6. United States v. Joint Traffic As880ciation Suit instituted Jan. 8, 1896. Bill In equity to enjoin the alleged violation of the anti-trust 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. On March 3, 1899, a decree was entered enjoining the defendants from observing the agreement or articles of organization entered into.

7. United States v. Addyston Pipe and Steel Company. Suit instituted Dec. 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 Supreme Court the action of the Circuit Court of Appeals was affirmed.

8. United States v. Hopkins et al. Suit Instituted Dec. 31, 1896. Bill to restrain the operations of the "Kansas City Live Stock Exchange," organized to control the shipments or live stock. The injunction was granted, but on appeal the Supreme Court reversed the decree of the Circult Court and remanded the case, with instructions to dismiss the bill.

PRESIDENT MCKINLEY'S ADMINISTRATION. -Three cases.

[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 Sept. 14, 1901.]

1. United States v. Anderson. 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 sult 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 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 anti-trust law.

2. United States v. Coal Dealers' Association. Suit brought Dec. 16, 1897. Bill for injunction to restrain the operations of a combination of coal dealers known as the "Coal Dealers' Association of Callfornia." A temporary injunction was granted from which no appeal was taken and final decree ordered May 2, 1899, granting relief prayed for.

3. United States v. Chesapeake and Ohio Fuel Company et al. Bill filed May 8, 1899, to annul a contract and dissolve a combination of producers and shippers of coal in Ohlo and West Virginia, engaged in minIng coal and making coke intended for "Western shipment," under agreement 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 declared vold and illegal and decree ordering dissolution of combination was entered on November 22, 1900.

PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT'S ADMINISTRATION. -Forty-four cases.

[Philander C. Knox, Attorney-General, Sept. 14, 1901, to June 30, 1904; William H. Moody, Attorney-General, July 1, 1904, to Dec. 16, 1906; Charles J. Bonaparte, Attorney-General, Dec. 17, 1906, to March 4, 1909.]

1. United States v. Northern Securities Co., Great Northern R'y Co., Northern Pacific R'y Co. et al. This suit was brought on March 10, 1902, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota, to enjoin the defendant, the Northern Securities 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 railway 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 acquiring a majority of the capital stock of the two railway companies in order that it might in that way effect practically a consolidation of the two companies by controlling rates and restricting and destroying competition, in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law. The Circuit Court on April 9, 1903, entered a decree in favor of the Government as prayed for 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. Suit brought on May 10, 1902, in the Circuit Court 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 buying of live stock and the selling of dressed meats, from carrying out an unlawful conspiracy entered into between themselves and with the various railway companies, to suppress competition and to obtain a monopoly in the purchase of live stock and in the selling of dressed meats. A preliminary restraining order was granted on May 20, 1902. The defendants having demurred to the bill, the court, after hearing, on April and 18, 1903, overruled the demurrers 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 enjoining the further operations of the trust. defendants, on Aug. 14, 1903, appealed from the final decree of the Circuit Court to the Supreme Court of the United States, where decree was affirmed Jan. 30, 1905.

The

3. 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 Oct. 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 violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law.

A temporary restraining order was issued on that date, and the cause coming on for hearing, the court, on Nov. 10, 1902, granted an injunction pendente lite, thus, In effect, making the restraining order perpetual. No appeal was taken from this order.

4. United States v. The Federal Salt Company. On Feb. 28, 1903, the grand jury for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California re

turned an indictment against the Salt Trust for having violated the anti-trust law. On May 12, 1903, the trust pleaded guilty, and the court sentenced it to pay a fine of $1,000, which was paid.

5. United States v. Jacksonville Wholesale Grocers' Association. A proceeding in equity, instituted on Sept. 12, 1903, in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of Florida, for the purpose of dissolving a combination of wholesale grocers operating in violation of the anti-trust law, Nov. 1, 1907, dismissed.

6. United States v. General Paper Co. et al. Dec. 27, 1904, a bill in equity was filed in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota against the General Paper Co. and twenty-three other corporations engaged in the manufacture and sale of paper, alleging that they had entered into combination and conspiracy to restrain trade and commerce in the manufacture of news print, manila, fiber, and other papers by making the General Paper Co. their common sales agent. May 11, 1906, the court ordered judgment in favor of the Government, dissolving the combination and affording all relief prayed for in the bill.

On

7. United States v. Armour & Co. et al. After the affirmance by the Supreme Court of the decree of the Circuit 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 Illinois, which resulted in the return of an indictment on July 1, 1905, against Armour & Co., J. Ogden Armour, president; Patrick A. Valentine, treasurer; Arthur Neekler, general manager; Thomas J. Connors, superintendent, and Samuel A. McRobert, 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. Edwin 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 Government, 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 defendants were concerned and overruled them with respect to the corporations. Nolle prosequi entered February 5, 1913.

