ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPA1GN PRODUCTION NOTE University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign library Battle Books Project, 2014.COPYRIGHT NOTIFICATION In Public Domain. Published prior to 1923. 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 2014vf DOC. J 1.2: I Sh 5/7 SHERMAN ANTITRUST LAW WITH AMENDMENTS AND LIST OF DECISIONS THEREUNDER OR RELATING THERETO JULY J, 1911 WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1911 M' JW.V> W s «■* » * * ,r''l S# MlJi THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST LAW WITH AMENDMENTS AND LIST OF DECISIONS THEREUNDER OR RELATING THERETO JULY I, 1911 WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1911boo. ■ J1. X : SK 5/7 TABLE OF CONTENTS. rPage. The Sherman Act and amendments______________________________________________________5 List of prosecutions instituted under act_____________________________________13 jf\ Harrison administration__________________________________________________________________________13 ^ Cleveland administration________________________________________________________________________16 O McKinley administration_______________________-__________________________19 ^ Eoosevelt administration________________________________________________________________________21 Taft administration__________________________________________________________________________________35 -** Summary of cases brought_________________________________________________________40 List of decisions under act____________________________________________________________________41 (3) 0*0THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST LAW. [Act of July 2, 1890 (26 Stat., 209).] AN ACT To protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Sec. 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or com- merce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or con- spiracy, 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. Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, 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. 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 foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia and any State or States or foreign nations, is hereby declared illegal. Every person who shall make any (5)6 such contract or engage in any such combination or con- spiracy, 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. Sec. 4. The several circuit courts of the United States are hereby invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain vio- lations 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 petition set- ting forth the case and praying that such violation shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties com- plained 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 sijch petition and before final decree, 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 before which any proceeding under section four of this act may be pend- 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. Sec. 6. Any property owned under any contract or by any combination, or pursuant to any conspiracy (and being the subject thereof) mentioned in section one of this act, and be- ing in the course of transportation from one State to another, or to a foreign country, shall be forfeited 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. 7. Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by any other person or corporation by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful by this act,7 may sue therefor in any circuit court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found, with- out 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. Sec. 8. That the word " person," or " persons," wherever used in this act shall be deemed to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of either the United States, or the laws of any of the Territories, the laws of any State, or the laws of any foreign country. ANTITRUST AMENDMENTS TO THE WILSON TARIFF ACT OF AUGUST 27, 1894^-SECTIONS 73-77. [28 Stat., 570.] Sec. 73. That every combination, conspiracy, trust, agree- ment, or contract is hereby declared to be contrary to public policy, illegal, and void, when the same is made by or be- tween two or more persons or corporations either of whom 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 intended to operate in restraint of lawful trade, or free competition in lawful trade or commerce, or to increase the market price in any part of the United States of any article or articles imported or intended to be imported into the United States, or of any manufacture into which such imported article enters or is intended to enter. Every person who is or shall hereafter be engaged in the importation of goods or any commodity from any foreign country 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 jfche 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 pun- ished by imprisonment, in the discretion of the court, for a term not less than three months nor exceeding twelve months.8 Sec. 74. That the several circuit courts of the United States are hereby invested with jurisdiction 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 Attor- ney 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 prohibition as shall be deemed just in the premises. Sec. 75. That whenever it shall appear to the court before which any proceeding under the seventy-fourth section of this act 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. Sec. 76. That any property owned under any contract or by any combination, or pursuant to any conspiracy (and being the subject thereof) mentioned in section seventy-three of this act, and being in the course of transportation from one State to another, or to or from a Territory or the District of Columbia, shall be forfeited 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 prop- erty imported into the United States contrary to law. Sec. 77. That any person who shall be injured in his busi- ness 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 circuit court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found, with- out 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.9 [The foregoing sections were expressly preserved in the Dingley Act of 1897. Section 34 of that act (30 Stat., 213) concludes as follows:] And further provided, That nothing in this act shall be construed to repeal or in any manner affect the sections num- bered seventy-three, seventy-four, seventy-five, seventy-six, and seventy-seven of an act entitled "An act to reduce taxa- tion, to provide revenue for the Government, and for other purposes," which became a law on the twenty-eighth day of August, eighteen hundred and ninety-four. [32 Stat, 823.] AN ACT To expedite the hearing and determination of suits in equity pending or hereafter brought under the act of July second, eighteen hundred and ninety, entitled "An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies/' "An act to regulate commerce," approved February fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty- seven, or any'other acts having a like purpose that may be hereafter enacted. