________242 Addyston Pipe & Steel Co____________________________________________________________________________________87 Agler_____________________________________________________________________85 Aileen Coal Co_______________________________________________________________________________155 Albany Chemical Co______________________________________________________________________________________________175 Albia Box & Paper Co_________________________________________________107 Alden Paper Co____________________________________________________________________________________________232 Alexander & Reid Co_____________________________________________________183 Allen Bros. Co_____________________________________________________106 Allen & Robinson___________________________________________.______________93 Algoma Coal & Coke Co_________________________________________________155 Allied Cleaners & Dyers of Seattle_______...__________________-______________222 Alpha Portland Cement Co___________________________________________178 Alphons Custodis Chimney Construction Co_____________________168 Aluminum Company of America__________________________________ _ 130, 266 American Agricultural Chemical Co________________. —____________________218 American Amusement Ticket Manufacturers' Ass'n__________________________218 American-Asiatic Steamship Co__________________________________________________________________________128 American Association of Wholesale Opticians_______________________________168 American Can Co_________________________________________________________________________144 American Chain Co______________________________________---■___________200 American Coal Products Co_________________________________________________140 American Coated Paper Co____________________—______________________179 American Column & Lumber Co____________________________________________169 American Cone & Wafer Co________________________________________________________166 American Ice Co______________________________________________________________95 American Linseed Oil Co__________________________ _____________________________173 American Lithographic Co________________________________________________180 American Naval Stores Co_______________________________________105, 125 American Seating Co____________________________________________________99 American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers__________________________________258 American Sugar Refining Co______________________________________107, 113 American Telephone & Telegraph Co_______________________________________142 American Terra Cotta & Ceramic Co_______________________________ 184, 190 American Thread Co____________________________________________________________________________________________139 American Tobacco Co__________________________________________________________________________________________101 American Window Glass Co., Johnston Brokerage Co______________________________189 American Wringer Co_____________________________________________________________________147 Amsden Lumber Co______________________________________________________________________________________________94 Amsterdamsche Chininefabriek____________________________________________________________________________226 Anderson__________________________________________________________________88 Andrews Lumber & Mill Co______________________________________ 176, 183 Appalachian Coals, Inc____________________________________________________________________247 Armour & Company______________________________________________________________________________________________91 Artery______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________150 9878—38-18 (271)272 Page Asbestos Corporation, Ltd____________________________________________________________________________________225 Asphalt Shingle & Roofing Institute__________________________________________________________________243 Associated Bill Posters__________________________________________________________________________________________133 Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers, Inc______________________________________________________________________________235 Atlantic Investment Co__________________________________________________________________________________________98 Atlantic Terra Cotta Co______________________________________________________________________________________184 Atlas Portland Cement Co_______________________________________ 167, 182 Aulsbrook & Jones Furniture Co__________________________________________________________________________212 Baker & Holmes Co______________________________________________________________________________________________91 Baker-Whiteley Coal Co______________________________________________________________________________________156 Baker________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________209 Balaban & Katz Corporation______________________________________________________________________________233 Barbers' Supply Dealers Ass'n____________________________________________________________________________172 Barnard & Company____________________________________________________________________________________________230 Barton______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________161 Bastin______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________197 Bates Valve Bag Corporation______________________________________________________________________________234 Baumgartner____________________________________________________________________________________________________________223 Belfi__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________162 Berger Manufacturing Co____________________________________________________________________________________224 Berkey & Gay Furniture Co________________________________________________________________________________211 Biegler Company____________________________________________________________________________________________________181 Bolt, Nut & Rivet Manufacturers' Ass'n____________________________________________________________244 Booth Fisheries Co______________________________________________ 147, 163 Bopp________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________153 Bowser & Company________________________________________________________________________________________________152 Boyle________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________151 Bricklayers', Masons' & Plasterers' International Union________________________________188 Brown______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________210 Burroughs Adding Machine Co----------------------------------------------------------------------------139 Button Export & Trading Corp__________________________________________________________________________165 California Associated Raisin Co__________________________________________________________________________174 California Retail Hardware & Implement Ass'n______________________________________________219 California Wholesale Grocers' Ass'n____________________________________________________________________203 Candy Supply Co__________________________________________________________________________________________________229 Carson Brewing Co________________________________________________________________________________________________211 Cassidy____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________86 Cement Manufacturers' Protective Ass'n__________________________________________________________181 Cement Securities Co____________________________________________________________________________________________186 Central Foundry Co______________________________________________________________________________________________186 Central-West Publishing Co________________________________________________________________________________132 Chandler Ice & Cold Storage Plant____________________________________________________________________95 Chapman__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________150 Chesapeake & Ohio Fuel Co________________________________________________________________________________89 Chicago Association of Candy Jobbers______________________________________________________________224 Chicago Board of Trade________________________________________________________________________________________136 Chicago Butter & Egg Board______________________________________________________________________________110 Chicago Master Steam Fitters' Ass'n____________________________________________________________________181 Chicago Mosaic & Tiling Co________________________________________________________________________________157 Cigarettes, One Hundred and Seventy-five Cases of________________________________________103 Clements__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________193 Cleveland Stone Co________________________________________________________________________________________________137 Clow & Sons____________________________________________________________________________________________________________180273 Page Coal Dealers' Ass'n________________________________________________________________________________________________88 Colgate & Company_________________________________________ 163, 171, 207 Collins______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________148 Colorado & Wyoming Lumber Dealers' Ass'n--------------------------------------------------121 Columbia Gas & Electric Corporation________________________________________________________________260 Columbus Confectioners' Ass'n----------------------------------------------------------------------------223 Confectioners' Club of Baltimore________________________________________________________________________232 Consolidated Music Corporation--------------------------------------------------------------------------173 Corbett Stationery Co__________________________________________________________________________________________103 Corn Derivatives Institute------------------------------------------------------------------------------------247 Corn Products Co--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------138 Corning, In re__________________________________________________________________________________________________________83 Corrugated Paper Manufacturers' Ass'n____________________________________________________________177 Cotton______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________122 Co well______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________154 Coye__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________209 Cudahy Packing Co________________________________________________________________________________________________108 Dairymen's Association, Ltd______________________________________ 267, 268 Debs_____________________________________________________________84,85 DeMund Lumber Co______________________________________________________________________________________________96 Deutsches Kalisyndikat Gesellschaft------------------------------------------------------------------221 Discher____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________162 Dress Creators League of America, Inc______________________________________________________________257 DuPont de Nemours & Co------------------------------------------------------------------------------------102 Eastern States Retail Lumber Ass'n__________________________________________________________________115 Eastman Kodak Co________________________________________________________________________________________________141 Eighteen Karat Club____________________________________________________________________________________________217 Elgin Board of Trade--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------135 Elliott______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________85 Ethyl Gasoline Corporation----------------------------------------------------------------------------------266 Evansville Confectioners' Ass'n____________________________________________________________________________236 Federal Salt Co---------------------------------------------------90, 91 Fernald Company & Soule Steel Co____________________________________________________________________224 First National Pictures, Inc________________________________________________________________________________228 Fish Credit Association, Inc__________________________________________________________________________________250 Fitzgerald_____________________________________________________________________________________________________208 Flower Producers Cooperative Ass'n------------------------------------------------------------------213 Foster & Kleiser Co________________________________________________________________________________________________240 Fox Theatres Corporation____________________________________________________________________________________238 Fox West Coast Theatres______________________________________________________________________________________248 Fur Dressers' & Fur Dyers' Ass'n______________________________________________________________________194 Fur Dressers Factor Corporation________________________________________________________________________254 Geer__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________114 General Electric Co______________________________________________ 113, 202 General Outdoor Advertising Co________________________________________________________________________230 General Paper Co__________________________________________________________________________________________________91 Gillette Safety Razor Co______________________________________________________________________________________222 Gilman______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________158 Glaziers Local No. 27 of Chicago, etc__________________________________________________________________236 Gloyd__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________96 Goodwin-Gallagher Sand & Gravel Corporation_____________________ 175, 176 Gramlich____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________263274 Page Great Lakes Steamship Co____________________________________________227 Great Lakes Towing Co__________________________________________________________________________________________110 Great Western Sugar Co_________________________________________ 235, 238 Greater New York Live Poultry Chamber of Commerce__________ 230, 234, 239 Greene, In re__________________________________________________________________________________________________________83 Greenhut__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________82 Gypsum Industries Ass'n__________________________________________________________195 Haines______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________124 Half-Size Dress Guild, Inc___________________________________________________257 Hamburg-American Co________________________________________________114 Harvel______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________195 Harwick____________________________________________________________________________________119 Hayes_________________________________________-____________________________________145 Hency____________________________________________________________________________________________________________198 Hippen...----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------142 Hogg---------------------------------------------------------------------------98 Hollis________________________________________________________________121 Holmes_________________________________________________________________116 Hopkins________________________________________________________87 Hudnut_____________________________________________________________________________195 Hulse_______________________________________________________________________________260 Hunter Milling Co________________________________________________________________________________________________120 Imperial Window Glass Co___________________________________________108 Industrial Association of San Francisco____________________________________200 Interlaken Mills_______________________________________________________164 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers_____________________________138 International Business Machines Corporation____________________________246 International Harvester Co___________________________________________129 Interstate Circuit, Inc__________________________________________________________264 Ironite Company________________________________________________ 164, 168 Irving____________________________________________________________________149 Jackson_____________________________________________________________118 Jeffrey Manufacturing Co___________________________________________204 Jellico Mountain Coal & Coke Co______________________________________81 Jensen Creamery Co__________________________________________________155 Johnston Brokerage Co_______________________________________________186 Joint Traffic Association________________________________________________________________________________________86 Jones____________________________________________________________________________________________178 Journeymen Stone Cutters' Ass'n______________________________________220 Kansas City Ice Co________________________________________________________________________________________________256 Kellogg Corn Flake Co________________________________________________135 Kern_____________________________________________________________________179 Keystone Watch Case Co______________________________________________________________________________________125 King______________________________________________________________________________________150 Klaxon Horn Co__________________________________________________________167 Kluge__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________160 Knauer__________________________________________________________________________147 Knight Co., E. C______________________________________________________________________________________________________82 Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co__________________________________________________________________________136 Krewoski___________________________________________________________________213 Kryptok Company__________________________________________________________________198 Lackawanna Railroad Co______________________________________________________________________________________137 Lake Shore Railway Co________________________________________________________________________________________119 Lay Fish Co____________________________________________________212,215275 Page Lehigh Portland Cement Co__________________________________________189 Lehigh Valley Railroad Co..................................................146 Leibner & Company______________________________________________________________________________________________216 Lindsley Brothers Co______________________________________________________________________________________________207 Live Poultry Dealers' Protective Ass'n______________________________________________________________201 Local No. 202 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc_____ 253, 261 Lockwood & Winant_____________________________________________________255 Ludowici-Celadon Co____________________________________________ 236, 237 MacAndrews & Forbes Co_____________________________________________________________95 Maine Co-Operative Sardine Co__________________________________________________222 Maple Flooring Manufacturers' Ass'n________________________________________________________________198 Market Truckmen's Ass'n____________________________________________________________________________________252 Master Horseshoers' National Protective Ass'n____________________________134 Mather_______________________________________________________________________259 McCaskey Register Co________________________________________________138 McCoach__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________149 McGlone................................................ 256, 258, 266 Mead..........................................................156, 161 Mellen__________________________________________________________________________________135 Mercer____________________________________________________________245 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Distributing Corporation____________________________________________225 Metropolitan Meat Co__________________________________________________________________________________________92 Meyers.............................................................229 Mid-West Cement Credit & Statistical Bureau__________________________185 Miller.......................................................... 129,177 Millinery Quality Guild, Inc____________________________________________________249 Missouri Pacific Railway Co________________________________________________________________________________109 Mitchell___________________________________________________________________216 Mitchell Brothers Company__________________________________________________________________________________201 Moore..........................................................86,174 Motion Picture Patents Co_______________-____________________________________________________133 Motion Picture Theatre Owners' of Oklahoma____________________________________233 Nash Bros________________________________________________________________________________________________________________159 National Association of Master Plumbers____________________________________157 National Association of Retail Druggists_____________________________________94 National Association of Window Glass Manufacturers________________196 National Cash Register Co__________________________________________________________________________________122 National Enameling & Stamping Co__________________________________________________________________187 National Food Products Corporation______________________-__________________214 National Gum & Mica Co____________________________________________________________________________________219 National Hat Frame Association, Inc_____________________________________________________219 National Malleable & Steel Castings Co____________________________________________________________202 National Packing Co____________________________________________________________________________________________108 National Peanut Cleaners & Shellers Ass'n______________________________________________________208 National Retail Credit Ass'n________________________________________________________________________________251 National Retail Monument Dealers Ass'n________________________________________________________159 National Umbrella Frame Co______________________________-________________101 National Wholesale Jewelers' Ass'n____________________________'____________144 Needle Trades Workers Industrial Union__________________________________________________________254 Nelson______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________82 Nevada Northern Railway Co_____________________________________- 250 New Departure Manufacturing Co_________________________________ 125,140 New England Fish Exchange________________________________________________________________________________158 New York Coffee & Sugar Exchange, Inc__________________________________________________________199276 Page New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co____________________ 106, 148 Noland Company, Inc__________________________________________________________________________________________214 Nome Retail Grocery men's Ass'n________________________________________________________________________92 Norcross__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________185 Northwest Shoe Finders' Credit Bureau____________________________________________________________220 North Pacific Wharves & Trading Co______________________________ 126, 127 Northern Securities Co__________________________________________________________________________________________89 O'Brien____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________191 One Hundred and Seventy-five Cases of Cigarettes________________________________________103 One-Piece Bifocal Lens Co____________________________________________________________________________________210 Oregon Wholesale Grocers' Ass'n________________________________________________________________________207 Otis Elevator Co____________________________________________________________________________________________________93 Ox Fibre Brush Co________________________________________________________________________________________________267 Pacific & Arctic Railway Co______________________________________ 126, 127 Pacific Coast Plumbing Supply Ass'n________________________________________________________________124 Page__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________135 Painters District Council No. 2, etc__________________________________________________________________242 Painters' District Council No. 14 of Chicago, etc____________________________________________231 Palmer_____________________________________________________ 116, 117, 118 Pan-American Commission Corporation____________________________________________________________154 Paramount Famous Lasky Corporation______________________________________________________________228 Paris Medicine Co__________________________________________________________________________________________________160 Parks________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________106 Party Dress Guild, Inc__________________________________________________________________________________________257 Patten______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________110 Patterson________________________________________________________84, 127 Payne________________________________________________________________________134 Pearce______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________118 People's Ice & Fuel Co__________________________________________________________________________________________96 Periodical Clearing House____________________________________________________________________________________118 Peters________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________187 Philadelphia Jobbing Confectioners' Ass'n________________________________________________________134 Philips______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________117 Phoenix Wholesale Meat & Produce Co____________________________________________________________97 Piowaty & Sons, M________________________________________________________________________________________________157 Pittsburgh-Erie Saw Co________________________________________________________________________________________239 Porcelain Appliance Corporation________________________________________________________________________213 Postal Telegraph Cable Co________________________________________________________________________________268 Poster Advertisers Ass'n________________________________________________________________________________________177 Powell______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________194 Prince Line, Ltd______________________________________________________________________________________________________132 Protective Fur Dressers' Corporation________________________________________________________________253 Purington________________________________________________________________________________________________________________113 Quaker Oats Co________________________________________________________________________________________________________142 Quinine Derivatives, 383,340 Ounces of______________________________________________________________227 Radio Corporation of America____________________________________________________________________________241 Railway Employees' Department of A. F. of L________________________________________________193 Rand Kardex-Bureau____________________________________________________________________________________________217 Ray___________________________________________________________ 104,105 Reading Company_______________________________________________ 100, 143 Reardon & Sons Co., John____________________________________________________________________________________112 Reilly________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________197 Republic Steel Corporation__________________________________________________________________________________259 Richmond Distributing Corporation______________________________________221277 Page Rintelen__________________________________________________________ 153 Rockefeller_______________________________________________________ 149 Roebling_________________________________________________________ 117 St. Clair__________________________________________________________ 159 Santa Rita Store Co.