43.

44.

1.

2.

turpentine. May 10, 1909, verdict guilty as to five individual 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 to Supreme Court, where case is now pending.

United States v. New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company et al. (165 Fed., 742.) 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.

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 paper. June 19, 1908, defendants plead guilty and sentenced to pay fines aggregating $50,000, which were paid.

President Taft's Administration, March 4, 1909.

[GEO. W. WICKERSHAM, Attorney General, March 4, 1909.]

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. (See U. S. v. Kissell, 218 U. S., 601.) Pending.

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

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

United States v. John S. Steers et al. Indictment returned in Eastern District of Kentucky February 17, 1910, charging conspiracy to restrain trade. This is the socalled "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, where case is now pending.

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 November 10, 1910, pleas of nolo contendere were entered and fines aggregating $10,000 and costs were imposed.

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.

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.

United States v. Armour Packing Company et al. Indictment returned at Savannah, Ga., in April, 1910, charging combination to control prices and restrict competition. Case now pending.

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

9.

10.

11.

12.

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 President, withdrew their proposed advances 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.

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 has been reached between the Government and defendant's counsel and a decree has been prepared, submitted to and passed by the court October 17, 1911, perpetually restraining the association, its officers and members, from doing any and all of the acts complained of.

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. The taking of testimony is nearing completion, and the case will be assigned for an early hearing.

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. An amended bill has been filed and the case is now pending.

United States v. Frank Hayne, James A. Patten, et al., 180 Fed., 946. Indictments returned New York City against alleged cotton pool conspirators August 4, 1910. Demurrers were sustained as to certain counts of indictment and overruled as to others, and case is now on appeal to the Supreme Court.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

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 was taken, and case set for argument at Richmond on June 15, 16, and 17, 1911. In a decision rendered October 13, 1911, the court sustained all the Government's contentions.

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 meatpacking industry. Defendants have filed numerous pleas in bar, etc., all of which were decided in favor of the Government, and an early trial will be had.

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.

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.

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.

(NOTE.In the last three indictments, which were found simultaneously, the Government charges that the defendants have attempted to divide territory between themselves throughout New England, so as to avoid competition and drive out competitors in the hide and rendering business.)

18.

19.

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 December 6, 1910, against the same corporations and individuals charging the same acts. Various demurrers and dilatory pleas have been filed, argued, and overruled, and the case will be heard during the present fall term of court.

20.

United States v. American Sugar Refining Company et al. A suit in equity was filed at New York on November 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 is now pending and will be prosecuted diligently.

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.

21.

22.

A formal decree has been agreed upon between counsel for the Government and the defendant companies, and was submitted to and passed by the Circuit Court October 12, 1911.

United States v. Purrington et al. Indictment returned in the Northern District of Illinois September 14, 1910, charging combination to restrain trade in paving bricks and paving blocks. Pending.

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 January 4, 1911, at New York City. Now pending.