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in any suit in equity pending or hereafter brought in any circuit 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 hunderd and ninety, "An act to regulate commerce," approved Feb- ruary fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, or any other acts having a like purpose that hereafter may be enacted, wherein the United States is complainant, the Attor- ney General may file with the clerk of such court a certificate that, in his opinion, the case is of general public importance, 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 pending. Thereupon such case shall be given precedence over others and in every way expedited, and be assigned for hearing at the earilest practicable day, before not less than three of the circuit judges of said circuit, 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.10 In the event the judges sitting in such ease shall be divided in opinion, the case shall be certified to the Supreme Court for review in like manner as if taken there by appeal as here- inafter provided. Sec. 2. That in every suit in equity pending or hereafter brought in any circuit 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 circuit court will lie only to the Su- preme 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 circuit court to the circuit court of appeals before 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. Approved, February 11, 1903. [32 Stat, 854, 903.] AN ACT Making appropriations for tlie legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and four, and for other purposes. ***** That for the enforcement of the provisions of the act entitled "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 protect trade and commerce against un- lawful restraints and monopolies," approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety, and all acts amendatory thereof or supplemental thereto, and sections seventy-three, seventy-four, seventy-five, and seventy-six of the act entitled "An act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Gov- ernment, and other purposes," approved August twenty- seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-four, the sum of five hundred thousand dollars, to be immediately available, is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not heretofore appropriated, to be expended under the direc- tion of the Attorney General in the employment of special counsel and agents of the Department of Justice to conduct11 proceedings, suits, and prosecutions under said acts in the courts of the United States: Provided, That no person shall be prosecuted or be subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing con- cerning which he may testify or produce evidence, docu- mentary or otherwise, in any proceeding, suit, or prosecu- tion under said acts: Provided further, That no person so testifying shall be exempt from prosecution or punishment for perjury committed in so testifying. * * * * * Approved, February 25, 1903. [32 Stat., 825, 82^] AN ACT To establish the Department of Commerce and Labor. ***** Sec. 6. That there shall be in the Department of Commerce and Labor a bureau to be called the Bureau of Corporations, and a Commissioner of Corporations who shall be the head of said bureau, to be appointed by the President, who shall receive a salary of five thousand dollars per annum. There shall also be in said bureau a deputy commissioner who shall receive a salary of three thousand five hundred dollars per annum, and who shall in the absence of the commissioner act as, and perform the duties of the Commissioner of Cor- porations, and who shall also perform such other duties as may be assigned to him by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor or by the said commissioner. There shall also be in the said bureau a chief clerk and such special agents, clerks, and other employees as may be authorized by law. The said commissioner shall have power and authority to make, under the direction and control of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, diligent investigation into the organi- zation, conduct, and management of the business of any corporation, joint-stock company, or corporate combination engaged in commerce among the several States and with foreign nations excepting common carriers subject to "An act to regulate commerce," approved February fourth, eight- een hundred and eighty-seven, and to gather such informa- tion and data as will enable the President of the United States to make recommendations to Congress for legislation12 for the regulation of such commerce, and to report such data to the President from time to time as he shall require; and the information so obtained or so much thereof as the Presi- dent may direct shall be made public. In order to accomplish the purposes declared in the fore- going part of this section, the said commissioner shall have and exercise the same power and authority in respect to cor- porations, joint-stock companies, and combinations subject to the provisions hereof, as is conferred on the Interstate Com- merce Commission in said " act to regulate commerce " and the amendments thereto in respect to common carriers so far as the same may be applicable, including the right to sub- poena and compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of-documentary evidence and to admin- ister oaths. All the requirements, obligations, liabilities, and immunities imposed or conferred by said " act to regulate commerce " and by "An act in relation to testimony before the Interstate Commerce Commission," and so forth, ap- proved February eleventh, eighteen hundred and ninety- three, supplemental to said u act to regulate commerce," shall also apply to all persons who may be subpoenaed to testify as witnesses or to produce documentary evidence in pursu- ance of the authority conferred by this section. It shall also be the province and duty of said bureau, under the direction of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, to gather, compile, publish, and supply useful in- formation concerning corporations doing business within the limits of the United States as shall engage in interstate commerce or in commerce between the United States and any foreign country, including corporations engaged in insur- ance, and to attend to such other duties as may be hereafter provided by law. * * # * * Approved, February 14, 1903. [34 Stat., 798.] AN ACT Defining the riglit of immunity of witnesses under the act entitled "An act in relation to testimony before the Interstate Com- merce Commission,*' and so forth, approved February eleventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-three, and an act entitled "An act to establish the Department of Commerce and Labor," approved Feb13 ruary fourteenth, nineteen hundred and three, and an act entitled "An act to further regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the States," approved February nineteenth, nineteen hun- dred and three, and an act entitled "An act making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Govern- ment for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and four, and for other purposes," approved February twenty-fifth, nineteen hundred and three. That under the immunity provisions in the act entitled "An act in relation to testimony before the Interstate Com- merce Commission," and so forth, approved February elev- enth, eighteen hundred and ninety-three, in section six of the act entitled "An act to establish the Department of Com- merce and Labor," approved 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 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," ap- proved February twenty-fifth, nineteen hundred and three, immunity shall extend only to a natural person who, in obedience to a subpoena, gives testimony under oath or pro- duces evidence, documentary or otherwise, under oath. Approved, June 30, 1906. SUITS BROUGHT AND PROSECUTIONS INSTITUTED BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE SHERMAN ANTI- TRUST LAW. President Harrison's Administration, March 4, 1889, to March 4, 1893. [William H Miller, Attorney General, Marcli 5, 1889, to March 6, 1893.] 