12. United States v. Allen & Robinson 13. United States v. Otis Elevator Co. 14. United States v. F. A. Amsden 15. United States v. National Associa- 16. United States v. Virginia-Carolina 17. United States v. American Ice Com- the agreement to control prices and restrict 18. United States v. Chandler Ice and 20. United States v. People's Ice and 21. United States v. Demund Lumber tion sustained and verdict of acquittal re- 22. United States v. Phania Wholesale 23. United States v. Standard Oil Com- 24. United States v. T. B. Hogg et al. ed on application of defendants. Dismissed. 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 imposed aggregating $43,000. Defendant 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. 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 chargIng 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. a 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 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 accordance 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 Illnois charging a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law by engaging in a combination in restraint of trade in the manusale of school and church furniture. Dismissed Jan. 27, 1913. facture and Aug. 15, 1907, de cree 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 Company 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. 33. United States v. E. 1. 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 illegal and ordering its dissolution. Final 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 Anti-Trust Act. Cigarettes subsequently released un. bond. Decree of dismissal entered Jan. 31, 1913. der 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 r. 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 üled. March 2, 1908, demurrer sustained ฮะ 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 plumbers' supplies. On December 1, 1910, pleas of guilty were entered and fines aggregating $265 were imposed. 38. United States v. Union Pacific Rail road 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 ef fect that the roads involved were not competing lines and hence the combination was not a violation of law, Hook, J., dissentlog. 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, indictment returned in the United States Circuit 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 individunl defendants. Fines aggregating $17,500 Imposed and two defendants sentenced to three months in jail. 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, charging 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 enjolning advances in freight rates in western trunk-line territory, which would have become effective June 1, 1910. Thereupon the railroads after consultation with the ad President, withdrew their proposed vances in freight rates, and after the passage of the act of June 18, 1910, the matter was referred to the Interstate Commerce Commission. Thereafter the Interstate Commerce Commission enjoined the rate advances which the temporary restraining order obtained by the department on May 31, 1910, had prevented from going into effect and the petition was dismissed. 9. United States v. Southern Wholesale Grocers' Association. Bill in equity charging combination to regulate prices of necessities of life, filed at Birmingham, Ala., June 9, 1910. An agreement was reached between the Government and defendant's counsel, and a decree prepared, submitted to, and passed by the court Oct. 17, 1911, perpetually restraining the association, its officers and members, from doing any and all of the acts complained of. Some of the grocers violated the agreement with the Court and contempt proceedings brought. A petition for rule to show cause why an attachment for criminal contempt of court for alleged violation of decree entered Oct. 17, 1911, should not issue was filed in the District Court at Birmingham, Ala., Feb. 10, 1913. The association and three of its members were found guilty of contempt and fines aggregating $5,500 were imposed. were 10. United States v. Great Lakes Towing Company et al. Petition filed in Northern District of Ohio on June 19, 1910, against an alleged combination of towing facilities on the Great Lakes. A decision in favor of the Government was handed down on Feb. 11, 1913, and a final decree dissolving the combination was entered on Oct. 12, 1914. 11. United States v. Chicago Butter & Egg Board. Bill asking for dissolution filed at Chicago, June 13, 1910. A demurrer to the petition was sustained with leave to amend, and an amended petition was filed. Set for hearing on master's report on Jan. 8, 1914. The case was decided favorably to the Government and a decree to that effect was entered on Oct. 12, 1914. 12. United States V. Frank Hayne, James A. Patten et al. Indictments returned, New York City, against alleged cotton-pool conspirators, Aug. 4, 1910. Demurrers were sustained as to certain counts of indictment and overruled as to others, and the Government appealed to the Supreme Court, where case was argued November, 1911, and reargued at the October term, 1912. Decision by Supreme Court Jan. 6, 1913, sustaining indictments. Patten entered plea of guilty Feb. 11, 1913, and was fined $4,000. Indictment dismissed as to other defendants, and another indictment was returned July 1, 1913. See case 6, under the administration of President Wilson. 