& Santa Rita Mining Co------------------------- 99 Sardines, 5898 Cases_______________________________________________ 242 Schrader's Son__________________________________________________ 165, 192 Seattle Produce Ass'n---------------------------------------------- 206 Shreve, Treat & Eacret_____________________________________________ 215 Sielcken__________________________________________________________ 131 Simmons_________________________________________________________ 104 Simpson__________________________________________________________ 156 Sisal Sales Corporation_____________________________________________ 206 Smith__________________________________________________________ 117, 179 Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Inc______________________________________ 263, 265 Southern California Grocers' Ass'n___________________________________ 203 Southern Hardware Jobbers' Ass'n----------------------------------- 216 Southern Pacific Co________________________________________________ 145 Southern Pine Association___________________________________________ 178 Southern Wholesale Grocers' Ass'n___________________________________ 109 Stafford Manufacturing Co_________________________________________ 102 Standard Oil Co. (Indiana)___________________________________ 205, 262, 265 Standard Oil Co. (California)_______________________________________ 240 Standard Oil Co. (New Jersey)______________________________________ 97 Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Co______________________________ 111, 112 Standard Wood Co________________________________________________ 120 Steers____________________________________________________________ 107 Stiefvater_________________________________________________________ 105 Sugar Institute____________________________________________________ 244 Sumatra Purchasing Corporation__________________________________ 166, 172 Swift & Company________________________________________________90, 169 Swift_____________________________________________________________ 111 Tanners Products Co______________________________________________ 210 Terminal Railroad Ass'n___________________________________________ 93, 140 Terrell, In re______________________________________________________ 83 Textile Refinishers' Ass'n___________________________________________ 262 Thompson________________________________________________________ 142 Tile Manufacturers' Credit Ass'n____________________________________ 187 Trans-Missouri Freight Association__________________________________ 81 Trenton Potteries Co______________________________________________ 191 Union Pacific Coal Co______________________________________________ 103 Union Pacific Produce Co__________________________________________ 249 Union Pacific Railroad Co__________________________________________ 104 United Gas Improvement Co_____________________________________ 188, 191 United Sea Food Workers Union____________________________________ 255 United Shoe Machinery Co_________________________________________ 123 United Shoe Machinery Co. of New Jersey___________________________ 136 United Shoe Machinery Corporation_________________________________ 152 United States Steel Corporation_____________________________________ 122 United Theatres, Inc________________________________________________ 248 Utah-Idaho Wholesale Grocers' Ass'n_________________________________ 204 Victor Talking Machine Co___________________________________________ 164 Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co_________________________________________ 94278 Page Wallace---------------------------------------------------------- 227 Ward Food Products Corporation___________________________________ 214 Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc_______________________________ 238, 258, 260, 261 Webster_________________________________________________________- 160 Weiner___________________________________________________________ 252 West Coast Theatres, Inc______________________________________ 232, 237, 243 Western Cantaloupe Exchange____________________________________ 148, 167 Western Pine Manufacturers' Ass'n---------------------------------- 200 Western Union Telegraph Co_______________________________________ 269 Wheeler-Osgood Co________________________________________________ 205 White......................-................................... 141,145 Whiting__________________________________________________________ 115 Wickwire Spencer Steel Corporation_________________________________ 190 Williams_________________________________________________________ 194 Winslow__________________________________________________________ 120 Wool Institute, Inc................................................ 243 Workingmen's Amalgamated Council...............................- 84INDEX TO CASES INSTITUTED BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS BY SUBJECT MATTER AND COMMODITIES INVOLVED A Adding machines: Page Burroughs Adding Machine Co__________________________________ 139 Adhesives: National Gum & Mica Co...................................... 219 Advertising, outdoor: Associated Bill Posters_________________________________________ 133 Foster & Kleiser Co____________________________________________ 240 General Outdoor Advertising Co_________________________________ 230 Poster Advertisers Ass'n........................................ 177 Aluminum: Aluminum Company of America_______________________________ 130, 266 Artichokes: Union Pacific Produce Co______________________________________ 249 Asbestos: Asbestos Corporation, Ltd______________________________________ 225 Asphalt: American Coal Products Co_____________________________________ 140 Asphalt Shingle & Roofing Institute_____________________________ 243 Aspirin: Albany Chemical Co........................................... 175 Automobile accessories: American Chain Co____________________________________________ 200 Discher______________________________________________________ 162 Klaxon Horn Co______________________________________________ 167 Schrader's Son______________________________________________ 165,192 Webster...................................................... 160 B Bags, valve: Bates Valve Bag Coporation____________________________________ 234 Baking products. See Bread. Barber supplies: Barbers' Supply Dealers Ass'n__________________________________ 172 Bathroom cabinets: Meyers_______________________________________________________ 229 Bathtubs: Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Co__________________________ 111, 112 Bicycle parts: New Departure Manufacturing Co_____________________________ 125, 140 Bill posting. See Advertising. Binder twine. See Sisal. Bolts: Bolt, Nut & Rivet Manufacturers Ass'n-------------------------- 244 (279)280 Book cloth: Page Interlaken Mills_______________________________________________ 164 Brakes, coaster: New Departure Manufacturing Co_____________________________ 125, 140 Brass fittings: Schrader's Son______________________________________________ 165, 192 Bread: St. Clair_____________________________________________________ 159 Ward Food Products Corporation_______________________________ 214 Brick: Purington____________________________________________________ 113 Bricklayers', Masons' & Plasterers' International Union_____________ 188 Brick, radial: Alphons Custodis Chimney Construction Co______________________ 168 Brushes: Ox Fibre Brush Co____________________________________________ 267 Building material: Industrial Association of San Francisco___________________________ 200 See also Asbestos, Brick, Bricklayers, Cabinets, Carpenters, Cast stone, Cement, Chimneys, Concrete binder, Enamel ware, Glass, Gypsum, Hardware, Hardwood flooring, Heating apparatus, Insulators, Lath, Linseed oil, Lumber, Masons, Millwork, Painters, Pipe, Plasterers, Plumbing supplies, Pottery, Roofing, Sand, Sheet metal, Steam fitters, Stone, Terra cotta, Tile, and Wire. Bumpers: American Chain Co____________________________________________ 200 Discher_______________________________________________________ 162 Butter: Chicago Butter & Egg Board___________________________________ 110 Elgin Board of Trade__________________________________________ 135 Local 202 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc_____ 253, 261 Buttons, pearl: Button Export & Trading Corporation___________________________ 165 C Cabinets, bathroom: Glaziers Local No. 27 of Chicago, etc____________________________ 236 Meyers_______________________________________________________ 229 Cabinets, filing: Rand Kardex Bureau__________________________________________ 217 Cabinets, kitchen: Painters' District Council No. 2, etc_____________________________ 242 Painters' District Council No. 14 of Chicago, etc__________________ 231 Wallace______________________________________________________ 227 Cabinets, radio: Brown_______________________________________________________ 210 Cables, electric: Palmer_________________________________________________ 116, 117, 118 Philips________________________________________________________ 117 Smith________________________________________________________ 117 Calks, horseshoe: Master Horseshoers' National Protective Ass'n____________________ 134 Candy. See Confectionery.281 Cans: Page American Can Co______________________________________________ 144 Cantaloupes: Western Cantaloupe Exchange_______________________________ 148, 167 Capital stock. See Corporate securities. Carpenters: Andrews Lumber & Mill Co__________________________________ 176, 183 Cases. See Clock. Cash registers: McCaskey Register Co___________________________________________ 138 National Cash Register Co_____________________________________ 122 Patterson____________________________________________________84, 127 Castings: National Malleable & Steel Castings Co__________________________ 202 Cast stone: Journeymen Stone Cutters Ass'n________________________________ 220 Mitchell______________________________________________________ 216 Cedar poles: Lindsley Brothers' Co__________________________________________ 207 Cement: Alpha Portland Cement Co_____________________________________ 178 Atlas Portland Cement Co____________________________________ 167, 182 Cement Manufacturers Protective Ass'n__________________________ 181 Cement Securities Co__________________________________________ 186 Cowell_______________________________________________________ 154 Lehigh Portland Cement Co____________________________________ 189 Mid-West Cement Credit & Statistical Bureau____________________ 185 Nor cross_____________________________________________________ 185 Cereals: Kellogg Corn Flake Co_________________________________________ 135 Quaker Oats Co_______________________________________________ 142 Chairs: Baker________________________________________________________ 209 Charcoal: Miller________________________________________________________ 129 Chimneys: Alphons Custodis Chimney Construction Co______________________ 168 Cinchona bark. See Quinine. Cleaners and dyers: Allied Cleaners & Dyers of Seattle_______________________________ 222 Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers, Inc__________________________________ 235 Clock cases: Brown_______________________________________________________ 210 Cloth: Barnard & Company___________________________________________ 230 Textile Refinishers Ass'n________________________________________ 262 Clothes wringers: American Wringer Co__________________________________________ 147 Coal: Aileen Coal Co________________________________________________ 155 Algoma Coal & Coke Co_______________________________________ 155 Appalachian Coals, Inc_________________________________________ 247 Baker-Whiteley Coal Co_______________________________________ 156282 Coal—Continued. Page Chesapeake & Ohio Fuel Co________________________________________________________________________89 Coal Dealers' Ass'n________________________________________________________________________________________88 Gramlich________________________________________________________________263 Hayes________________________________________________________________________________________________________________145 Jellico Mountain Coal & Coke Co______________________________________________________________81 Jones________________________________________________________________________________________________________________178 Lackawanna Railroad Co______________________________________________________________________________137 Lake Shore Railway Co________________________________________________________________________________119 Lehigh Valley Railroad Co_______________________________________________________________________146 Moore______________________________________________________________________________________________________________86 North Pacific Wharves & Trading Co__________________________ 126, 127 Powell______________________________________________________________________________________________________________194 Reading Company___________________________________________ 100, 143 Smith____________________________________________________________179 Terminal Railroad Ass'n_______________________________________93, 140 Union Pacific Railroad Co______________________________________________________________________________104 White......................................................141,145 Coal-cutting machinery: Jeffrey Manufacturing Co____________________________________________________204 Coal-tar products: American Coal Products Co-------------------------------------------------140 Coffee: Sielcken__________________________________________________________________________131 Concrete binder: Ironite Company____________________________________________164, 168 Cones, ice cream: American Cone & Wafer Co__________________________________— 166 Confectionery: Baumgartner--------------------------------—-------------— 223 Candy Supply Co________________________________- -.---------------229 Chicago Association of Candy Jobbers___________________________________224 Columbus Confectioners' Ass'n___________________________________223 Confectioners' Club of Baltimore__________________________________232 Evansville Confectioners' Ass'n________________________________________236 Philadelphia Jobbing Confectioners' Ass'n.....—.............— 134 Richmond Distributing Corporation..............................221 Converters, cloth: Barnard & Company--------------------------------------------------230 Corn flakes: Kellogg Corn Flake Co--------------------------------------------- 135 Corn products: Corn Derivatives Institute____________________________________________________________________________247 Corn Products Co-------------------------------------------------------------138 Corporate securities: Columbia Gas & Electric Corporation_______________—.......- 259 Northern Securities Co__________________________________________________________________________________89 Southern Pacific Co------------------------------------------------------145 Cotton: Patten.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------110 Thompson__________________________— _--------------------------------------------142 Cotton shirting: Barnard & Company-----------------------------------------------------------------------230283 Credit information: Page Hulse________________________________________________________________________________________________________________250 National Retail Credit Ass'n________________________________________________________________________251 Cut stone: Bricklayers', Masons' & Plasterers' International Union__________________________188 Dairy products: D Dairymen's Association, Ltd__________________________________ 267, 268 Jensen Creamery Co______________________________________________________________________________________155 Local 202 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc_____ 253, 261 National Food Products Corporation_________________________________________________214 Simpson____________________________________________________________________________________________________________156 Whiting___________________________________________________________________________________________________________115 Derrick: Chapman__________________________________________________________________________________________________________150 Doors, fir: Wheeler-Osgood Co________________________________________________________________________________________205 Dresses: Dress Creators league of America, Inc________________________________257 Half-Size Dress Guild, Inc____________________________________________________________________________257 Party Dress Guild, Inc___________________________________________________257 Drugs: Albany Chemical Co.____________________________________________________________________________175 Amsterdamsche Chininefabriek.________________________________________________226 Quinine Derivatives, 383,340 Ounces of_______________________________________227 National Association of Retail Druggists_______________________________________94 Paris Medicine Co_____________________________________________________________________________160 Dyers. See Cleaners and dyers. Eggs: E Chicago Butter & Egg Board__________________________________________110 Gilman___________________________________________._____________158 Local 202 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc_____ 253, 261 Electric lamps: General Electric Co___________________________________________113,202 Electrical appliances: Boyle____________________________________________________________151 Porcelain Appliance Corporation________________________________________________________________213 Elevators: Otis Elevator Co____________________________________________________________________________________________93 Enamel ware: Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Co.-------------------------111, 112 Explosives: DuPont de Nemours & Co____________________________________________________________________________102 Farm implements: F International Harvester Co__________________________________________________________________________129 Fertilizer: American Agricultural Chemical Co____________________________________________________________218 Deutsches Kalisyndikat Gesellschaft____________________________________________________________221 Reardon & Sons____________________________________________________________________________112 Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co____________________________________________________________________94 Filing cabinets: Rand Kardex Bureau____________________________________________________________________________________217 Films. See Motion pictures.284 Fish: Page A. B. C. Canning Co______________________________________________________________________________________242 5,898 Cases Sardines______________________________________________________________________________________242 Booth Fisheries Co__________________________________________ 147, 163 Fish Credit Association, Inc________________________________________________________________________250 Lay Fish Co________________________________________________212, 215 Leibner & Company______________________________________________________________________________________216 Lockwood & Winant______________________________________________________________________________________255 Maine Co-Operative Sardine Co__________________________________________________________________222 New England Fish Exchange________________________________________________________________________158 United Sea Food Workers' Union________________________________________________________________255 Flooring: Maple Flooring Manufacturers' Ass'n________________________________________________________198 Mitchell Brothers' Co____________________________________________________________________________________201 Flour: Hunter Milling Co__________________________________________________________________________________________120 Flowers, cut: Flower Producers Cooperative Ass'n__________________________________________________________213 Freight, ocean. See Steamships. Fruit and vegetables: California Associated Raisin Co__________________________________________________________________174 Collins______________________________________________________________________________________________________________148 Hippen______________________________________________________________________________________________________________142 King__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________150 Local No. 202 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc. 253, 260 Market Truckmen's Ass'n------------------------------------------------------------252 Nash Bros________________________________________________________________________________________________________159 Page__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________135 Piowaty & Sons, M________________________________________________________________________________________157 Seattle Produce Ass'n-------------------------------------------206 Union Pacific Produce Co____________________________________________________________________________249 Western Cantaloupe Exchange________________________________ 148, 167 Furniture: Aulsbrook & Jones Furniture Co________________________________________________________________212 Baker----------------------------------------------------------209 Berkey & Gay Furniture Co______________________________________________________211 Brown______________________________________________________________________________________________________________210 Coye__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________209 Furniture, office: Rand Kardex Bureau----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------217 Furniture, school and church: American Seating Co______________________________________________________________________________________99 Stafford Manufacturing Co__________________________________________________________________________102 Furs: Fur Dressers' & Fur Dyers' Ass'n________________________________________________________________194 Fur Dressers Factor Corporation________________________________________________________________254 Needle Trades Workers Industrial Union__________________________________________________254 Protective Fur Dressers Corporation__________________________________________________________253 G Galvanized ware: National Enameling & Stamping Co----------------------------------------------------------187 Gas, natural- Columbia Gas & Electric Corporation---------------------------------------------260285 Gasoline: Page Ethyl Gasoline Corporation__________________________________________________________________________266 Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Inc__________________________________ 263, 265 Standard Oil Co. (Indiana)_______________________________ 205, 262, 265 Standard Oil Co. (California)______________________________________________________________________240 Standard Oil Co. (New Jersey)____________________________________________________________________97 Glass, window: American Window Gl,ass Co., Johnston Brokerage Co____________________________189 Bastin__________________________________________ ______________________197 Imperial Window Glass Co__________________________________________________________________________108 Johnston Brokerage Co__________________________________________________________________________________186 National Association of Window Glass Manufacturers____________________________196 Glue. See Adhesives. Grain: Chicago Board of Trade________________________________________________________________________________136 Great Lakes Steamship Co_____________________________________________227 Groceries: Baker & Holmes Co______________________________________________________________________________________91 Barton______________________________________________________________________________________________________________161 California Wholesale Grocers' Ass'n________________________________________203 National Food Products Corporation__________________________________________________________214 Nome Retail Grocerymen's Ass'n________________________________________________________________92 Oregon Wholesale Grocers' Ass'n________________________________________________________________207 Southern California Grocers' Ass'n______________________________________________________________203 Southern Wholesale Grocers' Ass'n______________________________________________________________109 Utah-Idaho Wholesale Grocers' Ass'n________________________________________________________204 Gunpowder: DuPont de Nemours & Co____________________________________________________________________________102 Gypsum: Gypsum Industries Ass'n______________________________________________________________________________195 H Hair, cattle and calf: Tanners Products Co____________________________________________________________________________________210 Halibut: Booth Fisheries Co__________________________________________ 147, 163 Hardware: California Retail Hardware & Implement Ass'n______________________________________219 Southern Hardware Jobbers' Ass'n______________________________________________________________216 Hardwood flooring: Maple Flooring Manufacturers' Ass'n________________________________________________________198 Mitchell Brothers' Company________________________________________________________________________201 Hardwood lumber: American Column & Lumber Co________________________________________169 Harvesting machinery: International Harvester Co__________________________________________________129 Hat frames: National Hat Frame Association, Inc_______________________________________________219 Hats, women's: Millinery Quality Guild, Inc________________________________________________________________________249 Hay: Peters________________________________________________________________________________________________________________187 9878—38-19286 Heating apparatus: Page Chicago Master Steam Fitters' Ass'n__________________________________________________________181 Clow & Sons____________________________________________________________________________________________________180 Heels, rubber: Miller.....................................................................177 Hoof pads: Master Horseshoed National Protective Ass'n__________________________________________134 Horseshoes: Master Horseshoers' National Protective Ass'n___________________________________134 Palmer______________________________________________________________________________________________________________117 I Ice: American Ice Co______________________________________________ 95 Carson Brewing Co____________________________________________ 211 Chandler Ice & Cold Storage Plant_____________________________.. 