1. United States v. Jellico Mountain Coal Company (43 Fed. Rep., 898; 46 Fed. Rep., 432). (Circuit Court, M. D. Tennessee. October 13, 1890; June 4, 1891.) Suit against the members of the " Nashville Coal Ex- change," composed of various coal mining companies operating mines in Kentucky and Tennessee, and of14 persons and firms dealing in coal in Nashville, formed for the purpose of fixing prices and regulating the output of coal. A preliminary injunction was denied on October 13, 1890. Upon full hearing the court, on June 4, 1891, held the combination to be in violation of the antitrust law, and enjoined the further carrying out of the agree- ment. 2. United States v. Greenhut et aln 50 Fed. Rep., 469. (District Court, Massachusetts. May 10. 1892.) A proceeding by indictment against the officers of the Distilling and Cattle Feeding Co. (Whisky Trust) for an alleged violation of the antitrust law. Indictment quashed, as allegations were held not to constitute an offense under the statute. 2a. In re Coming, 51 Fed. Rep., 205. (District Court, N. D. Ohio. June 11, 1892.) Application for a warrant of removal from Ohio to Massachusetts to answer to the indictment found in the Greenhut case. Application denied and prisoner dis- charged. 2b. In re Terrell, 51 Fed. Rep., 213. (Circuit Court, S. D. New York. June 28, 1892.) Application 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. Petitioner discharged. 2c. In re Greene, 52 Fed. Rep., 104. (Circuit Court, S. D. Ohio. August 4, 1892.) Petition for writ of habeas corpus to secure release from the custody of the marshal, by whom he was held awaiting an order for the removal of Greene to Massa- chusetts to answer to the indictment in the Greenhut case. Prisoner discharged.15 United States v. Nelson, 52 Fed. Rep., 646. (District Court, Minnesota. October 10,1892.) Indictment of a number of lumber dealers for conspir- ing together to raise the price of lumber in violation of the antitrust law. Demurrer to indictment sustained, the court holding that an agreement between a number of dealers to raise prices, unless they controlled nearly the entire com- modity, could not operate as a restraint of trade under the act. United States v. Tram-Missouri Freight Association, 53 Fed. Rep., 440; 58 Fed. Rep., 58; 166 U. S., 290. (Circuit Court, Kansas. November 28, 1892.) (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. October 2, 1893.) (United States Supreme Court. March 22, 1897.) Bill filed January 6, 1892, to enjoin the operations of a combination of railroads engaged in interstate com- merce, formed for the purpose of maintaining " just and reasonable rates," etc. Bill dismissed by Circuit Court; decree of dismissal affirmed by Circuit Court of Appeals, and reversed by the United States Supreme Court on March 22, 1897. X United States v. W orkingmen^s Amalgamated Cmtncil of New Orleans et aL, 54 Fed. Rep., 994; 57 Fed. Rep^ 85. (Circuit Court, E. D. Louisiana. March 25, 1893:) (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. June 13, 1893.) Suit to restrain defendants, a combination of work- men, from interfering with interstate and foreign com- merce, in violation of the antitrust law. The injunction was granted, and the law held to apply to combinations of laborers as well as capitalists. This decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals,16 United States v. Patterson et a?., 55 Fed. Rep., 605; 59 Fed. Rep., 280. (Circuit Court, Massachusetts. February 28 and June 7, 1893.) Cash register case. Indictment of members of a com- bination formed for the purpose of controlling the price of cash registers. A demurrer was sustained as to cer- tain counts of the indictment and overruled as to others, and leave granted to file special demurrers to the counts which were sustained. The special demurrers were heard on June 1, 1893, and the demurrers overruled, the court adhering to its former ruling. Letter of Attorney General dated October 16. 1893, shows case was allowed to lapse because of consolidation of complaining wit- ness with defendants. 7. United States v. E. O. Knight Company (Sugar Trust), 60 Fed. Rep., 306; 60 Fed. Rep., 934; 156 U. S., 1. (Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. January 30, 1894.) (Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. March 26, 1894.) (United States Supreme Court. January 21, 1895.) Bill in equity to enjoin the operations of the Sugar Trust, charged with a violation of the antitrust law. The bill was dismissed January 30, 1894. Appeal was taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and the decree affirmed. From this decision an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, where the decree of dismissal was affirmed. President Cleveland's Second Administration, March 4, 1893, to March 4, 1897. [Kichard Olney, Attorney General, March 6, 1893, to June 7, 1895; Judson Harmon, Attorney General, June 8, 1895, to March 5, 1897.] 1. United States v. Agler, 62 Fed. Rep., 824. (Circuit Court, Indiana. July 12, 1894.) Information charging contempt of court in disobey- ing an injunction restraining Agler and others from17 interfering with interstate commerce and obstructing the mails. Information quashed, ^t was charged that Agler was a member of the American Railway Union, the members of which order were on a strike and had been enjoined under the antitrust law from interfering with the carrying of the mails and from obstructing interstate commerce. This is one of the " Debs " cases. 2. United States v. Elliott, 62 Fed. Rep., 801; 64 Fed. Rep., 27. (Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri. July 6 and October 24, 1894.) Suit to restrain Elliott, Debs, and others, members of the American Railway Union, from carrying out their unlawful conspiracy to interfere with interstate com- merce and to obstruct the carrying of the mails, in vio- lation of the. antitrust law. Preliminary injunction granted. A demurrer to this bill was overruled. 3. United States v. Debs et al., 64 Fed. Rep., 724. (Circuit Court, N. D. Illinois. December 14, 1894.) Proceedings in contempt to punish Debs and others for disobeying an injunction restraining them from in- terfering with interestate commerce and with obstructing the mails, by means of a conspiracy, in violation of the antitrust law. Defendants found guilty and punished. 3a. In re Debs, petitioner, 158 U. $., 564. (United States Supreme Court. May 27, 1895.) Proceeding instituted July 2, 1894. Application for a writ of habeas corpus to secure a discharge from im- prisonment for disobeying an injunction of the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois, restraining Debs and others from conspiring to interfere with inter- state commerce, in violation of the antitrust law. Petition for the writ denied. 