Report of the Federal Trade Commission on Premium Prices of Anthracite: July 6, 1925 |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
50 cents anthra anthracite coal anthracite industry antitrust act April average gross profit buying capital stock charged Coal & Iron Coal Commission coal lands coal mined collieries combination commodities clause competition consumer corporation December decree domestic and pea domestic sizes Erie February Federal fuel distributor Federal Trade Commission gross ton handled Hepburn Act high prices holding company independent anthracite independent companies independent operators interest Interstate Commerce Commission January January 26 Jersey July June Lackawanna & Western Lehigh & Wilkes-Barre Lehigh Coal Lehigh Valley Coal Lehigh Valley Railroad March November October output panic demand pany pea sizes Pennsylvania Coal Co period Philadelphia & Reading premium anthracite produced purchase railroad coal companies Reading Co Reading Company Reading Railway Company reported retailer salers Sept September sizes of anthracite steam sizes stockholders supply Supreme Court TABLE tion tonnage transportation United States Coal Western Railroad wholesalers
Popular passages
Page 39 - State, Territory, or the District of Columbia to any other State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, or...
Page 85 - ... should be given a meaning which would not destroy the individual right to contract and render difficult if not impossible any movement of trade in the channels of interstate commerce — the free movement of which it was the purpose of the statute to protect.
Page 85 - ... by the defendant companies, and the extent of the control acquired over the independent output which constituted the only competing supply, affords evidence of an intent to suppress that competition and of a purpose to unduly restrain the freedom of production, transportation, and sale of .the article at tidewater markets.
Page 80 - But a series of such contracts, if the result of a concerted plan or plot between the defendants to thereby secure control of the sale of the independent coal in the markets of other States, and thereby suppress competition in...
Page 96 - While the statements of the law thus relied upon are satisfactory in the connection in which they were used, they have been plainly and repeatedly held not applicable where stock ownership has been resorted to, not for the purpose of participating in the affairs of a corporation in the normal and usual manner, but for the purpose, as in this case, of controlling a subsidiary company so that it may be used as a mere agency or instrumentality of the owning company or companies.
Page 47 - New York, New Haven & Hartford RR Co. .v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 200 US 361, 392, 393; United States v.
Page 77 - At the time this proof was taken the average annual output of the collieries thus acquired was about 1,600,000 tons, and in the last year the output had arisen to 1,950,000 tons.
Page 85 - It was therefore pointed out that the statute did not forbid or restrain the power to make normal and usual contracts to further trade by resorting to all normal methods, whether by agreement or otherwise, to accomplish such purpose.
Page 79 - outside shippers" the witness says was meant "independent operators," who shipped their own coal. The witness by whom this action was proved says that he never saw the report and does not know that any was made by the committee. It is true that Mr.
Page 39 - Columbia, or to any foreign country, any article or commodity, other than timber and the manufactured products thereof, manufactured, mined, or produced by it, or under its authority, or which it may own in whole or in part, or in which it may have any interest, direct or indirect...