95 Kansas City Ice Co____________________________________________ 256 People's Ice & Fuel Co......................................... 96 Ice boxes: Coye_________________________________________________________ 209 Ice cream: National Food Products Corporation------------------------------ 214 Ice cream cones: American Cone & Wafer Co____________________________________ 166 Incandescent lamps. See Electric lamps and Lamps. United Gas Improvement Co................................. 188, 191 Insulators: Porcelain Appliance Corporation________________________________ 213 Iron and steel: Ironite Company____________________________________________164, 168 Mather_______________________________________________________ 258 National Malleable & Steel Castings Co__________________________ 202 Republic Steel Corporation_____________________________________ 258 United States Steel Corporation_________________________________ 122 J Jewelry: Eighteen Karat Club---------------------------------------------------------------------------------217 Keystone Watch Case Co_________________________________________________________________________125 National Wholesale Jewelers' Ass'n____________________________________________________________144 Shreve, Treat & Eacret__________________________________________________________________________________215 K Kerosene: Standard Oil Co. (Indiana)_____________________________________ 205 Kindling wood: Standard Wood Co____________________________________________ 120 Kitchen cabinets: Painters' District Council No. 2, etc_____________________________ 242 Painters' District Council No. 14 of Chicago, etc__________________ 231 Wallace______________________________________________________ 227 Klaxon horn: Klaxon Horn Co _______________________________________________ 167 Kodaks: Eastman Kodak Co___________________________________________ 141287 L Labor unions. See Unions. Page Labels, lithographed: American Lithographic Co__________________________________________________________________________180 Labels, woven: Kluge_______________________________________________________________160 Lamps: General Electric Co__________________________________________113, 202 United Gas Improvement Co_________________________________ 188, 191 Lasts, boot and shoe: Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co__________________________________________________________________136 Lath, metal: Berger Manufacturing Co____________________________________________________________________________224 Fernald Company and Soule Steel Co________________________________________________________224 Lenses. See Optical goods. Licorice: Mac Andrews & Forbes Co_________________________________________________95 Lighterage: Chapman_______________________________________________________________________________________150 Linseed oil: American Linseed Oil Co_________________________________________173 Lithographing: American Lithographic Co__________________________________________________________________180 Livestock: Anderson__________________________________________________________________________________________________________88 Hopkins____________________________________________________________________________________________________________87 Swift & Company____________________________________________ 90, 169 Lumber: Allen & Robinson____________________________________________________________________________________________93 American Column & Lumber Co________________________________________________________________169 Amsden Lumber Co______________________________________________________________________________________94 Colorado & Wyoming Lumber Dealers' Ass'n__________________________________________121 DeMund Lumber Co____________________________________________________________________________________96 Eastern States Retail Lumber Ass'n__________________________________________________________115 Gloyd___________________________________________________________________96 Haines_____________________________________________________________________124 Harwick__________________________________________________________________________________________________________119 Hogg-------------------------------------------------------------------98 Hollis____________________________________________________________________________________________121 Holmes______________________________________________________________________________________________________________116 Lindsley Brothers Co_________________________________________________________________________________207 Maple Flooring Manufacturers' Ass'n________________________________________________________198 Mitchell Brothers Co____________________________________________________________________________201 Nelson______________________________________________________________________________________________________________82 Southern Pine Association_______________________________________________178 Western Pine Manufacturers' Ass'n______________________________________200 Wheeler-Osgood Co________________________________________________________________________________________205 M Machinery: Allied Cleaners & Dyers of Seattle.-------------------------------222 Bates Valve Bag Corporation______________________________________________________________________234 International Harvester Co___________________________________________129 Jeffrey Manufacturing Co____________________________________________________________________________204288 Machinery—Continued. Page United Shoe Machinery Co__________________________________________________________________________123 United Shoe Machinery Co. of New Jersey______________________________________________136 United Shoe Machinery Corporation__________________________________________________________152 Winslow______________________________________________„______________120 Magazines: Periodical Clearing House____________________________________________________________________________118 .Malleable castings: National Malleable & Steel Castings Co____________________________________________________202 Marble: Bricklayers', Masons' & Plasterers' International Union________________________188 Meats: Armour & Company______________________________________________________________________________________91 Cudahy Packing Co______________________________________________________________________________________108 Metropolitan Meat Co__________________________________________________________________________________92 National Packing Co______________________________________________________________________________________108 Phoenix Wholesale Meat & Produce Co____________________________________________________97 :Swift & Company____________________________________________90, 169 iSwift__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________111 Medicines. See Drugs. Metal ware, stamped: National Enameling & Stamping Co____________________________________187 Milk: Dairymen's Association, Ltd_________________________________ 267, 268 National Food Products Corporation__________________________________________________________214 Simpson____________________________________________________________________________________________________________156 Whiting______________________________________________________________________________________________________________115 Mill work: Andrews Lumber & Mill Co__________________________________ 176, 183 Wheeler-Osgood Co________________________________________________________________________________________205 Mine commissary: Santa Rita Store Co. & Santa Rita Mining Co________________________________________99 Mining machinery: Jeffrey Manufacturing Co____________________________________________________________________________204 Monuments: National Retail Monument Dealers' Ass'n__________________________________________________159 Motion pictures: Balaban & Katz Corporation________________________________________________________________________233 First National Pictures, Inc____________________________________________________________________________228 Fox Theatres Corporation______________________________________________________________________________238 Fox West Coast Theatres__________________________________________________________________________________248 Interstate Circuit, Inc______________________________________________________________________________________264 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Distributing Corporation____________________________________225 Motion Picture Patents Co__________________________________________________________________________133 Motion Picture Theatre Owners' of Oklahoma__________________________________________233 Paramount Famous Lasky Corporation______________________________________________________228 United Theatres, Inc______________________________________________________________________________________248 Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc________________________ 238, 258, 260, 261 West Coast Theatres, Inc_________________________________ 232, 237, 243 Munitions: Rintelen____________________________________________________________________________________________________________153 Bopp________________________________________________________________________________________________________________153 Music, public performance: American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers__________________________258289 Music, roll and sheet: Page Consolidated Music Corporation_________________________________ 173 Kern_________________________________________________________ 179 N Naval stores: American Naval Stores Co____________________________________ 105, 125 Atlantic Investment Co________________________________________ 98 Newsprint paper: Mead______________________________________________________ 156, 161 Nuts: Bolt, Nut & Rivet Manufacturers' Ass'n__________________________ 244 0 Oatmeal: Quaker Oats Co_______________________________________________ 142 Office equipment: Rand Kardex Bureau__________________________________________ 217 Oil. See Gasoline. Onions: Piowaty & Sons, M____________________________________________ 157 Optical goods: American Association of Wholesale Opticians______________________ 168 Kryptok Company____________________________________________ 198 One-Piece Bifocal Lens Co______________________________________ 210 Outdoor advertising: Associated Bill Posters_________________________________________ 133 Foster & Kleiser Co____________________________________________ 240 General Outdoor Advertising Co_________________________________ 230 Poster Advertisers Ass'n________________________________________ 177 P Packers: Armour & Company______________________________________________________________________________________91 Cudahy Packing Co______________________________________________________________________________________108 National Packing Co______________________________________________________________________________________108 Swift__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________111 Swift & Company____________________________________________90, 169 Paper: Alden Paper Co______________________________________________________________________________________________232 Allen Brothers Co____________________________________________________________________________________________106 Corbett Stationery Co__________________________________________________________________________________103 General Paper Co__________________________________________________________________________________________91 Mead______________________________________________________ 156,161 Parks________________________________________________________________________________________________________________106 Paper, corrugated: Corrugated Paper Manufacturers' Ass'n____________________________________________________177 Paper, glazed: American Coated Paper Co__________________________________________________________________________179 Paper, wall: Pearce______________________________________________________________________________________________________________118 Paper board: Albia Box & Paper Co__________________________________________________________________________________107 Geer__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________114290 Patents: Page American Chain Co________________________________________________________________200 General Electric Co________________________________________________________________________________________202 Jeffrey Manufacturing Co____________________________________________________________________________204 Krentier-Arnold Hinge Last Co__________________________________________________________________136 Motion Picture Patents Co__________________________________________________________________________133 National Cash Register Co__________________________________________________________________________122 Patterson__________________________________________________________________________________________________________127 Porcelain Appliance Corporation________________________________________________________________213 Radio Corporation of America____________________________________________________________________241 Standard Oil Co. (Indiana)__________________________________________________________________________205 Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Co__________________________ 111, 112 United Shoe Machinery Co__________________________________________________________________________123 United Shoe Machinery Co. of New Jersey______________________________________________136 United Shoe Machinery Corporation__________________________________________________________152 Paving brick: Purington________________________________________________________________________________________________________113 Peanuts: National Peanut Cleaners & Shellers Ass'n________________________________________________208 Periodicals: Periodical Clearing House____________________________________________________________________________118 Petroleum: See Gasoline. Payne____________________________________________________________________________________________________________134 Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Inc__________________________________ 262, 264 Standard Oil Co. (Indiana)_______________________________ 205, 261, 263 Standard Oil Co. (California)_____„__________________________________________________________240 Standard Oil Co. (New Jersey)____________________________________________________________________97 Phonographs: Victor Talking Machine Co__________________________________________________________________________164 Phonographic supplies: Eastman Kodak Co______________________________________________________________________________________141 Pipe, cast iron: Addyston Pipe & Steel Co____________________________________________________________________________87 Central Foundry Co______________________________________________________________________________________186 Plumbing supplies: Addyston Pipe & Steel Co____________________________________________________________________________87 Central Foundry Co______________________________________________________________________________________186 Clow & Sons____________________________________________________________________________________________________180 Irving________________________________________________________________________________________________________________149 Knauer______________________________________________________________________________________________________________147 McCoach__________________________________________________________________________________________________________149 National Association of Master Plumbers__________________________________________________157 Noland Company, Inc__________________________________________________________________________________214 Pacific Coast Plumbing Supply Ass'n____________________________________124 Simmons__________________________________________________________________________________________________________104 Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Co__________________________ 111, 112 Stiefvater__________________________________________________________________________________________________________105 Trenton Potteries Co____________________________________________________________________________________191 Pneumatic gauges: Schrader's Son________________________________________________ 165, 192 Poles, red cedar: Lindsley Brothers Co______________________________________________________________________________________207 Porcelains, electrical: Porcelain Appliance Corporation________________________________________________________________213291 Potash: Page Deutsches Kalisyndikat Gesellschaft_____________________________ 221 Potatoes: King......................................................... 150 Pottery, sanitary: Trenton Potteries Co__________________________________________ 191 Poultry: Greater New York Live Poultry Chamber of Commerce______ 230, 234, 239 Live Poultry Dealers' Protective Ass'n___________________________ 201 Weiner_______________________________________________________ 252 Pressing machines: Allied Cleaners & Dyers of Seattle_______________________________ 222 Printing: Central-West Publishing Co____________________________________ 132 Produce. See Fruits and vegetables. Pumps, gasoline: Bowser & Company____________________________________________ 152 Quinine: Amsterdamsche Chininefabriek____________________________________________________________________226 383,340 Ounces of Quinine Derivatives______________________________________________________227 R Rabbit skins: Protective Fur Dressers' Corporation________________________________________________________253 Radio: Radio Corporation of America____________________________________________________________________241 Radio cabinets: Brown______________________________________________________________________________________________________________210 Railroad rates: Joint Traffic Association________________________________________________________________________________86 Lehigh Valley Railroad Co____________________________________________________________________________146 Missouri Pacific Railway Co------------------------------------------------------------------------109 Terminal Railroad Ass'n_______________________________________93,140 Trans-Missouri Freight Association------------------------------------------------------------81 Railroads: Lake Shore Railway Co--------------------------------------------------------------------------------119 Mellen______________________________________________________________________________135 Nevada Northern Railway Co----------------------------------------------------------------------250 New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co----------------106,148 Northern Securities Co__________________________________________________________________________________89 Reading Company-------------------------------------------100,143 Rockefeller______________________________________________________________________________________________________149 Southern Pacific Co________________________________________________________________________________________145 Terminal Railroad Ass'n_______________________________________93,140 Union Pacific Railroad Co----------------------------------------------------------------------------104 Raisins: California Associated Raisin Co__________________________________________________________________174 Rates, freight: Great Lakes Steamship Co____________________________________________________________________________227 Joint Traffic Association________________________________________________________________________________86 Missouri Pacific Railway Co------------------------------------------------------------------------109292 Rates, freight—Continued. Page Terminal Railroad Ass'n_______________________________________ 93, 140 Trans-Missouri Freight Association ______________________________ 81 Razors and razor blades: Gillette Safety Razor Co_______________________________________ 222 Refrigerators: Coye_________________________________________________________ 209 Registers. See Cash registers. Rendering materials: John Reardon & Sons Co_______________________________________ 112 Resin. See Naval stores. Rivets: Bolt, Nut & Rivet Manufacturers' Ass'n_________________________ 244 Roofing materials: American Coal Products Co_____________________________________ 140 Asphalt Shingle & Roofing Institute_____________________________ 243 Ludowici-Celadon Co________________________________________ 236, 237 Rubber heels: Miller________________________________________________________ 177 S Safety razors: Gillette Safety Razor Co_______________________________________ 222 Salt: Federal Salt Co_______________________________________________90, 91 Sand: Goodwin-Gallagher Sand & Gravel Corporation__________________ 175, 176 Sardines: A. B. C. Canning Co___________________________________________ 242 5,898 Cases Sardines___________________________________________ 242 Maine Co-Operative Sardine Co_________________________________ 222 Saw frames and blades: Pittsburgh-Erie Saw Co_______________________________________239 Sea food. See Fish. Securities. See Corporate securities. Sheet metal: Biegler Company______________________________________________ 181 Shirting cloth: Barnard & Company------------------------------------------- 230 Shoe findings: Northwest Shoe Finders' Credit Bureau-------------------------- 220 Shoe and boot lasts: Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co--------------------------------- 136 Shoe machinery: United Shoe Machinery Co------------------------------------- 123 United Shoe Machinery Company of New Jersey------------------ 136 United Shoe Machinery Corporation----------------------------- 152 Winslow______________________________________________________ 120 Silverware: Eighteen Karat Club___________________________________________ 217 Shreve, Treat & Eacret_________________________________________ 215 Sisal: Pan-American Commission Corporation__________________________ 154 Sisal Sales Corporation_________________________________________ 206293 Soap: Page Barbers' Supply Dealers Ass'n_________________________________________172 Colgate & Company_____________________________________ 163, 171, 207 Soil pipe: Central Foundry Co______________________________________________________________________________________186 Stationery: Corbett Stationery Co__________________________________________________________________________________103 Steamships: American-Asiatic Steamship Co__________________________________________________________________128 Great Lakes Steamship Co__________________________________________________________________________227 Great Lakes Towing Co________________________________________________________________________________110 Hamburg-American Co________________________________________________________________________________114 Moore______________________________________________________________________________________________________________174 Pacific & Arctic Railway Co__________________________________ 126, 127 Prince Line, Ltd______________________________________________________________________________________________132 Steel: Mather____________________________________________________________________________________________________________258 National Malleable & Steel Castings Co____________________________________________________202 Republic Steel Corporation__________________________________________________________________________259 United States Steel Corporation____________________________________________________________________122 Stock, capital. See Corporate securities. Stone: Bricklayers', Masons' & Plasterers' International Union________________________188 Cleveland Stone Co________________________________________________________________________________________137 Journeymen Stone Cutters Ass'n________________________________________________________________220 Mitchell____________________________________________________________________________________________________________216 National Retail Monument Dealers' Ass'n________________________________________________159 Strikes. See Unions. Sugar: American Sugar Refining Co__________________________________107, 113 Great Western Sugar Co_____________________________________ 235, 238 Knight Co., E. C____________________________________________________________________________________________82 New York Coffee & Sugar Exchange, Inc__________________________________________________199 Sugar Institute________________________________________________________________________________________________244 Syrup. See Corn products. T Tabulating cards: International Business Machines Corporation____________________________________________246 Tabulating machines: International Business Machines Corporation____________________________________________246 Talking machines and records: Victor Talking Machine Co____________________________________________________________________________164 Tallow. See Rendering materials. Tanks and pumps: Bowser & Company________________________________________________________________________________________152 Telephone equipment: American Telephone & Telegraph Co__________________________________________________________142 Philips______________________________________________________________________________________________________________117 Telephone and telegraph communication: American Telephone & Telegraph Co_______________________________________________________142 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers______________________________________138 Postal Telegraph Cable Co________________________________________________________________________268 Western Union Telegraph Co____________________________________________________________________269294 Terminal facilities: Page Terminal Railroad Ass'n_______________________________________93, 140 Terra cotta: American Terra Cotta & Ceramic Co____________________________184, 190 Atlantic Terra Cotta Co________________________________________________________________________________184 Textiles: Barnard & Company______________________________________________________________________________________230 Interlaken Mills______________________________________________________________________________________________164 Kluge...................................................................160 Textile Refinishers Ass'n________________________________________________________________________________262 Wool Institute, Inc__________________________________________________________________________________________243 Thread: American Thread Co___________________________________________________________________________139 Tickets, amusement: American Amusement Ticket Manufacturers' Ass'n__________________________________218 Tile: Alexander & Reid Co____________________________________________________________________________________183 Belfi.................................................................................162 Chicago Mosaic & Tiling Co________________________________________157 Ludowici-Celadon Co________________________________________ 236, 237 Tile Manufacturers' Credit Ass'n________________________________________________________________187 Tin cans: American Can Co__________________________________________________________________________________________144 Tobacco: American Tobacco Co____________________________________________________________________________________101 One Hundred and Seventy-five Cases of Cigarettes________________________________103 Steers________________________________________________________107 Sumatra Purchasing Corporation______________________________ 166, 172 Toilet articles: Barbers' Supply Dealers Ass'n______________________________________________172 Colgate & Company..................................... 