98740—11-218 4. United, States v. Cassidy, 67 Fed. Rep., 698. (District Court, N. D. California. April 1 and 2, 1895.) Cassidy and others were indicted under section 5440, United States Revised Statutes, for conspiring to com- mit offenses against the United States, which acts con- sisted in a combining and conspiring to restrain trade and commerce between the States, in violation of the antitrust law, and grew out of the Pullman strike in California. The trial lasted five months and resulted in a disagreement of the jury. 5. Moore v. United States, 85 Fed Rep., 465. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. February 14, 1888.) Indictment of the members of an association of dealers in coal at Salt Lake City for entering into a conspiracy to regulate the price of coal. Indictment returned No- vember 4, 1895. Moore was tried and convicted in the District Court of Utah upon this indictment. The Cir- cuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of convic- tion, for the reason that upon the admission of Utah as a State it was no longer a " Territory " within the mean- ing of the antitrust act, and the combination was not in restraint of interstate commerce, and the court there- fore had no jurisdiction of the offense. 6. United States v. Joint Traffic Association, 76 Fed. Rep., 895; 89 Fed. Rep. 1020; 171 U. S., 505. (Circuit Court, S. D. New York. May 28, 1896.) (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. March 19,1897.) (United States Supreme Court. October 28, 1898.) Suit instituted January 8, 1896. Bill in equity to enjoin the alleged violation of the antitrust law by a combination of railroads. The Circuit Court dismissed the bill, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the action of the Circuit Court. These judgments were reversed by the United States Supreme Court.19 T. United States v. Addyston Pipe and Steel Company, 78 Fed. Rep., 712; 85 Fed. Itep., 271; 175 U. S., 211. (Circuit Court, E. D. Tennessee. February 5, 1897.) (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. February 8, 1898.) (United States Supreme Court. December 4, 1899.) Suit instituted December 10, 1896. Bill in equity to enjoin the operations of the cast-iron pipe trust, which attempted to control the price of cast-iron pipe. The bill was dismissed by the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decree of the Circuit Court and remanded the case, with instructions to enter a decree for the Government. On appeal to the Su- preme Court the action of the Circuit Court of Appeals was affirmed. United States v. Hopkins et at., 82 Fed. Rep., 529; 84 Fed. Rep., 1018; 171 U. S., 578. (Circuit Court, Kansas. September 20, 1897.) (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Decem- ber 27, 1897.) (United States Supreme Court. October 24,1898.) Suit instituted December 31, 1896. Bill to restrain the operations of the "Kansas City Live Stock Ex- change," organized to control the shipments of live stock. The injunction was granted, but on appeal the Supreme Court reversed the decree of the Circuit Court and remanded the case, with instructions to dismiss the bill. President McKinley's Administration—March 4, 1897-September 14, 1901. [Joseph McKenna, Attorney General, March 5, 1897, to June 25, 1898; John W. Griggs, Attorney General, June 25, 1898, to March 29, 1901; Philander C. Knox, Attorney General, April 5, 1901, to June 30, J.904 ] i. Anderson v. United States, 82 Fed. Rep., 998; 171 U. S., 604. (Circuit Court, N. D. Missouri. -.)20 (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.--.) (United States Supreme Court. October 24, 1898.) Bill in equity to restrain the operations of "The Traders' Live Stock Exchange," of Kansas City, an association formed for the purpose of buying cattle on • the market. This suit was instituted June 7, 1897, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri. Decree of temporary injunction was granted and the case appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. From there it was certified to the Supreme Court of the United States for instructions upon certain questions, under the provisions of section 6 of the act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat., 828). The Supreme Court reversed the decree of the Circuit Court and remanded the case with directions to dismiss the bill, holding that the acts complained of were not a violation of the antitrust law. 2. United States v. Coal Dealers' Association, 85 Fed. Rep., 252. (Circuit Court, N. D. California. January 28, 1898.) Suit brought December 16, 1897. Bill for injunction to restrain the operations of a combination of coal dealers known as the u Coal Dealers' Association of California." A temporary injunction was granted. 3. United States v. Chesapeake and Ohio Fuel Company et al.j 105 Fed. Rep., 93; 115 Fed. Rep., 610. (Circuit Court, S. D. Ohio. August 31,1900.) (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. April 8, 1902.) Bill filed May 8,1899, to annul a contract and dissolve a combination of producers and shippers of coal in Ohio and West Virginia, engaged in mining coal and making coke intended for " Western shipment," under agree- ment to sell the same at not less than a memorandum price, to be fixed by an executive committee appointed by the producers. Defendants enjoined, contract de- clared void and illegal, and the combination dissolved. Affirmed by Circuit Court of Appeals. No appeal taken.21 President Roosevelt's Administration—September 14, 1901-Marcli 4, 1909. [Philander C. Knox, Attorney General, April 5, 1901, to June 30, 1904; William H. Moody,, Attorney General, July 1, 1904, to December 16, 1906; Charles J. Bonaparte, Attorney General, December 17, 1906, to March 4, 1909.] 1. United States v. Northern Securities Co., Great North- ern R^y Go.j Northern Pacific R^y Co. et al,} 120 F. R., 721; 193 U. S., 197. (Circuit Court, Minnesota. April 9, 1903.) (United States Supreme Court. March 14, 1904.) This suit was brought on March 10, 1902, in the Cir- cuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota, to enjoin the defendant, the Northern Securi- ties Co., from purchasing, acquiring, receiving, holding, voting, or in any manner acting as the owner of any of the shares of the capital stock of the two defendant rail- way companies, and to restrain the defendant railway companies from permitting the securities company to vote any of the stock of said railways, or from exercising any control whatsoever over the corporate acts of either of said railway companies, it being charged that the securities company was formed for the purpose of ac- quiring a majority of the capital stock of the two rail- way companies in order that it might in that way effect practically a consolidation of the two companies by con- trolling rates and restricting and destroying competi- tion, in violation of the Sherman antitrust law. The Circuit Court on April 9, 1903, entered a decree in favor of the Government as prayed in the petition, and this decree was, on March 14, 1904, affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States. 