12.

13.

fendants, and on December 15, 1921, a fine of $3,000 was imposed upon each. Nolle prosequi entered as to two remaining defendants on November 20, 1923. Nolle prosequi entered August 29, 1927, curing defect in previous nolle prosequi as to two remaining defendants.

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 in the several States more than 95 per cent of all the terra-cotta building material produced in the United States, charging a combination and conspiracy through the instrumentality of the National Terra Cotta Society, of which all defendants were members, to restrain interstate trade and commerce in terra cotta.

Indictments against the same defendants involving practically the same facts having been disposed of by pleas of guilty (see No. 11, supra, and No. 26, infra), a nolle prosequi was entered as to all of the defendants in this case on November 28, 1923. Nolle prosequi entered August 29, 1927, as to 1 defendant inadvertently omitted from previous order.

United States v. Hiram Norcross et al. Petition filed in October 25, 1921, in the Western District of Missouri, against Hiram Norcross, as sole owner and manager of the Norcross Audit and Statistical Burean, and six other defendants, subscribers to the bureau, charging that they were engaged in a combination and conspiracy in restraint of interstate trade and commerce in Portland cement. The end was alleged to have been accomplished by "gentlemen's agreements," restriction of production, interchange of statistics, withholding cement from the market, uniform cost accounting systems, etc. After argument on the petition and answers, final decree entered by the Court on April 2, 1924, granting the relief prayed for by the Government. Order entered February 14, 1927, modifying the decree.

14.

15.

16.

17.

United States v. Mid-West Cement Credit & Statistical Bureau et al. Petition filed in October, 1921, in the District Court, 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. Dismissed upon motion of the Government on January 21, 1926, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in U. S. v. Cement Manufacturers' Protective Assn. et al. (No. 7, p. 166.)

United States v. Johnston Brokerage Co. et al. Indictment returned November 28, 1921, in the District Court, Southern District of New York, presenting that the defendants, manufacturers and sellers of approximately two-thirds of all the hand-blown window glass. used in the construction of dwellings, hotels, office buildings, etc., in the United States, were combining and conspiring to enhance prices and suppress competition. Demurrer sustained in February, 1922. (See No. 24, infra, p. 173.) Nolle prosequi filed as to all defendants on August 29, 1927.

United States v. The Central Foundry Co. et al. Indictment returned in the Southern District of New York, December 28, 1921, presenting that defendants, all members of the Eastern Soil Pipe Manufacturers' Association, through the instrumentality of the "open-price plan" were combining and conspiring to restrain interstate trade in cast-iron soil pipes and fittings. It is further charged that arbitrary and excessive price schedules are maintained and that the practices complained of have resulted in the elimination of practically all competition. Nolle prosequi entered August 10, 1925, as to all defendants.

United States v Cement Securities Co. et al. Petition filed in District Court, District of Colorado, January 10,

18.

1922. It was alleged that through acquisition of the majority stock of several cement manufacturing companies the Cement Securities Co. was enabled to eliminate competitors, monopolize the cement business in the Rocky Mountain States, and through these practices enhance prices and stand off new competition. Motion to dismiss denied. After arguments on the petition and answers the court entered a final decree on December 13, 1924, dissolving the combination and retaining jurisdiction of the case pending the carrying out of the decree.

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 in the United States and Canada. The members of this association manufactured approximately 80 per cent of the commodity; the principal function of the association was to fix and maintain the prices at which the products of its members were sold; and it also furnished to its members information concerning the credit of purchasers of tile. A consent decree granting the relief prayed for was entered on November 26, 1923. Supplemental decree entered by consent on April 23, 1928.

19.

United States v. A. J. Peters et al. Indictment returned February 13, 1922, in the District Court for the District of Arizona, against Alfred J. Peters and four others charging a conspiracy in restraint of trade and conspiracy to monopolize part of trade and commerce among the several States in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. This indictment was the result of an alleged fraud in connection with certain hay contracts between A. J. Peters & Co. and the War Department. Indictment dismissed March 6, 1923.

20.

United States v. National Enameling & Stamping Company et al. Petition filed February 14, 1922, in the

21.

22.

66

District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the defendants, members of an unincorporated association operating along the lines of the open-price plan," had combined and conspired to monopolize and restrain interstate trade and commerce in galvanized ware, such as pails, tubs, and other like articles. The end was alleged to have been attained through uniform price lists, uniform terms of sale, uniform freight allowances, and special discounts. Meetings were held from time to time at which various illegal practices were advocated and indulged in. Contemporaneous with the filing of the petition a consent decree was entered restraining the acts complained of. Order entered May 1, 1924, modifying the decree. Order further modifying the decree was entered November 23, 1927.

United States v. Bricklayers', Masons' & Plasterers International Union of America et al. Petition filed February 28, 1922, in the District Court, 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 marble, cut stone, brick, and other commodities used in the construction of buildings. Contemporaneously 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. Case still pending against these latter locals.

United States v. United Gas Improvement Company et al. Indictment returned March 6, 1922, in the District Court, Southern District of New York. Three corporate and eight individual defendants were named, and it was charged that they conspired to restrain and monopolize interstate trade and commerce in manufacturing, selling, furnishing, and maintaining

23.

24.

incandescent lamps, together with fixtures and appliances appurtenant thereto. The end was alleged to have been attained through defendants having secured control of a number of valuable patents and excluded others from the use of those patents; by their having acquired and combined competing companies; and by their having instituted tortuous litigation against competitors, thereby so intimidatiing them as to prevent their continuing in the industry. After a most thorough investigation the indictment was nolle prossed on December 2, 1922.

United States v. Lehigh Portland Cement Company et al. Indictment returned March 9, 1922, in the District Court, 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 minute and comprehensive details with respect to their business. Nolle prosequi entered January 21, 1926, in view of decision of Supreme Court in United States v. Cement Manufacturers' Protective Association et al. (supra, No. 7, p. 166).

United States v. American Window Glass Company,

Johnson Brokerage Company, et al. Indictment returned March 17, 1922, District Court, Southern District of New York, presenting that the defendant manufacturers and sellers of approximately 80 per cent of all the window glass used in the construction of dwellings, hotels, office buildings, etc., in the United States were combining and conspiring to curtail production and enhance prices and suppress competition, the American Window Glass Co. maintaining its own selling agency, and the Johnson Brokerage Co. acting as selling agent for all the other defendant manufacturers, by an interchange of price information arbitrarily fixed and dictated prices and