« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
nineteen hundred and four, and for other purposes,
approved February twenty-fifth, nineteen hundred and three, immunity shall extend only to a natural person who, in obedience to a subpæna, gives testimony under oath or produces evidence, documentary or otherwise, under oath.
Approved, June 30, 1906.
SUITS BROUGHT AND PROSECUTIONS INSTITUTED BY
THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST LAW.
President Harrison's Administration, March 4, 1889, to March 4, 1893.
WILLIAM H. MILLER, Attorney General, March 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 Exchange," composed of various coal mining companies operating mines in Kentucky and Tennessee, and of 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 agreement. 2. United States v. Greenhut et al., 50 Fed. Rep., 469.
(District Court, Massachusetts. May 16, 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 Corning, 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 Massachusetts to answer to the indictment in the Greenhut case.
Prisoner discharged 3. United States v. Nelson, 52 Fed. Rep., 646.
(District Court, Minnesota. October 10, 1892.)
Indictment of a number of lumber dealers for conspiring 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 commodity, could not operate as a restraint of trade under
the act. 4. United States v. Trans- 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 commerce, formed for the purpose of maintaining “just and reasonable rates," etc. Bill dismissed by Circuit Court;
decree of dismissal affirined by Circuit Court of Appeals, and reversed by the United States Supreme Court on March 22, 1897.
United States v. Workingmen's Amalgamated Council 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 workmen, from interfering with interstate and foreign commerce, 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.
United States v. Patterson et al., 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 combination formed for the purpose of controlling the price of cash registers. A demurrer was sustained as to certain 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 witness with defendants.
United States v. E. C. 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, 1898, to March
(RICHARD 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 disobeying an injunction restraining Agler and others from interfering with interstate commerce and obstructing the mails. Information quashed. It 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 commerce and to obstruct the carrying of the mails, in violation 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 interfering with interstate commerce and with obstructing the mails, by means of a conspiracy, in violation of the antitrust law. Defendants found guilty and punished.
(United States Supreme Court. May 27, 1895.)
Proceedings instituted July 2, 1894. Application for a writ of habeas corpus to secure a discharge from imprisonment for disobeying an injunction of the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois, restraining Debs and others from conspiring to interfere with interstate commerce, in violation of the antitrust law.
Petition for the writ denied.
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 commit offenses against the United States, which acts consisted 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.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. February 14, 1898.)
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 November 4, 1895. Moore was tried and convicted in the District Court of Utah upon this indictment. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of conviction, for the reason that upon the admission of Utah as a State it was no longer a "Territory” within the meaning of the antitrust act, and the combination was not in restraint of interstate commerce, and the court therefore had no jurisdiction of the offense.