2. United States v. Swift & Co. et al., 122 F. E. 529; 196 U*. S., 375. Suit brought on May 10, 1902, in the Circuit Coart of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois to restrain the defendants (commonly known as the Beef Trust), who are engaged in the buy- ing of live stock and the selling of dressed meats, from carrying out an unlawful conspiracy entered into be-22 tween themselves and with the various railway compa- nies, to suppress competition and to obtain a monopoly in the purchase of live stock and in the selling of dressed meats, A preliminaiy restraining order was granted on May 20,1902. The defendants having demurred to the bill, the court, after hearing, on April 18, 1903, overruled the demurrers and granted a preliminary injunction. The defendants having failed to answer, the court, on May 26, 1903, entered an order making the decree final and perpetually enjoying the further operations of the trust. The defendants, on August 14, 1903, appealed from the final decree of the Circuit Court to the Supreme Court of the United States, where decree was affirmed January 30, 190$. United States v. The Federal Salt Company et al. Suit brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, on October 15, 1902, to restrain the defendants (known as the Salt Trust) from unlawfully combining and conspiring to suppress competition in the manufacture and sale of salt in the States west of the Rocky Mountains, in vio- lation of the Sherman antitrust law. A temporary re- straining order was issued on that date, and, the cause coming on for hearing, the court on November 10, 1902, granted an injunction pendente lite, thus, in effect, mak- ing the restraining order perpetual. No appeal was taken from this order. United States v. The Federal Salt Company. On February 28, 1903, the grand jury for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California returned an indictment against the Salt Trust, for hav- ing violated the antitrust law. On May 12, 1903, the trust pleaded guilty, and the court sentenced it to pay a fine of $1,000, which was paid.23 United States v. Jacksonville Wholesale Grocers* sociation. A proceeding ill equity, instituted on Septem- ber 12,1903, in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of Florida, for the purpose of dissolv- ing a combination of wholesale grocers, operating in violation of the antitrust law. November 1, 1907, dismissed. United Stages v. Gemwl Pwper €0, et ah Decem- ber 27, 1904, a bill in equity was filed in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minne- sota against the General Paper Co. and twenty-three other corporations engaged in the manufacture and sale of paper, alleging that they h»d entered into a combination and conspiracy to restrain trade and com- merce in the manufacture of news print, manila, fiber, and other papers by making the General Paper Co. their common sales agent. On May 11, 1906, the court or- dered judgment in favor of the Government, dissolving the combination and affording all relief prayed in the bill. (See also Nelson v. United States, 201 U. S., 92; Alexander v. United States, id., 117.) United States v. Armour & Go. et al. After the af- firmance by the Supreme Court of the decree of the Cir- cuit Court in United States v. Swift & Company (above referred to) complaints from various quarters were made to the department that the combination still continued. The department thereupon began an exhaustive inquiry before the grand jury for the northern district of Illi- nois, which resulted in the return of an indictment on July 1, 1905, against Armour & Co., J. Ogden Ar- mour, president; Patrick A. Valentine, treasurer; Arthur Neekler, general manager; Thomas J. Connors, super- intendent, and Samuel A. McRoberts, assistant treasurer, of Armour & Co.; the Armour Packing Co., and Charles W. Armour, president; Swift & Co., and Louis F. Swift, president; Lawrence A. Carton, treasurer; D. Edwin24 Hartwell, secretary, and Albert H. Veeder and Robert C. McManus and Arthur F. Evans, agents of Swift & Co.; the Fairbank Canning Co., and Edward Morris, vice president; Ira N. Morris, secretary of the Fairbank Canning Co.; the Cudahy Packing Co., and Edward A. Cudahy, vice president and general manager of the Cudahy Packing Co. Against this indictment many preliminary objections were urged. All were disposed of in favor of the Gov- ernment, except certain special pleas of immunity in bar, based upon information concerning the matters for which the defendants were indicted, which they had given to the Department of Commerce and Labor. The court sustained the pleas so far as the individual defend- ants were concerned and overruled them with respect to the corporations. United States v. Mac Andrews <& Forbes Company et al. (149 Fed., 823; 212 U. S., 585). In June, 1906, the grand jury returned an indictment against the Mac Andrews & Forbes Co., the J. S. Young Co., a corporation of Maine, and Karl Jungbluth and Howard E. Young, their respective presidents, for illegally com- bining and conspiring to regulate the interstate trade and sale in licorice paste, an article used in the manufacture of plug and smoking tobacco, snuff, and cigars. De- fendants entered pleas of not guilty, with leave to with- draw or demur on or before July 9, 1906. July 9, 1906, demurrers filed by all of the defendants. December 4, 1906, demurrers overruled. December 19, 1906, trial commenced. January 10, 1907, Mac Andrews & Forbes Co. was found guilty on first and third counts of indict- ment, the J. S. Young Co. guilty on first and third counts; verdict of acquittal as to individual defendants. MacAndrews & Forbes Co. fined $10,000. J. S. Young Co. fined $8,000. The Tobacco Trust Gases (Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S., 43; McAlister v. Henkel, id., 90; 149 Fed.. 823; 212 U. S., 585). These cases grew out of an investigation25 by a Federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York of the American Tobacco Co. and the Mac- Andrews & Forbes Co., believed to be violating the antitrust laws, the matter having been brought to the attention of the grand jury by the officers of the De- partment of Justice, special counsel having been ap- pointed for the purpose of investigation and prosecution. Subpoenas duces tecum were served upon the officers of the companies directing them to produce papers and other documentary evidence belonging to the corpora- tions. They refused to obey the subpoena or to answer questions propounded to them. The Circuit Court ad- judged them in contempt and committed them until they should produce the books and answer the questions. They applied to another judge of the same court for writs of habeas corpus, which, upon hearing, were dis- charged. Upon appeal the Supreme Court affirmed the orders denying the writs. 9. United States v. Metropolitan Meat Company et al. Bill filed in equity in October, 1905, in the United States Circuit Court for Hawaii, to restrain the operation of alleged unlawful combinations in restraint of the trade in beef and beef products. Demurrer to bill overruled October 2, 1906. Pending. 10. United States v. Nome Retail Grocers' Association. November 4, 1905, the department directed the United States attorney for the Second Division of Alaska to file a bill in equity against the Nome Retail Grocers' Associa- tion, alleging a combination to fix prices and to suppress competition. Suit was promptly instituted, whereupon the defendants agreed to the entry of a decrge granting all the relief prayed for in the petition. A decree dis- solving the combination was entered accordingly. 