6. 7. 8. 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. United States v. Addyston Pipe and Steel Company, 78 Fed. Rep., 712; 85 Fed. Rep., 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 Supreme Court the action of the Circuit Court of Appeals was affirmed. United States v. Hopkins et al., 82 Fed. Rep., 529; 84 Fed. Rep., 1018; 171 U. S., 578. (Circuit Court, Kansas. September 20, 1897.) (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. December 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 Exchange," 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, 1904.] 1. 2. 3. Anderson v. United States, 82 Fed. Rep., 998; 171 U. S., 604. (Circuit Court, N. D. Missouri. .) (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 or 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. United States v. Coal Dealers' Association, 85 Fed. Rep., 252. (Circuit Court, N. D. California. January 28, 1898.) to restrain the operations of a combination of coal dealers known as the "Coal Dealers' Association of California." A temporary injunction was granted. United States v. Chesapeake and Ohio Fuel Company et al., 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 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 void and illegal, and the combination dissolved. Affirmed by Circuit Court of Appeals. No appeal taken. President Roosevelt's Administration-September 14, 1901–March 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, 1996; CHARLES J. BONAPARTE, Attorney General, December 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., 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 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 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. R. 529; 196 U. S., 375. 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. 3. 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 enjoining 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, 1905. 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 violation of the Sherman antitrust law. A temporary restraining 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, making the restraining order perpetual. No appeal was taken from this order. 4. 5. 6. 7. 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 having 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. United States v. Jacksonville Wholesale Grocers' Association. A proceeding in equity, instituted on September 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 antitrust law. November 1, 1907, dismissed. United States v. General Paper Co. et al. December 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 a 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. On May 11, 1906, the court ordered 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 & 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, |