55.

56.

57.

for the 2 other defendants. On May 10, 1920, the fines imposed were remitted by the President.

United States v. Colgate & Company. Indictment returned December 18, 1917, in the District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, charging defendant with combining with wholesale and retail dealers in its products. to procure adherence to resale prices fixed by it. It was alleged that defendant indicated to wholesale and retail dealers by letters and circulars and orally the prices it desired to have maintained, and that dealers failing to maintain such prices were placed on so-called "suspended lists" and refused further supplies until they gave assurance that the prices indicated would be observed. Argued on demurrer in March, 1918, and demurrer sustained in an opinion handed down on October 29, 1918. The Government appealed to the Supreme Court, which held, on June 2, 1919, that the interpretation of the indictment by the court below could not be reviewed, and, upon that interpretation, affirmed the order sustaining the demurrer. (See No. 72, infra, p. 156.)

United States v. Booth Fisheries Company et al. Petition filed March 13, 1918, in the District Court, Western District of Washington, charging defendants with combining to restrain and monopolize interstate trade and commerce in halibut. Among other things it was alleged that practically all the halibut brought in on the North Pacific coast was marketed through the defendants, and that they had entered into agreements involving the fixing of maximum prices for buying and minimum prices for selling halibut. An agreed decree granting the relief sought by the Government was entered on March 13, 1918.

United States v. Interlaken Mills et al.

Petition filed

April 15, 1918, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, charging the defendants with entering

18981-28--11

58.

59.

60.

into a combination to fix the price of book cloth, of which they control approximately 90 per cent of the quantity manufactured in the United States. With the consent of the defendants, a decree dissolving the combination was entered on April 15, 1918. Decree modified by the court on July 24, 1919.

United States v. Victor Talking Machine Co. Petition filed May 3, 1918, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, charging defendant with engaging in a combination in restraint of trade in talking machines, talking-machine records, and appliances for use in connection therewith. A decree was entered by consent on May 3, 1918, perpetually enjoining the Victor Company from carrying out the alleged unlawful combination.

United States v. Ironite Co. et al. Indictment returned May 10, 1918, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, charging defendants with conspiring to restrain and monopolize interstate trade in pulverized, powdered, or finely divided iron or other like metal or metal-containing material, used in or in connection with concrete construction work.

A petition in equity was also filed December 17, 1919, in the District Court, Southern District of New York (see No. 69, infra, p. 154), asking that the same defendants be enjoined from continuing the acts complained of in the indictment. The defendants having submitted in the civil case to the application of a more radical and efficacious remedy for the restraint involved than would have resulted from a conviction in the criminal proceeding, a consent decree granting fully the relief sought by the Government was entered and the indictment dismissed March 20, 1920.

United States v. A. Schrader's Son, Inc. Indictment returned June 19, 1918, in the District Court, Northern District of Ohio, against A. Schrader's Son, Inc., manufacturer of valves and valve parts, pneumatic

61.

62.

pressure gauges, and various other accessories for use in connection with pneumatic tires on automobiles and other vehicles. The defendant is charged with requiring tire manufacturers and jobbers to whom it sells its products to execute uniform contracts concerning resales and with refusing to sell to those who do not enter into such contracts and adhere to the uniform resale prices fixed by it. In this way it is alleged competition was suppressed and prices to retail dealers and the consuming public were maintained and enhanced. Demurrer to the indictment was sustained September 15, 1919, and an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the District Court and remanded the case. October 11, 1923, nolle prosequi entered, the defendant having submitted to a decree enjoining all unlawful practices, and the defendant having paid all costs and expenses in both the civil and criminal cases. (See No. 30, infra, p. 176.)

United States v. Button Export & Trading Corporation et al. Petition filed June 28, 1918, in the District Court, Southern District of Iowa, charging defendants with combining and conspiring to control the entire freshwater pearl button industry from the digging of the shells to the sale of the finished buttons to the retailer. Among other means employed to accomplish that end the defendants formed an association which received and distributed detailed information as to trade conditions; formed a corporation which contracted with the sole manufacturer of certain patented automatic button machines for the entire output of such machines for their own use; and entered into a plan to purchase their requirements of shells through a single agency at agreed prices. The case was not contested, and an agreed decree granting the relief asked in the Government's petition was entered on June 28, 1918.

United States v. The American Cone & Wafer Company. Petition filed July 31, 1918, in the District Court, Northern District of Ohio, charging defendant with

63.

64.

entering into a combination to procure the adherence of jobbers to uniform resale prices for its product, commonly called ice-cream cones, by means of contracts and by refusing to make further sales to jobbers failing to adhere to such prices. An agreed decree enjoining the practice complained of was entered on August 3, 1918.

United States v. Sumatra Purchasing Corporation et al. Indictments returned October 7, 1918 (one under the Sherman Act and one under the Wilson Tariff Act) in the District Court, Southern District of New York, charging the defendants with conspiring to control the entire trade and commerce in the purchase of Sumatra leaf tobacco in foreign countries and the importation of same into and the sale thereof throughout the United States, and to eliminate competition in and monopolize said trade and commerce, and to increase the price of said tobacco in the United States. On April 13, 1920, the corporate defendants pleaded nolo contendere to the indictment under the Sherman Act, and each submitted to the maximum fine of $5,000. Both indictments were dismissed as to the individual defendants, the dismissal of the indictment under the tariff act applying also to the corporate defendants.

At the same time the defendants submitted to a decree in equity prohibiting all the illegal acts charged by the Government. (See No. 73, p. 156.)

United States v. Western Cantaloupe Exchange et al. Petition filed November 9, 1918, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, charging the defendants (growers and distributors of cantaloupes) with having entered into a contract in restraint of interstate trade and commerce in cantaloupes raised in the Imperial Valley of California. On the same date a decree was entered enjoining the defendants, among other things, from holding any membership or interest in the exchange and from taking any concerted action to limit or regulate competition between themselves and to enhance the price of cantaloupes in the markets of the United States.

65.

66.

67.

United States v. Klaxon Horn Company. Petition filed December 8, 1918, in the District Court, District of New Jersey, charging defendant with engaging in a combination in restraint of trade in Klaxon warning signals. The form of contract which was the subject of this proceeding required jobbers distributing the product of the Klaxon Co. to resell at prices fixed by it, thus bringing about uniform prices and consequent suppression of competition. Contemporaneously with the filing of the petition a decree was entered enjoining the defendant from making any similar contract or agreement in the future.

United States v. The Atlas Portland Cement Company et al. Petition filed August 13, 1919, in the District Court, District of New Jersey, charging the defendants with combining and conspiring, through the instrumentality of the Cement Manufacturers' Protective Association, to curtail the production of cement, to reduce the quantity of cement sold under contract for future delivery at a fixed price, and to bring about a uniform and materially increased price for cement regardless of the point of delivery. Because of an indictment returned in the Southern District of New York (see No. 8, infra, p. 166), case was discontinued October 31, 1921.

United States v. Alphons Custodis Chimney Construction Co. et al. Indictment returned December 12, 1919, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, charging the defendants with entering into a combination through the instrumentality of the Chimney Builders' Association to suppress and eliminate competition in the business of contracting for the sale of, selling, and constructing perforated radial brick chimneys, and to increase prices. On January 28, 1920, a nolle prosequi was entered as to two of the defendants. and the remaining defendants entered pleas of nolo contendere and were fined amounts aggregating $18,352.