11. United States v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis et al. Petition filed in Circuit Court of United States for the Eastern District of Missouri on26 December 1,1905, to enjoin the defendant railroads from continuing an unlawful combination entered into between them to operate Eads Bridge and Merchants Bridge as a common agency of interstate commerce. Upon disagree- ment of Circuit Judges case was carried to the Supreme Court and was remanded by that court fbr further pro- ceedings. Government then attempted to secure rehear- ing in the Circuit Court and failed, and has appealed to the Supreme Court, where the case is set for Rearing in October, 1911. 12. United States v. Allen <& Robimson et (A. Bill filed in October in United States Circuit Court for the District of Hawaii alleging unlawful combination to control the trade in lumber in that Territory. Answers filed Jan- uary 2, 1906. Pending. 13. United States v. Otis Elevator Go. et al. Bill filed March 7, 1906, in the United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of California against the Otis Elevator Co. and a number of other corporations and individuals, in which it was alleged that they were maintaining a combination in restraint of trade in the matter of the manufacture and sale of elevators. June 1, 1906, a decree was entered by consent dissolving the combination and granting the relief prayed. 14. United States v. F. A. Amsden Lumber Company et al. Indictment returned in the District Court of Oklahoma May 4, 1906, for violation of the Sherman Act in re- stricting competition and maintaining prices in the sale of lumber. May 13, 1907, change of venue granted to Grant County. September 25,1907, pleas of guilty and fines imposed aggregating $2,000, which were paid. 15. United States v. National Association of Retail Drug- gists et al. Bill in equity filed May 9, 1906, in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Indiana27 against the National Association of Retail Druggists, alleging a combination ill restraint of interstate trade in the sale of drugs and proprietary medicines. May 9, 1907, final decree entered by agreement, giving the Government all the relief prayed for in the petition. 16. United States v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Com- pany et al. May 25, 1906, the Federal grand jury for the Middle District of Tennessee, upon information fur- nished by the Department of Justice, returned an indict- ment against 31 corporations and 25 individuals en- gaged in the fertilizer business in the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Tennessee, charging them with engaging in a conspiracy in violation of the Fed- eral antitrust act, and with conspiring to commit an offense against the United States, viz, the aforesaid conspiracy, in violation of section 5440 of the Revised Statutes. The fertilizer manufacturers combined to fix the price of fertilizers in the territory mentioned and to apportion the trade among themselves according to an agreed percentage. July 11, 1906, all the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States from an order of the Circuit Court of the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia denying the right of habeas corpus and remanding them to the custody of the marshal for re- moval to the Middle District of Tennessee for trial. The case before the Supreme Court was argued on De- cember 3, 1906, and on March 4, 1907, the judgment of the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Virginia was reversed and the case remanded to that court for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion of the Supreme Court, April 17, 1908, various motions, pleas in abatement, and demurrers filed. July 3, 1908, certain motions and demurrers overruled, plea in abate- ment allowed, and indictment quashed. 17. United States v. American Ice Company et al. July 12. 1906, indictment returned in the Supreme Court of28 the District of Columbia, charging an unlawful agree- ment to control prices and restrict competition in the sale of ice. Case pending. 18. United States v. Chandler Ice and Gold Storage Plant et aL September 19, 1906, indictment returned in the District Court for the Territory of Oklahoma against the Chandler Ice and Cold Storage Plant and others, charging a combination to apportion territory in the matter of the sale of ice. May 5, 1907, demurrer filed by defendant Groves and overruled. May 20, 190T, de- murrer filed by Chandler Ice and Cold Storage Plant. Dismissed. 19. United States v. Alfred if/. Gloyd et ah September 21, 1906, indictment returned against Alfred M. Gloyd and others in the District Court for the Territory of Oklahoma, charging a combination to maintain prices and restrict competition in the sale of lumber. Dis- missed. 20. United States v. People's lee arid Fuel Company, a corporation, and W. B, Lount. October 23, 1906, in- dictment returned in the District Court for the Terri- tory of Arizona, charging a combination to control prices and restrict competition in the sale of ice. January 5, 1907, trial commenced. Verdict not guilty as to People's Ice and Fuel Co. and company held to next grand jury. Trial of W. B. Lount continued over term. October 16, 1907, plea in bar filed. October 17, 1907, plea in bar sustained. 21. United States v. Demund Lumber Company et al. October 23, 1906, indictment returned in the District Court for the Territory of Arizona, charging a combi- nation to control prices and restrict competition in the sale of lumber. January 2, 1907, trial commenced.29 Verdict of not guilty as to Demund Lumber Co. January 7, 1907, cases against Chamberlain Lumber Co. and Valley Lumber Co. continued over term. May 8, 1907, motion made to court to instruct for acquittal. Motion argued and taken under advisement. May 9, 1907, mo- tion sustained and verdict of acquittal returned. 22. United States v. Phoenix Wholesale Meat and Pro- duce Company, a corporation, P. T. Hurley, and S. /. Tribolet. October 23, 1906, indictment returned in the District Court for the Territory of Arizona, charging a combination to control prices and restrict competition in the sale of meats. January 7, 1907, trial commenced. Verdict of not guilty as to Phoenix Wholesale Meat & Produce Co. January 8, 1907, indictment against Hur- ley dismissed. Verdict of guilty as to defendant S. J. Tribolet. January 12, 1907, Tribolet sentenced to pay fine of $1,000. January 9, 1907, case against Phoenix Wholesale Meat & Produce Co. dismissed. Appeal to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Arizona. Su- preme Court affirmed decision of lower court. Fine paid. 23. United States v. Standard Oil Company of N. a,r, .etc., all of which were decided in favor of the G.. 101 Fed., 900 127 Fed., 23 203 U. S., 390 Chesapeake $ Ohio Fuel Co., U. 6. v................... ,105 Fed., 93 115 Fed., 610 QMcago Wall Paper Mills v. General Paper Co.......... .147 Fed., 491 Christie Grain & Stock Co., Board of Trade v........... 116 Fed., 444 121 Fed., 608 125 Fed., 161 198 U. S., 236 Cilley 9. United Shoe Mach. Co........................ 152 Fed., 726 Cincinnati N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., Thomas v........... 62 Fed., 803 Cincinnati, Portsmouth. Big Sandy & Pomeroy Packet Co. v. Bay.............!................................ 200 U.S., 179 City of Atlanta v. Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works.. 101 Fed., 909 127 Fed., 23 203 U. S., 390 Clabaugh v. Southern Wholesale Grocers' Ass'n........ 181 Fed., 706 Clarke v. Central R. R. & Banking Co. of Ga........... 50 Fed., 338 Cole Transp. Co. v. White Star Line.................... 186 Fed., 63 Coal Dealers' Ass'n of Calif., U. S. v.................... 85 Fed., 252 Comer, Waterhouee v................................. 55 Fed., 149 Connolly, Union Sewer-Pipe Co. v..................... 99 Fed., 354 184 U. S., 540 Continental Tobacco Co., Whitwell v.................. 125 Fed., 454 Continental Wall Paper'Co. v. Voight.................. 148 Fed., 939 212 U. S., 227 Corning, In re........................................ 51 Fed., 205 Cravens v. Uarter-Crume Co........................... 92 Fed., 479 Creamery Package Mfg. Co., Virtue v.................. 179 Fed., 115 Danbury Hatters' Case. See Loewe v. Lawlor. Darius Cole Transp. Co. v. White Star Line............. 186 Fed., 63 Davis et al., A. Booth & Co. v......................... 127 Fed., 875 131 Fed., 31 Debs, United States v................................. 64 Fed., 724 Debs, In re......................................... 158 U. S., 564 Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Frank.................... 110 Fed., 689 Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v, Kutter................... 147 Fed., 51 D. E. Loewe & Co. v. Lawlor.......................... 130 Fed., 633 142 Fed., 216 148 Fed., 924 208 U. S., 283 Dennehy v. McNulta.................................. 86 Fed., 825 77 Fed., 900 Dr. Miles Med. Co. v. Jaynes Drug Co................. 149 Fed., 838 JPtr. Miles Med. Co. v. Park............................ 164 Fed., 803 220 U. S., 37344 Dueber Watch Case Mfg. Oo. v. Howard Watch & Clock Co................................................. 55 Fed., 851 66 Fed., 637 Dunn & Powell v. Arkansas Brokerage Co............. 173 Fed., 899 Eaatman Kodak Co., Loeb v........................... 183 Fed., 704 E. C. Knight Co., U. S. v............................. 60 Fed., 306 60 Fed., 934 156 U. S., 1 E. Howard Watch & Clock Co., Dueber Watch Case Mfg. Co. v............................................... 55 Fed., 851 56 Fed., 637 Elliott, United States v................................ 62 Fed., 801 64 Fed., 27 Ellis, v. Inman, Poulsen & Co......................... 124 Fed., 956 131 Fed., 182 Evans v. Lowenstein.................................. 69 Fed., 908 Farmers7 Loan & Trust Co. v. Northern Pac. R. R. Co— 60 Fed., 803 Field v. Barber Asphalt & Paving Co................... 117 Fed , 925 194 U. S., 618 Fonotipia Ltd. v. Bradley............................. 171 Fed., 951 Foot v. Buchanan..................................... 113 Fed., 156 Frank (Delaware L. & W. R. Co. v.)................... 110 Fed., 689 Geiger, Otis Elevator v................................ 107 Fed., 131 General Electric Co. v. Wise.......................... 119 Fed., 922 General Paper Co. v. Chicago Wall Paper Mills......... 147 Fed , 491 Gibbs v. McNeeley (Shingle trust)..................... 102 Fed., 594 107 Fed., 210 118 Fed., 120 Goshen Rubber Works v. Single Tube Auto. & Bicycle Tire Co............................................. 166 Fed., 431 Grand Jury, In re.................................... 62 Fed., 840 Grand Jury, In re charge to........................... 151 Fed., 834 Green, In re.......................................... 52 Fed., 104 Greenhut, United States v............................. 50 Fed., 469 Greer, Mills & Co. v. Stoller........................... 77 Fed., 1 Griffin & Skelly Co., U. S. Consol. S. R Co. v.......... 126 Fed., 364 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Miami S. S. Co.............. 86 Fed., 407 Hadley Dean Plate Glass Co. v. Highland Glass Co...... 143 Fed., 242 Hagan, Blindell v..................................... 54 Fed , 40 56 Fed., 696 Hale, In re........................................... 139 Fed., 496 Hale t\ Henkel....................................... 201 U. S., 43 Hale i'. O'Connor Coal & Sup. Co...................... 181 Fed., 267 Harriman v. Northern Securities Co.................... 132 Fed., 464 134 Fed., 331 197 U. S., 244 Harrington, Pidcock v................................ 64 Fed., 821 Hartman, Central Coal & Coke Co. v................... Ill Fed., 9645 Hartman v. John D. Parks & Sons Co.................. 145 Fed., 35& 153 Fed., 24 Heike, United States v................................ 175 Fed., 852 217 U. S., 423 Hench, National Harrow Co. v........................ 76 Fed., 667 83 Fed., 36- 84 Fed., 226 Henkel, Hale v....................................... 201 U.S, 43 Henkel, McAlister v.................................. 201 U. S., 90 Highland Glass Co., Hadley Bean Plate Glass Co. v..... 143 Fed., 242 Hocking Valley Ry. Co., Mannington v................ 183 Fed., 133 Hopkins, United States v.............................. 82 Fed., 529 84 Fed., 1018 171 U. S., 578. Howard Watch & Clock Co., Dueber Watch Case Mfg. Co. v............................................... 55 Fed., 851 66 Fed., 637 In re Corning........................................ 51 Fed., 205 In re Debs, Petitioner____1........................... 158 U.S., 564 U. S. v. Debs.................................... 64 Fed., 724 In re Grand Jury..................................... 62 Fed., 840 In re Grand Jury—charge to.......................... 151 Fed., 834 In re Green.......................................... 52 Fed., 104 In re Hale.......................................... 139 Fed., 496 Hale v. Henkel.................................. 201 U.S., 4$ In re Kittle.......................................... 180 Fed,, 946 In re Terrell......................................... 51 Fed., 213 Indiana Mfg. Co. v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co..... 148 Fed., 21 154 Fed., 365 Inman, Poulsen & Co., Ellis v......................... 124 Fed., 956' 131 Fed., 182 Iola Portland Cement Co., Phillips v................... 125 Fed., 593 Jayne, Loder v....................................... 142 Fed., 1010 149 Fed., 21 Jaynes Drug Co., Dr. Miles Med. Co. v................ 149 Fed., 838 Jellico Mountain Coke & Coal Co., U. S. v............. 43 Fed., 898 46 Fed., 432 J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co., Indiana Mfg. Co. v____ 148 Fed., 21 154 Fed., 365* John D. Parks & Sons Co , Hartman v................. 154 Fed., 895 153 Fed., 24 Joint Traffic Association, U. S. v..........t............ 76 Fed., 895* 89 Fed., 1020 171 U. S., 505 Kinsey Co. v. Board of Trade......................... 198 U. S., 236- Kissel 1, United States v............................... 173 Fed., 823 218 U. S.t 601 Kittle, In re......................................... 180 Fed , 946-46 Klotz, American Biscuit & Mfg. Co. v.................. 44 Fed., 721 Knight Co., CJnited States v........................... 60 Fed., 306 60 Fed., 934 156 U. S., 1 Kutter, Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v................... 147 Fed., 51 Laemuile et al., Motion Picture Patents Co. v.......... 178 Fed., 104 Larcus w. American Tob. Co.......................... 163 Fed., 712 Lawlor, Loew'e ...................................... 