163,171, 207 Hudnut............................................................195 Towing: Great Lakes Towing Co_______________________________________________110 Transportation. See Railroads, Steamships, Trucks. Trucks: Local No. 202 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc. 253, 261 Market Truckmen's Ass'n____________________________________________________________________________252 McGlone_______________________________________________ 256,258,266 Mercer______________________________________________________________________________________245 United Sea Food Workers' Union________________________________________________________________254 Turpentine. See Naval stores. Twine, binder: International Harvester Co__________________________________________________________________________129 Pan-American Commission Corporation____________________________________________________154 Sisal Sales Corporation________________________________________________________206 U Umbrellas: National Umbrella Frame Co______________________________________________________________________101295 Unions: Page Agler_________________________________________________________________________________85 Alden Paper Co______________________________________________________________________________________________232 Andrews Lumber & Mill Co___________________________________ 176, 183 Artery______________________________________________________________________________________________________________150 Boyle______________________________________________________________________________151 Bricklayers', Masons' & Plasterers' International Union________________________188 Cassidy____________________________________________________________________________________________________________86 Chicago Master Steam Fitters' Ass'n__________________________________________________________181 Clements__________________________________________________________193 Cotton______________________________________________________________________________________________________________122 Debs_________________________________________________________84, 85 Elliott...........................-______________________________________85 Fitzgerald________________________________________________________________________________________________________208 Glaziers Local No. 27 of Chicago, etc__________________________________________236 Gramlich__________________________________________________________________________________________________________262 Greater New York Live Poultry Chamber of Commerce______ 230, 234, 239 Haines______________________________________________________________________________________________________________124 Harvel---------------------------------------------------------------------------------195 Hency______________________________________________________________________________________________________________198 Industrial Association of San Francisco_______________________________________________200 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers_______________________138 Jones________________________________________________________________________________________________________________178 Journeymen Stone Cutters' Ass'n________________________________________________________________220 Krewoski__________________________________________________________________________________________________________213 Local No. 202 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc.. 253, 261 McGlone__________________________________________________________________________________________________________266 Meyers______________________________________________________________________________________________________________229 Mitchell____________________________________________________________________________________________________________216 Painters' District Council No. 2, etc__________________________________________________________242 Painters' District Council No. 14 of Chicago, etc_____________________________231 Powell______________________________________________________________________________________________________________194 Railway Employees' Department of A. F. of L________________________________________193 Ray_______________________________________________________ 104,105 Reilly________________________________________________________________________________________________________________197 United Sea Food Workers' Union______________________________________________254 Wallace________________________________________________________________________________227 White_______________________________________________________ 141,145 Williams__________________________________________________________________________________________________________194 Workingmen's Amalgamated Council________________________________________________________84 V Valves: Schrader's Son______________________________________________ 165, 192 Valve bags: Bates Valve Bag Corporation______________________________________________________________________234 Vegetables. See Fruit and vegetables. W Wall paper: Pearce______________________________________________________________________________________________________________118 War munitions. See Munitions.296 Watches and watch cases: Page Keystone Watch Case Co_______________________________________ 125 Wharfingers: North Pacific Wharves & Trading Co__________________________ 126, 127 Whiskey: Greenhut_____________________________________________________ 82 Window. See Glass. Wire: Palmer_________________________________________________ 116, 117, 118 Roebling_____________________________________________________ 117 Wire goods: Wickwire Spencer Steel Corporation_____________________________ 190 Wire rope: Jackson______________________________________________________ 118 Wood, kindling: Standard Wood Co____________________________________________ 120 Wrecking: Chapman_____________________________________________________ 150 Wringers: American Wringer Co__________________________________________ 147INDEX TO ALL CASES DECIDED UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS * Abner-Drury Brewing Co., Leonard v______ 25 App. D. C. 161 3 F. A. D. 1 Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., U. S. v_______ 78 Fed. 712, 1 F. A. D. 631 85 Fed. 271 1 F. A. D. 772 175 U. S. 211 1 F. A. D. 1009* Adolph Meyer, Inc., v. Florists' Telegraph Delivery Ass'n________________________ 16 F. Supp. 783 Aeolian Co. v. Fischer___________________ 27 F. (2d) 560 12 F. A. D. 51GP 29 F. (2d) 679 12 F. A. D. 520 (Second case)__ 35 F. (2d) 34 12 F. A. D. 53& 40 F. (2d) 189 12 F. A. D. 547 Agler, U.S.v__________________________ 62 Fed. 824 1 F. A. D. 294 Alabama Pipe Co., National Foundry Co. v_ 7 F. Supp. 823 Alaska S. S. Co. v. International Long- shoremen's Ass'n______________________ 236 Fed. 964 6 F. A. D. 673 Alco-Zander Co. v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers_____________________________ 35 F. (2d) 203 11 F. A. D. 440 Alemite Corporation v. Rogers____________ 5F. Supp. 940 74 F. (2d) 1019 298 U. S. 415 Alexander v. [/. S_______________________ 201 U. S. 117 2 F. A. B. 945 (See Nelson v. U. S.) Alexander & Reid Co., U. S. v____________ 280 Fed. 924 9 F. A. D. 559* Allen Bros. Tobacco Co., Reynolds Tobacco Co. v________________________________ 151 Fed. 819 3 F. A. D. 134 Allen & Robinson, U. S. v_______________ 3 Dist. Hawaii 667 Aluminum Castings Co., Michigan Alum- inum Foundry Co. v___________________ 190 Fed. 879 Aluminum Co. of America, Baush Mach. Tool Co. v___________________________ 60 F. (2d) 586 63 F. (2d) 778 289 U. S. 739 (Second case) _ _ 72 F. (2d) 236 293 U. S. 589 (Third case)__ 79 F. (2d) 217 Aluminum Co. of America v. Federal Trade Comm_______________________________ 284 Fed. 401 9 F. A. D. 763- 299 Fed. 361 10 F. A. D. 332 261 U. S. 616 Aluminum Co. of America, Haskell v______ 14 F. (2d) 864 10 F. A. D. 69H* Aluminum Co. of America, U. S. v________ 19 F. Supp. 374 20 F. Supp. 608 (Second case) 20 F. Supp. 13 * Note.—In some cases the decisions on appeal do not relate to the Antitrust Laws, but to make the index complete the appellate court citations have beem& included. (297)298 Amalgamated Clothing Workers, Alco-Zander Co. v________________________________ 35 F. (2d) 203 11 F. A. D. Amalgamated Copper Co., United Copper Securities Co. v_______________________ 223 Fed. 421 244 U. S. 261 6 F. A. D. (Second case) - . 232 Fed. 574 6 F. A. D. American-Asiatic S. S. Co., U. S. v_______ 220 Fed. 230 5 F. A. D. 242 U. S. 537 5 F. A. D. American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co.. 153 Fed. 943 3 F. A. D. 160 Fed. 184 3 F. A. D. 166 Fed. 261 3 F. A. D. 213 U. S. 347 3 F. A. D. American Biscuit & Mfg. Co. v. Klotz----- 44 Fed. 721 1 F. A. D. American Brake Beam Co. v. Pungs------- 141 Fed. 923 2 F. A. D. American & British Mfg. Corp. v. New Idria Quicksilver Mining Co_________________ 293 Fed. 509 10 F. A. D. American Can Co., Gibson Canning Co. v---- 1 F. Supp. 242 American Can Co., Ladoga Canning Co. v— 44 F. (2d) 763 282 U. S. 899 11 F. A. D. American Can Co., Van Camp & Sons Co. V- 278 U. S. 245 12 F. A. D. 30 F. (2d) 1011 American Can Co., U. S. v--------------- 230 Fed. 859 6 F. A. D. 234 Fed. 1019 6 F. A. D. 256 U. S. 706 American Column & Lumber Co., U.S. v---- 263 Fed. 147- 8 F. A. D. 257 U. S. 377 8 F. A. D. American Equipment Co. v. Tuthill Bldg. Material Co__________________________ 6 F. Supp. 21 69 F. (2d) 406 American Export Door Corp. v. Gauger Co— 154 Wash. 514 12 F. A. D. American Export Door Corp. v. Gauger Co., etc., and Durable Door Co--------------- 154 Wash. 701 12 F. A. D. American Federation of Labor, New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co. v------- 288 Fed. 588 9 F. A. D. American Graphophone Co. v. Boston Store_ 225 Fed. 785 6 F. A. D. 246 U. S. 8 8 F. A. D. American League B. B. Club v. Chase----- 149 N. Y. S. 6 American Linseed Oil Co., U. S. v-------- 275 Fed. 939 9 F. A. D. 262 U. S. 371 9 F. A. D. American Livestock Commission Co. v. U. $_ 28 F. (2d) 63 12 F. A. D. 279 U. S. 435 12 F. A. D. American Naval Stores Co., U. S. v------- 172 Fed. 455 3 F. A. D. (See Nash v. U. S.) 186 Fed. 592 4 F. A. D. 186 Fed. 489 5 F. A. D. 229 U. S. 373 5 F. A. D. American Preservers9 Co., Bishop v________ 51 Fed. 272 1 F. A. D. 105 Fed. 845 2 F. A. D. American Press Ass'n v. U. S------------ 245 Fed. 91 8 F. A. D. (See U. S. v. Central-West Pub. Co.) American Publishers Ass'n, Straus v------- 177 N. Y. 473 193 N. Y. 496 199 N. Y. 548 231 U. S. 222 4 F. A. D. (Second case)_. 201 Fed. 306 4 F. A. D. Amalgamated Clothing Workers, Alco-Zander Co. v 35 F. (2d) 203 11 F. A. D. Amalgamated Copper Co., United Copper 440 948 443 675 684 262 372 563 648 2 826 71 582 675 450 518 750 763 884 897 917 838 154 298 309 574 583 679 48 234 234 49 51 52 842 836299 American School-Furniture Co., Metcalf v»_ 108 Fed. 909 2 F. A. D. 75 113 Fed. 1020 2 F. A. D. 111 122 Fed. 115 2 F. A. D. 234 American Sea Green Slate Co., O'Halloran v_ 207 Fed. 187 5 F. A. D. 294 229 Fed. 77 5 F. A. D. 305 American Snuff Co., Federal Trade Comm. v. 38 F. (2d) 547 11 F. A. D. 505 American Steel Foundries, Tri-City Central Trades Council v_____________________ 238 Fed. 728 6 F. A. D. 911 257 U. S. 184 9 F. A. D. 369 American Steel Co. v. American Steel & Wire Co_____________________________ 244 Fed. 300 6 F. A. D. 1018 American Steel & Wire Co., American Steel Co. v________________________________ 244 Fed. 300 6 F. A. D. 1018 American Sugar Ref. Co., Pennsylvania Sugar Ref. Co. v______________________ 160 Fed. 144 3 F. A. D. 369 166 Fed. 254 3 F. A. D. 552 168 Fed. 1023 171 Fed. 579 American Sugar Ref. Co., U. S. v_________ 173 Fed. 823 3 F. A. D. 744 (See U. S. v. Kissel.) 218 U. S. 601 3 F. A. D. 816 American Sugar Ref. Co., Wogan Bros, v___ 215 Fed. 273 5 F. A. D. 467 American Tel. & Tel. Co., Ames v________ 166 Fed. 820 3 F. A. D. 586 American Tel. & Tel. Co., Breed v________ 166 Fed. 825 3 F. A. D. 593 American Tel. & Tel. Co., Stanley Co. v___ 4 F. Supp. 80 5 F. Supp. 380 American Tobacco Co., Federal Trade Comm. v_____________________________ 283 Fed. 999 9 F. A. D. 751 264 U. S. 298 10 F. A. D. 134 (Second case)-_ 9 F. (2d) 570 10 F. A. D. 927 274 U. S. 543 10 F. A. D. 1041 American Tobacco Co., Larus & Bro. Co. 163 Fed. 712 3 F. A. D. 426 American Tobacco Co., Locker v___________ 194 Fed. 232 4 F. A. D. 610 197 Fed. 495 4 F. A. D. 612 200 Fed. 973 4 F. A. D. 614 218 Fed. 447 4 F. A. D. 618 American Tobacco Co., Monarch Tobacco Works v_____________________________ 165 Fed. 774 3 F. A. D. 534 American Tobacco Co., People's Tobacco Co. v-------------------------------- 170 Fed. 396 3 F. A. D. 660 (Second case)__ 204 Fed. 58 5 F. A. D. 138 (Third case)._ 246 U. S. 79 8 F. A. D. 172 American Tobacco Co., Porto Rican Ameri- can Tobacco Co. v_____________________ 30 F. (2d) 234 11 F. A. D. 386 279 U. S. 858 American Tobacco Co., Simon v___________ 192 Fed. 662 4 F. A. D. 468 American Tobacco Co., U. S. v___________ 164 Fed. 700 3 F. A. D. 427 164 Fed. 1024 3 F. A. D. 468 221 U. S. 106 4 F. A. D. 168 191 Fed. 371 4 F. A. D. 246 American Tobacco Co., U. S. Tobacco Co. v__ 163 Fed. 701 3 F. A. D. 410 American Tobacco Co., Ware-Kramer To- bacco Co. v___________________________ 178 Fed. 117 3 F. A. D. 766 180 Fed. 160 3 F. A. D. 780 196 Fed. 1004 300 American Tobacco Co., Weisert Bros. Tob. Co. v___________ _____ _ __ 163 Fed. 712 3 F. A. D. 426 American Union Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co____________ — ----- ----- 159 Fed. 278 3 F. A. D. 312 Ames v. American Tel. & Tel. Co _______ 166 Fed. 820 3 F. A. D. 586 Anaconda Copper Mining Co., Geddes v---- 245 Fed. 225 8 F. A. D. 57 254 U. S. 590 9 F. A. D. 153 Anderson v. Shawnee Compress Co________ 87 Pac. 315 3 F. A. D. 122 209 U. S. 423 3 F. A. D. 357 Anderson v. Shipowners Ass'n of Pacific Coast _ _ _______________ 10 F. (2d) 96 10 F. A. D. 646 272 U. S. 359 10 F. A. D. 650 (Second case)__ 27 F. (2d) 163 12 F. A. D. 557 31 F. (2d) 539 12 F. A. D. 564 279 U. S. 864 Anderson, U. S. ex rel Rutz v __ —----- 11 F. (2d) 845 12 F. A. D. 228 (See U. S. v. Nat'l Malleable & Steel Castings Co. and U. S. ex rel. Steneck v. Levy.) Anderson v. United States______ _ _ __ 82 Fed. 998 1 F. A. D. 742 171 U. S. 604 1 F. A. D. 967 Andrews Lumber & Mill Co., U. S. v----- 6 F. (2d) 98 10 F. A. D. 760 (See U. S. v. Brims.) 272 U. S. 549 10 F. A. D. 764 21 F. (2d) 889 11 F. A. D. 305 Appalachian Coals, Inc., U. S. v___________ 1 F. Supp. 339 288 U. S. 344 Arkansas Brokerage Co. v. Dunn & Powell, lnc------- ------------ ------------ 173 Fed. 899 3 F. A. D. 752 Arkansas Wholesale Grocers' Ass'n v. Federal Trade Comm____________ __________ 18 F. (2d) 866 275 U. S. 533 11 F. A. D. 244 Armand Co. v. Federal Trade Comm----- 78 F. (2d) 707 84 F. (2d) 973 296 U. S. 650 Armour & Co., Hansen Packing Co. v----- 16 F. Supp. 784 Armour & Co., Jack v______ _ _ 291 Fed. 741 9 F. A. D. 1040 Armour & Co., U. S. v---- ------- 142 Fed. 808 2 F. A. D. 951 Armstrong v. U. S_____ _ __ -------- 18 F. (2d) 371 10 F. A. D. 871 275 U. S. 534 Arrow-Hart & Hegeman Electric Co. v. Federal Trade Comm.---------------- 65 F. (2d) 336 291 U. S. 587 Arthur v. Oakes_ _ _ ---------------- 63 Fed. 310 1 F. A. D. 310 Artloom Corp. v. National Better Business Bureau, Inc. _ ------------------ 48 F. (2d) 897 11 F. A. D. 639 Asbestos Corp., Ltd., U. S. v_____________ 34 F. (2d) 182 11 F. A. D. 404 Associated Bill Posters, Ramsay Co. v------ 271 Fed. 140 9 F. A. D. 171 260 U. S. 501 9 F. A. D. 176 (Second case)__ 42 F. (2d) 152 282 U. S. 865 11 F. A. D. 534 Associated Bill Posters, Rankin Co. v------ 271 Fed. 140 9 F. A D. 171 260 U. S. 501 9 F. A. D. 176 (Second case) _ _ 42 F. (2d) 152 282 U. S. 864 11 F. A. D. 534 American Tobacco Co., Weisert Bros. Tob.301 Associated Billposters, Sullivan v__________ 272 Fed. 323 9 F. A. D. 250 6 F. (2d) 1000 10 F. A. D. 574 Associated Bill Posters, U. S. v___________ 235 Fed. 540 6 F. A. D. 646 258 U. S. 633 Atchison, In re_________________________ 284 Fed. 604 9 F. A. D. 810 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., Prescott & A. C. Ry.Co.v____________________________ 73 Fed. 438 1 F. A. D. 604 84 Fed. 213 1 F. A. D. 604 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., Callaway v__ 35 F. (2d) 319 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., U. S. v____ 142 Fed. 176 2 F. A. D. 831 Atlanta, B. & A. Ry. Co., Birmingham Trust & Saving Co. v_______________________271 Fed. 743 9 F. A. D. 244 Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. U. S____ 286 U. S. 427 Atwater v. Wheeling & L. E. Ry. Co_______ 56 F. (2d) 720 Ault & Wiborg Corp., Oxford Varnish Corp. v___________________________________ 83 F. (2d) 764 85 F. (2d) 390 Auto Acetylene Light Co. v. Presto-O-Lite Co_ 276 Fed. 537 9 F. A. D. 471 258 U. S. 622 Automotive Equipment Co., Connecticut Tel. & Elec. Co. v________________________ 14 F. (2d) 957 10 F. A. D. 713 19 F. (2d) 990 275 U. S. 564 B. V. D. Co. v. Isaac____________________ 257 Fed. 709 Backus, Moore v________________________ 78 F. (2d) 571 296 U. S. 640 Bailey v. Pennsylvania R. Co_____________ 4 F. Supp. 786 (See Terminal Warehouse Co. v. Penn- sylvania R. Co.) Ballard Fuel Oil Terminal Corp. v. Mexican Petroleum Corp_______________________ 22 F. (2d) 437 12 F. A. D. 292 28 F. (2d) 91 12 F. A. D. 294 Ballard Oil-Burning Equipment Co. v. Mexi- can Petroleum Corp___________________ 22 F. (2d) 434 12 F. A. D. 285 28 F. (2d) 91 12 F. A. D. 294 Balme, Federal Trade Comm. v___________ 23 F. (2d) 615 11 F. A. D. 336 277 U. S. 598 Baltimore Grain Co., Federal Trade Comm. v_ 284 Fed. 886 11 F. A. D. 97 267 U. S. 586 Baltimore Paint & Color Works, Inc., Fed- eral Trade Comm. v___________________ 41 F. (2d) 474 11 F. A. D. 549 Baran v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co______ 256 Fed. 570 8 F. A. D. 352 256 Fed. 571 8 F. A. D. 354 Barber Asphalt Paving Co., Field v________117 Fed. 925 2 F. A. D. 192 194 U. S. 618 2 F. A. D. 555 Barker Painting Co. v. Brotherhood of Painters, etc__________________________ 23 F. (2d) 743 12 F. A. D. 334 276 U. S. 631 Basic Products Co., U. S. v______________ 260 Fed. 472 11 F. A. D. 17 Bates Valve Bag Corp., U. S. v___________ 39 F. (2d) 162 11 F. A. D. 481 Baumgartner, U. S. v___________________ 40 F. (2d) 49 11 F. A. D. 544 (See Boyle v. U. S. and Briley et al. v. 282 U. S. 857 U. S.) 9878—38-20302 Bauer & Cie v. O'Donnell________________ 229 U. S. 1 6 F . A . D. 795 Baush Mach. Tool Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America_____________________________ 60 F. (2d) 586 63 F. (2d) 778 289 U. S. 739 (Second case)__ 72 F. (2d) 236 293 U. S. 589 (Third case)-.. 79 F. (2d) 217 Bay, Cincinnati Packet Co. v_____________ 200 U. S. 179 2 F. , A, . D. 867 Bedford Cut Stone Co. v. Journeyman Stone Cutters7 Ass'n________________________ 9 F. (2d) 40 10 F. . A. . D. 985 274 U. S. 37 10 F. A. D. 1008 Beech-Nut Packing Co. v. Federal Trade Comm_______________________________ 264 Fed. 885 12 F. A. D. 18 257 U. S. 441 9 F. A. D. 454 Bdfi v. U. ........................ 259 Fed. 822 8 F. A. D. 496 Bell v. Lamborn________________________ 2 F. (2d) 205 10 F. A. D. 422 Bement v. National Harrow Co___________ 186 U. S. 70 2 F. A. D. 169 Bene & Sons, Inc., Proper v______________ 295 Fed. 729 10 F. A. D. 229 299 Fed. 863 Bene & Sons v. Federal Trade Comm______ 299 Fed. 468 11 F. A. D. 131 Benish Restaurant Co., Waitresses' Union v. 6 F. (2d) 568 10 F. A. D. 572 Berkey & Gay Furniture Co. v. Federal Trade Comm_________________________ 42 F. (2d) 427 11 F. A. D. 554 Bigelow v. Calumet & Hecla Mining Co____ 155 Fed. 869 3 F. A. D. 293 (Second case)-. 167 Fed. 704 3 F. A. D. 593 167 Fed. 721 3 F. A. D. 618 Bi-Metallic Inv. Co., Columbia Pictures Corp. v_____________________________ 42 F. (2d) 873 11 F. A. D. 559 Binderup v. Pathe Exchange, Inc__________ 280 Fed. 301 9 F. A. D. 546 263 U. S. 291 10 F. A. D. 1 Birmingham Trust & Saving Co. v. Atlanta, B. & A. Ry. Co______________________ 271 Fed. 743 9 F. A. D. 244 Bishop v. American Preservers1 Co________ 51 Fed. 272 1 F. A. D. 49 105 Fed. 845 2 F. A. D. 51 Bittner v. West Virginia-Pittsburgh Coal Co_ 214 Fed. 716 5 F. A. D. 635 (See U. S. ex rel. West Va.-Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Bittner.) Bittner, TJ. S. ex rel West Virginia-Pittsburgh Coal Co. v___________________________ 11 F. (2d) 93 10 F. A. D. 963 (Second case).. 15 F. (2d) 652 10 F. A. D. 968 Blackmore, Eastman Kodak Co. v_________ 277 Fed. 694 9 F. A. D. 491 Blindell v. Hagan_______________________ 54 Fed. 40 1 F. A. D. 106 56 Fed. 696 1 F. A. D. 182 Block v. Standard Distilling & Distributing Co._________________________________ 95 Fed. 978 1 F. A. D. 993 Blount Mfg. Co. v. Yale & Towne Mfg. Co.. 166 Fed. 555 3 F. A. D. 575 Blumenstock Bros. Adv. Agency v. Curtis Publishing Co________________________ 258 Fed. 927 252 U. S. 436 8 F. A. D. 599 Board of Trade v. Christie Grain & Stock Co. 116 Fed. 944 2 F. A. D. 233 121 Fed. 608 2 F. A. D. 233 125 Fed. 161 2 F. A. D. 233 198 U. S. 236 2 F. A. D. 717303 Board of Trade, Kinsey Co. v_____________ 198 U. S. 236 2 F. A. D. 717 Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus_______________ 139 Fed. 155 2 F. A. D. 755 147 Fed. 15 210 U. S. 339 Boone Inc., Ford Motor Co. v_____________ 244 Fed. 335 6 F. A. D. 1023 Booth & Co. v. Davis____________________ 127 Fed. 875 2 F. A. D. 318 131 Fed. 31 2 F. A. D. 566 195 U. S. 636 Booth Fisheries Co., Harvey v_____________ 228 Fed. 782 6 F. A. D. 391 Bopp, U. S. v-------------------------- 230 Fed. 723 232 Fed. 177 237 Fed. 283 6 F. A. D. 705 Borden Co., Peterson v___________________ 50 F. (2d) 644 Borderland Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers—.......................... 275 Fed. 871 9 F. A. D. 293 278 Fed. 56 Boston Ice Co., Corey v__________________ 207 Fed. 465 5 F. A. D. 340 Boston Store, American Graphophone Co. v. 225 Fed. 785 6 F. A. D. 838 246 U. S. 8 8 F. A. D. 154 Boyd v. New York & Harlem R. R. Co_____ 220 Fed. 174 5 F. A. D. 510 Boyle v.U.S.......................... 40 F. (2d) 49 11 F. A. D. 544 (See U. S. v. Baumgartner and Briley 282 U. S. 857 et al. v. U. S.) Boyle, Michael v. U. S__________________ 259 Fed. 803 8 F. A. D. 488 Bradley v. Federal Trade Comm___________ 31 F. (2d) 569 11 F. A. D. 397 Bradley, Federal Trade Comm. v__________ 31 F. (2d) 569 11 F. A. D. 397 Bradley, Fonotipia Ltd. v_________________171 Fed. 951 Breed v. American Tel. & Tel. Co_________166 Fed. 825 3 F. A. D. 593 Bricklayers1 Local Union, Rockwood Corp. v- 33 F. (2d) 25 11 F. A. D. 399 280 U. S. 575 Briley et al. v. U. S_____________________ 282 U. S. 857 (See U. S. v. Baumgartner and Boyle v. U.S.) Brims v. U. S..............-........... 6 F. (2d) 98 10 F. A. D. 760 (See U. S. v. Andrews Lumber & Mill 272 U. S. 549 10 F. A. D. 764 Co.) 21 F. (2d) 889 11 F. A. D. 305 Brosseau, Great Northern Ry. Co. v________ 286 Fed. 414 9 F. A. D. 860 Brotherhood of Painters, etc., Barker Paint- ing Co. v............................ 23 F. (2d) 743 12 F. A. D. 334 276 U. S. 631 Brotherhood of Ry. & S. S. Clerks v. Texas &N.O.R.Co....................... 25 F. (2d) 873 12 F. A. D. 468 25 F. (2d) 876 12 F. A. D. 474 33 F. (2d) 13 12 F. A. D. 480 281 U. S. 548 12 F. A. D. 491 Brown v. U. S_________________________ 276 U. S. 134 12 F. A. D. 384 Brown Shoe Co., Daniels v_______________ 77 F. (2d) 899 Buchalter, U. S. v_______________________ 88 F. (2d) 625 (See U. S. v. Protective Fur Dressers 301 U. S. 708 Corp. and Shapiro v. U. S.) Buchanan, Foot v_______________________113 Fed. 156 2 F. A. D. 103 Buck, Kellogg Corn Flake Co. v___________ 208 Fed. 383 5 F. A. D. 848 Buck's Stove & Range Co., Gompers v______ 33 App. D. C. 83, 516 221 U. S. 418 4 F. A. D. 760304 Buck's Stove & Range Co., Post v_________ 200 Fed. 918 4 F. A. D. 801 Buckeye Coal & Ry. Co. v. Hocking Valley Ry. Co------------------------------ 269 U. S. 42 10 F. A. D. 476 Buckeye Powder Co. v. Dupont Powder Co__ 196 Fed. 514 4 F. A. D. 560 223 Fed. 881 4 F. A. D. 597 248 U. S. 55 8 F. A. D. 359 Buckeye Powder Co. v. Hazard Powder Co__ 205 Fed. 827 Building Trades Council, Decorative Stone Co. v-------------------------------- 18 F. (2d) 333 10 F. A. D. 861 23 F. (2d) 426 11 F. A. D. 331 277 U. S. 594 Building Trades Council, Dextone Co. v____ 60 F. (2d) 47 Burley Tobacco Growers Ass'n., Liberty Warehouse Co. v---------------------- 276 U. S. 71 12 F. A. D. 395 Burton v. Clyne________________________ 258 U. S. 495 12 F. A. D. 152 Butchart v. U. S________________________ 295 Fed. 577 10 F. A. D. 216 (See U. S. v. Cowell.) Butler & Sons, Coca-Cola Co. v___________ 229 Fed. 224 6 F. A. D. 398 Butterick Co. v. Federal Trade Coram______ 4 F. (2d) 910 10 F. A. D. 460 Butterick Pub. Co. v. Federal Trade Comm__ 85 F. (2d) 522 Buyer v. Guillan------------------------271 Fed. 65 9 F. A. D. 165 C. & M. Amusement Co., Fox Film Corp. v. 58 F. (2d) 337 Caigan v. Plibrico Jointless Firebrick Co___ 74 F. (2d) 316 295 U. S. 733, 734 California Cooperative Canneries v. U. S___ 299 Fed. 908 10 F. A. D. 354 (See U. S. v. Swift & Co.) 279 U. S. 553 12 F. A. D. 683 California & Hawaiian Sugar Refining Co., Continental Candy Corp. v_____________ 270 Fed. 302 8 F. A. D. 986 291 Fed. 29 9 F. A. D. 1011 California & Hawaiian Sugar Refining Co., Fosburgh v---------------------------291 Fed. 29 9 F. A. D. 1011 California Prune & Apricot Growers, Higgins v----------------------------------- 16 F. (2d) 190 11 F. A. D. 216 273 U. S. 781 Callam & Son, Northwestern Consol. Milling Co. v________________________________ 177 Fed. 786 3 F. A. D. 759 Callaway v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry Co____ 35 F. (2d) 319 Calumet & Hecla Mining Co., Bigelow v___155 Fed. 869 3 F. A. D. 293 (Second case) 167 Fed. 704 3 F. A. D. 593 167 Fed. 721 3 F. A. D. 618 Cambria Steel Co., Graves v______________ 298 Fed. 761 10 F. A. D. 329 Camors-McConnell Co. v. McConnell______140 Fed. 412 2 F. A. D. 817 140 Fed. 987 2 F. A. D. 825 152 Fed. 321 3 F. A. D. 185 Canfield Oil Co. v. Federal Trade Comm____ 274 Fed. 571 9 F. A. D. 281 Canoe Creek Coal Co. v. Christinson_______281 Fed. 559 9 F. A. D. 565 Canoe Creek Coal Co., Sandefur v_________ 293 Fed. 379 10 F. A. D. 42 266 U. S. 42 10 F. A. D. 45 Carbonic Gas Co. v. Pure Carbonic Co_____ 4 F. Supp. 992 Carey Mfg. Co. v. Federal Trade Comm____ 29 F. (2d) 49 11 F. A. D. 374 Carter-Crume Co., Cravens v______________ 92 Fed. 479 1 F. A. D. 983 Carter-Crume Co. v. Peurrung_____________ 86 Fed. 439 1 F. A. D. 844. 99 Fed. 888305 Case Threshing Mach, Co., Indiana Mfg. Co. Y- 148 Fed. 21 3 F. A. D. 19 154 Fed. 365 3 F. A. D. 282 207 U. S. 603 Cassidy, U. S. v------------------------ 67 Fed. 698 1 F. A. D. 449 Cayser, Thomsen v----------------------- 243 U. S. 66 6 F. A. D 710 (See Thomsen v. Union Castle Mail S. S. Co.) Cement Mfrs'. Protective Ass'n, U. S. v____ 294 Fed. 390 10 F. A. D. 156 268 U. S. 588 10 F. A. D. 171 Center, Elliott Mach. Co. v_______________ 227 Fed. 124 5 F. A. D. 938 Central Coal & Coke Co. v. Hartman______111 Fed. 96 2 F. A. D. 94 Central Metal Products Corp. v. O'Brien___ 278 Fed. 827 9 F. A. D. 534 (See O'Brien v. Fackenthal.) 