23. 24. 25. 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 black lists and trade agreements. 26. United States v. Isaac Whiting, John K. Whiting, Charles H. Hood, Edward J. Hood, and William A. Graustein. 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. United States v. Isaac Whiting, John K. Whiting, Charles H. Hood, Edward J. Hood, and William A. Graustein, and William 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. 27. United States v. Lumber Secretaries' Bureau of Information et al. Indictment returned June 23, 1911, in the Northern District of Illinois, charging that the secretaries 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. 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 antitrust 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. To date nearly 28. 29. 30. all the defendants have appeared and pleaded, and fines aggregating $128,700 have been imposed. 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. 31. 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. 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, August 4, 1911, to enjoin combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade. 32. United States v. Edward E. Hartwick et al. Petition filed at Detroit, Mich., August 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 Lumber Secretaries' Bureau of Information. 33. 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 injunction against the further carrying into effect of trade agreements, and combination and conspiracy to monopolize trade. 34. 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, September 10, 1911, on one count, charging violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act. United States v. S. W. Winslow, Wm. Barbour, E. P. Howe, Ed. P. Hurd, Geo. W. Brown, and Jas. J. Storrow. Two indictments returned by the grand jury at Boston, Mass., September 19, 1911, charging combination, conspiracy and monopoly in trade in shoe machinery. 35. 36. United States v. The Colorado and Wyoming Lumber Dealers' Association and The Lumber Secretaries' Bureau of Information. Bill in equity filed at Denver, Colo., September 25, 1911, for injunction against defendants for conspiracy to restrain trade in lumber and its products. Petition filed in United States v. Willard G. Hollis et al. 37. United States v. United States Steel Corporation and others. Petition for injunction and dissolution filed at Trenton, N. J., October 27, 1911. SUMMARY OF CASES UNDER ANTITRUST LAWS. President Harrison's Administration. Four bills in equity. Three indictments. President Cleveland's Administration. Four bills in equity. Two indictments. Two informations for contempt. President McKinley's Administration. Three bills in equity. President Roosevelt's Administration. Eighteen bills in equity. President Taft's Administration. Seventeen bills in equity. Arkansas Brokerage Co. v. Dunn & Powell.. Armour & Co., U. S. v..... Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Prescott & A. C. Ry. Co.. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., U. S. v.......... Barber Asphalt Paving Co., Field v. 117 Fed., 925 194 U. S., 618 Bay (Cincinnati, Portsmouth, Big Sandy and Pomeroy Beef Trust Cases. See U. S. v. Swift and U. S. v. Armour. Block v. Standard Distilling & Distributing Co............. Bobbs-Merrill Co. v Straus.. Booth & Co. v. Davis.... Bradley, Fonotipia Ltd. v.. Bradley, Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. Callam, Northwestern Consol. Min. Co. v... Calumet & Hecla Min. Co., Bigelow v.. Camors-McConnell Co. v. McConnell............... 40 Carter-Crume Co., Cravens v. Carter-Crume Co. v Peurrung. Case, J. I. Threshing Mach. Co., Indiana Mfg. Co. v. Cassidy, United States v.. Central Coal & Coke Co. v. Hartman.. Central Railroad & Banking Co. of Ga., Clarke v.. Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works, City of Atlanta v... 148 Fed., 67 Fed., 111 Fed., 96 |