49.

50.

suppress competition by coercion and intimidation, blacklisting, discriminating against union labor, etc. An application for an injunction pendente lite was denied June 19, 1923. Case argued in October, 1923, and on November 10, 1923, the court rendered a decision favorable to the Government. Final decree entered December 19, 1923, from which the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, which court on April 13, 1925, decided adversely to the Government.

United States v. American Chain Company, Inc., et al. Petition filed July 16, 1923, in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the defendant corporation and 10 other manufacturers were engaged in a combination and conspiracy to restrain interstate trade and commerce in spring bar bumpers for automobiles and other vehicles, through the acquisition of patents and the granting of licenses thereunder and other means. Order entered March 15, 1927, dismissing the case without prejudice, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in U. S. v. General Electric Co. et al. (No. 3, infra, p. 185).

United States v. International Harvester Company et al. On July 17, 1923, a supplemental petition was filed in the District Court at St. Paul, Minn., asking for additional relief under the final decree in the case of United States v. International Harvester Co. et al., 214 Fed. 987 (see supra, No. 54, p. 119). The petition recited that although the declared purpose of said decree was to restore competitive conditions in the harvestingmachine industry, it had not achieved its purpose, and a further dissolution of the Harvester Co. into three units, as recommended in a report of the Federal Trade Commission, was prayed for. Argued before three Circuit Judges at St. Paul in October, 1924, and decided adversely to the Government on May 19, 1925, which decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court on June 6, 1927.

President Coolidge's Administration-August 2, 1923, to March 4, 1929

[HARRY M. DAUGHERTY, Attorney General, August 2, 1923, to March 28, 1924; HARLAN F. STONE, Attorney General, April 7, 1924, to March 2, 1925; JOHN G. SARGENT, Attorney General, March 18, 1925, to date]

1.

2.

3.

United States v. Live Poultry Dealers' Protective Association, Inc., et al. Petition filed January 18, 1924, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, charging the Association and 21 of its officers and members with engaging in a combination and conspiracy to restrain and monopolize interstate trade and commerce in live poultry by agreeing to maintain uniform prices, boycotting those dealers and commission men who fail to observe the prices established, and other means. injunction pendente lite was entered April 18, 1924, from which the defendants appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which court affirmed the injunctive order of the District Court on December 3, 1924. Case tried on its merits and upon direction of the court a consent decree was entered December 15, 1925.

An

United States v. Mitchell Brothers Co. et al. (Maple Flooring Manufacturers' Assn.). Indictment returned January 18, 1924, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against 21 corporations and 32 individuals. The charges in this indictment are practically the same as the allegations in the petition against the Maple Flooring Manufacturers' Association et al. (No. 45, supra, p. 182.) Dismissed as to all defendants on July 26, 1926, in view of decision of Supreme Court in Maple Flooring case.

United States v. General Electric Co., Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. and Westinghouse Lamp Co. Petition filed March 20, 1924, in the District Court, Northern District of Ohio, charging the defendants with (185)

4.

engaging in a combination and conspiracy to restrain and monopolize interstate trade and commerce in electric lamps by means of a system of so-called agency contracts, and praying for injunctive relief. Case was tried and decision rendered on April 3, 1925, dismissing the Government's petition, which decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court on November 23, 1926.

me

de

United States v. National Malleable & Steel Castings Co. et al. Indictment returned March 27, 1924, in the District Court, Northern District of Ohio, charging 47 corporations and 47 individuals, through the dium of The American Malleable Castings Association of Cleveland, with unlawful restraint of interstate trade and commerce in malleable iron castings. Demurrers and motions to quash by certain defendants were overruled. Thirty other individual fendants residing beyond the trial district declined to enter appearances for trial in the court at Cleveland. It was necessary to prosecute removal proceedings against them before the local Federal courts in each of the 14 judicial districts in which they resided and found. The resistance was shifted on habeas corpus and appeal from the District Courts to the Circuit Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court. In June, 1926, these proceedings had been finally disposed of

with uniform success to the Government.

were

The defendants having been finally brought into the trial court, the trial was set for September 13, 1926

In

the meantime, however, 92 defendants entered pleas of

guilty and nolo contendere and were fined amounts aggregating $227,000. Indictment dismissed as to remaining defendants.