284 Fed. 850 Central Railroad & Banking Co. of Ga.f Clarke v______________________________ 50 Fed. 338 1 F. A. D. 17 Central Transfer Co. v. Terminal R. R. 61 F. (2d) 546 288 U. S. 469 Central Union Tel. Co., U. S. Tel. Co. v___ 202 Fed. 66 4 F. A. D. 880 229 U. S. 620 Central-West Publishing Co., U. S. v______ 245 Fed. 91 8 F. A. D. 52 (See American Press Ass'n v. U. S.) Chamber of Commerce v. Federal Trade Comm. 280 Fed. 45 12 F. A. D. 44 (Second case)__ 13 F. (2d) 673 12 F. A. D. 50 Champion Spark Plug Co., Kresge Co. v___ 3 F. (2d) 415 10 F. A. D. 438 Champlin Refining Co., Gasoline Products Co., Inc. v------------------------------- 46 F. (2d) 511 11 F. A. D. 620 Charles E. Wisewall, The________________ 74 Fed. 802 1 F. A. D. 608 86 Fed. 671 1 F. A. D. 850 Charleston Dry Dock & Machine Co. v. O'Rourke---------------------------- 274 Fed. 811 9 F. A. D. 287 Chase, American League B. B. Club v____149 N. Y. S. 6 Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Co., City of Atlanta v____________________________ 101 Fed. 900 2 F. A. D. 11 127 Fed. 23 2 F. A. D. 299 203 U. S. 390 3 F. A. D. 113 Chesapeake & 0. Fuel Co., U. S. v________105 Fed. 93 2 F. A. D. 34 115 Fed. 610 2 F. A. D. 151 Chicago Board of Trade v. Olsen__________ 262 U. S. 1 Chicago Board of Trade v. U. S.__________ 246 U. S. 231 8 F. A. D. 180 Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., Keogh v________271 Fed. 444 9 F. A. D. 212 260 U. S. 156 9 F. A. D. 220 Chicago Portrait Co. v. Federal Trade Comm. 4 F. (2d) 759 11 F. A. D. 153 269 U. S. 556 Chicago Wall Paper Mills v. General Paper Co---------------------------------- 147 Fed. 491 2 F. A. D. 1027 Christian v. International Ass'n of Ma- chinists------------------------------ 7 F. (2d) 481 10 F. A. D. 616 Christie Grain & Stock Co., Board of Trade v. 116 Fed. 944 2 F. A. D. 233 121 Fed. 608 2 F. A. D. 233 125 Fed. 161 2 F. A. D. 233 198 U. S. 236 2 F. A. D. 717 Christinson, Canoe Creek Coal Co. v_______281 Fed. 559 9 F. A. D. 565 Cilley v. United Shoe Mach. Co___________ 152 Fed. 726 3 F. A. D. 203 (Second case).. 202 Fed. 598 4 F. A. D. 555306 Cincinnati, N. 0. & T. P. Ry. Co., Thomas v. 62 Fed. 803 1 F. A. D. 266 Cincinnati Packet Co. v. Bay_____________ 200 U. S. 179 2 F. A. D. 867 Circle Flexible Conduit CoNational Elec- tric Products Corp. v__________________ 57 F. (2d) 219 Citizens' Wholesale Supply Co. v. Snyder__ 201 Fed. 907 4 F. A. D. 876 229 U. S. 609 City of Atlanta v. Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Co_____________________________ 101 Fed. 900 2 F. A. D. 11 127 Fed. 23 2 F. A. D. 299 203 U. S. 390 3 F. A. D. 113 Clabaugh v. Southern Wholesale Grocers' Ass'n_______________________________ 181 Fed. 706 3 F. A. D. 812 Claire Furnace Co., Federal Trade Comm. v. 285 Fed. 936 12 F. A. D. 183 274 U. S. 160 12 F. A. D. 202 Clark Blade & Razor Co. v. Gillette Safety Razor Co_____________________________ 82 ¥. (2d) 707 Clarke v. Central Railroad & Banking Co. of Ga________________________________ 50 Fed. 338 1 F. A. D. 17 Clay Products Co., In re Great Eastern_____(Not reported) 6 F. A. D. 1039 Clements v. U. S________________________ 297 Fed. 206 266 U. S. 605 Cleaves v. Peterboro Basket Co..........__ 54 F. (2d) 101 Clyne, Burton v________________________ 258 U. S. 495 12 F. A. D. 152 Coal Dealers' Ass'n of Calif., TJ. S. v______ 85 Fed. 252 1 F. A. D. 749 Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Coca-Cola Co_____ 269 Fed. 796 8 F. A. D. 937 Coca-Cola Co. v. Butler & Sons___________ 229 Fed. 224 6 F. A. D. 398 Coca-Cola Co., Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v____ 269 Fed. 796 8 F. A. D. 937 Coca-Cola Co. v. Deacon Brown Bottling Co- 200 Fed. 105 Coca-Cola Co. v. Gay-Ola Co______________ 200 Fed. 720 229 U. S. 613 Coggins Co., Kunihiro v_________________ 12 F. (2d) 894 10 F. A. D. 695 273 U. S. 723 Cohen y.U.S.......................... 295 Fed. 633 10 F. A. D. 224 Cohen Grocery Co., U. S. v_______________ 264 Fed. 218 255 U. S. 81 Cohen, Harms v________________________ 279 Fed. 276 9 F. A. D. 542 Cole Motor Car Co. v. Hurst____________228 Fed. 280 6 F. A. D. 385 Cole Transp. Co. v. White Star Line_______186 Fed. 63 4 F. A. D. 36 225 U. S. 704 Colgate & Co., U. S. v........ .......... 253 Fed. 522 8 F. A.D. 320 250 U. S. 300 8 F. A. D. 331 Columbia Pictures Corp. v. Bi-Metallic Inv. Co__________________________________ 42 F. (2d) 873 11 F. A. D. 559 Columbus Heating & Ventilating Co. v. Pittsburgh Bldg. Trades Council_________ 17 F. (2d) 806 10 F. A. D. 853 Comer, Waterhouse v____________________ 55 Fed. 149 1 F. A. D. 119 Connecticut Tel. & Elec. Co. v. Automotive Equipment Co........................ 14 F. (2d) 957 10 F. A. D. 713 19 F. (2d) 990 275 U. S. 564 Connolly, Union Sewer-Pipe Co. v_________ 99 Fed. 354 2 F. A. D. 1 184 U. S. 540 2 F. A. D. 118307 Continental Candy Corp. v. Calif. & Hawai- ian Sugar Refining Co_________________ 270 Fed. 302 8 F. A. D. 986 291 Fed. 29 9 F. A. D. 1011 Continental Insurance Co. v. U. S.________ 259 U. S. 156 9 F. A. D. 588 (See U. S. v. Heading Company.) Continental Securities Co. v. Michigan Cent. R. Co............................... 16 F. (2d) 378 274 U. S. 741 10 F. A. D. 841 Continental Tobacco Co., Whitwell v------- 125 Fed. 454 2 F. A. D. 271 Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Voight & Sons Co.................................. 148 Fed. 939 3 F. A. D. 44 212 U. S. 227 3 F. A. D. 480 Corey v. Boston Ice Co___________________ 207 Fed. 465 5 F. A. D. 340 Corey v. Independent Ice Co______________ 207 Fed. 459 5 F. A. D. 330 Corn Products Co., U. S. v_______________ 234 Fed. 964 6 F. A. D. 557 249 U. S. 621 Corn Products Co. v. Wilder Mfg. Co------ 11 Ga. App. 588 236 U. S. 165 6 F. A. D. 544 Corningy In re__________________________ 51 Fed. 205 1 F. A. D. 33 Coronado Coal Co.. United Mine Workers v_ 258 Fed. 829 8 F. A. D. 459 (See Dowd v. United Mine Workers and 259 U. S. 344 9 F. A. D. 642 Finley v. United Mine Workers.) 300 Fed. 972 10 F. A. D. 393 268 U. S. 295 10 F. A. D. 378 Corrigan, Truax v______________________ 20 Ariz. 7 257 U. S. 312 9 F. A. D. 396 Council of Defense v. International Magazine Co.................................- 267 Fed. 390 8 F. A. D. 858 Cowell, U. S. v_________________________ 243 Fed. 730 6 F. A. D. 1003 (See Butchart v. U. S.) 295 Fed. 577 10 F. A. D. 216 Cravens v. Carter-Crume Co______________ 92 Fed. 479 1 F. A. D. 983 Cream of Wheat Co. v. Federal Trade Comm_ 14 F. (2d) 40 11 F. A. D. 184 Cream of Wheat Co., Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v____________________________ 224 Fed. 566 5 F. A. D. 860 227 Fed. 46 5 F. A. D. 873 Creamery Package Mfg. Co., Virtue v______ 179 Fed. 115 3 F. A. D. 794 227 U. S. 8 4 F. A. D. 808 Cudahy Packing Co., Frey & Son, Inc. v.. 228 Fed. 209 6 F. A. D. 375 232 Fed. 640 6 F. A. D. 383 (Not reported) 6 F. A. D. 876 243 Fed. 205 6 F. A. D. 996 261 Fed. 65 8 F. A. D. 513 256 U. S. 208 8 F. A. D. 517 Cunard S. S. Co., U. S. Navigation Co. v_- 39 F. (2d) 204 281 U. S. 759 50 F. (2d) 83 284 U. S. 474 11 F. A. D. 469 Curtis Publishing Co., Blumenstock Bros. Adv. Agency v________________________ 258 Fed. 927 252 U. S. 436 8 F. A. D. 599 Curtis Publishing Co. v. Federal Trade Comm_______________________________ 270 Fed. 881 8 F. A. D. 1003 260 U. S. 568 8 F. A. D. 1053 Curtis Publishing Co., Pictorial Review Co. v. 255 Fed. 206 8 F. A. D. 337 Continental Candy Corp. v. Calif. & Hawai-308 Dail-Overland Co., Quinlivan v____________ 274 Fed. 56 8 F. A. D. 638 (See Dail-Overland Co. v. Willys-Over- land, Inc.) Dail-Overland Co. v. Willys-Overland, Inc.- 263 Fed. 171 8 F. A. D. 607 274 Fed. 56 8 F. A. D. 638 Daniels v. Brown Shoe Co________________ 77 F. (2d) 899 Danville Brick Co., United Brick Workers v_ 283 Fed. 909 9 F. A. D. 746 Davis, Booth & Co. v____________________ 127 Fed. 875 2 F. A. D. 318 131 Fed. 31 2 F. A. D. 566 195 U. S. 636 Davis v. Henry_________________________ 266 Fed. 261 8 F. A. D. 850 Day v. U. S___________________________ 19 F. (2d) 21 10 F. A. D. 904 275 U. S. 535 Deacon Brown Bottling Co., Coca-Cola Co. v_ 200 Fed. 105 Dean v. International Longshoremen's Ass1 n~ 17 F. Supp. 748 Dean v. Mayo__________________________ 8 F. Supp. 73 9 F. Supp. 459 82 F. (2d) 554 Debs, U.S.v__________________________ 64 Fed. 724 1 F. A. D. 322 Debs, In re_____________________________ 158 U. S. 564 1 F. A. D. 565 Decorative Stone Co. v. Building Trades Council______________________________ 18 F. (2d) 333 10 F. A. D. 861 23 F. (2d) 426 11 F. A. D. 331 277 U. S. 594 Deering, Duplex Printing Press Co. v______ 247 Fed. 192 8 F. A. D. 119 252 Fed. 722 8 F. A. D. 282 254 U. S. 443 9 F. A. D. Ill De Forest Radio Co., Radio Corporation of America v___________________________ 47 F. (2d) 606 12 F. A. D. 382 (See Lord v. Radio Corp. of America.) 283 U. S. 847 De Koven v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co____216 Fed. 955 5 F. A. D. 470 Delavan v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co____________________________ 137 N. Y. S. 207 139 N. Y. S. 17 154 App. Div. 8 Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Frank_______110 Fed. 689 2 F. A. D. 81 Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Kutter_______147 Fed. 51 2 F. A. D. 1021 203 U. S. 588 Dennehy v. McNulta____________________ 86 Fed. 825 1 F. A. D. 855 176 U. S. 683 Denver & R. G. R. R. Co., Ketchum v______ 248 Fed. 106 8 F. A. D. 130 Detroit Tile & Mosaic Co. v. Mason Con- tractors1 Ass'n________________________ 38 F. (2d) 284 12 F. A. D. 945 48 F. (2d) 729 12 F. A. D. 952 Dextone Co. v. Building Trades Council____ 60 F. (2d) 47 Diamond State Fibre Co., Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co. v________________________ 268 Fed. 121 8 F. A. D. 904 Dick Co. v. Henry______________________149 Fed. 424 224 U. S. 1 6 F. A. D. 731 Dickinson Fuel Co., Glenn Coal Co. v______ 72 F. (2d) 885 Dieners Cash & Carry Cleaners, Inc. v. Vogue Dry Cleaning___________________ 58 Wash. L. R. 11 F. A. D. 479 34. Discher, U. S. v________________________ 255 Fed. 719 8 F. A. D. 349309 Dobson v. Farbenfabriken, etc. Co_________ 206 Fed. 125 Dodge Bros., Inc., Zimmers v________— 21 F. (2d) 152 11 F. A. D. 261 Dowd v. United Mine Workers__________ 235 Fed. 1 6 F. A. D. 649 (See United Mine Workers v. Coronado Coal Co.) Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. Jaynes Drug Co,. 149 Fed. 838 3 F. A. D. 103 Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. Park & Sons Co__ 164 Fed. 803 3 F. A. D. 470 220 U. S. 373 4 F. A. D. 1 Dueber Watch Case Mfg. Co. v. Howard Watch & Clock Co_____ _ _______ 55 Fed. 851 1 F. A. D. 178 66 Fed. 637 1 F. A. D. 421 Duffey, Fraser v___________ _ _____ 196 Fed. 900 Duncan & Sons, E. H. Rohde Leather Co. v__ 15 F. (2d) 103 10 F. A. D. 724 Dunn & Powell, Inc., Arkansas Brokerage > 6 173 Fed. 899 3 F. A. D. 752 Duovac Radio Tube Cory., Radio Corporation of America v_______ ____ _ _ 6 F. Supp. 275 Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering_____ 247 Fed. 192 8 F. A. D. 119 252 Fed. 722 8 F. A. D. 282 254 U. S. 443 9 F. A. D. 111 Du Pont Powder Co., Buckeye Powder Co. v_ 196 Fed. 514 4 F. A. D. 560 223 Fed. 881 4 F. A. D. 597 248 U. S. 55 8 F. A. D. 359 Du Pont de Nemours & Co., U. S. v------- 188 Fed. 127 4 F. A. D. 339 273 Fed. 869 9 F. A. D. 267 E. C. Knight Co., U. S. v________________ 60 Fed. 306 1 F. A. D. 250 60 Fed. 934 1 F. A. D. 258 156 U. S. 1 1 F. A. D. 379 Eagle Glass & Mfg. Co. v. Rowe_______ 245 U. S. 275 8 F. A. D. 41 Eastern States Retail Lumber Assfn, U. S. v_ 201 Fed. 581 4 F. A. D. 856 234 U. S. 600 4 F. A. D. 863 Eastman Kodak Co. v. Blackmore_ _ ____ 277 Fed. 694 9 F. A. D. 491 Eastman Kodak Co. v. Federal Trade Comm. 7 F. (2d) 994 10 F. A. D. 915 274 U. S. 619 10 F. A. D. 1042 Eastman Kodak Co., Loeb v__ ____ 183 Fed. 704 3 F. A. D. 975 Eastman Kodak Co., Southern Photo Mate- rial Co. v___________ __ _ _________ 234 Fed. 955 6 F. A. D. 541 295 Fed. 98 10 F. A. D. 815 273 U. S. 359 10 F. A. D. 822 Eastman Kodak Co., U. S. v_____________ 226 Fed. 62 5 F. A. D. 881 230 Fed. 522 5 F. A. D. 910 Ebeling v. Foster & Kleiser Co _____ 12 F. Supp. 489 Eclair Film Co., Motion Picture Patents 9 < 208 Fed. 416 5 F. A. D. 343 > £ "o 62 Fed. 801 1 F. A. D. 262 64 Fed. 27 1 F. A. D. 311 Elliott Machine Co. v. Center_____________ 227 Fed. 124 5 F. A. D. 938 Ellis v. Inman, Poulsen & Co _ ____ 124 Fed. 956 2 F. A. D. 268 131 Fed. 182 2 F. A. D. 577 Elton, U. S. v__ __________ _ _____ 222 Fed. 428 5 F. A. D. 830 Empire Gas & Fuel Co., Inc. v. Lone Star Gas Co., Inc________ __ _ __ _______ 289 Fed. 826 265 U. S. 585 Evans, Lowenstein v___________ _______- 69 Fed. 908 1 F. A. D. 598310 Ex parte United States, Petitioner__________ 226 U. S. 420 4 F. A. D. 507 (See U. S. v. Terminal R. R. Ass'n.) Excelsior Motor Mfg. & Supply Co. v. Sound Equipment........................... 73 F. (2d) 725 294 U. S. 706 F. A. D. Andrea, Inc. v. Radio Corporation of America........................... 14 F. Supp. 226 88 F. (2d) 474 300 U. S. 681 Fackenthal, O'Brien v___________________ 5 F. (2d) 389 10 F. A. D. 487 (See Central Metal Products Corp. v. O'Brien.) Farbenfabriken, etc. Co., Dobson v_________ 206 Fed. 125 Farmers' Livestock Comm. Co. v. U. S_____ 54 F. (2d) 375 Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co............................... 60 Fed. 803 1 F. A. D. 257 Fashion Originators9 Guild, Filene's Sons Co. v-------------------------------- 14 F. Supp. 353 Fauntleroy, U. S. ex rel. v. Levy__________ 268 U. S. 390 12 F. A. D. 220 (See U. S. v. Nat'l Malleable & Steel Castings Co.) Federal Baseball Club, National League V— 269 Fed. 681 8 F. A. D. 966 259 U. S. 200 8 F. A. D. 978 Federal Trade Comm., Aluminum Co. of America v___________________________ 284 Fed. 401 9 F. A. D. 763 299 Fed. 361 10 F. A. D. 332 261 U. S. 616 Federal Trade Comm. v. American Snuff Co. 38 F. (2d) 547 11 F. A. D. 505 Federal Trade Comm. v. American Tobacco Co.................................. 283 Fed. 999 9 F. A. D. 751 264 U. S. 298 10 F. A. D. 134 (Second case)-- 9 F. (2d) 570 10 F. A. D. 927 274 U. S. 543 10 F. A. D. 1041 Federal Trade Comm., Arkansas Wholesale Grocers' Ass'n v...................... 18 F. (2d) 866 11 F. A. D. 244 275 U. S. 533 Federal Trade Comm., Armand Co. v_______ 78 F. (2d) 707 84 F. (2d) 973 296 U. S. 650 Federal Trade Comm., Arrow-Hart & Hege- man Electric Co. v____________________ 65 F. (2d) 336 291 U. S. 587 Federal Trade Comm. v. Balme___________ 23 F. (2d) 615 11 F. A. D. 336 277 U. S. 598 Federal Trade Comm. v. Baltimore Grain Co_ 284 Fed. 886 11 F. A. D. 97 267 U. S. 586 Federal Trade Comm. v. Baltimore Paint & Color Works, Inc_____________________ 41 F. (2d) 474 11 F. A. D. 549 Federal Trade Comm., Beech-Nut Packing Co. v________________________L__..... 264 Fed. 885 12 F. A. D. 18 257 U. S. 441 9 F. A. D. 454 Federal Trade Comm., Bene & Sons v______ 299 Fed. 468 11 F. A. D. 131 Federal Trade Comm., Berkey & Gay Furni- ture Co. v____________________________ 42 F. (2d) 427 11 F. A. D. 554311 Federal Trade Comm. v. Bradley__________ 31 F. (2d) 569 11 F. A. D. 397 Federal Trade Comm., Bradley v__________ 31 F. (2d) 569 11 F. A. D. 397 Federal Trade Comm., Butterick Co. v______ 4 F. (2d) 910 10 F. A. D. 460 Federal Trade Comm., Butterick Pub. Co. v_ 85 F. (2d) 522 Federal Trade Comm., Canfield Oil Co. v___ 274 Fed. 571 9 F. A. D. 281 Federal Trade Comm., Carey Mfg. Co. v---- 29 F. (2d) 49 11 F. A. D. 374 Federal Trade Comm., Chamber of Com- merce v______________________________ 280 Fed. 45 12 F. A. D. 44 (Second case)__ 13 F. (2d) 673 12 F. A. D. 50 Federal Trade Comm., Chicago Portrait Co. v_ 4 F. (2d) 759 11 F. A. D. 153 269 U. S. 556 Federal Trade Comm. v. Claire Furnace Co_ 285 Fed. 936 12 F. A. D. 183 274 U. S. 160 12 F. A. D. 202 Federal Trade Comm., Cream of Wheat Co. v_ 14 F. (2d) 40 11 F. A. D. 184 Federal Trade Comm., Curtis Publishing Co, v________________________________ 270 Fed. 881 8 F. A. D. 1003 260 U. S. 568 8 F. A. D. 1053 Federal Trade Comm., Eastman Kodak Co. v_ 7 F. (2d) 994 10 F. A. D. 915 274 U. S. 619 10 F. A. D. 1042 Federal Trade Comm., Fox Film Corp. v____ 296 Fed. 353 11 F. A. D. 123 Federal Trade Comm., Fruit Growers' Ex- press, Inc. v_________________________ 274 Fed. 205 9 F. A. D. 278 257 U. S. 627 261 U. S. 629 Federal Trade Comm. v. Good-Grape Co____ 45 F. (2d) 70 11 F. A. D. 600 Federal Trade Comm. v. Gratz____________ 258 Fed. 314 11 F. A. D. 12 253 U. S. 421 9 F. A. D. 66 Federal Trade Comm., Guarantee Veterinary Co. v_______________________________ 285 Fed. 853 11 F. A. D. 85 Federal Trade Comm., Gulf Refining Co. V— 282 Fed. 81 9 F. A. D. 340 261 U. S. 463 9 F. A. D. 359 Federal Trade Comm. v. Hammond-Snyder Co., Inc_____________________________ 284 Fed. 886 11 F. A. D. 97 267 U. S. 586 Federal Trade Comm., Harriet Hubbard Ayer, Inc., v______________________________ 15 F. (2d) 274 10 F. A. D. 767 273 U. S. 759 Federal Trade Comm., Heuser v___________ 4 F. (2d) 632 11 F. A. D. 147 Federal Trade Comm., Hills Bros, v_______ 9 F. (2d) 481 10 F. A. D. 635 270 U. S. 662 Federal Trade Comm., Hurst & Son v______ 268 Fed. 874 11 F. A. D. 33 Federal Trade Comm., Indiana Quartered Oak Co. v____________________________ 26 F. (2d) 340 11 F. A. D. 352 278 U. S. 623 Federal Trade Comm., International Shoe Co. v________________________________ 29 F. (2d) 518 12 F. A. D. 609 280 U. S. 291 12 F. A. D. 619 Federal Trade Comm. v. Jones Co., Inc---- 284 Fed. 886 11 F. A. D. 97 267 U. S. 586 Federal Trade Comm., Juvenile Shoe Co., Inc. v_______________________________ 289 Fed. 57 11 F. A. D. 104 263 U. S. 705 Federal Trade Comm. v. Kay_____________ 35 F. (2d) 160 11 F. A. D. 462 281 U. S. 764 312 Federal Trade Comm., Kinney-Rome Co. v__ 275 Fed. 665 11 F. A. D. 39 Federal Trade Comm. v. Klesner__________ 6 F. (2d) 701 12 F. A. D. 237 274 U. S. 145 12 F. A. D. 241 25 F. (2d) 524 12 F. A. D. 254 280 U. S. 19 12 F. A. D. 261 Federal Trade Comm., Kobi Co. v_________ 23 F. (2d) 41 11 F. A. D. 317 Federal Trade Comm., Lighthouse Rug Co. v_ 35 F. (2d) 163 11 F. A. D. 453 Federal Trade Comm., Loose-Wiles Biscuit Co. v_______________________________ 299 Fed. 733 10 F. A. D. 339 266 U. S. 613 Federal Trade Comm. v. Lorillard Co______ 283 Fed. 999 9 F. A. D. 751 264 U. S. 298 10 F. A. D. 134 Federal Trade Comm., Maloney Oil & Mfg. Co. v_____ _______ ___________ 282 Fed. 81 9 F. A. T>. 340 261 U. S. 463 9 F. A. D. 359 Federal Trade Comm., Masland Duraleather Co. v _______ _ _ _____ _______ 34 F. (2d) 733 11 F. A. D. 429 Federal Trade Comm. v. Maynard Coal Co__ 22 F. (2d) 873 11 F. A. D. 313 Federal Trade Comm., Mennen Co. v.____ 288 Fed. 774 9 F. A. D. 931 262 U. S. 759 Federal Trade Comm. v. Millers' National Federation __ ____ _ _______ 23 F. (2d) 968 12 F. A. D. 340 47 F. (2d) 428 12 F. A. D. 352 Federal Trade Comm., Moir v__________ 12 F. (2d) 22 11 F. A. D. 166 Federal Trade Comm. v. Morrissey________ 47 F. (2d) 101 11 F. A. D. 635 Federal Trade Comm., National Biscuit Co. v____________ __ __ _____________ 299 Fed. 733 10 F. A. D. 339 266 U. S. 613 Federal Trade Comm., National Harness Mfrs' Ass}n v_____ _ ______________ 261 Fed. 170 12 F. A. D. 1 268 Fed. 705 12 F. A. D. 4 Federal Trade Comm., Nor den Ship Supply Co., Inc., v_______________ —------ 277 Fed. 206 11 F. A. D. 73 258 U. S. 618 Federal Trade Comm., Ohio Leather Co. v._ 45 F. (2d) 39 11 F. A. D. 606 Federal Trade Comm., Oppenheim, Oberndorf & Co., Inc. v______ _____ __________ 5 F. (2d) 574 11 F. A. D. 161 Federal Trade Comm., Ostermoor & Co., Inc. v__ _ _____________________ 16 F. (2d) 962 11 F. A. D. 226 Federal Trade Comm., Pacific States Paper Trade ylss'w v_________ __________ 4 F. (2d) 457 10 F. A. D. 441 273 U. S. 52 12 F. A. D. 271 Federal Trade Comm. v. Paramount Famous- Lasky Corp________ _ _ — ------- 57 F. (2d) 152 Federal Trade Comm., Pear sail Butter Co. v_ 292 Fed. 720 10 F. A. D. 37 Federal Trade Comm., Procter & Gamble Co. v________________ _ ------- 11 F. (2d) 47 11 F. A. D. 180 273 U. S. 717 Federal Trade Comm. v. Pure Silk Hosiery Mills, Inc______________ _ _______ 3 F. (2d) 105 11 F. A. D. 140 Federal Trade Comm., Q. R. S. Music Co. v__ 12 F. (2d) 730 10 F. A. D. 686 Federal Trade Comm., Raladam Co. v______ 42 F. (2d) 430 12 F. A. D. 959 283 U. S. 643 12 F. A. D. 975313 Federal Trade Comm., Raymond Bros.-Clark Co. v________ _________ 280 Fed. 529 11 F. A. D. 80 263 U. S. 565 10 F. A. D. 117 Federal Trade Comm., Royal Baking Powder Co. v_____ _ _ ___ 281 Fed. 744 12 F. A. D. 106 (Second case) _ _ (Sup. Ct. D. C.) 12 F. A. D. 120 (Sup. Ct. D. C.) 12 F. A. D. 143 32 F. (2d) 966 12 F. A. D. 148 280 U. S. 572 Federal Trade Comm., Sears, Roebuck & Co. v_ _____________ _ _ ___________ 258 Fed. 307 11 F. A. D. 1 Federal Trade Comm., Silver Co. v________ 289 Fed. 985 9 F. A. D. 948 292 Fed. 752 11 F. A. D. 120 Federal Trade Comm., Sinclair Refining Co. v__ __ ____________ _ _ ________ 276 Fed. 686 9 F. A. D. 334 261 U. S. 463 9 F. A. D. 359 Federal Trade Comm. v. Smith____ ______ 34 F. (2d) 323 11 F. A. D. 423 Federal Trade Comm., Southern Hardware Jobbers* Ass'n v__ _____ ___ 290 Fed. 773 11 F. A. D. 108 Federal Trade Comm. v. Standard Education Soc_________________________________ 14 F. (2d) 947 11 F. A. D. 203 Federal Trade Comm., Standard Oil Co. {N. J.) v____________________________ 282 Fed. 81 9 F. A. D. 340 261 U. S. 463 9 F. A. D. 359 Federal Trade Comm., Standard Oil Co. of New York v ____________ ___ 273 Fed. 478 9 F. A. D. 260 Federal Trade Comm., Swift & Co. v______ 8 F. (2d) 595 10 F. A. D. 741 272 U. S. 554 10 F. A. D. 751 Federal Trade Comm., Temple Anthracite Coal Co. v____ __ _ __ ___ 51 F. (2d) 656 Federal Trade Comm., Texas Co. v_________ 273 Fed. 478 9 F. A. D. 260 Federal Trade Comm. v. Thatcher Mfg. Co__ 5 F. (2d) 615 10 F. A. D. 494 272 U. S. 554 10 F. A. D. 751 Federal Trade Comm., Toledo Pipe-Thread- ing Mach. Co. v____ ________ _ _ 6 F. (2d) 876 11 F. A. D. 164 11 F. (2d) 337 10 F. A. D. 658 Federal Trade Comm., Utah-Idaho Sugar Co. v________________________________ 22 F. (2d) 122 11 F. A. D. 295 Federal Trade Comm., Vivaudou, Inc. v____ 54 F. (2d) 273 Federal Trade Comm., Ward Baking Co. v__ 264 Fed. 330 12 F. A. D. 14 Federal Trade Comm., Western Meat Co. v _ 1 F. (2d) 95 10 F. A. D. 729 4 F. (2d) 223 10 F. A. D. 737 272 U. S. 554 10 F. A. D. 751 33 F. (2d) 824 11 F. A. D. 417 Federal Trade Comm., Western Sugar Refin- ery Co. v___________ __ ____________ 275 Fed. 725 11 F. A. D. 47 Federal Trade Comm., Wholesale Grocers' Ass'n v___________ ____ _________ 277 Fed. 657 9 F. A. D. 511 Federal Trade Comm., Winsted Hosiery Co. v________________________________ 272 Fed. 957 12 F. A. D. 28 258 U. S. 483 12 F. A.D. 33 Federal Trade Comm., Winslow v_________ 277 Fed. 206 11 F. A. D. 73 258 U. S. 618 Federal Trade Comm., Raymond Bros.-Clark314 Federal Trade Comm., Winston Co. v______ 3 F. (2d) 961 11 F. A. D. 143 269 U. S. 555 Federal Trade Comm.y Woolley v_......... 22 F. (2d) 122 11 F. A. D. 295 Fenster, Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v_______219 Fed. 755 5 F. A. D. 506 Field v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co________117 Fed. 925 2 F. A. D. 192 194 U. S. 618 2 F. A. D. 555 Filene's Sons Co. v. Fashion Originators7 Guild________________________________ 14 F. Supp. 353 Finley v. United Mine Workers___________ 300 Fed. 972 10 F. A. D. 393 (See United Mine Workers v. Coronado 268 U. S. 295 10 F. A, D. 378 Coal Co.) First Nat}l Bank v. Missouri Glass Co_____152 S. W. (Mo.) 378 First National Pictures, Inc., v. GrobasH46 F. (2d) 813 11 F. A. D. 615 First National Pictures, Inc. v. Robison____ 72 F. (2d) 37 293 U. S. 609 293 U. S. 631 First National Pictures, Inc., U. S. v______ 34 F. (2d) 815 12 F. A. D. 819 282 U. S. 44 12 F. A. D. 829 51 F. (2d) 552 12 F. A. D. 838 First Trust & Savings Bank, McCauley v_- 276 Fed. 117 9 F. A. D. 332 Fischer, Aeolian Co. v___________________ 27 F. (2d) 560 12 F. A. D. 510 29 F. (2d) 679 12 F. A. D. 520 (Second case).. 35 F. (2d) 34 12 F. A. D. 538 40 F. (2d) 189 12 F. A. D. 547 Fish Credit Association, Inc., U. S. v______ 85 F. (2d) 544 (See U. S. v. Lanza.) 299 U. S. 609 Fitzgerald v. U. S----------------------- 6 F. (2d) 156 10 F. A. D. 541 (See U. S. v. Nat'l Malleable & Steel 269 U. S. 570 Castings Co.) Fleetway v. Public Service Interstate Transp. Co---------------------------------- 4 F. Supp. 482 72 F. (2d) 761 293 U. S. 626 Fleitmann v. United Gas Improvement Co-- 211 Fed. 103 5 F. A. D. 425 240 U. S. 27 5 F. A. D. 429 Fleitmann v. Welsbach Street Lighting Co__ 240 U. S. 27 5 F. A. D. 429 (See Fleitmann v. United Gas Improve- ment Co.) Florists' Telegraph Delivery Assfn, Adolph Meyer, Inc. v........................ 16 F. Supp. 783 Fonotipia Ltd. v. Bradley________________ 171 Fed. 951 Foot v. Buchanan_______________________113 Fed. 156 2 F. A. D. 103 Ford Motor Co. v. Boone, Inc_____________ 244 Fed. 335 6 F. A. D. 1023 Ford Motor Co. v. International Automobile League______________________________ 209 Fed. 235 Ford Motor Co. v. Union Motor Sales Co___ 225 Fed. 373 6 F. A. D. 182 244 Fed. 156 6 F. A. D. 1008 Forrest v. U. S......................... 277 Fed. 873 9 F. A. D. 523 258 U. S. 629315 Fosburgh v. California & Hawaiian Sugar Refining Co__________________________291 Fed. 29 9 F. A. D. 1011 (See Continental Candy Corp. v. Calif. <& Hawaiian Sugar Refining Co.) Foss v. Portland Terminal Co____________ 283 Fed. 204 287 Fed. 33 9 F. A. D. 877 Foster & Kleiser Co., Ebeling v___________ 12 F. Supp. 489 Foster & Kleiser Co. v. Special Site Sign Co. 85 F. (2d) 742 299 U. S. 613 Fox Film Corp. v. C. & M. Amusement Co- 58 F. (2d) 337 Fox Film Corp. v. Federal Trade Comm____ 296 Fed. 353 11 F. A. D. 123 Frank, Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v_______ 110 Fed. 689 2 F. A. D. 81 Frank, Union Pac. R. Co. v______________ 226 Fed. 906 5 F. A. D. 914 Fraser v. Duffey________________________ 196 Fed. 900 Frey & Son, Inc. v. Cudahy Packing Co____ 228 Fed. 209 6 F. A. D. 375 232 Fed. 640 6 F. A. D. 383 (Not reported) 6 F. A. D. 876 243 Fed. 205 6 F. A. D. 996 261 Fed. 65 8 F. A. D. 513 256 U. S. 208 8 F. A. D. 517 Frey & Son, Inc. v. Welch Grape Juice Co 240 Fed. 114 6 F. A. D. 861 (Not reported) 6 F. A. D. 865 261 Fed. 68 8 F. A. D. 516 251 U. S. 551 Fruit Growers' Express, Inc. v. Federal Trade Comm_________________________ 274 Fed. 205 9 F. A. D. 278 257 U. S. 627 261 U. S. 629- Fur Dressers' & Fur Dyers' Ass'n, U. S. v. 5 F. (2d) 869 10 F. A. D. 511 Gable v. Vonnegut Machinery Co__________ 274 Fed. 66 8 F. A. D. 670 Gallup Electric Light Co. v. Pacific Improve- ment Co_____________________________ 113 Pac. (N. M.) 848 Gasoline Products Co., Inc. v. Champlin Refining Co__________________________ 46 F. (2d) 511 11 F. A. D. 620 Gates, Thorburn v_______________________ 225 Fed. 613 6 F. A. D. 197 Gauger Co., American Export Door Corp. v_ 154 Wash. 514 12 F. A. D. 884 Gauger Co., etc., and Durable Door Co., American Export Door Corp. v_________ 154 Wash. 701 12 F. A. D. 897 Gay-Ola Co., Coca-Cola Co. v_____________ 200 Fed. 720 229 U. S. 613 Geddes v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co____ 245 Fed. 225 8 F. A. D. 57 254 U. S. 590 9 F. A. D. 153 Geiger, Otis Elevator v___________________ 107 Fed. 131 2 F. A. D. 66 General Bronze Corp., Van Kannel Revolving Door Co. v___________________________ 6 F. Supp. 518 77 F. (2d) 300 General Electric Co. v. Minneapolis Elec. Lamp Co____________________________ 10 F. (2d) 851 10 F. A. D. 655 7 F. (2d) 1020 General Electric Co., U. S. v___________— 15 F. (2d) 715 10 F. A. D. 790 272 U. S. 476 10 F, A. D. 799 General Electric Co. v. Wise______________ 119 Fed. 922 2 F. A. D. 205 Fosburgh v. California & Hawaiian Sugar Refining Co 291 Fed. 29 9 F. A. D. 1011 (See Continental Candy Corp. v. Calif. <& Hawaiian Sugar Refining Co.)316 General Film Co., Imperial Film Exchange v. 244 Fed. 985 6 F. A. D. 1043 General Inv. Co. v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co__________________________________ 269 Fed. 235 8 F. A. D. 926 (See General Inv. Co. v. New York Cent. 260 U. S. 261 9 F. A. D. 187 R. Co.) General Inv. Co. v. New York Central R. R. Co__________________________________271 U. S. 228 10 F. A. D. 483 (See General Inv. Co. v. Lake Shore & 23 F. (2d) 822 11 F. A. D. 324 M. S. Ry. Co.) 277 U. S. 588 General Motors Corp., Pick Mfg. Co. v_____ 80 F. (2d) 641 299 U. S. 3 General Payer Co., Chicago Wall Paper Mills v______________________________ 147 Fed. 491 2 F. A. D. 1027 General Paper Co. v. U. S_______________201 U. S. 117 2 F. A. D. 945 (See Nelson v. U. S.) Gerli v. Silk Ass'n of America____________ 36 F. (2d) 959 11 F. A. D. 393 Gibbs v. McNeeley______________________ 102 Fed. 594 2 F. A. D. 25 107 Fed. 210 2 F. A. D. 71 118 Fed. 120 2 F. A. D. 194 Gibson Canning Co. v. American Can Co___ 1 F. Supp. 242 Gillette Safety Razor CoClark Blade & Razor Co. v__________________________ 82 F. (2d) 707 Glenn Coal Co. v. Dickinson Fuel Co______ 72 F. (2d) 885 Goldman, U. S. v_______________________ 277 U. S. 229 12 F. A. D. 323 (See U. S. v. National Cash Register Co. and U. S. v. Whiffen.) Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co______ 33 App. D. C. 83, 516. 221 U. S. 418 4 F. A. D. 760 Gompers, U. S. v_______________________ 40 App. D. C. 293 233 U. S. 604 4 F. A. D. 792 Good-Grape Co., Federal Trade Comm. 45 F. (2d) 70 11 F. A. D. 600 Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Baran v_____ 256 Fed. 570 8 F. A. D. 352 256 Fed. 571 8 F. A. D. 354 Goshen Rubber Works v. Single Tube Auto & Bicycle Tire Co_____________________ 166 Fed. 431 3 F. A. D. 571 Grand Jury, In re_______________________ 62 Fed. 840 1 F. A. D. 301 Grand Jury, In re Charge to______________151 Fed. 834 3 F. A. D. 156 Gratz, Federal Trade Comm. v____________ 258 Fed. 314 11 F. A. D. 12 253 U. S. 421 9 F. A. D. 66 Graves v. Cambria Steel Co_______________ 298 Fed. 761 10 F. A. D. 329 Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Cream of Wheat Co____________________________ 224 Fed. 566 5 F. A. D. 860 227 Fed. 46 5 F. A. D. 873 Great Lakes Towing Co., U. S. v__________ 208 Fed. 733 5 F. A. D. 347 217 Fed. 656 5 F. A. D. 368 245 U. S. 675 Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Brosseau________ 286 Fed. 414 9 F. A. D. 860 Great Northern Ry. Co. v. InVl Ass'n of Machinists___________________________ 283 Fed. 557 9 F. A. D. 735 Great Western Sugar Co., U. S. v_________ 39 F. (2d) 149 12 F. A. D. 805 (Second case)._ 39 F. (2d) 152 12 F. A. D. 812317 Greater N. Y. Live Poultry Cham. of Comm., U. S. v_____________________________ 30 F. (2d) 939 12 F. A. D. 586 (See also U. S. v. Weiner.) (Second case)._ 33 F. (2d) 1005 12 F. A. D. 589 34 F. (2d) 967 12 F. A. D. 591 47 F. (2d) 156 12 F. A. D. 600 283 U. S. 837 (Third case).. 44 F. (2d) 393 12 F. A. D. 596 53 F. (2d) 518 291 U. S. 293 Greene, In re___________________________ 52 Fed. 104 1 F. A. D. 54 Greenhut, U. S. v_______________________ 50 Fed. 469 1 F. A. D. 30 51 Fed. 205 1 F. A. D. 33 51 Fed. 213 1 F. A. D. 46 Greer, Mills & Co. v. Stoller______________ 77 Fed. 1 1 F. A. D. 620 Grenada Lumber Co. v. Mississippi_______217 U. S. 433 Griffin & Shelley Co., U. S. Consol. S. R. Co. v________________________________ 126 Fed. 364 2 F. A. D. 288 Griffiths, U. S. v________________________ 2 F. (2d) 925 (See U. S. v. Smith.) Grobaski, First National Pictures, Inc.v---- 46 F. (2d) 813 11 F. A. D; 615 Grobaski, Paramount Publix Corporations __ 46 F. (2d) 813 11 F. A. D. 615 Grobaski, Vitagraph, Inc.v_______________ 46 F. (2d) 813 11 F. A. D. 615 Guarantee Veterinary Co. v. Federal Trade Comm_______________________________ 285 Fed. 853 11 F. A. D. 85 Guillan, Buyer v________________________271 Fed. 65 9 F. A. D. 165 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Miami S. S. Co.. 86 Fed. 407 1 F. A. D. 823 Gulf Refining Co. v. Federal Trade Comm_ . 282 Fed. 81 9 F. A. D. 340 261 U. S. 463 9 F. A. D. 359 Hadley Dean Plate Glass Co. v. Highland Glass Co____________________________ 143 Fed. 242 2 F. A. D. 994 Hagan, Blindell v_______________________ 54 Fed. 40 1 F. A. D. 106 56 Fed. 696 1 F. A. D. 182 Hale, In re_____________________________ 139 Fed. 496 2 F. A. D. 804 201 U. S. 43 2 F. A. D. 874 Hale v. Hatch & North Coal Co___________ 204 Fed. 433 5 F. A. D. 167 Hale v. Henkel_________________________201 U. S. 43 2 F. A. D. 874 Hale v. O'Connor Coal & Supply Co_______181 Fed. 267 3 F. A. D. 806 Halsted Co., U. S. Fire Escape, etc., Co. v__ 195 Fed. 295 4 F. A. D. 462 Hamburg-American Co., U. S. v__________ 200 Fed. 806 4 F. A. D. 892 216 Fed. 971 4 F. A. D. 897 239 U. S. 466 4 F. A. D. 903 Hammerstein, Metropolitan Opera Co. v____147 N. Y. S. 532 162 App. Div. 691. Hammond-Snyder Co., Inc., Federal Trade Comm. v____________________________ 284 Fed. 886 11 F. A. D. 97 267 U. S. 586 Hansen Packing Co. v. Armour & Co______ 16 F. Supp. 784 Harding Glass Co. v. Twin City Pipe Line Co__________________________________ 39 F. (2d) 408 12 F. A. D. 997 283 U. S. 353 12 F. A. D. 1006 Harms v. Cohen________________________ 279 Fed. 276 9 F. A. D. 542 9878—38-21318 Harriet Hubbard Ayer, Inc. v. Federal Trade Comm_______________________________ 15 F. (2d) 274 10 F. A. D. 767 273 U. S. 759 Harriman v. Northern Securities Co_______132 Fed. 464 2 F. A. D. 587 134 Fed. 331 2 F. A. D. 618 197 U. S. 244 2 F. A. D. 669 Harrington, Pidcock v___________________ 64 Fed. 821 1 F. A. D. 377 Hart v. Keith Vaudeville Exchange________ 262 U. S. 271 9 F. A. D. 704 12 F. (2d) 341 10 F. A. D. 676 273 U. S. 703 Hartman, Central Coal & Coke Co. v______111 Fed. 96 2 F. A. D. 94 Hartman v. Park & Sons Co_____________145 Fed. 358 2 F. A. D. 999 153 Fed. 24 3 F. A. D. 229 Harvey v. Booth Fisheries Co_____________ 228 Fed. 782 6 F. A. D. 391 Haskell v. Aluminum Co. of America______ 14 F. (2d) 864 10 F. A. D. 699 Haskell v. Perkins______________________ 28 F. (2d) 222 12 F. A. D. 438 31 F. (2d) 53 12 F. A. D. 445 279 U. S. 872 Hatch & North Coal CoHale v__........ 204 Fed. 433 5 F. A. D. 167 Hazard Powder Co., Buckeye Powder Co. v. 205 Fed. 827 Heike, U. S. v__________________________ 175 Fed. 852 217 U. S. 423 192 Fed. 83 4 F. A. D. 441 227 XL S. 131 4 F. A. D. 449 Henchy National Harrow Co. v____________ 76 Fed. 667 1 F. A. D. 610 83 Fed. 36 1 F. A. D. 742 (Second case).. 84 Fed. 226 1 F. A. D. 746 Hency, U.S. v_________________________ 286 Fed. 165 9 F. A. D. 823 Henkel, Hale v_________________________201 U. S. 43 2 F. A. D. 874 (See In re Hale.) Henkel, McAlister v_____________________201 U. S. 90 2 F. A. D. 919 Henry, Davis v_________________________ 266 Fed. 261 8 F. A. D. 850 Henry, Dick Co. v______________________149 Fed. 424 224 U. S. 1 6 F. A. D. 731 Herbert, etal.v.U.S___________________ 73 F. (2d) 1001 (See U. S. v. Weiner and U. S. ex rel. Weiner v. Hill.) Herkert & Meisel Trunk Co. v. United Leather Workers' Union________________ 268 Fed. 662 8 F. A. D. 918 284 Fed. 446 9 F. A. D. 779 265 U. S. 457 10 F. A. D. 143 Heslop, U. S. Gypsum Co. v______________ 39 F. (2d) 228 11 F. A. D. 511 Heuser v. Federal Trade Comm___________ 4 F. (2d) 632 11 F. A. D. 147 Hicks Corp. v. National Salesmen's Train- ing Ass'n____________________________ 19 F. (2d) 963 11 F. A. D. 275 Higgins v. Calif. Prune & Apricot Growers_ 16 F. (2d) 190 11 F. A. D. 216 273 U. S. 781 Highland Glass Co., Hadley Dean Plate Glass Co. v__________________________ 143 Fed. 242 2 F. A. D. 994 Hill, U. S. ex rel Weiner v_______________ 11 F. Supp. 195 (See U. S. v. Weiner and Herbert et al. 84 F. (2d) 27 v. U. S.) 300 U. S. 105 Hills Bros. v. Federal Trade Comm________ 9 F. (2d) 481 10 F. A. D. 635 270 U. S. 662319 Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell_____172 Fed. 963 202 Fed. 512 5 F. A. D. 523 214 Fed. 685 5 F. A. D. 589 245 U. S. 229 8 F. A. D. 1 Hocking Valley Ry. Co., Buckeye Coal & Ry. Co. v____________________________ 269 U. S. 42 10 F. A. D. 476 Hocking Valley Ry. Co., Mannington v_____183 Fed. 133 3 F. A. D. 825 Hollis, U. S. v_________________________ 246 Fed. 611 6 F. A. D. 976 Home Telephone Co, v. Michigan Railroad Comm_______________________________ 140 N. W. (Mich.) 496 Hood Rubber Co. v. U. S. Rubber Co_______ 229 Fed. 583 6 F. A. D. 422 Hopkins, U. 8. v_______________________ 82 Fed. 529 1 F. A. D. 725 84 Fed. 1018 1 F. A. D. 748 171 U. S. 578 1 F. A. D. 941 Howard Watch & Clock Co., Dueber Watch Case Mfg. Co. v______________________ 55 Fed. 851 1 F. A. D. 178 66 Fed. 637 1 F. A. D. 421 Howell v.U.S_________________________ 11 F. (2d) 847 10 F. A. D. 566 (See U. S. v. Nat'l Malleable & Steel Castings Co.) Hoyt v. Wickham_______________________ 25 F. (2d) 777 Hudnut, U. 8. v________________________ 8 F. (2d) 1010 10 F. A. D. 633 Hupp Motor Car Corp., Jeffrey-Nichols Motor Co. v__________________________ 41 F. (2d) 767 12 F. A. D. 926 46 F. (2d) 623 12 F. A. D. 941 Hurst, Cole Motor Car Co. v______________ 228 Fed. 280 6 F. A. D. 385 Hurst & Son v. Federal Trade Comm______ 268 Fed. 874 11 F. A. D. 33 Hygrade Sylvania Corp., Radio Corporation of America v_________________________ 10 F. Supp. 879 Imperial Film Exchange v. General Film Co_ 244 Fed. 985 6 F. A. D. 1043 Imperial Window Glass Co., Patterson v_____ 91 Kans. 201 Independent Ice Co., Corey v_____________ 207 Fed. 459 5 F. A. D. 330 Indiana Farmer's Guide Pub. Co., Prairie Farmer Pub. Co. v____________________ 82 F. (2d) 704 299 U. S. 156 Indiana Farmer's Guide Pub. Co. v. Prairie Farmer Pub. Co______________________ 70 F. (2d) 3 293 U. S. 268 293 U. S. 633 Indiana Mfg. Co. v. Case Threshing Mach. Co__________________________________148 Fed. 21 3 F. A. D. 19 154 Fed. 365 3 F. A. D. 282 207 U. S. 603 Indiana Quartered Oak Co. v. Federal Trade Comm_______________________________ 26 F. (2d) 340 11 F. A. D. 352 278 U. S. 623 Industrial Ass'n of San Francisco, U.S. v— 293 Fed. 925 10 F. A. D. 94 268 U. S. 64 10 F. A. D. 98 Ingersoll & Bro. v. McColl_______________ 204 Fed. 147 5 F. A. D. 158 Inman, Poulsen & Co., Ellis v____________ 124 Fed. 956 2 F. A. D. 268 131 Fed. 182 2 F. A. D. 577 In re Atchison__________________________ 284 Fed. 604 9 F. A. D. 810 In re Charge to Grand Jury_______________ 151 Fed. 834 3 F. A. D. 156320 In re Corning___________________________ 51 Fed. 205 1 F. A. D. 33 In re Debs________________________________ 158 U. S. 564 1 F. A. D. 565 (See U. S. v. Debs.) 64 Fed. 724 1 F. A. D. 322 In re Grand Jury_______________________ 62 Fed. 840 1 F. A. D. 301 In re Great Eastern Clay Products Co______(Not reported) 6 F. A. D. 1039 In re Greene___________________________ 52 Fed. 104 1 F. A. D. 54 In re Hale_____________________________139 Fed. 496 2 F. A. D. 804 (See Hale v. Henkel) 201 U. S. 43 2 F. A. D. 874 In re Kittle______________________________ 180 Fed. 946 3 F. A. D. 803 In re Marcus___________________________ 21 F. (2d) 483 23 F. (2d) 303 In re Missouri Pac. R. Co_______________ 13 F. Supp. 888 In re National Window Glass Workers_____ 287 Fed. 219 9 F. A. D. 882 (See also U. S. v. Nat'l Ass'n of Window Glass Mfrs.) In re Pressed Steel Car Co._______________ 16 F. Supp. 329 In re Sutherland------------------------ 21 F. (2d) 667 11 F. A. D. 232 23 F. (2d) 595 In re Terrell___________________________ 51 Fed. 213 1 F. A. D. 46 International of Machinists, Chris- tian v------------------------------- 7 F. (2d) 481 10 F. A. D. 616 International Ass'n of Machinistsf Great Northern Ry. Co. v____________________ 283 Fed. 557 9 F. A. D 735 International Ass'n of Machinists, Wagner Elec. Mfg. Co. v______________________ 252 Fed. 597 8 F. A. D. 276 International Automobile League, Ford Motor Co. v________________________________ 209 Fed. 235 Intern11 Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Kinloch Tel. Co_______________________ 265 Fed. 312 8 F. A. D. 811 275 Fed. 241 8 F. A. D. 823 257 U. S. 663 Internat'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Western Union Tel. Co. v______________ 2 F. (2d) 993 10 F. A. D. 430 6 F. (2d) 444 10 F. A. D. 435 46 F. (2d) 736 11 F. A. D. 630 284 U. S. 630 International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc. v. U.S________________________________ 44 F. (2d) 393 (See U. S. v. Greater New York Live 53 F. (2d) 518 Poultry Cham, of Comm.) 291 U. S. 293 International Business Machines Corp., U. S. v___________________________________ 13 F. Supp. 11 298 U. S. 131 International Harvester Co., U. S. v_______214 Fed. 987 5 F. A. D. 637 248 U. S. 587 10 F. (2d) 827 10 F. A. D. 989 274 U. S. 693 10 F. A. D. 1053 International Longshoremen's Ass'n, Alaska S. S. Co. v___________________________ 236 Fed. 964 6 F. A. D. 673 International Longshoremen's Ass'n, Dean v_ 17 F. Supp. 748 International Magazine Co., Council of Defense v____________________________ 267 Fed. 390 8 F. A. D. 858321 International Shoe Co. v. Federal Trade Comm_______________________________ 29 F. (2d) 518 12 F. A. D. 609 280 U. S. 291 12 F. A. D. 619 International Visible Systems Corp. v. Rem- ington-Randf Inc______________________ 65 F. (2d) 540 Interstate Circuit, Inc., U. S. v____________ 20 F. Supp. 463 Interstate Commerce Comm., Pennsylvania R.Co.v_____________________________ 66 F. (2d) 37 291 U. S. 651 Iola Portland Cement Co., Phillips v_______125 Fed. 593 2 F. A. D. 284 192 U. S. 606 Iron Molders' Union, Niles-Bement-Pond Co. v________________________________ 246 Fed. 851 8 F. A. D. 99 258 Fed. 408 8 F. A. D. 383 254 U. S. 77 9 F. A. D. 85 Irving v. Joint District Council, U. B. of Carpenters____________________________180 Fed. 896 5 F. A. D. 377 Irving v. Neal__________________________ 209 Fed. 471 5 F. A. D. 385 Isaac, B. V. D. Co. v____________________ 257 Fed. 709 Jack v. Armour & Co___________________291 Fed. 741 9 F. A. D. 1040 Jayne, Loder v_________________________ 142 Fed. 1010 2 F. A. D. 976 149 Fed. 21 3 F. A. D. 65 Jaynes Drug Co., Dr. Miles Medical Co. v__ 149 Fed. 838 3 F. A. D. 103 Jeffrey-Nichols Motor Co. v. Hupp Motor Car Corp________________________________ 41 F. (2d) 767 12 F. A. D. 926 46 F. (2d) 623 12 F. A. D. 941 Jellico Mountain Coke & Coal Co., U. S. v. 43 Fed. 898 1 F. A. D. 1 46 Fed. 432 1 F. A. D. 9 Jennings v. U. S_______________________ 264 Fed. 399 8 F. A. D. 800 Jewish Press, Konecky v_________________ 288 Fed. 179 9 F. A. D. 913 Joint District Council, U. B. of Carpenters, Irving v_____________________________ 180 Fed. 896 5 F. A. D. 377 Joint Traffic Association, U.S. v__________ 76 Fed. 895 1 F. A. D. 615 89 Fed. 1020 1 F. A. D. 869 171 U. S. 505 1 F. A. D. 869 Jones Co., Inc., Federal Trade Comm. v____ 284 Fed. 886 11 F. A. D. 97 267 U. S. 586 Jones & Co. v. West Publishing Co________ 270 Fed. 563 8 F. A. D. 998 270 U. S. 665 Journal of Commerce Pub. Co. v. Tribune Co_ 286 Fed. Ill 9 F. A. D. 815 Journeymen Stone Cutters Ass'n, Bedford Cut Stone Co. v_______________________ 9F. (2d) 40 10 F. A. D. 985 274 U. S. 37 10 F. A. D. 1008 Journeymen Stone Cutters Ass'n v. U. S___(Not reported) 278 U. S. 566 Journeymen Tailors' Union, Silverstein v___ 284 Fed. 833 9 F. A. D. 807 Juvenile Shoe Co., Inc. v. Federal Trade Comm------------------------------- 289 Fed. 57 11 F. A. D. 104 263 U. S. 705 Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co., Skaggs v___ 233 Fed. 827 6 F. A. D. 533 Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Lusk_____ 224 Fed. 704 5 F. A. D. 878 Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., Meyer v____ 11 F. Supp. 937 84 F. (2d) 411 299 U. S. 607322 Katz Drug Co. v. Sheaffer Pen Co. v_______ 6 F. Supp. 212 Kay, Federal Trade Comm. v___________ 35 F. (2d) 160 11 F. A. D. 462 281 U. S. 764 Keene, Waltham Watch Co. v____________ 191 Fed. 855 202 Fed. 225 209 Fed. 1007 232 U. S. 724 Keith Vaudeville Exchange, Har£ v________ 262 U. S. 271 9 F. A. D. 704 12 F. (2d) 341 10 F. A. D. 676 273 U. S. 703 Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co_______ 4 F. Supp. 889 71 F. (2d) 662 Kellogg Corn Flake Co. v. Buck_______ _ 208 Fed. 383 5 F. A. D. 848 Kellogg Corn Flake Co., U. S. v___________ 222 Fed. 725 5 F. A. D. 850 Kemeny, Victor Talking Mach. Co. v______ 271 Fed. 810 9 F. A. D. 230 Keogh v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co________ 271 Fed. 444 9 F. A. D. 212 260 U. S. 156 9 F. A. D. 220 Kerr, Southwestern Lumber Co. v---------- 11 F. Supp. 253 78 F. (2d) 348 296 U. S. 611 Ketchum v. Denver & R. G. R. R. Co______ 248 Fed. 106 8 F. A. D. 130 Keystone Watch Case Co., U. S. v_________ 218 Fed. 502 5 F. A. D. 481 257 U. S. 664 King, McLatchy v___________ __ _ __ _ 250 Fed. 920 8 F. A. D. 215 King, U. S. v _________________________ 229 Fed. 275 6 F. A. D. 415 250 Fed. 908 8 F. A. D. 211 v. Weiss & Lesh Mfg. Co___________ 266 Fed. 257 8 F. A. D. 844 Kinloch Tel. Co. v. Internal I Brotherhood of Electrical Workers------------------ 265 Fed. 312 8 F. A. D. 811 275 Fed. 241 8 F. A. D. 823 257 U. S. 663 Kinney-Rome Co. v. Federal Trade Comm 275 Fed. 665 11 F. A. D. 39 Kinsey Co. v. Board of Trade_____________ 198 U. S. 236 2 F. A. D. 717 Kissel, U. S. v_________________________ 173 Fed. 823 3 F. A. D. 744 (See U. S. v. American Sugar Ref. Co.) 218 U. S. 601 3 F. A. D. 816 Kittle, In re__________— ----------- 180 Fed. 946 3 F. A. D. 803 Klesner> Federal Trade Comm. v—______ 6 F. (2d) 701 12 F. A. D. 237 274 U. S. 145 12 F. A. D. 241 25 F. (2d) 524 12 F. A. D. 254 280 U. S. 19 12 F. A. D. 261 Klotz, American Biscuit & Mfg. Co. v______ 44 Fed. 721 1 F. A. D. 2 Knauer v. U. S------------------------- 237 Fed. 8 6 F. A. D. 685 Knight Co., U. S. v_____________________ 60 Fed. 306 1 F. A. D. 250 60 Fed. 934 1 F. A. D. 258 156 U. S. 1 1 F. A. D. 379 Kobi Co. v. Federal Trade Comm__________ 23 F. (2d) 41 11 F. A. D. 317 Konecky v. Jewish Press________________ 288 Fed. 179 9 F. A. D. 913 Kresge Co. v. Champion Spark Plug Co____ 3 F. (2d) 415 10 F. A. D. 438 Kroger Grocery & Baking Co. v. Retail Clerks' Ass'n________________________ 250 Fed. 890 8 F. A. D. 199 Kryptok Co., U. S. v____________________ 11 F. (2d) 874 10 F. A. D. 673 Kunihiro v. Cog gins Co__________________ 12 F. (2d) 894 10 F. A. D. 693 273 U. S. 723 273 U. S. 723323 Kunihiro v. Lyons Bros. Co______________ 12 F. (2d) 894 10 F. A. D. 693 273 U. S. 723 Kutter, Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v_________ 147 Fed. 51 2 F. A. D. 1021 203 U. S. 588 La Chapelle, United Shoe Machinery Co. v___ 212 Mass. 467 La Chappelle v. United Shoe Machinery Corp_______ _ _______ _____ 13 F. Supp. 939 Lackawanna R. R. Co., U. S. v___________ 213 Fed. 240 6 F. A. D. 225 238 U. S. 516 6 F. A. D. 260 Ladoga Canning Co. v. American Can Co.. 44 F. (2d) 763 11 F. A. D. 582 282 U. S. 899 Laemmle, Motion Picture Patents Co. v____ 178 Fed. 104 3 F. A. D. 764 214 Fed. 787 Lagomarsino, Stanley Co. v_______________ 53 F. (2d) 112 Lake Shore Ry. Co., U. S. v______________ 203 Fed. 295 5 F. A. D. 241 281 Fed. 1007 9 F. A. D. 578 5 F. (2d) 240 10 F. A. D. 469 Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., De Koven v____ 216 Fed. 955 5 F. A. D. 470 Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., General Inv. Co. v________________ ____________ 269 Fed. 235 8 F. A. D. 926 (See General Inv. Co. v. New York Cent. 260 U. S. 261 9 F. A. D. 187 R. Co.) Lamborn, Bell v_______________________ 2 F. (2d) 205 10 F. A. D. 422 Lamborn & Co., Small Co. v____________ 267 U. S. 248 12 F. A. D. 230 Lamar v. U. S._________________________ 260 Fed. 561 8 F. A. D. 508 (See U. S. v. Rintelen.) 250 U. S. 673 254 U. S. 616 Lancaster, McGibbony v_______________ 286 Fed. 129 9 F. A. D. 820 Langenberg Hat Co. v. United Hat & Cap Makers_____________________________ 266 Fed. 127 8 F. A. D. 839 Lanza, U. S. v_______________ _______ 85 F. (2d) 544 (See U. S. v. Fish Credit Association, 299 U. S. 609 Inc.) Larus & Bro. Co. v. American Tobacco Co__ 163 Fed. 712 3 F. A. D. 426 Lawlor, Loewe v________________________ 130 Fed. 633 2 F. A. D. 563 142 Fed. 216 2 F. A. D. 854 148 Fed. 924 3 F. A. D. 41 208 U. S. 274 3 F. A. D. 324 187 Fed. 522 4 F. A. D. 264 223 U. S. 729 209 Fed. 721 5 F. A. D. 398 235 U. S. 522 5 F. A. D. 412 Lee Line Steamers, Inc. v. Memphis, Helena & Rosedale Packet Co_________________ 277 Fed. 5 9 F. A. D. 481 Lehigh Valley R. Co., Meeker v__________ 162 Fed. 354 3 F. A. D. 380 175 Fed. 320 183 Fed. 548 3 F. A. D. 969 Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., U. S. v__________ 225 Fed. 399 6 F. A. D. 280 254 U. S. 255 9 F. A. D. 96 Leonard v. Abner-Drury Brewing Co_______ 25 App. D. G. 161 3 F. A. D. 1324 Levering & Garrigues Co. v. Morrin________ 61 F. (2d) 115 287 U. S. 590 289 U. S. 103 71 F. (2d) 284 293 U. S. 595 Levy, U. S. ex rel. Fauntleroy v___________ 268 U. S. 390 12 F. A. D. 220 (See U. S. v. NaVl Malleable & Steel Castings Co.) Levy, U. S. ex rel. Rutz v_________________ 268 U. S. 390 12 F. A. D. 220 (See U. S. v. Nat'l Malleable & Steel Castings Co.) Levy, U. S. ex rel. Steneck v______________ 3 F. (2d) 816 12 F. A. D. 215 (See U. S. v. Nat'l Malleable & Steel 268 U. S. 390 12 F. A. D. 220 Castings Co. and U. S. ex rel. Rutz 11 F. (2d) 845 12 F. A. D. 228 v. Anderson.) Levy7 U. S. ex rel. Wanner v_____________ 268 U. S. 390 12 F. A. D. 220 (See U. S. v. Nat'l Malleable & Steel Castings Co.) Liberty Warehouse Co. v. Burley Tobacco Growers ^4ss'n________________________ 276 U. S. 71 12 F. A. D. 395 Lighthouse Rug Co. v. Federal Trade Comm_ 35 F. (2d) 163 11 F. A. D. 453 Lipp Co., Way man v____________________ 222 Fed. 679 Lipson v. Socony-Vacuum Corp___________ 7 F. Supp. 961 76 F. (2d) 213 87 F. (2d) 265 300 U. S. 651 301 U. S. — Live Poultry Dealers1 Protective Ass'n, U. S. v______________________________ 298 Fed. 139 10 F. A. D. 316 4 F. (2d) 840 10 F. A. D. 454 Local 167, InternaVl Brotherhood of Team- sters v. U. S_________________________291 U. S. 293 (See U. S. v. Greater N. Y. Live Poultry Cham, of Comm.) Locker v. American Tobacco Co___________194 Fed. 232 4 F. A. D. 610 197 Fed. 495 4 F. A. D. 612 200 Fed. 973 4 F. A. D. 614 218 Fed. 447 4 F. A. D. 618 Loder v. Jayne_________________________142 Fed. 1010 2 F. A. D. 976 149 Fed. 21 3 F. A. D. 65 Loeb v. Eastman Kodak Co_______________ 183 Fed. 704 3 F. A. D. 975 Loewe v. Lawlor________________________130 Fed. 633 2 F. A. D. 563 142 Fed. 216 2 F. A. D. 854 148 Fed. 924 3 F. A. D. 41 208 U. S. 274 3 F. A. D. 324 187 Fed. 522 4 F. A. D. 264 223 U. S. 729 209 Fed. 721 5 F. A. D. 398 235 U. S. 522 5 F. A. D. 412 Lone Star Gas Co., Inc., Empire Gas & Fuel CoInc. v___________________________ 289 Fed. 826 265 U. S. 585 325 Loose-Wiles Biscuit Co. v. Federal Trade Co mm_______________________ 299 Fed. 733 10 F. A. D. 339 266 U. S. 613 Lord v. Radio Corporation of America 24 F. (2d) 565 12 F. A. D. 356 (See Radio Cory, of America v. Be Forest 28 F. (2d) 257 12 F. A. D. 366 Radio Co.) 278 U. S. 648 35 F. (2d) 962 12 F. A. D. 379 47 F. (2d) 606 12 F. A. D. 382 283 U. S. 847 Lorillard Co., Federal Trade Comm. v 283 Fed. 999 9 F. A. D. 751 264 U. S. 298 10 F. A. D. 134 Louis Lipp Co., Wayman v_________ 222 Fed. 679 Lowe Motor Supplies Co. v. Weed Chain Tire Grip Co_______ ___________ (Not reported) 6 F. A. D. 887 Lowenstein v. Evans_______________ 69 Fed. 908 1 F. A. D. 598 Lown v. Underwriters' Assfn_________ (Sup. Ct. D. C.) 6 F. A. D. 1048 Lowry, Montague & Co. v__________ 115 Fed. 27 2 F. A. D. 112 (See Lowry v. Tile, Mantel & Grate 193 U. S. 38 2 F. A. D. 327 Ass'n.) Lowry v. Tile, Mantel & Grate Ass'n 98 Fed. 817 1 F. A. D. 995 (See Montague & Co. v. Lowry.) 106 Fed. 38 2 F. A. D. 53 115 Fed. 27 2 F. A. D. 112 193 U. S. 38 2 F. A. D. 327 Lumbermen's Trust Co. v. Title Ins. & Inv. Co_____________________________ 248 Fed. 212 8 F. A. D. 140 Lush, Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v _____ 224 Fed. 704 5 F. A. D. 878 Lynch v. Magnavox Co_____________ 11 F. Supp. 768 Lyons Bros. Co., Kunihiro v_________ 12 F. (2d) 894 10 F. A. D. 693 273 U. S. 723 Lyons v. U. S. Shipping Board, etc .. 278 Fed. 144 9 F. A. D. 529 Mac Andrews & Forbes Co., U. S. v__ _____ 149 Fed. 823 3 F. A. D. 81 149 Fed. 836 3 F. A. D. 100 212 U. S. 585 3 F. A. D. 100 McAlister v. Henkel_________ _ _ __ 201 U. S. 90 2 F. A. D. 919 McCauley v. First Trust & Savings Bank___ 276 Fed. 117 9 F. A. D. 332 McColl, Ingersol & Bro. v__________ 204 Fed. 147 5 F. A. D. 158 McConnell, Camors-McConnell Co. v 140 Fed. 412 2 F. A. D. 817 140 Fed. 987 2 F. A. D. 825 152 Fed. 321 3 F. A. D. 185 McCourtney v. U. S________________ 291 Fed. 497 9 F. A. D. 1030 263 U. S. 714 McGibbony v. Lancaster_____________ 286 Fed. 129 9 F. A. D. 820 McGrath, TJ. S, ex rel. v. Mathues 6 F. (2d) 149 10 F. A. D. 527 (See U. S. v. Nat'l Malleable & Steel 12 F. (2d) 1020 Castings Co.) McLatchy v. King_________________ 250 Fed. 920 8 F. A. D. 215 McNeeley, Gibbs v_________________ 102 Fed. 594 2 F. A. D. 25 107 Fed. 210 2 F. A. D. 71 118 Fed. 120 2 F. A. D. 194 McNulta, Dennehy v_______________ 86 Fed. 825 1 F. A. D. 855 176 U. S. 683 Magnavox Co., Lynch v_____________ 11 F. Supp. 768 326 Magrane Houston Co., Standard Fashion Co. v------------------------------- 254 Fed. 493 8 F. A. D. 390 251 Fed. 559 259 Fed. 793 8 F. A. D. 401 258 U. S. 346 8 F. A. D. 417 Majestic Distributors, Radio Corporation of America v___________________________ 53 F. (2d) 641 6 F. Supp. 87 Majestic Theatre Co. v. United Artists Corp_ 43 F. (2d) 991 11 F. A. D. 569 Moloney Oil & Mfg. Co. v. Federal Trade Coram------------------------------- 282 Fed. 81 9 F. A. D. 340 261 U. S. 463 9 F. A. D. 359 Mannington v. Hocking Valley Ry. Co_____183 Fed. 133 3 F. A. D. 825 Maple Flooring MfrsJ Ass'n, U. S. v______(Not reported.) 268 U. S. 563 10 F. A. D. 188 Marcus, In re__________________________ 21 F. (2d) 483 23 F. (2d) 303 Marienelli v. United Booking Offices_______ 227 Fed. 165 5 F. A. D. 943 Marine Engineers' Ass'n, U. S. v_________ 277 Fed. 830 9 F. A. D. 503 Masland Duraleather Co. v. Federal Trade Comm------------------------------- 34 F. (2d) 733 11 F. A. D. 429 Mason Contractors1 Ass'n, Detroit Tile & Mosaic Co. v------------------------- 38 F. (2d) 284 12 F. A. D. 945 48 F. (2d) 729 12 F. A. D. 952 Mathues, U. S. ex rel. McGrath v__________ 6F. (2d) 149 10 F. A. D. 527 (See U. S. v. NaVl Malleable & Steel 12 F. (2d) 1020 Castings Co.) Maynard Coal Co., Federal Trade Comm. v. 22 F. (2d) 873 11 F. A. D. 313 Mayo, Dean v-------------------------- 8F. Supp. 73 9 F. Supp. 459 82 F. (2d) 554 Maytag Co., Vulcan Mfg. Co. v___________ 73 F. (2d) 136 293 U. S. 553 294 U. S. 734 Meehan v. U. S------------------------ 11 F. (2d) 847 10 F. A. D. 566 (See U. S. v. Nat'l Malleable & Steel Castings Co.) Meeker v. Lehigh Valley R. Co____________162 Fed. 354 3 F. A. D. 380 175 Fed. 320 183 Fed. 548 3 F. A. D. 969 Memphis, Helena & Rosedale Packet Co., Lee Line Steamers, Inc. v______________ 277 Fed. 5 9 F. A. D. 481 Mennen Co. v. Federal Trade Comm_______ 288 Fed. 774 9 F. A. D. 931 262 U. S. 759 Mercer v. U. S_________________________ 61 F. (2d) 97 Metcalf v. American School-Furniture Co__ 108 Fed. 909 2 F. A. D. 75 113 Fed. 1020 2 F. A. D. Ill 122 Fed. 115 2 F. A. D. 234 Metropolitan Meat Co., U. S. v___________ 3 Dist. Hawaii 110 Metropolitan Opera Co. v. Hammerstein____147 N. Y. S. 532 162 App. Div. 691327 Mexican Petroleum Corp., Ballard Fuel Oil Terminal Corp. v_____________________ 22 F. (2d) 437 12 F. A. D. 292 28 F. (2d) 91 12 F. A. D. 294 Mexican Petroleum Corp., Ballard Oil-Burn- ing Equipment Co. v___________________ 22 F. (2d) 434 12 F. A. D. 285 28 F. (2d) 91 12 F. A. D. 294 Meyer v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co____ 11 F. Supp. 937 84 F. (2d) 411 299 U. S. 607 Meyerj Inc., Adolph, v. Florists' Telegraph Delivery Ass'n________________________ 16 F. Supp. 783 Miami S. S. Co., Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. 