8. United States v. MacAndrews Forbes Company et al. In June, 1906, the grand jury returned an indictment against the MacAndrews & Forbes Co., the J. S. Young Co., a corporation of Maine, and Karl Jungbluth and Howard E. Young, their respective presidents, for illegally combining 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. Defendants entered pleas of not guilty, with leave to withdraw or demur on or before July 9, 1906. July 9, 1906, demurrers filed by all of the defendants. Dec. 4, 1906, demurrers overruled. Dec. 19, 1906, trial commenced.

8a. The Tobacco Trust Cases. (Hale v. Henkel; McAlister v. Henkel.) These cases grew out of an investigation by a Federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York of the American Tobacco Co. and the MacAndrews & Forbes Co., be lieved to be violating the anti-trust laws, the matter having been brought to the attention of the grand jury by the officers of the Department of Justice, special counsel having been appointed 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 corporations. They refused to obey the subpoena to answer questions propounded to them. The Circuit Court adjudged 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 discharged. 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 Oct. 2. 1906. Case subsequently dismissed.

10. United States v. Nome Retail Grocers' Association. Nov. 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' Association, alleging a combination to fix prices and to suppress competition. Suit was promptly instituted, whereupon the defendants agreed to the entry of a decree granting all the relief prayed for in the petition. A decree dissolving 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 on Dec. 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 disagreement of Circuit Judges case was carried to the Supreme Court and was remanded by that court for further proceedings. The petition was then dismissed by the Circuit Court, and an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court, where, on April 22, 1912, the decree of the Circult Court was reversed, and the case remauded with directions to enter a decree in conformity with the opinion of the Supreme Court. A controversy having arisen as to whether the district judge or the three circuit judges had jurisdiction a writ of prohibition was filed against the district judge, which was sustained by the Supreme Court. A final decree was entered by the circuit judges on January 29, 1914. Because of doubt whether this decree fulfilled mandate and decree of the Supreme Court, the case was again taken to the Supreme Court, which ordered first paragraph to be modified. Order carried out in decree dated January 29, 1917.

12. United States v. Allen & Robinson
et al. Bill filed in October in United States
Circuit Court for the District of Hawail,
alleging unlawful combination to control
the trade in lumber in that Territory.
Answers filed Jan. 2, 1906. Decision ad-
verse to Government and petition ordered
dismissed March 30, 1911.

13. United States v. Otis Elevator Co.
et al. Bill filed March 7, 1906, in the
United States Circuit Court for the North-
ern District of California against the Otis
Elevator Co. and a number of other corpo-
rations and individuals, in which it was
alleged that they were maintaining a com-
bination in restraint of trade in the matter
of the manufacture and sale of elevators.
June 1, 1906, a decree was entered by con-
sent dissolving the combination and grant-
ing the relief prayed.

14. United States v. F. A. Amsden
Lumber Company et al. Indictment re-
turned in the District Court of Oklahoma
May 4, 1906, for violation of the Sherman
Act in restricting competition and main-
taining prices in the sale of lumber. May
13, 1907, change of venue granted to Grant
County. Sept. 25, 1907, pleas of guilty and
fines Imposed aggregating $2,000, which
were paid.

15. United States v. National Associa-
Bill in
tion of Retail Druggists et al.
equity filed May 9, 1906, in the United
States Circuit Court for the District of
Indiana against the National Association
of Retall Druggists, alleging a combination
In 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
May 25, 1906,
Chemical Company et al.
the Federal grand jury for the Middle Dis-
trict of Tennessee, upon information fur-
nished by the Department of Justice, re-
turned an Indictment against thirty-one
corporations and twenty-five 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 Federal anti-trust act and with
conspiring to commit an offense against
the United States, viz., the aforesaid con-
spiracy, in violation of section 5440 of the
Revised Statutes. The fertilizer manufac-
turers combined to fix the price of fertil-
izers in the territory mentioned and to
apportion the trade among themselves ac-
cording 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 East-
ern District of Virginia denying the right
of habeas corpus and remanding them to
the custody of the marshal for removal
to the Middle District of Tennessee for
trial. The case before, the Supreme Court
was argued on Dec. 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 over-
ruled, plea in abatement allowed, and in-
dictment quashed.

17. United States v. American Ice Com-
pany et al. July 12, 1906, indictment re-
turned in the Supreme Court of the Dis-
trict of Columbia, charging an unlawful

agreement to control prices and restrict
competition in the sale of ice. Nolle
prosequi entered August 26, 1912.