United States v. California Wholesale Grocers'

Assn.

et al. Petition filed April 2, 1924, in the District Court, Southern District of California, charging

the

defendants with combining and conspiring to restrain interstate and foreign trade and commerce in groceries

5.

16.

7.

8.

and other like articles by means of price-fixing agreements, exchange of information, exclusion of competitors, especially chain stores, and other means in violation of the Federal Antitrust Laws. Case dismissed as to defendant National Wholesale Grocers' Association on September 25, 1924. Consent decree entered May 5, 1926, enjoining any acts tending to restrict the freedom of manufacturers in selling.

United States v. Southern California Wholesale Grocers' Assn. et al. Petition filed April 2, 1924, in the District Court, Southern District of California, alleging a combination and conspiracy in restraint of interstate and foreign trade and commerce in groceries and other like articles, by means, among others, of price-fixing agreements, exclusion of competitors, especially chain stores, distribution of information, and boycotting. Case argued in February, 1925, and decision in part favorable to the Government rendered August 28, 1925. Final decree entered September 22, 1925, enjoining any acts tending to restrict the freedom of manufacturers in selling.

United States v. Utah-Idaho Wholesale Grocers' Assn. et al. Petition filed April 9, 1924, in the District Court, District of Utah, alleging a combination and conspiracy in restraint of interstate and foreign trade and commerce in groceries and other like articles, by means of agreements to enhance prices and suppress competition. Preliminary motions were overruled on September 4, 1926. Consent decree entered September 27, 1926, enjoining defendants from fixing prices on sales in interstate commerce and from coercing manufacturers to sell only to defendants and to other wholesalers approved by them.

United States v. Jeffrey Manufacturing Co. et al. Petition filed on May 3, 1924, in the District Court, Southern District of Ohio, charging the defendants with engaging in a combination and conspiracy to restrain interstate trade and commerce in coal-cut

9.

10.

ting machinery by means of pooling their patents and of entering into cross licenses containing pricefixing agreements and other provisions regulating and restricting competition. Expediting certificate filed January 12, 1925. Hearing on preliminary motion before three Circuit Judges at Cincinnati, on May 6, 1925. On June 30, 1925, Court overruled motion to dismiss Government's petition, but sustained motion to strike out certain portions of petition unless Government elected to file an amended petition. Amended petition filed September 24, 1925, pursuant to order entered September 15, 1925. Motions to dismiss supplemental petition were denied July 12, 1926. Case awaiting trial.

United States v. The Wheeler-Osgood Company et al. Petition filed May 5, 1924, in the District Court, District of Oregon, charging defendants with combining and conspiring to restrain interstate trade and commerce in fir doors and to eliminate competition in the manufacture and sale thereof. Consent decree entered June 18, 1925, granting full relief prayed for in the petition.

United States v. Standard Oil Co. (Ind.), Standard Oil Co. (N. J.) Texas Company, Gasoline Products Co. et al. Petition filed June 25, 1924, in the District Court, Northern District of Illinois, charging a combination and conspiracy in restraint of interstate and foreign commerce in gasoline, kerosene, and other hydrocarbon products, by a series of license and crosslicense agreements under patents relating to the socalled "cracking process," containing burdensome and oppressive covenants and conditions. Expediting certificate filed February 24, 1925. On May 21, 1925, three Circuit Judges sitting as a District Court entered an order overruling objections to evidence tendered by the Government relating to defendants' patents, and on May 29 overruled objections to Government's interrogatories. Pursuant to an order entered May 3, 1926, the Government filed a supplemental petition alleging that certain of the patents of defendant Texas Company were ob