13. United States v. Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Company et al. Petition filed at Baltimore July 22, 1910, charging a combination, under cover of a patent licensing arrangement, to restrain competition and enhance prices of enamel ware. Four volumes of testimony were taken and case set for argument at Richmond on June 15, 16, and 17, 1911. In a decision rendered Oct. 13, 1911, the court sustained all the Government's contentions, and a decree was entered Nov. 25, 1911, from which an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court. Decision of lower court affirmed Nov. 8, 1913. Judgment compelled dissolution. 14. United States v. Louis F. Swift et al. Indictment returned by the grand jury at Chicago, in September, 1910, against ten prominent individuals engaged in the meat-packing industry. Defendants all filed numerous pleas In bar, demurrers, etc., all of which were decided in favor of the Government. Defendants applied to Circult Judge Kohlsaat for writ of certiorari based on contention that anti-trust law was unconstitutional. Petition dismissed. Defendants appealed to Supreme Court and gave notice of motion Dec. 4, 1911, for stay of trial pending appeal. March 27. 1912, after a trial lasting over three months the jury returned a verdict of acquittal. 15. United States v. John Reardon & Sons Company and Consolidated Rendering Co. Indicted jointly by Federal grand Jury at Boston in October, 1910. Demurrer to indictment sustained June 23, 1911. 15, 16, and 17, A. See at the end of 70. 16. United States v. Ferdinand Sulzberger, doing business under the name of John Reardon & Sons Company, and Horatio W. Heath, of Boston, doing business as the Consolidated Rendering Company. Jointly Indicted at Boston In October, 1910, for violation of the Sherman law. Demurrer to indictment sustained June 23, 1911. 16 A. See at the end of 70. 17. United States v. Horatio W. Heath and Cyrus S. Hapgood. Indictment returned In October, at Boston, charging violation of the Sherman law. Demurrer to Indictment sustained June 23, 1911. 17 A. See at the end of 70. (Note. In the last three indictments, which were found simultaneously, the Government charged that the defendants attempted to divide territory among themselves generally throughout New England, so as to avoid competition and drive out competitors in the hide and rendering business.) 18. United States v. Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Company et al. In addition to the above suit in equity (No. 13, supra), Indictments were returned by grand jury at Detroit on Dec. 6, 1910, against the same corporations and individuals charging the same acts. Various demurrers and dilatory pleas were filed, argued, and overruled. After a trial lasting six weeks the jury reported a disagreement on March 14, 1912. Retrial in February, 1913, resulted in a verdict of guilty and fines aggregating $51,006 were imposed. 19. United States v. American Sugar Refining Company et al. A suit in equity was filed at New York on Nov. 28, 1910, against this corporation, Its officers and agents, and its owned and controlled corporations, attacking it as a combination in restraint of trade and praying for its dissolution. The case was ready for trial in October, 1915, but the presiding judge sug gested postponement to await the decision of the Supreme Court in the Harvester and Steel cases. The case was still pending in 1918, awaiting the decision in cases 46 and 63 under Mr. Taft's administration. 20. United States v. General Electric Company et al. Bill in equity filed at Cleveland, Ohio, on March 3, 1911, charging a combination in Incandescent electric lamps. This suit is the outcome of an extensive Investigation into the electrical industry. Like the enameled-ware combination. It is founded on a cross-licensing arrangement under patents. A formal decree was agreed upon between counsel for the Gov. ernment and the defendant companies, and was submitted to and passed by the Circuit Court Oct. 12, 1911. 21. United States v. Purrington et al. Indictment returned in the Northern District of Illinois Sept. 14, 1910, charging combination to restrain trade in paving bricks and paving blocks. Demurrer overruled Nov. 8, 1911. Nolle prosequi entered June 3, 1913. 22. United States v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt Actien Gesellschaft and others. (Trans-Atlantic steamship pool.) Combination of steamship lines regulating steerage traffic on the Atlantic Ocean. Suit filed Jan. 4, 1911, at New York City. Testimony complete and case set for argument, April 17, 1914. On Oct. 12, 1914, a decision unfavorable to the Government was handed down, and an appeal to the Supreme Court was taken. On Jan. 10, 1916. the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court. However, the Supreme Court refused to decide the questions in issue on the ground that the European War had rendered them moot. 23. United States v. William C. Geer, president Albia Box and Paper Company, et al. Indictment returned April 28, 1911, In the Southern District of New York, alleging a combination and conspiracy in restraint of interstate commerce in paper board. Demurrer overruled May 9, 1913. In February, 1915, the defendants withdrew their pleas of not guilty and offered pleas of nolo contendere, which the court accepted and fined them $16,000. 