86 Fed. 407 1 F. A. D. 823 Michaelson v. U. S. ex rel. C., St. P., M. & 0. Ry. Co------------- -------------- 291 Fed. 940 9 F. A. D. 1047 266 U. S. 42 10 F. A. D. 45 Michigan Aluminum Foundry Co. v. Alu- minum, Castings Co___________________ 190 Fed. 879 Michigan Cent. R. Co., Continental Securities i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i t i i i i i i i i i > <3 16 F. (2d) 378 274 U. S. 741 10 F. . A, . D 841 Michigan Railroad Comm., Home Telephone Co. v___________________ _ ______ 140 N. W. (Mich.) 496 Milburn Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp______________________________ 15 F. (2d) 678 273 U. S. 757 10 F. A. D. 776 Millers1 National Federation, Federal Trade Comm. v________________________ 23 F. (2d) 968 12 F. A. D. 340 47 F. (2d) 428 12 F. A. D. 352 Milwaukee Rubber Works Co., Rubber Tire Wheel Co. v__________________________ 142 Fed. 531 2 F. A. D. 855 154 Fed. 358 3 F. A. D. 272 207 U. S. 589 210 U. S. 439 Minerich v. U. S_______________ ______ 29 F. (2d) 565 279 U. S. 843 11 F. A. D. 383 Mines v. Scribner_______ ___________ 147 Fed. 927 2 F. A. D. 1035 Minneapolis Electric Lamp Co., General Electric Co. v__________________ _ __ 10 F. (2d) 851 7 F. (2d) 1020 10 F. A. D. 655 Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co_______ 123 Fed. 692 2 F. A. D. 246 194 U. S. 48 2 F. A. D. 533 Mississippi, Grenada Lumber Co. v_____ __ 217 U. S. 433 Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. U. S- 4 F. Supp. 745 292 U. S. 282 Missouri Glass Co., First NaVl Bank v____ 152 S. W. (Mo.) 378 Missouri Pac. R. Co., In re_____________ 13 F. Supp. 888 Mitchell, Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v----- 172 Fed. 963 202 Fed. 512 5 F. A. D. 523 214 Fed. 685 5 F. A. D. 589 245 U. S. 229 8 F. A. D. 1 Mitchell Woodbury Corp. v. Pick-Barth Co_ 36 F. (2d) 974 12 F. A. D. 869 41 F. (2d) 148 12 F. A. D. 877 57 F. (2d) 96 286 U. S. 552 Meyerj Inc., Adolph, v. Florists' Telegraph Delivery Ass'n 16 F. Supp. 783 Miami S. S. Co., Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. 86 Fed. 407 1 F. A. D. 823 Michaelson v. U. S. ex rel. C., St. P., M. &328 Moir v. Federal Trade Comm _ _ _ _----- 12 F. (2d) 22 11 F. A. D. 166 Monarch Tobacco Works v. American To- bacco Co_______ _ _ _ — ------ 165 Fed. 774 3 F. A. D. 534 Montague & Co. v. Lowry ---- ------ 115 Fed. 27 2 F. A. D. 112 (See Lowry v. Tile, Mantel & Grate 193 U. S. 38 2 F. A. D. 327 Ass'n.) Montgomery v. Pacific Electric Ry. Co----- 258 Fed. 382 8 F. A. D. 368 293 Fed. 680 10 F. A. D. 80 Moore v. Backus______ _ _ — ------- 78 F. (2d) 571 296 TJ. S. 640 Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange_____ _ 291 Fed. 681 9 F. A. D. 1036 296 Fed. 61 10 F. A. D. 246 270 U. S. 593 10 F. A. D. 267 Moore v. U. S-___ . - _____ 85 Fed. 465 1 F. A. D. 815 Moore et al., U. S. v--------------------- 275 Fed. 992 9 F. A. D. 327 Moore et al., V. S. v. (Removal)---- ---- 7 F. (2d) 734 10 F. A. D. 545 (See U. S. v. NaVl Malleable & Steel Castings Co.) Morrin, Levering & Garrigues Co. v------ 61 F. (2d) 115 287 U. S. 590 289 U. S. 103 71 F. (2d) 284 293 U S. 595 Morris & Co. v. NaVl Ass'n of Stationers, etc_ 40 F. (2d) 620 11 F. A. D. 521 Morrissey, Federal Trade Comm. v_______ 47 F. (2d) 101 11 F. A. D. 635 Motion Picture Patents Co., U. S. v------- 225 Fed. 800 6 F. A. D. 204 230 Fed. 541 6 F. A. D. 222 247 U. S. 524 Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Eclair Film Co__________________________________ 208 Fed. 416 5 F. A. D. 343 Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Laemmle____ 178 Fed. 104 214 Fed. 787 3 F. A. D. 764 Motion Picture Patents Co., Sampliner v___ 243 Fed. 277 255 Fed. 242 259 Fed. 152 6 F. A. D. 999 254 U. S. 233 9 F. A. D. 91 Motion Picture Patents Co. v. UUman_____ 186 Fed. 174 4 F. A. D. 46 Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co_ ____________________ 235 Fed. 398 6 F. A. D. 639 243 TJ. S. 502 6 F. A. D. 821 Motion Picture Producers & Distributors, Quittner v __________________ — 50 F. (2d) 266 Myers v. U. S ___ ________________ 264 TJ. S. 95 Nash v. U. S___________________________ 172 Fed. 455 3 F. A. D. 679 (See U. S. v. American Naval Stores 186 Fed. 592 4 F. A. D. 48 Co.) 186 Fed. 489 5 F. A. D. 234 229 U. S. 373 5 F. A. D 234 NaVl Ass'n of Stationers, etc., Morris & Co. v. 40 F. (2d) 620 11 F. A. D. 521 NaVl ^4ss'n of Window Glass Mfrs., C7.aS.v_ 287 Fed. 228 9 F. A. D. 395 (See a] so In re National Window Glass 263 U. S. 403 10 F. A. D. 27 Workers.) National Better Business Bureau, Inc., Artloom Corporation v__________________ 48 F. (2d) 897 11 F. A. D. 639329 National Biscuit Co. v. Federal Trade Comm_______________________________ 299 Fed. 733 10 F. A. D. 339 266 U. S. 613 National Biscuit Co., Kellogg Co. v________ 4 F. Supp. 889 71 F. (2d) 662 National Cash Register Co., U. S. v________ 23 F. (2d) 352 12 F. A. D. 312 (See U. S. v. Whiffen and U. S. v. 277 U. S. 229 12 F. A. D. 323 Goldman.) National Electric Products Corp. v. Circle Flexible Conduit Co___________________ 57 F. (2d) 219 National Folding-Box & Paper Co. v. Robertson____________________________ 99 Fed. 985 2 F. A. D. 4 112 Fed. 1013 125 Fed. 524 National Foundry Co. v. Alabama Pipe Co- 7 F. Supp. 823 National Harness Mfrs.' Ass'n v. Federal Trade Comm_________________________261 Fed. 170 12 F. A. D. 1 268 Fed. 705 12 F. A. D. 4 National Harrow Co., Bement v___________ 186 U. S. 70 2 F. A. D. 169 National Harrow Co. v. Hench____________ 76 Fed. 667 1 F. A. D. 610 83 Fed. 36 1 F. A. D. 742 (Second case)__ 84 Fed. 226 1 F. A. D. 746 National Harrow Co. v. Quick____________ 67 Fed. 130 1 F. A. D. 443 74 Fed. 236 1 F. A. D. 608 National Harrow Co., Strait v____________ 51 Fed. 819 1 F. A. D. 52 National League v. Federal Baseball C7w&___ 269 Fed. 681 8 F. A. D. 966 259 U. S. 200 8 F. A. D. 978 National Malleable & Steel Castings Co., U. S. v_______________________________ 6 F. (2d) 40 10 F. A. D. 520 ( 6 F. (2d) 149 10 F. A. D. 527 6 F. (2d) 156 10 F. A. D. 541 269 U. S. 570 (Removal proceedings) _ .J ^ (^d) 734 10 F. A. D. 545 ^ 10 F. (2d) 212 10 F. A. D. 560 11 F. (2d) 843 12 F. A. D. 224 11 F. (2d) 845 12 F. A. D. 228 11 F. (2d) 847 10 F. A. D. 566 National Salesmen's Training Ass'n, Hicks Corporation v________________________ 19 F. (2d) 963 11 F. A. D. 275 National Window Glass Jobbers7 Ass'n, Wheeler-Stenzel Co. v__________________ 152 Fed. 864 3 F. A. D. 208 National Window Glass Workers, In re____ 287 Fed. 219 9 F. A. D. 882 (See also U. S. v. Nat'l Ass'n of Window Glass Mfrs.) Neal, Irving v___________________________ 209 Fed. 471 5 F. A. D. 385 Neal, Paine Lumber Co. v________________212 Fed. 259 5 F. A. D. 432 214 Fed. 82 5 F. A. D. 445 244 U. S. 459 6 F. A. D. 953 Needle Trades Workers, U. S. v___________ 10 F. Supp. 201 Nelson, U. S. v_________________________ 52 Fed. 646 1 F. A. D. 77 Nelson v. U. S_________________________201 U. S. 92 2 F. A. D. 920 (See General Paper Co. v. U. S.)330 New Departure Mfg. Co., U. S. v_________ 204 Fed. 107 5 F. A. D. 145 New England Fish Exchange, U. S. v______ 258 Fed. 732 8 F. A. D. 427 292 Fed. 511 8 F. A. D. 456 New Idria Quicksilver Mining Co., American & British Mfg. Corp. v________________ 293 Fed. 509 10 F. A. D. 71 New York & Harlem R. R. Co., Boyd v____ 220 Fed. 174 5 F. A. D. 510 New York Central R. R. Co., General Invest- ment Co. v___________________________271 U. S. 228 10 F. A. D. 483 (See Gen. Inv. Co. v. Lake Shore & M. S. 23 F. (2d) 822 11 F. A. D. 324 Ry. Co.) 277 U. S. 588 New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co., Venner v________________________ 143 N. Y. S. 211 145 N. Y. S. 725 160 App. Div. 127 New York Coffee & Sugar Exchange, Inc., ZJ. S. v______________________________ 263 U. S. 611 10 F. A. D. 125 New York Cotton Exchange, Moore v_______291 Fed. 681 9 F. A. D. 1036 296 Fed. 61 10 F. A. D. 246 270 U. S. 593 10 F. A. D. 267 New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co. v. American Federation of Labor________ 288 Fed. 588 9 F. A. D. 917 New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co., Delavan v_________________________ 137 N. Y. S. 207 139 N. Y. S. 17 154 App. Div. 8 New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co., U. S. v__________________________ 165 Fed. 742 3 F. A. D. 524 Niles-Bement-Pond Co. v. Iron Molders' Union_______________________________ 246 Fed. 851 8 F. A. D. 99 258 Fed. 408 8 F. A. D. 383 254 U. S. 77 9 F. A. D. 85 Nor den Ship Supply Co., Inc. v. Federal Trade Comm_________________________ 277 Fed. 206 11 F. A. D. 73 258 U. S. 618 Norris, U. S. v_________________________ 255 Fed. 423 8 F. A. D. 343 North Pacific Wharves & Trading Co., U. S. v___________________________________ 4 Alaska 552 (Second case) _ _ 4 Alaska 583 Northern Kentucky Tel. Co. v. Southern Bell Tel. & T. Co_________________________ 54 F. (2d) 107 1 F. Supp. 576 73 F. (2d) 333 294 U. S. 719 Northern Pac. R. Co., Farmers Loan & Trust Co. v________________________________ 60 Fed. 803 1 F. A. D. 257 Northern Securities Co., Harriman v_______132 Fed. 464 2 F. A. D. 587 134 Fed. 331 2 F. A. D. 618 197 U. S. 244 2 F. A. D. 669 Northern Securities Co., Minnesota v______123 Fed. 692 2 F. A. D. 246 194 U. S. 48 2 F. A. D. 533 Northern Securities Co., U. S. v___________ 120 Fed. 721 2 F. A. D. 215 193 U. S. 197 2 F. A. D. 338331 Northwestern Consol. Milling Co. v. Callam & Son------------------------------- 177 Fed. 786 3 F. A. D. 759 Noursey U. S. exrel. v. White____________ 11 F. (2d) 843 12 F. A. D. 224 (See U. S. v. NaVl Malleable & Steel Castings Co.) Noyes v. Parsons_____________ _____ 245 Fed. 689 8 F. A. D. 86 Oakes, Arthur v________________________ 63 Fed. 310 1 F. A. D. 310 O'Brien, Central Metal Products Corp. v___ 278 Fed. 827 9 F. A. D. 534 (See O'Brien v. Fackenthal.) 284 Fed. 850 O'Brien v. Fackenthal________________ _ 5 F. (2d) 389 10 F. A. D. 487 O'Brien v. U. S.______________________ 290 Fed. 185 9 F. A. D. 974 O'Connor Coal & Supply Co., Hale v_____ 181 Fed. 267 3 F. A. D. 806 O'Donnell, Bauer & Cie v_______________ 229 U. S. 1 6 F. A. D. 795 O'Halloran v. American Sea Green Slate Co__ 207 Fed. 187 5 F. A. D. 294 229 Fed. 77 5 F. A. D. 305 Ohio Leather Co. v. Federal Trade Comm___ 45 F. (2d) 39 11 F. A. D. 606 Ohio State Telephone Co., Stephens v_______ 240 Fed. 759 6 F. A. D. 920 Olsen, Chicago Board of Trade v__________ 262 U. S. 1 Omaha Film Board of Trade, Youngclaus v_ 60 F. (2d) 538 Oppenheim, Oberndorf & Co. v. Federal Trade Comm_________________________ 5 F. (2d) 574 11 F. A. D. 161 Oregon Stevedoring Co., Tilbury v_________ 8 F. (2d) 898 10 F. A. D. 606 7 F. (2d) 1 10 F. A. D. 612 O'Rourke, Charleston Dry Dock Co, v______ 274 Fed. 811 9 F. A. D. 287 Ostermoor & Co., Inc. v. Federal Trade Comm______________________________ 16 F. (2d) 962 11 F. A. D. 226 Otis Elevator Co. v. Geiger________________ 107 Fed. 131 2 F. A. D. 66 Oxford Varnish Corp. v. Ault & Wiborg Corp________________________________ 83 F. (2d) 764 85 F. (2d) 390 Pacent Reproducer Corp., Western Electric i i i i i i » i i i i i ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 > <3 53 F. (2d) 639 Pacific & Arctic Ry. Co., U. S. v_________ 4 Alaska 530 228 U. S. 87 5 F. A. D. 213 (Second case) _ _ 4 Alaska 574 Pacific Electric Ry. Co., Montgomery v_____ 258 Fed. 382 8 F. A. D. 368 293 Fed. 680 10 F. A. D. 80 Pacific Improvement Co., Gallup Electric Light Co. v_____________________ 113 Pac. (N. M.) 848 Pacific States Paper Trade Ass'n v. Federal Trade Comm_________________________ 4 F. (2d) 457 10 F. A. D 441 273 U. S. 52 12 F. A. D. 271 Paine Lumber Co. v. Neal ________ 212 Fed. 259 5 F. A. D. 432 214 Fed. 82 5 F. A. D. 445 244 U. S. 459 6 F. A. D. 953 Painters' Dist. Council No. 1J+ of Chicago, etc., U. S. v___________________________ 44 F. (2d) 58 12 F. A. D. 987 284 U. S. 582 12 F. A. D. 996 Paramount Famous Lasky Corp., Federal Trade Comm. v______ _ ______ 57 F. (2d) 152 Paramount Famous Lasky Corp., U. S. v___ 34 F. (2d) 984 12 F. A. D. 844 282 U. S. 30 12 F. A. D. 857 Paramount Publix Corporation v. Grobaski_ _ 46 F. (2d) 813 11 F. A. D. 615 Northwestern Consol. Milling Co. v. Callam & Son 177 Fed. 786 3 F. A. D. 759 Noursey U. S. exrel. v. White 11 F. (2d) 843 12 F. A. D. 224 (See U. S. v. NaVl Malleable & Steel Castings Co.)332 Park & Sons Co., Dr. Miles Medical Co. v_> 164 Fed. 803 3 F. A. D. 470 220 U. S. 373 4 F. A. D. 1 Park & Sons Co., Hartman v_____________ 145 Fed. 358 2 F. A. D. 999 153 Fed. 24 3 F. A. D. 229 Parsons, Noyes v----------------------- 245 Fed. 689 8 F. A. D. 86 Pastime Amusement Co., Witmark & Sons v_ 298 Fed. 470 10 F. A. D. 325 Paterson Parchment Paper Co. v. Story Parchment Co________________________ 37 F. (2d) 537 12 F. A. D. 898 282 U. S. 555 12 F. A. D. 915 Pathe Exchange, Inc., Binderup v_________ 280 Fed. 301 9 F. A. D 546 263 U. S. 291 10 F. A. D. 1 Patten, U. S. v------------------------- 187 Fed. 664 4 F. A. D. 274 226 U. S. 525 4 F. A. D. 742 Patterson v. Imperial Window Glass Co____ 91 Kans. 201 Patterson, U. S. v_______________________ 55 Fed. 605 1 F. A. D. 133 59 Fed. 280 1 F. A. D. 244 (Second case)__ 201 Fed. 697 5 F. A. D. 1 205 Fed. 292 5 F. A. D. 45 222 Fed. 599 5 F. A. D. 60 238 U. S. 635 Patton v. U. S. ex rel. South Side Co_______ 288 Fed. 812 9 F. A. D. 944 Paul v. Virginia________________________ 8 Wall. 168 Pearsall Butter Co. v. Federal Trade Comm.- 292 Fed. 720 10 F. A. D. 37 Pennsylvania Mining Co., United Mine Workers v---------------------------- 300 Fed. 965 10 F. A. D. 367 266 U. S. 630 28 F. (2d) 851 11 F. A. D. 360 279 U. S. 841 Pennsylvania R. Co., American Union Coal Co. v-------------------------------- 159 Fed. 278 3 F. A. D. 312 Pennsylvania R. Co., Bailey v____________ 4 F. Supp. 786 (See Terminal Warehouse Co. v. Penn- sylvania R. Co.) Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Interstate Com- merce Comm_________________________ 66 F. (2d) 37 291 U. S. 651 Pennsylvania R. Co., Terminal Warehouse Co. v-------------------------------- 7 F. Supp. 484 (See Bailey v. Pennsylvania R. Co.) 78 F. (2d) 591 297 U. S. 500 Pennsylvania Steel Co. of N. J., Venner v___ 250 Fed. 292 8 F. A. D. 189 Pennsylvania Sugar Ref. Co. v. American Sugar Ref. Co-----------------------160 Fed. 144 3 F. A. D. 369 166 Fed. 254 3 F. A. D. 552 168 Fed. 1023 171 Fed. 579 People's Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co---------------------------------- 170 Fed. 396 3 F. A. D. 660 (Second case)__ 204 Fed. 58 5 F. A. D. 138 (Third case).. 246 U. S. 79 8 F. A. D. 172 Perelman v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc____ 9 F. Supp. 729 Perkins, Haskell v______________________ 28 F. (2d) 222 12 F. A. D. 438 31 F. (2d) 53 12 F. A. D. 445 279 U. S. 872333 Peterboro Basket Co., Cleaves v____________ 54 F. (2d) 101 Peterson v. Borden Co____________________ 50 F. (2d) 644 Peurrung, Carter-Crume Co. v____________ 86 Fed. 439 1 F. A. D. 844 99 Fed. 888 Phillips v. Iola Portland Cement Co_______125 Fed. 593 2 F. A. D. 284 192 U. S. 606 Phoenix Wholesale Meat & Produce Co., U. S. v______________________________ 95 Pac. 85 3 F. A. D. 316 (See Tribolet v. U. S.) Pick Mfg. Co. v. General Motors Corp_____ 80 F. (2d) 641 299 U. S. 3 Pick-Barth Co., Mitchell Woodbury Corp. v__ 36 F. (2d) 974 12 F. A. D. 869 41 F. (2d) 148 12 F. A. D. 877 57 F. (2d) 96 286 U. S. 552 Pictorial Review Co. v. Curtis Publishing Co__________________________________ 255 Fed. 206 8 F. A. D. 337 Pidcock v. Harrington------------------- 64 Fed. 821 1 F. A. D. 377 Piowaty & Sons, M., U. S. v_____________251 Fed. 375 8 F. A. D. 217 Pittsburgh Bldg. Trades Council, Columbus Heating & Ventilating Co. v____________ 17 F. (2d) 806 10 F. A. D. 853 Pittsburgh Terminal Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers________________________ 22 F. (2d) 559 11 F. A. D. 282 Pittsburgh & W. V. Ry. Co., Wheeling & L. E. Ry. Co. v_______________________ 33 F. (2d) 390 11 F. A. D. 408 280 U. S. 593 Plibrico Jointless Firebrick Co., Caigan v__ 74 F. (2d) 316 295 U. S. 733, 734 Porto Rican American Tobacco Co. v Ameri- can Tobacco Co_______________________ 30 F. (2d) 234 11 F. A. D. 386 279 U. S. 858 Portland Terminal Co., Foss v____________ 283 Fed. 204 287 Fed. 33 9 F. A. D. 877 Post v. Buck's Stove & Range Co__________ 200 Fed. 918 4 F. A. D. 801 Prairie Farmer Pub. Co. v. Indiana Farmer's Guide Pub. Co________________________ 82 F. (2d) 704 299 U. S. 156 Prairie Farmer Pub. Co., Indiana Farmer's Guide Pub. Co. v_____________________ 70 F. (2d) 3 293 U. S. 268 293 U. S. 633 Prescott & A. C. Ry. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co__________________________ 73 Fed. 438 1 F. A. D. 604 84 Fed. 213 1 F. A. D. 604 Pressed Steel Car Co., In re_______________ 16 F. Supp. 329 Prest-O-Lite Co., Auto Acetylene Light Co. v________________________________ 276 Fed. 537 9 F. A. D. 471 258 U. S. 622 Prest-O-Lite Co., Searchlight Gas Co. v_____215 Fed. 692 Prince Line, Ltd., U. S. v________________ 220 Fed. 230 5 F. A. D. 675 242 U. S. 537 5 F. A. D. 684 Procter & Gamble Co. v. Federal Trade Comm_______________________________ 11 F. (2d) 47 11 F. A. D. 180 273 U. S. 717 9878—38-22334 Proper v. Bene & Sons, Inc______________ 295 Fed. 729 10 F. A. D. 229 299 Fed. 863 Protective Fur Dressers Corp., U. S. v______ 88 F. (2d) 625 (See U. S. v. Buchalter and Shapiro v. 301 U. S. 708 U. S.) Public Service Interstate Transp. Co., Fleet- way v_______________________________ 4 F. Supp. 482 72 F. (2d) 761 293 U. S. 626 Pullman Co., Rossman v_____.____________ 15 F. Supp. 325 Pungs, American Brake Beam Co. v_______141 Fed. 923 2 F. A. D. 826 Pure Carbonic Co., Carbonic Gas Co. v_____ 4F. Supp. 992 Pure Silk Hosiery Mills, Inc., Federal Trade Comm. v____________________________ 3 F. (2d) 105 11 F. A. D. 140 Q. R. S. Music Co. v. Federal Trade Comm.. 12 F. (2d) 730 10 F. A. D. 686 Quaker Oats Co., Tilden v________________ 1 F. (2d) 160 10 F. A. D. 405 Quaker Oats Co., XJ. S. v_________________ 232 Fed. 499 6 F. A. D. 429 253 U. S. 499 Quick, National Harrow Co. v____________ 67 Fed. 130 1 F. A. D. 443 74 Fed. 236 1 F. A. D. 608 Quinlivan v. Dail-Overland Co____________ 274 Fed. 56 8 F. A. D. 638 (See Dail-Overland Co. v. Willy s-Over- land, Inc.) Quittner v. Motion Picture Producers & Distributors__________________________ 50 F. (2d) 266 Radio Corporation of America v. De Forest Radio Co____________________________ 47 F. (2d) 606 12 F. A. D. 382 (See Lord v. Radio Corp. of America.) 283 U. S. 847 Radio Corporation of America v. Duovac Radio Tube Corp_____________________ 6 F. Supp. 275 Radio Corporation of America, F. A. D. Andrea, Inc. v_______________________ 14 F. Supp. 226 88 F. (2d) 474 300 U. S. 681 Radio Corporation of America v. Hygrade Sylvania Corp________________________ 10 F. Supp. 879 Radio Corporation of America, Lord v------ 24 F. (2d) 565 12 F. A. D. 356 (See Radio Corp. of America v. De 28 F. (2d) 257 12 F. A. D. 366 Forest Radio Co.) 278 U. S. 648 35 F. (2d) 962 12 F. A. D. 379 47 F. (2d) 606 12 F. A. D. 382 283 U. S. 847 Radio Corporation of America v. Majestic Distributors__________________________ 53 F. (2d) 641 6 F. Supp. 87 Radio Corporation of America v. United Radio & Electric Corp----------------- 50 F. (2d) 206 Radio Corporation of America, XJ. S. v------ 3 F. Supp. 23 Railway Employees' Dept. of A. F. of L., U. S.v___________________________— 283 Fed. 479 9 F. A. D. 707 286 Fed. 228 9 F. A. D. 831 290 Fed. 978 9 F. A. D. 852 Raladam Co. v. Federal Trade Comm______ 42 F. (2d) 430 12 F. A. D. 959 283 U. S. 643 12 F. A. D. 975335 Ramsay Co. v. Associated Bill Posters------ 271 Fed. 140 9 F. A. D. 171 260 U. S. 501 9 F. A. D. 176 (Second case) _ _ 42 F. (2d) 152 282 U. S. 865 11 F. A. D. 534 Rankin Co. v. Associated Bill Posters_______ 271 Fed. 140 9 F. A. D. 171 260 U. S. 501 9 F. A. D. 176 (Second case) _ _ 42 F. (2d) 152 282 U. S. 864 11 F. A. D. 534 Raymond Bros.-Clark Co. v. Federal Trade Comm_________________ ____________ 280 Fed. 529 11 F. A. D. 80 263 U. S. 565 10 F. A. D. 117 Reading Company, U. S. v--------------- 183 Fed. 427 3 F. A. D. 866 226 U. S. 324 4 F. A. D. 694 228 U. S. 158 4 F. A. D. 739 (Second case) _ _ 226 Fed. 229 6 F. A. D. 290 253 U. S. 26 9 F. A. D. 1 273 Fed. 848 9 F. A. D. 36 (Continental Insurance Co. v. XJ. $.)-- 259 U. S. 156 9 F. A. D. 588 295 Fed. 551 10 F. A. D. 234 Rear don & Sons Co. v. U. S-------------- 191 Fed. 454 Red Jacket Consolidated Coal & Coke Co., United Mine Workers v________________ 18 F. (2d) 839 275 U. S. 536 10 F. A. D. 878 Reilly, U. S. v_________________________ 6 F. (2d) 188 10 F. A. D. 555 (See Vandell v. U. S.) Remington-Rand, Inc., International Visible Systems Corp. v_____________________ 65 F. (2d) 540 Republic Steel Corp., XJ. S. v_ ___________ 11 F. Supp. 117 Retail Clerks' -Ass'n, Kroger Grocery & Baking Co. v________________________ 250 Fed. 890 8 F. A. D. 199 Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Allen Bros. Tobacco Co___________________________________ 151 Fed. 819 3 F. A. D. 134 Rice v. Standard Oil Co----- ---------- 134 Fed. 464 2 F. A. D. 633 Rintelen, U. S. v__________ _ ---------- 233 Fed. 793 6 F. A. D. 524 (See Lamar v. U. S.) 235 Fed. 787 260 Fed. 561 8 F. A. D. 508 250 U. S. 673 254 U. S. 616 Riverside Cotton Mills Co., Winfree v------ 75 S. E. (Va.) 309 Robertson, National Folding Box & Paper Co. v______________ _ ---------- 99 Fed. 985 112 Fed. 1013 125 Fed. 524 2 F. A. D. 4 Robinson v. Suburban Brick Co----------- 127 Fed. 804 2 F. A. D. 312 Robison, First National Pictures, Inc. v____ 72 F. (2d) 37 293 U. S. 609 293 U. S. 631 Rockefeller, U. S. v________ __ _ _ 222 Fed. 534 5 F. A. D. 844 Rockwood Corporation v. Bricklayers' Local Union____ ___ _____ __ 33 F. (2d) 25 280 U. S. 575 11 F. A. D. 399 Rodman, Steeves v____ _ — _ 10 F. (2d) 212 10 F. A. D. 560 (See U. S. v. Nat'I Malleable & Steel 12 F. (2d) 915 Castings Co.) (See U. S. v. Nat'I Malleable & Steel 12 F. (2d) 915 Castings Co.)336 Rogers, Alemite Corporation v____________ 5F. Supp. 940 74 F. (2d) 1019 298 U. S. 415 Rohde Leather Co. v. Duncan & Sons_______ 15 F. (2d) 103 10 F. A. D. 724 Rossman v. Pullman Co_________________ 15 F. Supp. 325 Rowe, Eagle Glass & Mfg. Co. v__________ 245 U. S. 275 8 F. A. D. 41 Royal Baking Powder Co. v. Federal Trade Comm-------------------------------281 Fed. 744 12 F. A. D. 106 (Second case)__ (Sup. Ct. D. C.) 12 F. A. D. 120 (Sup. Ct. D. C.) 12 F. A. D. 143 32 F. (2d) 966 12 F. A. D. 148 280 U. S. 572 Rubber Tire Wheel Co. v. Milwaukee Rubber Works Co____________________________ 142 Fed. 531 2 F. A. D. 855 154 Fed. 358 3 F. A. D. 272 207 U. S. 589 210 U. S. 439 RutZy U. S. ex rel. v. Anderson_____________ 11 F. (2d) 845 12 F. A. D. 228 (See U. S. v. Nat'I Malleable & Steel Castings Co. and U. S. ex rel Steneck v. Levy.) Rutz, V. S. ex rel. v. Levy________________ 268 U. S. 390 12 F. A. D. 220 (See U. S. v. Nat'l Malleable & Steel Castings Co.) Sampliner v. Motion Picture Patents Co_____ 243 Fed. 277 6 F. A. D. 999 255 Fed. 242 259 Fed. 152 254 U. S. 233 9 F. A. D. 91 Sandefur v. Canoe Creek Coal Co__________ 293 Fed. 379 10 F. A. D. 42 266 U. S. 42 10 F. A. D. 45 Santa Rita Store Co. and Santa Rita Min- ing Co.7 U. S. v______________________ 113 Pac. 620 Schrader's Son, Inc., U. S. v_____________ 264 Fed. 175 8 F. A. D. 571 252 U. S. 85 8 F. A. D. 586 Scribner, Mines v_______________________ 147 Fed. 927 2 F. A. D. 1035 Scribner v. Straus_______________________ 130 Fed. 389 Searchlight Gas Co. v. Prest-O-Lite Co_____215 Fed. 692 Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Federal Trade Comm. 258 Fed. 307 11 F. A. D. 1 Shapiro v. U. S_________________________301U. S. 708 (See U. S. v. Protective Fur Dressers Corp. and U. S. v. Buchalter.) Shawnee Compress Co., Anderson v________ 87 Pac. 315 3 F. A. D. 122 209 U. S. 423 3 F. A. D. 357 Sheaf er Pen Co., Katz v_________________ 6 F. Supp. 212 Shelton Electric Co. v. Victor Talking Machine Co__________________________________ 277 Fed. 433 9 F. A. D. 487 Shipowners1 Ass'n of Pacific Coast, Anderson v----------------------------------- 10 F. (2d) 96 10 F. A. D. 646 272 U. S. 359 10 F. A. D. 650 (Second case).. 27 F. (2d) 163 12 F. A. D. 557 31 F. (2d) 539 12 F. A. D. 564 279 U. S. 864 Shipowners1 -Ass'w of Pacific Coast, Street v__ 263 TJ. S. 334 10 F. A. D. 21 Silk -Ass'n of America, Gerli v____________ 36 F. (2d) 959 11 F A. D. 393337 Silver Co. v. Federal Trade Comm_________ 289 Fed. 985 9 F. A. D. 948 292 Fed. 752 11 F. A. D. 120 Silverstein v. Journeymen Tailors' Union___ 284 Fed. 833 9 F. A. D. 807 Simon v. American Tobacco Co___________192 Fed. 662 4 F. A. D. 468 Sinclair Refining Co. v. Federal Trade Comm_ 276 Fed. 686 9 F. A. D. 334 261 U. S. 463 9 F. A. D. 359 Sinclair Refining Co. v. Wilson Gas & Oil Co_ 52 F. (2d) 974 Single Tube Auto & Bicycle Tire Co., Goshen Rubber Works v______________________166 Fed. 431 3 F. A. D. 571 Sisal Sales Corp., U. S. v________________ 274 U. S. 268 10 F. A. D. 1033 Skaggs v. Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co---- 233 Fed. 827 6 F. A. D. 533 Small Co. v. Lamborn & Co______________ 267 U. S. 248 12 F. A. D. 230 Smith, Federal Trade Comm. v____________ 34 F. (2d) 323 11 F. A. D. 423 Smith, U. S. v_________________________ 2 F. (2d) 925 (See U. S. v. Griffiths.) Snyder, Citizens'' Wholesale Supply Co. v___201 Fed. 907 4 F. A. D. 876 229 U. S. 609 Socony-Vacuum Corp., Lipson v__________ 7F. Supp. 961 76 F. (2d) 213 87 F. (2d) 265 300 U. S. 651 301 U. S. — Sound Equipment, Excelsior Motor Mfg. & Supply Co. v_________________________ 73 F. (2d) 725 294 U. S. 706 South Side Co., U. S. ex rel, Patton v_____ 288 Fed. 812 9 F. A. D. 944 Southern Bell Tel. & T. Co., Northern Ken- tucky Tel. Co. v______________________ 54 F. (2d) 107 1 F. Supp. 576 73 F. (2d) 333 294 U. S. 719 Southern Calif.Wholesale Grocers'Ass'n, U.S. v 7 F. (2d) 944 10 F. A. D. 622 Southern Hardware Jobbers' Ass'n v. Federal Trade Comm_________________________ 290 Fed. 773 11 F. A. D. 108 Southern Indiana Exp. Co. v. U. S. Exp. Co_ 88 Fed. 659 1 F. A. D. 862 92 Fed. 1022 1 F. A. D. 992 Southern Pacific Co., U. S. v_____________ 239 Fed. 998 6 F. A. D. 845 259 U. S. 214 9 F. A. D. 612 290 Fed. 443 9 F. A. D. 999 Southern Photo Material Co. v. Eastman Kodak Co____________________________ 234 Fed. 955 6 F. A. D. 541 295 Fed. 98 10 F. A. D. 815 273 U. S. 359 10 F. A. D. 822 Southern Ry. Co., Tift v__________________ 138 Fed. 753 2 F. A. D. 733 206 U. S. 428 Southern Wholesale Grocers' Ass'n, Clabaugh v___________________________________ 181 Fed. 706 3 F. A. D. 812 Southern Wholesale Grocers' Ass'n, U. S. v_ 207 Fed. 434 5 F. A. D. 312 Southwestern Lumber Co. v. Kerr__________ 11 F. Supp. 253 78 F. (2d) 348 296 U. S. 611 Special Site Sign Co., Foster & Kleiser Co. v_ 85 F. (2d) 742 299 U. S. 613 Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Fenster_______219 Fed. 755 5 F. A. D. 506338 Stafford v. Wallace______________________ 258 U. S. 495 12 F. A. D. 152 Standard Distilling & Distributing Co., Block v______________________________ 95 Fed. 978 1 F. A. D. 993 Standard Education Soc., Federal Trade Comm. v___________________________ 14 F. (2d) 947 11 F. A. D. 203 Standard Fashion Co. v. Magrane Houston Co__________________________________ 254 Fed. 493 8 F. A. D. 390 251 Fed. 559 259 Fed. 793 8 F. A. D. 401 258 U. S. 346 8 F. A. D. 417 Standard Oil Co., Rice v________________ 134 Fed. 464 2 F. A. D. 633 Standard Oil Co., U. S. v________________ 152 Fed. 290 3 F. A. D. 173 173 Fed. 177 3 F. A. D. 69fr 221 U. S. 1 4 F. A. D. 79 (Second case) _ _ 33 F. (2d) 617 12 F. A. D. 690 283 U. S. 163 12 F. A. D. 722; (Third case)-- 47 F. (2d) 288 12 F. A. D. 740 Standard Oil Co. (N. J.) v. Federal Trade Comm___________ ___________________ 282 Fed. 81 9 F. A. D. 340* 261 S. 463 9 F. A. D. 359 Standard Oil Co. of New York v. Federal Trade Comm_______________________ 273 Fed. 478 9 F. A. D. 260 Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co., U. S. v..... 187 Fed. 229 4 F. A. D. 251 187 Fed. 232 4 F. A. D. 255 191 Fed. 172 4 F. A. D. 395 226 U. S. 20 4 F. A. D. 622 Stanley Co. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co____ 4 F. Supp. 80 5 F. Supp. 380 Stanley Co. v. Lagomarsino_______________ 53 F. (2d) 112 Steele v. United Fruit Co________________ 190 Fed. 631 4 F. A. D. 386 194 Fed. 1023 Steers v. U. S_________________________ 192 Fed.l 4 F. A. D. 427 Steeves v. Rodman_ __ _____________ 10 F. (2d) 212 10 F. A. D. 560 (See U. S. v. Nat'l Malleable & Steel 12 F. (2d) 915 Castings Co.) Steeves, U. S. v_______________________ 10 F. (2d) 212 10 F. A. D. 560 (See XJ. S. v. Nat11 Malleable & Steel Castings Co.) Steneck, U. S. ex rel. v. Levy_____________ 3 F. (2d) 816 12 F. A. D. 215 (See XJ. S. v. NaVl Malleable & Steel 268 U. S. 390 12 F. A. D. 220 Castings Co. and XJ. S. ex. rel. Rutz v. 11 F. (2d) 845 12 F. A. D. 228 Anderson) Stephens v. Ohio State Telephone Co_______ 240 Fed. 759 6 F. A. D. 920 Stoller, Greer, Mills & Co. v_____________ 77 Fed. 1 1 F. A. D. 620 Story Parchment Co., Paterson Parchment Paper Co. v___________ ____________ 37 F. (2d) 537 12 F. A. D. 898 282 U. S. 555 12 F. A. D. 915 Straight Side Basket Corp. v. Webster Basket Co__________________________________ 4 F. Supp. 644 10 F. Supp. 171 82 F. (2d) 245 Strait v. National Harrow Co 51 Fed. 819 1 F. A. D. 52 10 F. Supp. 171 82 F. (2d) 245 Strait v. National Harrow Co_____________ 51 Fed. 819 1 F. A. D. 52339 Straus v. American Publishers' Ass'n______177 N. Y. 473 193 N. Y. 496 199 N. Y. 548 231 U. S. 222 4 F. A. D. 842 (Second case)_ _ 201 Fed. 306 4 F. A. D. 83fr Straus, Bobbs-Merrill Co. v_______________ 139 Fed. 155 2 F. A. D. 755 147 Fed. 15 210 U. S. 339 Straus, Scribner v_______________________ 130 Fed. 389 Straus, Victor Talking Mach. Co. v________ 222 Fed. 524 225 Fed. 535 230 Fed. 449 243 U. S. 490 6 F. A. D. 810 297 Fed. 791 10 F. A. D. 283: Street v. Shipowners' Ass'n. of Pacific Coast_ 263 U. S. 334 10 F. A. D. 21 Strout v. United Shoe Machinery Co_______ 195 Fed. 313 4 F. A. D. 526, 202 Fed. 602 4 F. A. D. 540 208 Fed. 646 4 F. A. D. 544 224 Fed. 1016 225 Fed. 1022 Suburban Brick Co., Robinson v__________ 127 Fed. 804 2 F. A. D. 312: Sugar Institute, U. S. v____ ____________ 15 F. Supp. 817 297 U. S. 553 Sullivan v. Associated Billposters_________ 272 Fed. 323 9 F. A. D. 250 6 F. (2d) 1000 10 F. A. D. 574 Sullivan v. Union Stockyards Co. of Omaha_ 26 F. (2d) 60 Sutherland, /n re______ _ ___________ 21 F. (2d) 667 11 F. A. D. 232 23 F. (2d) 595 Sutherland, Thorns v_____ ______ 52 F. (2d) 592 5 F. (2d) 615 10 F. A. D. 494 272 U. S. 554 10 F. A. D. 751 Theatre Realty Co., Inc., Vitagraph, Inc. v . 50 F. (2d) 907 11 F. A. D. 644 Thomas v. Cincinnati, N. 0. & T. P. Ry. Co- 62 Fed. 803 1 F. A. D. 266 Thomason v. United Gas Public Service Co__ 8 F. Supp. 14 Thorns v. Sutherland____________________ 52 F. (2d) 592 Thomsen v. Cayser___________________243 U. S. 66 6 F. A. D. 710 (See Thomsen v. Union Castle Mail S. S. Co.) Thomsen v. Union Castle Mail S. S. Co____149 Fed. 933 3 F. A. D. 108 (See Thomsen v. Cayser.) 166 Fed. 251 3 F. A. D. 548 190 Fed. 536 4 F. A. D. 382 243 U. S. 66 6 F. A. D. 710 Thorburn v. Gates----------------------- 225 Fed. 613 6 F. A. D. 197 Tift v. Southern Ry. Co__________________ 138 Fed. 753 2 F. A. D. 733 206 U. S. 428 Tilbury v. Oregon Stevedoring Co__________ 8 F. (2d) 898 10 F. A. D. 606 7 F. (2d) 1 10 F. A. D. 612 Tilden v. Quaker Oats Co________________ 1 F. (2d) 160 10 F. A. D. 405 Tile, Mantel & Grate Ass'n, Lowry v______ 98 Fed. 817 1 F. A. D. 995 (See Montague & Co. v. Lowry.) 106 Fed. 38 2 F. A. D. 53 115 Fed. 27 2 F. A. D. 112 193 U. S. 38 2 F. A. D. 327 Title Ins. & Inv. Co., Lumbermen's Trust Co. v------------------------------- 248 Fed. 212 8 F. A. D. 140 Toledo Machine & Tool Co., Vonnegut Ma- chinery Co. v_________________________ 263 Fed. 192 8 F. A. D. 652 Toledo Pipe-Threading Mach. Co. v. Federal Trade Comm_________________________ 6 F. (2d) 876 11 F. A. D. 164 11 F. (2d) 337 10 F. A. D. 658 Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n, U. S. v_____ 53 Fed. 440 1 F. A. D. 80 58 Fed. 58 1 F. A. D. 186 166 U. S. 290 1 F. A. D. 648 Trenton Potteries Co., U. S.v____________ 300 Fed. 550 10 F. A. D. 907 266 U. S. 597 273 U. S. 392 10 F. A. D. 994341 Tribolet v. U. . 904 275 U. S. 535 U. S. v. Debs__________________________ 64 Fed. 724 1 F. A. D. 322 (See In re Debs.) 158 U. S. 564 1 F. A. D. 565 U. S. v. Discher________________________ 255 Fed. 719 8 F. A. D. 349 U. S. v. Du Pont de Nemours & Co------- 188 Fed. 127 4 F. A. D. 339 273 Fed. 869 9 F. A. D. 267 V. S. v. E. C. Knight Co________________ 60 Fed. 306 1 F. A. D. 250 60 Fed. 934 1 F. A. D. 258 156 U. S. 1 1 F. A. D. 379 U. S. v. Eastern States Retail Lumber Ass'n_ 201 Fed. 581 4 F. A. D. 856 234 U. S. 600 4 F. A. D. 863 U. S. v. Eastman Kodak Co-------------- 226 Fed. 62 5 F. A. D. 881 230 Fed. 522 5 F. A. D. 910 U. S. v. Elliott_________________________ 62 Fed. 801 1 F. A. D. 262 64 Fed. 27 1 F. A. D. 311 U. S. v. Elton__________________________ 222 Fed. 428 5 F. A. D. 830 U. S.j Farmers' Livestock Comm. Co. v----- 54 F. (2d) 375 U. S. v. First National Pictures, Inc------- 34 F. (2d) 815 12 F. A. D. 819 282 U. S. 44 12 F. A. D. 829 51 F. (2d) 552 12 F. A. D. 838 U. S. v. Fish Credit Association, Inc------ 85 F. (2d) 544 (See U. S. v. Lanza.) 299 U. S. 609 346 XJ. S., Fitzgerald v______________________ 6 F. (2d) 156 10 F. A. D. 541 (See U. jST. v. Nat'l Malleable & Steel 269 U. S. 570 Castings Co.) U. S.j Forrest v________ _ ______________ 277 Fed. 873 258 U. S. 629 9 F. A. D. 523 U. S. v. Fur Dressers' & Fur Dyers9 Ass'ri- 5 F. (2d) 869 10 F. A. D. 511 ll. S. v. General Electric Co____________ 15 F. (2d) 715 10 F. A. D. 790 272 U. S. 476 10 F. A. D. 799 U. S.f General Paper Co. v___ _____ 201 U. S. 117 2 F. A. D. 945 (See Nelson v. U. S.) U. S. v. Goldman_______________________ 277 U. S. 229 12 F. A. D. 323 (See XJ. S. v. National Cash Register Co. and U. S. v. Whifien.) U. S. v. Gompers_______________________ 40 App. D. C. 293 233 U. S. 604 4 F. A. D. 792 U. S. v. Greater N. Y. Live Poultry Cham. of Comm. (see also TJ. S. v. Weiner)____ 30 F. (2d) 939 12 F. A. D. 586 (Second case) _ - 33 F. (2d) 1005 12 F. A. D. 589 34 F. (2d) 967 12 F. A. D. 591 47 F. (2d) 156 12 F. A. D. 600 283 U. S. 837 (Third case). _ 44 F. (2d) 393 53 F. (2d) 518 291 U. S. 293 12 F. A. D. 596 TJ. S. v. Great Lakes Towing Co___________ 208 Fed. 733 5 F. A. D. 347 217 Fed. 656 5 F. A. D. 368 245 U. S. 675 U. S. v. Great Western Sugar Co__________ 39 F. (2d) 149 12 F. A. D. 805 (Second case)__ 39 F. (2d) 152 12 F. A. D. 812 TJ. S. v. Greenhut_______________________ 50 Fed. 469 1 F. A. D. 30 51 Fed. 205 1 F. A. D. 33 51 Fed. 213 1 F. A. D. 46 U. S. v. Griffiths_______________________ 2 F. (2d) 925 (See TJ. S. v. Smith.) TJ. S. v. Hamburg-American Co___________ 200 Fed. 806 4 F. A. D. 892 216 Fed. 971 4 F. A. D. 897 239 U. S. 466 4 F. A. D. 903 U. S. v. Heike_________________________ 175 Fed. 852 217 U« S. 423 192 Fed. 83 4 F. A. D. 441 227 U. S. 131 4 F. A. D. 449 U. S. v. Hency_________________________ 286 Fed. 165 9 F. A. D. 823 TJ. S.j Herbertj et al. v___________________ 73 F. (2d) 1001 (See U. S. v. Weiner and U. S. ex rel. Weiner v. Hill.) U. S. v. Hollis_________________________ 246 Fed. 611 6 F. A. D. 976 U. S. v. Hopkins_______________________ 82 Fed. 529 1 F. A. D. 725 84 Fed. 1018 1 F. A. D. 748 171 U. S. 578 1 F. A. D. 941 U. S., Howell v_________________________ 11 F. (2d) 847 10 F. A. D. 566 (See U. S. v. Nat'l Malleable & Steel Castings Co.) U. S. v. Hudnut_______________________ 8 F. (2d) 1010 10 F. A. D. 633347 XJ. S. v. Industrial Ass'n of San Francisco_ 293 Fed. 925 10 F. A. D. 94 268 U. S. 64 10 F. A. D. 98 XJ. S.j International Brotherhood of Team- sters, etc. v___________________________ 44 F. (2d) 393 (See XJ. S. v. Greater New York Live 53 F. (2d) 518 Poultry Cham. of Comm.) 291 U. S. 293 XJ. S. v. International Business Machines Corp_____________________ ________ 13 F. Supp. 11 298 U. S. 131 XJ. S. v. International Harvester Co_________ 214 Fed. 987 5 F. A. D. 637 248 U. S. 587 10 F. (2d) 827 10 F. A. D. 989 274 U. S. 693 10 F. A. D. 1053 XJ. S. v. Interstate Circuit, Inc___________ 20 F. Supp. 463 U. S. v. Jellico Mountain Coke & Coal Co___ 43 Fed. 898 1 F. A. D. 1 46 Fed. 432 1 F. A. D. 9 XJ. S., Jennings v_______________________ 264 Fed. 399 8 F. A. D. 800 XJ. S. v. Joint Traffic Association_________ 76 Fed. 895 1 F. A. D. 615 89 Fed. 1020 1 F. A. D. 869 171 U. S. 505 1 F. A. D. 869 XJ. S., Journeymen Stone Cutters' Ass'n v-_ (Not reported) 278 U. S. 566 XJ. S. v. Kellogg Corn Flake Co___________ 222 Fed. 725 5 F. A. D. 850 XJ. S. v. Keystone Watch Case Co_________ 218 Fed. 502 5 F. A. D. 481 257 U. S. 664 XJ. S. v. King__________________________ 229 Fed. 275 6 F. A. D. 415 250 Fed. 908 8 F. A. D. 211 XJ. S. v. Kissel________________________ 173 Fed. 823 3 F. A. D. 744 (See XJ. S. v. American Sugar Ref, Co.) 218 U. S. 601 3 F. A. D. 816 XJ. S., Knauer v________________________ 237 Fed. 8 6 F. A. D. 685 XJ. S. v. Knight Co_________ ____________ 60 Fed. 306 1 F. A. D. 250 60 Fed. 934 1 F. A. D. 258 156 U. S. 1 1 F. A. D. 379 XJ. S. v. Kryptok Co_____ __ _______ 11 F. (2d) 874 10 F. A. D. 673 XJ. S. v. Lackawanna R. R. Co____________ 213 Fed. 240 6 F. A. D. 225 238 U. S. 516 6 F. A. D. 260 XJ. S. v. Lake Shore Ry. Co___________ 203 Fed. 295 5 F. A. D. 241 281 Fed. 1007 9 F. A. D. 578 5 F. (2d) 240 10 F. A. D. 469 U. S., Lamar v________________________ 260 Fed. 561 8 F. A. D. 508 (See XJ. S. v. Rintelen.) 250 U. S. 673 254 U. S. 616 XJ. S. v. Lanza_____ _ ____ _____ 85 F. (2d) 544 (See XJ. S. v. Fish Credit Association 299 U. S. 609 Inc.) XJ. S. v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co__________ 225 Fed. 399 6 F. A. D. 280 254 U. S. 255 9 F. A. D. 96 XJ. S. v. Live Poultry Dealers1 Protective Ass'n_________________ _ ________ 298 Fed. 139 10 F. A. D. 316 4 F. (2d) 840 10 F. A. D. 454 XJ. S. v. Local 167, Internal I Brotherhood of Teamsters 291 U. S. 293 (See XJ. S. v. Greater N. Y. Live Poultry Cham, of Comm.) XJ. S. v. Local 167, Internal I Brotherhood of Teamsters____________________________291 U. S. 293 (See XJ. S. v. Greater N. Y. Live Poultry Cham, of Comm.)348 U. S. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Co________149 Fed. 823 3 F. A. D. 81 149 Fed. 836 3 F. A. D. 100 212 U. S. 585 3 F. A. D. 100 U. S. v. Maple Flooring Mfrs' Ass'n______(Not reported) 268 U. S. 563 10 F. A. D. 188 U. S. v. Marine Engineers' Ass'n_________ 277 Fed. 830 9 F. A. D. 503 U. S., McCourtney v--------------------291 Fed. 497 9 F. A. D. 1030 263 U. S. 714 U. Meehan v------------------------ 11 F. (2d) 847 10 F. A. D. 566 (See U. S. v. NaVl Malleable & Steel Castings Co.) U. S.f Mercer v_________________________ 61 F. (2d) 97 U. S. v. Metropolitan Meat Co____________ 3 Dist. Hawaii 110 U. S., Minerich v----------------------- 29 F. (2d) 565 11 F. A. D. 383 279 U. S. 843 U. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v_ 4 F. Supp. 745 292 U. S. 282 U. S., Moore v_________________________ 85 Fed. 465 U. S. v. Moore et al_____________________ 275 Fed. 992 U. S. v. Moore et al (Removal)____________ 7 F. (2d) 734 (See U. S. v. Nat'I Malleable & Steel Castings Co.) U. S. v. Motion Picture Patents Co________ 225 Fed. 800 230 Fed. 541 247 U. S. 524 1 F. A. D. 815 9 F. A. D. 327 10 F. A. D. 545 6 F. A. D. 204 6 F. A. D. 222 U. S.f Myers v. U. S., Nash v_ _ Workers.) U. S. v. National Cash Register Co________ (See U. S. v. Whiffen and U. S. v. Goldman.) Co. (Removal proceedings) _J U. S. v. Needle Trades Workers______ U. S. v. Nelson____________________ V. S.y Nelson v____________________ (See General Paper Co. v. U. S.) U. S. v. New Departure Mfg. Co_____ 264 U. S. 95 172 Fed. 455 3 F. A. D. 679 > 186 Fed. 592 4 F. A. D. 48 186 Fed. 489 5 F. A. D. 234 229 U. S. 373 5 F. A. D. 234 287 Fed. 228 9 F. A. D. 895 263 U. S. 403 10 F. A. D. 27 23 F. (2d) 352 12 F. A. D. 312 277 U. S. 229 12 F. A. D. 323 6 F. (2d) 40 10 F. A. D. 520 ' 6 F. (2d) 149 10 F. A. D. 527 6 F. (2d) 156 10 F. A. D. 541 269 U. S. 570 7 F. (2d) 734 10 F. A. D. 545 10 F. (2d) 212 10 F. A. D. 560 11 F. (2d) 843 12 F. A. D. 224 11 F. (2d) 845 12 F. A. D. 228 , 11 F. (2d) 847 10 F. A. D. 566 10 F. Supp. 201 52 Fed. 646 1 F. A. D. 77 201 U. S. 92 2 F. A. D 920 204 Fed. 107 5 F. A. D. 145 (Removal proceedings) _J349 U. S. v. New England Fish Exchange______ 258 Fed. 732 8 F. A. D. 427 292 Fed. 511 8 F. A. D. 456 U. S. v. New York Coffee & Sugar Exchange, Inc_________________________________ 263 U. S. 611 10 F. A. D. 125 U. S. v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R.R. Co____________________________165 Fed. 742 3 F. A. D. 524 U. S. v. Norris_________________________ 255 Fed. 423 8 F. A. D. 343 U. S. v. North Pacific Wharves & Trading Co__________________________________ 4 Alaska 552 (Second case) _ _ 4 Alaska 583 U. S. v. Northern Securities Co___________120 Fed. 721 2 F. A. D. 215 193 U. S. 197 2 F. A. D. 338 U. S.} O'Brien v________________________ 290 Fed. 185 9 F. A. D. 974 U. S. v. Pacific & Arctic Ry. Co__________ 4 Alaska 530 228 U. S. 87 5 F. A. D. 213 (Second case) _ . 4 Alaska 574 U. S. v. Painters1 Dist. Council No. 14 of Chicago, etc__________________________ 44 F. (2d) 58 12 F. A. D. 987 284 U. S. 582 12 F. A. D. 996 U. S. v. Paramount Famous Lasky Corp___ 34 F. (2d) 984 12 F. A. D. 844 282 U. S. 30 12 F. A. D. 857 U. S. v. Patten_________________________ 187 Fed. 664 4 F. A. D. 274 226 U. S. 525 4 F. A. D. 742 U. S. v. Patterson_______________________ 55 Fed. 605 1 F. A. D. 133 59 Fed. 280 1 F. A. D. 244 (Second case)__ 201 Fed. 697 5 F. A. D. 1 205 Fed. 292 5 F. A. D. 45 222 Fed. 599 5 F. A. D. 60 238 U. S. 635 U.S. v. Phoenix Wholesale Meat & Produce Co_ 95 Pac. 85 3 F. A. D. 316 (See Tribolet v. U. S.) U. S. v. Piowaty & Sonst M_____________251 Fed. 375 8 F. A. D. 217 U. S. v. Prince Line, Ltd________________ 220 Fed. 230 5 F. A. D. 675 242 U. S. 537 5 F. A. D. 684 U. S. v. Protective Fur Dressers Corp_______ 88 F. (2d) 625 (See U. S. v. Buchalter and Shapiro v. 301 U. S. 708 U. S.) U. S. v. Quaker Oats Co----------------- 232 Fed. 499 6 F. A. D. 429 253 U. S. 499 U. S. v. Radio Corporation of America_____ 3 F. Supp. 23 U. S. v. Railway Employees1 Dept. of A. F. of L--------------------------------- 283 Fed. 479 9 F. A. D. 707 286 Fed. 228 9 F. A. D. 831 290 Fed. 978 9 F. A. D. 852 U. S. v. Reading Company--------------- 183 Fed. 427 3 F. A. D. 866 226 U. S. 324 4 F. A. D. 694 228 U. S. 158 4 F. A. D. 739 (Second case)__ 226 Fed. 229 6 F. A. D. 290 253 U. S. 26 9 F. A. D. 1 273 Fed. 848 9 F. A. D. 36 (Continental Insurance Co. v. U. S.)-- 259 U. S. 156 9 F. A. D. 588 295 Fed. 551 10 F. A. D. 234 U. S. v. Rear don & Sons Co______________ 191 Fed. 454 9878—38-23350 XJ. S. v. Reilly_________________________ 6 F. (2d) 188 10 F. A. D. 555 (See Vandell v. U. S.) XJ. S. v. Republic Steel Corp______________ 11 F. Supp. 117 XJ. S. v. Rintelen_______________________ 233 Fed. 793 6 F. A. D. 524 (See Lamar v. XJ. S.) 235 Fed. 787 260 Fed. 561 8 F. A. D. 508 250 U. S. 673 254 U. S. 616 XJ. S. v. Rockefeller_____________________ 222 Fed. 534 5 F. A. D. 844 XI. S. v. Santa Rita Store Co. and Santa Rita Mining Co___________________________1 113 Pac. 620 XJ. S. v. Schrader's Son, Inc______________ 264 Fed. 175 8 F. A. D. 571 252 U. S. 85 8 F. A. D. 586 XJ. S., Shapiro v________________________301 U. S. 708 (See XJ. S. v. Protective Fur Dressers Corp. and XJ. S. v. Buchalter.) XJ. S. v. Sisal Sales Corp________________ 274 U. S. 268 10 F. A. D. 1033 U. S., Smith v_________________________ 2 F. (2d) 925 (See U. S. v. Griffiths.) XJ. S. v. Southern Calif. Wholesale Grocers' ylss'n_______________________________ 7 F. (2d) 944 10 F. A. D. 622 XJ. S. v. Southern Pacific Co______________ 239 Fed. 998 6 F. A. D. 845 259 U. S. 214 9 F. A. D. 612 290 Fed. 443 9 F. A. D. 999 XJ. S. v. Southern Wholesale Grocers' .Ass'ra. 207 Fed. 434 5 F. A. D. 312 U. S. v. Standard Oil Co_________________ 152 Fed. 290 3 F. A. D. 173 173 Fed. 177 3 F. A. D. 696 221 U. S. 1 4 F. A. D. 79 (Second case)-- 33 F. (2d) 617 12 F. A. D. 690 283 U. S. 163 12 F. A. D. 722 (Third case)-- 47 F. (2d) 288 12 F. A. D. 740 XJ. S. v. Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co_______ 187 Fed. 229 4 F. A. D. 251 187 Fed. 232 4 F. A. D. 255 191 Fed. 172 4 F. A. D. 395 226 U. S. 20 4 F. A. D. 622 XJ. S., Steers v__________________________ 192 Fed. 1 4 F. A. D. 427 XJ. S. v. Steeves_________________________ 10 F. (2d) 212 10 F. A. D. 560 (See XJ. S. v. Nat'I Malleable & Steel Castings Co.) XJ. S. v. Sugar Institute__________________ 15 F. Supp. 817 297 U. S. 553 U. S. v. Swift & Co_____________________122 Fed. 529 2 F. A. D. 237 196 U. S. 375 2 F. A. D. 641 (Criminal case).. 186 Fed. 1002 4 F. A. D. 53 188 Fed. 92 4 F. A. D. 288 (Third case).. (Unreported) 10 F. A. D. 352 299 Fed. 908 10 F. A. D. 354 (Unreported) 10 F. A. D. 364 276 U. S. 311 12 F. A. D. 419 279 U. S. 553 12 F. A. D. 683 286 U. S. 106 V. S., Tagg Bros. & Moorhead v.......... 29 F. (2d) 750 12 F. A. D. 633 280 U. S. 420 12 F. A. D. 652351 U. S. v. Taliaferro_____---------------- 290 Fed. 214 9 F. A. D. 976 290 Fed. 906 9 F. A. D. 990 U, S., Temple Iron Co. v______________ 226 U. S. 324 4 F. A. D. 694 228 U. S. 158 4 F. A. D. 739 U. S. v. Terminal R. R. Ass'n____________ 148 Fed. 486 3 F. A. D. 34 154 Fed. 268 3 F. A. D. 265 215 U. S. 595 224 U. S. 383 4 F. A. D. 473 197 Fed. 446 4 F. A. D. 501 (Ex parte United States, Petitioner)___ 226 U. S. 420 4 F. A. D. 507 236 U. S. 194 4 F. A. D. 512 266 U. S. 17 U. S. v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n_____ 53 Fed. 440 1 F. A. D. 80 58 Fed. 58 1 F. A. D. 186 166 U. S. 290 1 F. A. D. 648 U. S. v. Trenton Potteries Co_____________ 300 Fed. 550 266 U. S. 597 10 F. A. D. 907 273 U. S. 392 10 F. A. D. 994 U. S., Tribolet v__________ ____________ 95 Pac. 85 3 F. A. D. 316 (See U. S. v. Phoenix Wholesale Meat & Produce Co.) U. S., Union Pacific Coal Co. v___________ 173 Fed. 737 3 F. A. D. 731 U. S. v. Union Pacific R. R. Co__________ 188 Fed. 102 4 F. A. D. 303 226 U. S. 61 4 F. A. D. 652 226 U. S. 470 4 F. A. D. 687 U. S. v. United Shoe Machinery Co. of N. J- 222 Fed. 349 5 F. A. D. 686 (See U. S. v. Winslow.) 247 U. S. 32 8 F. A. D. 223 (Second case)-_ 227 Fed. 507 232 Fed. 1023 5 F. A. D. 784 234 Fed. 127 5 F. A. D. 791 264 Fed. 138 8 F. A. D. 683 258 U. S. 451 8 F. A. D. 737 U. S. v. U. S. Steel Corp________________ 223 Fed. 55 240 U. S. 442 6 F. A. D. 1 251 U. S. 417 8 F. A. D. 527 U. SVandell v._._____________________ 6 F. (2d) 188 10 F. A. D. 555 (See U. S. v. Reilly.) U. S. v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co____ 163 Fed. 66 3 F. A. D. 395 U. S. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc------- (Unreported) 11 F. A. D. 487 (Second case)-. 13 F. Supp. 614 298 U. S. 643 U. S. v. Weiner________________________ 73 F. (2d) 1001 (See U. S. v. Greater N. Y. Live Poultry Cham, of Comm., Herbert et al. v. U. S. and U. S. ex rel. Weiner v. Hill.) U. S. v. Whiffen________________________ 23 F. (2d) 352 12 F. A. D. 312 (See U. S. v. National Cash Register Co. 277 U. S. 229 12 F. A. D. 323 and U. S. v. Goldman.) U. S. v. Whiting________________________ 212 Fed. 466 5 F. A. D. 447 U. S.} Wilkes v_________________________ 291 Fed. 988 263 U. S. 719 U. S.t Williams v__.-------------------- 295 Fed. 302 265 U. S. 591 i-* o > D, 211352 U. S., Winkle v________________________291 Fed. 493 9 F. A. D. 1024 U. S. v. Winslow_______________________ 195 Fed. 578 5 F. A. D. 170 (See U. S. v. United Shoe Machinery 227 U. S. 202 5 F. A. D. 198 Co.) U. S. v. Workingmen's Amal. Council_____ 54 Fed. 994 1 F. A. D. 110 57 Fed. 85 1 F. A. D. 184 Universal Film Mfg. Co., Motion Picture Patents Co. v_________________________ 235 Fed. 398 6 F. A. D. 639 243 U. S. 502 6 F. A. D. 821 Utah-Idaho Sugar Co. v. Federal Trade Comm_______________________________ 22 F. (2d) 122 11 F. A. D. 295 Van Camp & Sons Co. v. American Can Co„ 278 U. S. 245 12 F. A. D. 675 30 F. (2d) 1011 Van Kannel Revolving Door Co. v. General Bronze Cory-.________________________ 6 F. Supp. 518 77 F. (2d) 300 Vandell v. U. S_________________________ 6 F. (2d) 188 10 F. A. D. 555 (See U. S. v. Reilly.) Venner v. New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co_______________________143 N. Y. S. 211 145 N. Y. S. 725 160 App. Div. 127 Venner v. Pennsylvania Steel Co. of N.J___ 250 Fed. 292 8 F. A. D. 189 Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. Kemeny______271 Fed. 810 9 F. A. D. 230 Victor Talking Mach. Co.t Shelton Elec. Co. v________________________________ 277 Fed. 433 9 F. A. D. 487 Victor Talking Machine Co. v. Straus______ 222 Fed. 524 225 Fed. 535 230 Fed. 449 243 U. S. 490 6 F. A. D. 810 297 Fed. 791 10 F. A. D. 283 Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., U.S.v____163 Fed. 66 3 F. A. D. 395 Virginia, Paul v________________________ 8 Wall. 168 Virtue v. Creamery Package Mfg. Co______179 Fed. 115 3 F. A. D. 794 227 U. S. 8 4 F. A. D. 808 Vitagraph, Inc. v. Grobaski_______________ 46 F. (2d) 813 11 F. A. D. 615 Vitagraph, Inc. v. Theatre Realty Co., Inc___ 50 F. (2d) 907 11 F. A. D. 644 VivaudoU, Inc. v. Federal Trade Comm____ 54 F. (2d) 273 Vogue Dry Cleaning, Dieners Cash & Carry Cleaners, Inc. __________________ 58 Wash. L. R. 11 F. A. D. 479 34. Voight & Sons Co., Continental Wall Paper Co.v________________________________ 148 Fed. 939 3 F. A. D. 44 212 U. S. 227 3 F. A. D. 480 Vonnegut Machinery Co., Gable v_________ 274 Fed. 66 8 F. A. D. 670 Vonnegut Machinery Co. v. Toledo Machine & Tool Co___________________________ 263 Fed. 192 8 F. A. D. 652 Vulcan Mfg. Co. v. Maytag Co___________ 73 F. (2d) 136 293 U. S. 553 294 U. S. 734 Wagner Electric Mfg. Co. v. International Ass'n of Machinists___________________ 252 Fed. 597 8 F. A. D. 276 Waitresses1 Unionv. Benish Restaurant Co___ 6 F. (2d) 568 10 F. A. D. 572 Wallace, Stafford v______________________ 258 U. S. 495 12 F. A. D. 152353 Waller stein, Western Electric Co. v________ 48 F. (2d) 268 11 F. A. D. 564 Waltham Watch Co. v. Keene_____________191 Fed. 855 202 Fed. 225 209 Fed. 1007 232 U. S. 724 Wanner, U. S. ex rel. v. Levy____________ 268 U. S. 390 12 F. A. D. 220 (See U. S. v. NaVl Malleable & Steel Castings Co.) Ward Baking Co. v. Federal Trade Comm. . 264 Fed. 330 12 F. A. D. 14 Ware-Kramer Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co___________________________ 178 Fed. 117 3 F. A. D. 766 180 Fed. 160 3 F. A. D. 780 196 Fed. 1004 Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc., Perelmanv____ 9 F. Supp. 729 Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc., U. S. v_______ (Unreported) 11 F. A. D. 487 (Second case)__ 13 F. Supp. 614 298 U. S. 643 Waterhouse v. Comer____________________ 55 Fed. 149 1 F. A. D. 119 Way man v. Louis Lipp Co_______________ 222 Fed. 679 Webster Basket Co., Straight Side Basket Corp. v------------------------------ 4 F. Supp. 644 10 F. Supp. 171 82 F. (2d) 245 Weed Chain Tire Grip Co., Lowe Motor Sup- plies Co. v--------------------------- (Not reported) 6 F. A. D. 887 Weiner, U. S. v________________________ 73 F. (2d) 1001 (See V. S. v. Greater N. Y. Live Poultry Cham, of Comm., Herbert et al. v. U. S. and U. S. ex rel. Weiner v. Hill.) Weisert Bros. Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co___________________________ 163 Fed. 712 3 F. A. D. 426 Weiss & Lesh Mfg. Co., King v___________ 266 Fed. 257 8 F. A. D. 844 Welch Grape Juice Co., Frey & Son v______ 240 Fed. 114 6 F. A. D. 861 (Not reported) 6 F. A. D. 865 261 Fed. 68 8 F. A. D. 516 251 U. S. 551 Welsbach Street Lighting Co., Fleitmann v____ 240 U. S. 27 5 F. A. D. 429 (See Fleitmann v. United Gas Improve- ment Co.) Western Electric Co. v. Pacent Reproducer Corp-------------------------------- 53 F. (2d) 639 Western Electric Co. v. Waller stein________ 48 F. (2d) 268 11 F. A. D. 564 Western Meat Co. v. Federal Trade Comm.. 1 F. (2d) 95 10 F. A. D. 729 4 F. (2d) 223 10 F. A. D. 737 272 U. S. 554 10 F. A. D. 751 33 F. (2d) 824 11 F. A. D. 417 Western Sugar Refinery Co. v. Federal Trade Comm------------------------------- 275 Fed. 725 11 F. A. D. 47 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Internal I Br other' hood of Electrical Workers______________ 2 F. (2d) 993 10 F. A. D. 430 6 F. (2d) 444 10 F. A. D. 435 46 F. (2d) 736 11 F. A. D. 630 284 U. S. 630354 Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co. v. Diamond State Fibre Co........................ 268 Fed. 121 8 F. A. D. 904 West Pub. Co., Jones & Co. v____________ 270 Fed. 563 8 F. A. D. 998 270 U. S. 665 West Virginia-Pittsburgh Coal Co., Bittner v_ 214 Fed. 716 5 F. A. D. 635 (See U. S. ex rel. West Va.-Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Bittner.) West Virginia-Pittsburgh Coal Co., U. S. ex rel. v. Bittner______________________ 11 F. (2d) 93 10 F. A. D. 963 (Second case)__ 15 F. (2d) 652 10 F. A. D. 968 Wheeler-Stenzel Co. v. National Window Glass Jobbers' Ass'n___________________ 152 Fed. 864 3 F. A. D. 208 Wheeling & L. E. Ry. Co., Atwater v______ 56 F. (2d) 720 Wheeling & L. E. Ry. Co. v. Pittsburgh & W. V. Ry. Co________________________ 33 F. (2d) 390 11 F. A. D. 408 280 U. S. 593 Whiff en, U.S.v________________________ 23 F. (2d) 352 12 F. A. D. 312 (See U. S. v. National Cash Register 277 U. S. 229 12 F. A. D. 323 Co. ajid U. S. v. Goldman.) White, U. S. ex rel Nourse v_____________ 11 F. (2d) 843 12 F. A. D. 224 (See U. S. v. Nat'l Malleable & Steel Castings Co.) White Star Line, Cole Transp. Co. v_______186 Fed. 63 4 F. A. D. 36 225 U. S. 704 Whiting, U. S. v________________________212 Fed. 466 5 F. A. D. 447 Whitwell v. Continental Tobacco Co________125 Fed. 454 2 F. A. D. 271 Wholesale Grocers' ^Iss'n v. Federal Trade Comm_______________________________ 277 Fed. 657 9 F. A. D. 511 Wickham, Hoyt v_______________________ 25 F. (2d) 777 Wilder Mfg. Co., Corn Products Co. v______ 11 Ga. App. 588 236 U. S. 165 6 F. A. D. 544 Wilkes v. U. S_________________________291 Fed. 988 263 U. S. 719 Williams v. U. S________________________ 295 Fed. 302 10 F. A. D. 211 265 U. S. 591 Willys-Overland, Inc., Dail-Overland Co. v_ 263 Fed. 171 8 F. A. D. 607 274 Fed. 56 8 F. A. D. 638 Wilson Gas & Oil Co., Sinclair Refining Co. v----------------------------------- 52 F. (2d) 974 Winfree v. Riverside Cotton Mills Co_______ 75 S. E. (Va.) 309. Winkle v. U. S_________________________291 Fed. 493 9 F. A. D. 1024 Winslow v. Federal Trade Comm__________ 277 Fed. 206 11 F. A. D. 73 258 U. S. 618 Winslow, U. S. v_______________________ 195 Fed. 578 5 F. A. D. 170 (See U. S. v. United Shoe Machinery 227 U. S. 202 5 F. A. D. 198 Co.) Winsted Hosiery Co. v. Federal Trade Comm. 272 Fed. 957 12 F. A. D. 28 258 U. S. 483 12 F. A. D. 33 Winston Co. v. Federal Trade Comm_______ 3 F. (2d) 961 11 F. A. D. 143 269 U. S. 555 Wise, General Electric Co. v.............. 119 Fed. 922 2 F. A. D. 205355 Wisewall, The Charles E_________________ 74 Fed. 802 1 F. A. D. 608 86 Fed, 671 1 F. A. D. 850 Wither ell & Dobbins Co. v. United Shoe Machinery Co________________________ 267 Fed. 950 8 F. A. D. 891 Witmark & Sons, M., v. Pastime Amuse- ment Co_____________________________ 298 Fed. 470 10 F. A. D. 325 Wogan Bros. v. American Sugar Ref. Co__ 215 Fed. 273 5 F. A. D. 467 Woolley v. Federal Trade Comm___________ 22 F. (2d) 122 11 F. A. D. 295 Workingmen's Amal. Council, U. S. v____ 54 Fed. 994 1 F. A. D. 110 57 Fed. 85 1 F. A. D. 184 Yale & Towne Mfg. Co., Blount Mfg. Co. v_ 166 Fed. 555 3 F. A. D. 575 Youngclaus v. Omaha Film Board of Trade_ 60 F. (2d) 538 Zimmers v. Dodge Bros., Inc------------ 21 F. (2d) 152 11 F. A. D. 261 O ' M- UMW OF THt M !\R 141338 UNWERSHV lLUNObThis book is a preservation facsimile produced for the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. It is made in compliance with copyright law and produced on acid-free archival 60# book weight paper which meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (permanence of paper). Preservation facsimile printing and binding by Northern Micrographics Brookhaven Bindery La Crosse, Wisconsin 2014