440 DOUGLAS, J., dissenting. State of requirements for equipment which the Federal Government has approved was emphasized in Kelly v. Washington, supra, in the passage already quoted. The requirements of Detroit may be too lax for another port. Cf. People v. Cunard White Star, Ltd., 280 N. Y. 413, 21 N. E. 2d 489. The variety of requirements for equipment which the States may provide in order to meet their air pollution needs underlines the importance of letting the Coast Guard license serve as authority for the vessel to use, in all our ports, the equipment which it certifies. Per Curiam. 362 U.S. PHILLIPS v. NEW YORK. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. No. 497. Argued April 18, 1960.-Decided April 25, 1960. Certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted. Reported below: 6 N. Y. 2d 788, 159 N. E. 2d 677. Henry W. Schober argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Anthony T. Antinozzi and Frank A. Fritz, Jr. Joseph I. Heneghan argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Manuel W. Levine. PER CURIAM. After hearing oral argument and fully examining the record which was only partially set forth in the petition for certiorari, we conclude that the totality of circumstances as the record makes them manifest did not warrant bringing the case here. Accordingly, the writ is dismissed as improvidently granted. CERMINARO v. URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF PITTSBURGH ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 654, Misc. Decided April 25, 1960. Appeal dismissed. Reported below: F. Supp. - Louis C. Glasso for appellant. Theodore L. Hazlett, Jr. and David Stahl for appellees. PER CURIAM. The appeal is dismissed. CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. v. CITY OF EUCLID, OHIO, et al. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. No. 740. Decided April 25, 1960. Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. John Lansdale for appellant. Paul H. Torbet and John F. Ray, Jr. for appellees. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA MILK PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION, INC., v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 62. Argued January 19-20, 1960.-Decided May 2, 1960.* The United States brought a civil antitrust action against an agricultural cooperative marketing association composed of about 2,000 Maryland and Virginia dairy farmers supplying about 86% of the milk purchased by all milk dealers in the Washington, D. C., metropolitan area. The complaint charged that the association had (1) monopolized and attempted to monopolize interstate trade and commerce in fluid milk in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia, in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act; (2) through contracts and agreements combined and conspired with Embassy Dairy and others to eliminate and foreclose competition in the same milk market area, in-violation of § 3 of the Sherman Act; and (3) bought all assets of Embassy Dairy, (the largest milk dealer in the area which competed with the association's dealers), the effect of which might be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in violation of §7 of the Clayton Act. The District Court dismissed the charge under § 2 of the Sherman Act; but it found for the Government on the charges under § 3 of the Sherman Act and § 7 of the Clayton Act and granted part, but not all, of the relief sought by the Government with respect to those charges. Held: 1. Section 2 of the Capper-Volstead Act, which authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to issue a cease-and-desist order upon finding that a cooperative has monopolized or restrained trade to such an extent that the price of an agricultural commodity has been "unduly enhanced," does not exclude all prosecutions under the Sherman Act. United States v. Borden Co., 308 U. S. 188. Pp. 462-463. 2. Neither § 6 of the Clayton Act nor § 1 of the Capper-Volstead Act leaves agricultural cooperatives free to engage in practices against others which are designed to monopolize trade or to restrain and suppress competition. Pp. 463-468. *Together with No. 73, United States v. Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers Association, Inc., also on >peal from the same Court. 3. The allegations of the complaint and the statement of particulars in this case charge anticompetitive activities which are so far outside the legitimate objects of a cooperative that, if proved, they would constitute clear violations of § 2 of the Sherman Act; and the District Court erred in dismissing the charge of violating § 2. P. 468. 4. On the record in this case, the District Court properly found that the acquisition of Embassy Dairy by the association tended to create a monopoly or to substantially lessen competition, in violation of § 7 of the Clayton Act. Pp. 468-469. 5. The acquisition of Embassy Dairy by the association was not exempted from the provisions of §7 of the Clayton Act by the last paragraph of that section, since there is no "statutory provision" that vests power in the Secretary of Agriculture to approve a transaction and thereby exempt a cooperative from the antitrust laws under the circumstances of this case, which involves no agricultural marketing agreement with the Secretary. Pp. 469-470. 6. The privilege the Capper-Volstead Act grants producers to conduct their affairs collectively does not include a privilege to combine with competitors so as to use a monopoly position as a lever further to suppress competition by and among independent producers and processors; and the record sustains the District Court's finding that the association had violated § 3 of the Sherman Act. Pp. 470-472. 7. Having entered a decree ordering the association to divest itself of all assets acquired from Embassy Dairy and to cancel all contracts ancillary to their acquisition, and having retained jurisdiction to grant such further relief as might be appropriate, the District Court did not err in denying part of the relief sought by the Government. Pp. 472-473. 167 F. Supp. 45, reversed. 167 F. Supp. 799, 168 F. Supp. 880, affirmed. Herbert A. Bergson and William J. Hughes, Jr. argued the cause for the Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers Association, Inc. With them on the brief were Daniel J. Freed, Howard Adler, Jr. and Daniel H. Margolis. Philip Elman argued the cause for the United States. On the brief were Solicitor General Rankin, Acting Assistant Attorney General Bicks, Charles H. Weston, Irwin A. Seibel and Joseph J. Saunders. |