18. United States v. Chandler Ice and
Cold Storage Plant et al. Sept. 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 appor-
tion territory in the matter of the sale of
ice. In May, 1907, demurrer was overruled.
Case ordered dismissed on April 10, 1911.
19. United States v. Alfred M. Gloyd
et al. Sept. 21, 1906. indictment returned
against Alfred M. Gloyd and others in the
District Court for the Territory of Okla-
homa, charging a combination to maintain
prices and restrict competition in the sale
of lumber. Dismissed.

20. United States v. People's Ice and
Fuel Company, a corporation, and W. B.
Lount. Oct. 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 ice. Jan. 5, 1907, trial commenced. Ver-
dict not guilty as to People's Ice and
Fuel Co. Trial of Lount continued over
term. Oct. 16, 1907, plea in bar filed.
Oct. 17, 1907, plea in bar sustained.

21. United States v. Demund Lumber
Company et al. Oct. 23, 1906, indictment
returned in the District Court for the
Territory of Arizona, charging a combina-
tion to control prices and restrict_compe-
tition in the sale of lumber. Jan. 2, 1907,
trial commenced. Verdict of not guilty
as to Demund Lumber Co. Jan. 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 re-
turned.

22. United States v. Phanix Wholesale
Meat and Produce Company, a corporation,
P. T. Hurley, and S. J. Tribolet. Oct. 23,
1906, indictment returned in the District
Court for the Territory of Arizona, charg-
ing a combination to control prices and re-
strict competition in the sale of meats.
Jan. 7, 1907, trial commenced. Verdict of
not guilty as to Phoenix Wholesale Meat &
Produce Co. Jan. 8, 1907, indictment
against Hurley dismissed. Verdict of guilty
as to defendant S. J. Tribolet, Jan. 12,
1907. Tribolet sentenced to pay fine of
$1,000. Jan. 9, 1907, case against Phoenix
Wholesale Meat & Produce Co. dismissed.
Appeal to the Supreme Court of the Terrl-
tory of Arizona. Supreme Court affirmed
decision of lower court. Fine paid.

23. United States v. Standard Oil Com-
pany of N. J. et al, Nov. 15, 1906, bill in
equity filed in United States Circuit Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri against
the Standard Oil Co. and others, in which
it is alleged that they are maintaining a
combination in restraint of trade in the
manufacture and sale of petroleum. Case
argued in Circuit Court April, 1909; de-
cision by unanimous court in favor of the
Government Nov. 20, 1909. Appealed to
Supreme Court; argued March, 1910, re-
argued January, 1911, and judgment af-
firmed May 15, 1911.

24. United States v. T. B. Hogg et al.
Dec. 8, 1906, indictment returned in the
District Court for the Territory of Okla.
homa, charging a combination and
spiracy in restraint of trade and commerce
In the sale of lumber. March 25, 1907,
plea of not guilty. Change of judge grant-

con-

25. United States v. Atlantic Investment Company et al. Feb. 11, 1907, indictment returned in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia against the Atlantic Investment Co. and others, charging a combination in restraint of trade and commerce in the matter of the manufacture and sale of turpentine. Feb. 18, 1907, four corporations and two individuals, defendants to this indictment, entered pleas of guilty, and the court imposed a fine of $5,000 upon each of the six defendants, making a total of $30,000.

26. United States v. American Seating Company et al. March 12, 1907, indictment returned to the District Court of the Northern District of Illinois charging a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law by engaging in a combination in restraint of trade in the manufacture and sale of school and church furniture. April 1, 1907, defendant corporations entered pleas of guilty, with one exception. May 20, 1907, fines Defendant imposed aggregating $43,000.

E. H. Stafford Manufacturing Co. filed demurrer April 3, 1907. May 31, 1907, demurrer overruled and plea of not guilty entered. Dismissed Jan. 27, 1913.

27. United States v. American Seating Company et al. March 12, 1907, bill in equity filed in the United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the American Seating Co. and others, in which it is alleged that they are maintaining a combination in restraint of trade in the manufacture and sale of school and church furniture. Aug. 15, 1907, decree entered granted perpetual injunction against all defendants, except E. H. Stafford Manufacturing Co., E. H. Stafford, E. M. Stafford, and E. G. Bentley. As to these defendants the case was dismissed Jan. 27, 1913.

28. United States v. Santa Rita Mining Company and Santa Rita Store Company. April 4, 1907, indictment returned in the district of New Mexico charging a violation of section 3 of the Sherman AntiTrust Law for engaging in a combination in restraint of trade. Demurrer filed and overruled. Fine of $1,000 imposed on each defendant; total, $2,000. Appeal taken to the Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico, where judgment of the lower court was reversed, and the case was subsequently dismissed.