130 Fed., 633 142 Fed., 216 148 Fed., 924 208 U. S., 283 Lehigh Valley R. Co., Meeker et al. v.*................ 162 Fed., 354 183 Fed., 548 Leonard v. Abner-Drury Brewing Co................ 25 D. C App., 161 Licorice Paste TrU&t. See U. S. v. M&cAndreWs & Forbes Co. Loder v. Jayne....................................... 142 Fed., 1010 14* Fed., 21 Loeb v. Eastman Kodak Co....................*...... 183 Fed., 704 Loewe v. Lawlor...................................... 130 Fed., 633 142 Fed., 216 148 Fed., 924 208 U. S., 283 Lowensteiti v. Evans................................. 69 Fed., 908 Lowry v» Tile, Mantel & Grate Ass'n......*-........... 98 Fed., 817 106 Fed., 38 Lowry, W. W., Montague &Co. v............*........ 115 Fed., 27 193 U. S., 38* Mc A listers. Henkel.....................-............ 201 U. 8., 90 MacAndrews A Forbes Co., U. S. v............*........ 149 Fed., 823 212 U. S., 585 McConnfell, Camors-McConnell Co. v................... 140 Fed., 412 140 Fed., 987 152 Fed., 321 McXeeley, Gibbs ..................................... 102 Fed., 594 107 Fed., 210 118 Fed., 120 McNulta, Deiinehy v...................*.............. 86 Fed., 825 Mannington v. Hocking Valley Ry. Co. et al............ 183 Fed., 133 Meeker et al. v. Lehigh Valley R. Co................... 162 Fed., 354 183 Fed., 548 Metcalf v. American School Furniture Co. *......*...... 108 Fed., 909 113 Fed., 1020 122 Fed., 115 Miami S. S. Co., Gulf C. & S. F. -Ry. Co. v.............. 86 Fed., 407 Milwaukee Rubber Works, Rubber Tire Wheel Co. v... * 142 Fed., 531 154 Fed., 358 Mines v. Scribner....................................... 147 Fed., 92747 Minnesota, v. Northern Securities Co..............*..... 123 Fed., 692 194 0. 8., 48 Monarch TOb. Works v. American Tob. Co......*...... 165 Fed., 774 Montagu# Ado. v. Lowry............................. 115 Fed., 27 193 U. 8., 38 Mbore * United Stater................................ 85 Fed., 465 Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Laemuile................ 178 Fed., 104 Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Ullman.................. 186 Fed., 174 National Folding-Box & Paper Co. v. Robertson........ 99 Fed., 985 National Harrow Co. v. Hench.....................*... 76 Fed., 667 83 Fed., 36 84 Fed., 226 National Harrow Co. v* Quick......................... 67 Fed., 130 74 Fed., 443 National Harrow Co., Bement v....................... 186U.S., 70 National Harrbw Co., Strait v.......................... 51 Fed., 819 National'Window Glass Jobbers' Ass'n., Wheeler Sten- 152 Fed., 864 zel Co; r. Nelson, United States v............................... 52 Fed., 646 Nelson v. United States............................... 201 U.S., 92 Mtfrthern Securities Co., Harriman v................... 132 Fed., 464 134 Fed., 331 197U.S., 244 Northern Securities Co , U. S........................ 120 Fed., 721 193 U.S., 197 Northern Securities Co., Minnesota v.. ................. 123 Fed., 692 194 U.S., 48 Northwestern ConsoL Min% Co. v. Wm. Callam &S6B... 17^,Fed., 786 O'Connor Coal & Sup. Co., Hale v..................... 181 Fed , 267 Otis Elevator Co. v» Geiger...*........................ 107 Fed., 131 Park, Dr. Miles Med. Co. v............................ 164 Fed., 803 220 U.S., 373 Park, John B., & Sons Co., Hartman v.................. 145 Fed., 358 153 Fed., 24 Patterson, United states v..........................* -.. 55 Fed., 605 59 Fed., 280 Penna. R. Co., American Union Coal Co. v............. 159 Fed., 278 Penna. Sugar Kef. Co. v. American Sugar Rtef. Co....... 160 Fed., 144 166 Fed., 254 People's Tob. Co. v. American Tfcb. CO-................ 170 Fed., 396 Peurrung, Carter-Grume Co. v......................... 86 Fed.,* 439 Phillips v. Portland Cement Co........................ 125 Fed.. 593 Pidcock tr,Harrington................................. 64 Fed., 821 Pffescott &Ai C. R. Co. v. Atchison, T. . Freight Association. „ (See U. S. v. Trans-Mis- souri Freight Association.) U. S. v. General Paper Co. (See Nelson v. U. S. and Alexander v. U. S.) U. S. v. Greenhut..................................... 50 Fed., 469 U. S. v. Heike........................................ 175 Fed., - 852 217 U. S., 423 U. S. v. Hopkins.................................... 82 Fed., 529» 84 Fed., 1018. 171 U. a, 57a U. S. v. Jellico Mountain Coke & Coal Co.............. 43 Fed., 898 46 Fed., 432 U. S. v. Joint Traffic Association,, ..................... 76 Fed., 895 89 Fed., 1020' 171 U. S., 505 U. S. v. Kissell....................................... 173 Fed., 823 218 U. a, 601 U. S. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Co..................... 149 Fed., 823 .............212 U. S., 585- 98740—11-&50 u. S. v. Nelson........................................ 52 Fed., 646 Nelson v. United States........................... 201 II. S., 92 U. S. u. Northern Securities Company.................. 120 Fed., 721 193 U. S., 197 U. S. v. Patterson..............................-...... <>5 Fed., 605 59 Fed., 280 U. S. v. Reading Company............................ 183 Fed., 427 U. S. v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey................ 152 Fed., 290 173 Fed., 177 221 U. S., 1 U. S. v. Swift & Co................................... 122 Fed., 529 196 U. S., 375 U. S. v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass*n .................. 53 Fed., 440 58 Fed., ' 58 166 U. S., 290 U. S. v. Tribolet..................................... 95 Pac\, 85 U. S. v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co................ 163 Fed., 66 U. S. v. Workingmen's Amalgamated Council.......... 54 Fed., 994 57 Fed., 85 U. S., Alexander ..................................... 201 U. S., 117 U. S., Andersonv..................................... 82 Fed., 998 171 U. S., 604 U. S., Moore ......................................... 85 Fed., 465 II. S., Union Pacific Coal Co. v........................ 173 Fed., 737 U. S. Consolidated S. R. Co. v. Griffin-Skelly Co........ 126 Fed., 364 U. S. Exp. Co., Southern Ind. Exp. Co. v.............. 88 Fed., 659 92 Fed., 1022 United States Tob. Co. v. American Tob. Co,........... 163 Fed., 712 Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. Bradley................... 171 Fed., 951 Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. U. S................ 163 Fed., 66 Virtue v. Creamery Package Mfg. Co................... 179 Fed., 115 Voight, Continental Wall Paper Co. v.................. 148 Fed., 939 212 U. S., 227 Ware-Kramer Tob. Co. v. American Tob. Co........... 178 Fed., 117 180 Fed., 160 Waterhouse v. Comer.........................-....... 55 Fed., 149 Weisert Bros. Tob. Co. v. American Tob. Co............ 163 Fed., 712 Wheeler Stenzel Co. v. National Window Glass Jobbers' Ass'.........................— .................... 152 Fed., 864 White Star Line, Cole Transp. Co. v.................... 186 Fed., 63 Whitwell v. Continental Tob. Co..-.................... 125 Fed., 454 Wise, General Electric Co. v........................... 119 Fed., 922 Wise wall, The Charles E.............................. 74 Fed., 802 86 Fed., 671 Workingmen's Amalgamated Council, U. S. v.......... 54 Fed., 994 57 Fed., 85 Yale & Town* Mfg. Co., Blount Mfg. Co. v............. 166 Fed., 555 oThis 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