24. United States v. Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers' Association. Suit In equity filed at New York on May 19, 1911, charging the Eastern States Lumber Dealers' Association, its officers and members, with a conspiracy in restraint of trade through the instrumentality of blacklists and trade agreements. Decision by lower court in favor of Government Jan. 9, 1913, and decree entered March 1, from which appeal was taken to Supreme Court. Argued at October term. Decided June 22, 1914, sustaining the decree of the district court. 25. United States v. Isaac Whiting, John K. Whiting, Charles H. Hood, Edward J. Hood, and William A. Grautstein. Indictment returned by the grand jury at Boston, Mass., on May 26, 1911, charging a combination to restrain trade in milk throughout the New England States. Pending, 1914. A demurrer was sustained concerning conspiracy and monopoly in restraint of trade, but overruled concerning combinations in restraint of trade, to which the defendants entered a plea of not guilty on May 4, 1914. Certain of the defendants entered pleas of nolo contendere, and the case is being prosecuted against the others. 26. United States v. Isaac Whiting, John K. Whiting, Charles H. Hood, Edward J. Hood, and William A. Grautstein, and Wil liam A. Hunter, Secretary of Producers' Co. May 26, 1911, indictment returned by the grand jury at Boston, Mass., charging a conspiracy to restrain trade in milk throughout the New England States. Pending, 1914. A demurrer was sustained concerning conspiracy and monopoly in restraint of trade, but overruled concerning combinations in restraint of trade, to which charge the defendants pleaded not guilty on May 4, 1914. Certain of the defendants entered pleas of nolo contendere, and the case is being prosecuted against the others. 27. United States v. Lumber Secretaries' Bureau of Information et al. Indictment returned June 23, 1911, in the Northern District of Illinols, charging that the sec retaries of fourteen retail lumbermen's associations, covering twenty-three States from Pennsylvania to the Pacific coast, were in a conspiracy by means of a central controlling bureau to control the marketing of lumber by forcing the product through the retailer to the consumer. and restraining the trade of the manufacturer, wholesaler, and consumer, and eliminating competition for the trade of the consumer. Demurrer filed. Nolle prosequi entered June 6, 1913. 28 to 36. United States v. Philip H. W. Smith et al. Indictments returned at New York City, June 29, 1911, against various individuals charging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the anti-trust law through the conduct and operation of the Underground Power Cable Association, Telephone Cable Association, Fine Magnet Wire Association, Wire Rope Manufacturers, Horseshoe Manufacturers' Association, Lead-encased Rubber Cable Association, and the Rubber-covered Wire Association. Defendants appeared and pleaded, and fines aggregating $128,700 were finally imposed. 37. United States v. Periodical Publishing Company. Bill in equity filed in New York in June, 1911, against the members of the so-called Magazine Trust. The trial resulted in an equally divided court, and an order of dismissal was entered May 29, 1913. 1912. 38. United States v. Jay B. Pearce et al. Indictment returned against certain manufacturers and jobbers at Cleveland, Ohio, July 19, 1911, for combination and conspiracy in the manufacture and sale of wall paper. Demurrer overruled May 13, Verdict of not guilty May 24, 1912. 39. United States v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern R. R., Chesapeake & Ohio R. R., Hocking Valley R. R., Toledo & Ohio Central Ry., Kanawha & Michigan Ry., Zanesville & Western R. R. and others. Bill in equity filed at Columbus, Ohio, Aug. 4, 1911, to enjoin combination Deand conspiracy in restraint of trade. cision of lower court in favor of Government Dec. 28, 1912. Proposed plan of dissolution On was considered by court. Nov. 10, 1913, a supplemental decision concerning the relief to be granted was entered, and on March 14, 1914, a final decree was entered, awarding in the main the relief prayed for by the Government. 40. United States v. Edward E. Hartwick et al. Petition filed at Detroit, Mich., Aug. 31, 1911, alleging conspiracy and unlawful restraint of trade on the part of members of the Michigan Retail Lumber Dealers' Association, The Scout Publishing Co., and the Lumbermen's Secretaries' Bu reau of Information. In view of the decisions in cases 24 and 45, the case was not contested and a consent decree granting the relief sought by the Government was entered on Dec. 4, 1917. 41. United States v. Standard Wood Company et al. Petition filed in the Circuit Court at New York City in September, 1911, against the members of the so-called Kindling Wood Trust, praying for injunc tion against the further carrying into effect of trade agreements and combination and conspiracy to monopolize trade. On default of answer, decree was entered against defendants March 11, 1912. 42. United States v. Hunter Milling Company, Blackwell Milling and Elevator Company, and Frank Foltz. Indictment returned by grand jury to District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Sept |