29. United States v. The Reading Com-, pany et al. Petition filed June 12, 1907, in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to dissolve a combination among the anthracite coal-carrying roads and others. December 8, 1910, a decision was handed down by the Circuit Court adjudging that defendants were joined in a combination in restraint of trade through the instrumentality of the Temple Iron Co., but dismissing the charge of the petition as to the so-called 65 per cent. contracts whereby it was alleged the independent output was controlled, and also the charges as to certain so-called minor combinations. Cross appeals were taken to the Supreme Court, where the decree of the lower court, in so far as it adjudged the defendants parties to a combination in restraint of trade through the instrumentality of the Temple Iron Co., was affirmed, but was reversed as to the so-called 65 per cent. contracts with instructions to cancel them. and was further modified by dismissing the petition in other respects without prejudice, instead of absolutely.

30. United States v. National Umbrella Frame Company et al. July 1, 1907, indictment returned in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania churgIng a conspiracy to restrain interstate trade and commerce in the manufacture and sale of umbrella material in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law and section 5440, R. S. Pleas of guilty entered and fines aggregating $3,000 imposed and collected.

31. United States v. American Tobacco Company et al. Bill in equity filed July 10, 1907, by the United States against the American Tobacco Co. and others, in which it was alleged that they were maintaining a combination in restraint of trade and commerce in the manufacture and sale of tobacco. Nov. 7, 1908, decision rendered in favor of the Government, except as to individual defendants and certain foreign and other corporations. Cross appeals were taken to the Supreme Court, where case was argued March, 1910, and reargued January, 1911. May 29, 1911, a decision was rendered sustaining the Government on every point, and the case was remanded to the Circuit Court and the unlawful combination was dissolved in ac cordance with the decision of the Supreme Court.

32. United States v. E. H. Stafford Manufacturing Company et al. July 10. 1907, indictment returned in the District Court for the Northern District of Ilnois charging a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law by engaging in a combination in restraint of trade in the manufacture and sale of school and church furniture. Dismissed Jan. 27, 1913.

33. United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. et al. July 30, 1907, bill in equity filed in the Circuit Court for the District of Delaware against E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. and others, in which it is alleged that they are maintaining a combination in restraint of trade in the manufacture and sale of gunpowder and other high explosives. June 21, 1911, a decision was rendered holding combination 11Final legal and ordering its dissolution. decree dissolving the combination was approved by the court June 13, 1912.

34. United States v. One Hundred and Seventy-five Cases of Cigarettes. Oct. 28. 1907, information filed in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia cov ering the seizure of 175 cases of cigarettes under Section 6 of the Sherman Anil Trust Act. Cigarettes subsequently released un der bond. Decree of dismissal entered Jan. 31, 1913.

35. United States v. H. D. Corbett Stationery Company et al. Nov. 1, 1907, indictment returned in the District Court for the District of Arizona charging a combination in restraint of trade. Nov. 4, 1907, demurrer filed. Nov. 14, 1907, demurrets sustained and defendants referred to next grand jury. Oct. 28, 1908, reindicted. Nov. 6, 1908, verdict not guilty.

36. United States v. Union Pacific Coal Company et al. Nov. 20. 1907, indictment returned in the District Court for the District of Utah, charging a conspiracy to violate and a violation of the Sherman Act. Jan. 6, 1908, demurrer filed. March 2, 1908, demurrer sustained as to first count and overruled as to second count, Dec. 3, 1908. verdict guilty. March 29. 1909, fines aggregating $13.000 imposed. November, 1909, judgment reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, and the suit was dismissed March 21, 1910.

37. United States v. Chas. L. Simmons et al. Jan. 20, 1908, indictment returned In the District Court for the Southern District of Alabama charging a combination in restraint of trade and commerce in the matter of the manufacture and sale of plutabers' supplies. On December 1, 1910, pleas of guilty were entered and fines aggregating $265 were imposed.

38. United States v. Union Pacific Railroad Company et al. Feb. 1, 1908, a bill In equity was filed in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Utah, charging a combination and conspiracy in violation of the Sherman Act on the part of the so-called Harriman lines. June 23,

1911, decision by Circuit Court to the effect that the roads involved were not competing lines and hence the combination was not a violation of law, Hook, J., dissentIng. An appeal was taken to Supreme Court, which handed down a decision reversing the lower court on Dec. 2, 1912. Final decree dissolving the combination entered June 30, 1913.

