sell to defendants' competitors, and thus to a great extent intentionally eliminated competition and restrained interstate trade and commerce; also that defendants agreed among themselves to concertedly fix and maintain uniform and noncompetitive prices, much higher than would obtain otherwise. 5. United States V. Chicago Master Steam Fitters Association et al. Indictment returned April 30, 1921, in the District Court at Chicago against 19 corporations and 24 individual defendants, including the business manager of the union called the Chicago Steam Fitters Protective Association, charging that the corporate defendants, managed and conducted by the individual defendants, carried on the business of furnishing and installing heating apparatus in houses and buildings in Chicago through an agreement not to purchase from or deal with manufacturers or others supplying heating apparatus and accessories to competitors of defendants or others not members of the association, thus monopolizing and restricting the trade, interstate in character, wholly to themselves. The monopolization and restraint was aided and made more stringent and effectual by the business manager of the steam fitters union, who, through an understanding with the steam fitters association, induced the members of the union to refuse to install any apparatus except for members of the association. Demurrers filed. 6. United States v. Louis Biegler Co. et al. Indictment returned April 30, 1921, in the District Court at Chicago, against 11 corporations and 18 individuals, manufacturing in Chicago sheet-metal articles used in building construction, charging that the defendants restrained and monopolized interstate trade and commerce by preventing competitors outside of Illinois from furnishing any appreciable quantity of their products in Chicago, whereby the defendants were enabled to exact excessive prices, through an agreement between the manufacturers and the Amalgamated Sheet Metal Workers' Union, whereby the manufacturers agreed to employ only sheet-metal workers who were members of the union and representatives of the union, the defendants, agreed that the union would refuse to install such sheet-metal articles in Chicago manufactured at plants outside of Illinois. 7. United States v. Cement Manufacturers Protective Association et al. On June 30, 1921, a civil suit against the Cement Manufacturers Protective Association and 19 corporate and 4 individual defendants was instituted in the District Court at New York City. The petition charged that the association was organized along the lines of the "Eddy plan," the "new competition," "one price plan," and "open competition," the fundamental principle of which is the exchange between the defendants of comprehensive statistical data ostensibly to let each know what his competitors are doing, but the underlying characteristic of all being that they are not open nor competition, and also that the defendants concertedly adopted 24 so-called trade practices tending to reduce to a minimum the possibility of competition. 8. United States v. Atlas Portland Ce ment Co. et al. Indictment returned August 8, 1921 in the Southern District of New York, against the 19 corporate defendants In the preceding case, and in addition 44 individuals, managing or conducting the business of the corporate defendants, the subject matter being the same. 9. United States v. Alexander & Reld Co. et al. Indictment returned August 31, 1921, in the District Court at New York City, against 25 corporations and 40 individuals engaged in furnishing and installing in and near New York City wall and floor tiles shipped from other States, charging among other things, that defendants agreed to furnish and install tiles only at noncompetitive, arbitrary, and excessive prices; that by an agreement between the defendants and the manufacturers the latter sold and shipped tiles in and near New York City only to defendants; and that the defendants also agreed with organizations of tile-setting workers in the City of New York not to work upon tiles not furnished by defendants. All but five of the defendants entered pleas of guilty in November, 1921, resulting in four jail sentences, and the imposition of fines on 29 persons and 17 firms. 10. United States v. Andrews Lumber & Mill Co. et al. Indictment returned September 2, 1921, at Chicago, superseding case 79 in President Wilson's administration (q. v.). 11. United States v. Atlantic Terra Cotta Co. et al. Indictment returned September 28, 1921, in the District Court at New York City, against 7 corporations and 12 individuals, engaged in the manufacture of terra cotta, alleging that the defendants combined and conspired to divide the country in three parts and assign to each a group of terra cotta manufacturers, who were to confine all shipments and sales exclusively within that territory, and that therefor the defendants used a so-called "open-price" or "open-competition" plan, whereby each exposed all the important details of his business to the others, the effect being to eliminate competition and artificially maintain arbitrary and excessive prices. In December, 1921, pleas of guilty were entered as to 7 corporate and 10 individual defendants, and a fine of $3,000 imposed upon each. 12. United States v. The American Terra Cotta & Ceramic Co. et al. Indictment returned September 28, 1921, in the District Court at New York City, against 22 corporations and 27 individuals, manufacturing almost all the terra-cotta building material produced in the United States, charging that defendants were associated through the National Terra Cotta Society, and by a so-called "open-price" or "opencompetition" plan each forwarded to the society minute statistical data on its business, to be summarized and disseminated to all defendants; that thereby each possessed full information on the businesses of all, and was thus enabled to maintain an agreement dividing the country into three parts, to each of which a group of defendants was assigned and to which the defendants in that group were to confine their sales and shipments, thus enabling the defendants to exact excessive and arbitrary prices. 13. United States v. Hiram Norcross et al. Petition filed in October, 1921, in the Western District of Missouri, against Hiram Norcross, as sole owner and manager of the Norcross Audit and Statistical Bureau, and six subscribers to the bureau, charging a combination and conspiracy in restraint of interstate trade and commerce in Portand cement, by "gentlemen's agreements," restriction of production, interchange of statistics, withholding cement from the market, uniform cost accounting systems, etc. 14. United States v. Mid West Cement Credit & Statistical Bureau et al. Petition filed in October, 1921, in the Northern District of Illinois, charging defendants with combining and conspiring to restrain interstate trade and commerce in Portland cement by means of "gentlemen's agreements,' interchange of trade statistics, withholding of cement from the market, uniform systems of accounting, etc. It was alleged that in fact the association was not open and there was no competition. 