39. United States v. E. J. Ray et al. Feb. 14, 1908, indictment returned in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against seventy-two laborers, charging a combination and conspiracy in restraint of foreign trade and commerce, In violation of the Sherman Act. See note Under following case.

40. United States v. E. J. Ray et al. Feb. 15, 1908, Indictment returned in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against seventy-two laborers, charging a combination and conspiracy in restraint of interstate trade and commerce, in violation of the Sherman Act.

NOTE-Jan. 26, 1911, cases consolidated for trial. Verdict of guilty as to three defendants and fines amounting to $110 imposed. Appeal granted and judg. ment of the lower court was affirmed.

41. United States v. Joseph Stiefvater et al. Feb. 15, 1908, indictment returned in the United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, charging a combination in restraint of trade and commerce in the matter of the manufacture and sale of plumbers' supplies. June 25, 1910, dismissed.

42. United States v. American Naval Stores Company et al, April 11, 1908, indletment returned in the United States Circult Court for the Southern District of Georgia, charging a combination in restraint of trade and commerce in the matter of the manufacture and sale of turpentine. May 10, 1909, verdict of guilty as to 5 individual defendants. Fines aggregating $17,500 Imposed and two defendants sentenced to three months in jall. Appealed to Circuit Court of Appeals and judgment affirmed. Certiorari granted by Supreme Court. Judgment of lower Court reversed June 9, 1913, on ground of error in judge's charge to jury. A verdict of not guilty was handed down in June, 1914.

43. United States v. New York, New Haven, and Hartford Railroad Company et al. May 22, 1908, a bill in equity was filed in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts, charging the New Haven Co. with combining and attempting to combine under one common control the various railroad and electric railway systems in New England in violation of the Sherman Act. Dismissed June 26, 1909.

44. United States v. John H. Parks et al. June 16, 1908, indictment returned in

the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, charging a combination in restraint of trade in the matter of the manufacture and sale of papers. June 19, 1908, defendants plead guilty and sentenced to pay fines aggregatIng $50,000, which were paid.

PRESIDENT TAFT'S ADMINISTRATION.Ninety cases.

[Geo. W. Wickersham, Attorney-General March 4, 1909, to March 4, 1913.]

1. United States v. American Sugar Refining Company et al. Indictment under Sherman law July 1, 1909. A plea of the statute of limitations was interposed by the defendant Kissell, which was taken to the Supreme Court, where it was decided in favor of the Government. March 31, 1912, trial of the case resulted in disagreement of the jury.

2. United States v. Albia Box & Paper Company et al. Dec. 7, 1909, indictment returned in Southern District of New York charging combination in restraint of trade in paper board. Feb, 7, 1910, all defendants plead guilty and fines aggregating $57,000 were assessed and collected.

3.

United States v. John S. Steers et al. Indictment returned in Eastern District of Kentucky Feb. 17, 1910, charging conspiracy to restrain trade. This is the so-called "Night Rider" case where the restraint consisted in preventing the shipment of tobacco in interstate commerce by means of violence and intimidation. After the overruling of demurrers and various pleas in abatement a trial was had, and on April 16, 1910, a verdict of guilty was returned as to eight of twelve defendants and fines aggregating $3,500 imposed. Appealed to Circuit Court of Appeals, argued November, 1911, and the judgment was affirmed May 11, 1912. The sentences were commuted by the President to payment of costs of suit.

4. United States v. Imperial Window Glass Company et al. Indictment found in western Pennsylvania April 7, 1910, charg ing combination and conspiracy to enhance the price of window glass. Demurrers to the indictment were overruled, and on Nov. 10, 1910, pleas of nolo contendere were entered and fines aggregating $10,000 and costs were imposed and collected.

5. United States v. National Packing Company et al. Indictment returned in Northern District of Illinois, March 2, 1910, charging combination to restrain trade in fresh meats. Demurrer to indictment sustained June 23, 1910.

6. United States v. National Packing Company et al. Northern Illinois. Bill in equity charging combination in restraint of trade in fresh meats and praying for dissolution filed March 21, 1910. Dismissed in order to facilitate the prosecution of later criminal case.

7. United States v. Armour Packing Company et al. Indictment returned at Savannah, Ga., in April, 1910, charging combination to control prices and restrict competition. Demurrer sustained as to second count on May 21, 1914. Nolle prosequi entered March 9, 1915.

8. United States V. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company and twenty-four other railroads. Petition to restrain violation of Sherman law filed May 31, 1910, and temporary restraining order issued on that day enjoining advances in freight rates in western trunk-line territory, which would have become effective June 1, 1910. Thereupon the railroads after consultation with the