15. United States v. Johnston Brokerage Co. et al. Indictment returned November 28, 1921, in Southern District of New York, presenting that the defendants, manufacturers and sellers of approximately twothirds of all the hand-blown window glass used in building construction in the United States, were combining and conspiring to enhance prices and suppress competition by constituting the Johnston Brokerage Co. a sole selling agency for all of the defendants, and that the Johnston Co. arbitrarily fixed and dictated prices and apportioned sales and further that through the aid and cooperation of one Neenan and his labor organization certain "wage scales" were devised, whereby production was curtailed. Demurrer sustained, February, 1922. (See No. 23, below.) 16. United States v. The Central Foundry Co. et al. Indictment returned in the Southern District of New York, December 28, 1921, presenting that defendants, members of the Eastern Soil Pipe Manufacturers' Association, through the "openprice plan" were combining and conspiring to restrain interstate trade in cast-iron soil pipes and fittings, that arbitrary and excessive price schedules were maintained and that the practices complained of resulted in the elimination of practically all competition. 17. United States v. Cement Securities Co. et al. Petition filed in District of Colorado, in January, 1922, alleging that through acquisition of the majority stock of several cement manufacturing companies the Cement Securities Co. was enabled to eliminate competitors, monopolize the ce ment business in the Rocky Mountain States, and thus enhance prices and stand off new competition. 18. United States v. Tile Manufacturers Credit Association et al. Petition filed January 10, 1922, in the Southern District of Ohio, charging defendants with combining and conspiring to restrain the manufacture of encaustic tile, its transportation in interstate and foreign commerce, and its sale. The members of this association manufactured approximately 80 cent of the commodity; the principal function of the association was to fix and maintain prices and furnish to its members information on the credit of tile purchasers. per 19. United States v. National Enameling & Stamping Company et al. Petition filed in the Southern District of New York alleging that the defendants, members of an unincorporated "Open-price plan" association, combined and conspired to monopolize and restrain interstate trade and commerce in galvanized ware, through uniform price lists, terms of sale, freight allowances, and special discounts. With the filing of the petition a decree was entered restraining the acts complained of. 20. United States v. Bricklayers', Masons' & Plasterers' International Union of America et al. Petition filed February 28, 1922, in the Southern District of New York, charging the defendant association, comprising more than 100,000 members, its executive officers, and representatives of numerous local unions with combining and conspiring to restrain interstate trade and commerce in commodities used in the construction of buildings, by numerous agreements with employers' associations and by divers arbitrary working rules and illegal practices. These agreements granted exclusive rights and unlawful preferences to members of the employers' associations in engaging members of the union, illegally and arbitrarily dictated the conditions under which the material should be fabri cated and installed by the union, and enforced blacklists boycotts and against owners, builders, and general contractors. The working rules prescribed limitations and substantial curtallment of the amount of work to be done within a stated period of time. The illegal practices included blacklisting, secondary boycotts, and lawful threats to strike. With the filing of the petition a consent decree was entered against the international union, the executive officers of the international union, and all the representatives of the local unions except Nos. 4, 34, and 37, New York. un 21. United States v. United Gas Improvement Company et al. Indictment returned March 6, 1922, in the Southern District of New York, charging three corporate and eight individual defendants with conspiring to restrain and monopolize interstate trade and commerce in manufacturing, selling, furnishing, and maintaining incandescent lamps, fixtures and appliances, through defendants having secured control of valuable patents and excluded others from the use of those patents; acquired and combined competing companies; and instituted tortuous litigation against competitors, intimidating them so as to prevent them from continuing in the industry. 22. United States v. Lehigh Portland al. Cement Company et Indictment returned March 9, 1922, in the Northern District of Illinois, charging 26 corporations and 48 individuals with combining and conspiring to restrain interstate commerce in Portland cement. Among other things, the defendants organized and maintained the Mid-West Cement Credit and Statistical Bureau, through which they exchanged comprehensive details with respect to their businesses. 23. United States v. American Window Glass Company, Johnson Brokerage Company et al. Indictment returned March 17, 1922, Southern District of New York, presenting that the defendant manufacturers and sellers of approximately 80 per cent of all the window glass used in building construction were combining and conspiring to curtail production and enhance prices and suppress competition, the American Window Glass Company maintaining its own selling agency, and the Johnston Brokerage Company acting as selling agent for all the other defendant manufacturers, by an interchange of price information arbitrarily fixed and dictated prices and apportioned sales; also through agreements between the manufacturers (with the aid and cooperation of three union labor leaders, Neenan, Zellers, and Andorfer) and their labor organizations whereby certain wage scales were devised and production then curtailed. (This indictment superseded No. 15, above.) 24. United States v. Wickwire Spencer Steel Corporation et al. Petition filed in Southern District of New York, March 20, 1922, alleging that the defendants combined and conspired to restrain and monopolize interstate trade and commerce in kitchen utensils. An association was conducted along the lines of the Eddy plan, and the defendants had a pooling arrangement as to patents and agreements as to uniform freight allowances. With the filing of the petition a consent decree was entered prohibiting the acts complained of and dissolving the association. seven 25. United States v. American Terra Cotta & Ceramic Company et al. Indictment filed March 27, 1922, in the Northern District of Illinois, presenting that seven corporations and individuals had conspired and combined to restrain and monopolize interstate trade and commerce in terra cotta, by forming the National Terra Cotta Society; that such society divided the United States into sections, for trade purposes, with certain "open" territory; that the different members of the Society were designated to deal in one division and prohibited from doing business in other sections. INDEX TO ANTI-TRUST CASES President Harrison's Administration National Association of Retail Druggists.15 National Umbrella Frame Co.. 30 6 Corning, in re 2 A Greene, in re |