FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT Sept. 26, 1914; 38 St. L., c. 311, p. 717 "AN Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes." The decisions cited below in various ways deal with proceedings by the Federal Trade Commission: Aluminum Co. of Amer. v. Federal Trade Com. Beech-Nut Packing Co. v. Federal Trade Com. (Opinion by DAY, J. Four Justices dissent, viz., HOLMES, MCKENNA, BRANDEIS, and MCREYNOLDS, JJ.) (In 2 C. C. A., 264 Fed. 885.) U. S. C. C. A.—3d. Circuit U. S. Sup. Ct. Jan. 3, 1922. Butterick Co. v. Federal Trade Sup. Ct. D. C.-Jan 3, Kinney-Rome Co. v. Federal U. S. C. C. A.—7th Circuit. National Harness Mfrs. Assn. v. Federal Trade Com. U. S. C. C. A.-5th Circuit. Jan. 6, 1922. 268 Fed. 705. New Jersey Asbestos Co. v. Fed- U. S. C. C. A.-2nd Circuit. eral Trade Com. Feb. 26, 1920. 264 Fed. 509. Norden Ship Supply Co. v. Fed- 277 Fed. 206. eral Trade Com. Royal Baking Powder Co. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Federal Sinclair Refining Co. v. Federal Standard Oil Co. v. Federal U. S. C. C. A.-2nd Circuit. May 1, 1922. 281 Fed. 744. U. S. C. C. A.-7th Circuit. 1919-258 Fed. 307. U. S. C. C. A.—7th Circuit. 276 Fed. 686. U. S. C. C. A.-7th Circuit. 273 Fed. 478. Texas Co. v. Federal Trade Com. U. S. C. C. A.—2nd Circuit. U. S. v. Basic Products Co. Ward Baking Co. v. Federal Wholesale Grocers Assn. v. Fed. Winslow v. Federal Trade Com. Winsted Hosiery Coats v. Federal Trade Com. June 29, 1921. 275 Fed. 478. (D. C. W. D. Pa.) 260 Fed. U. S. C. C. A.—2d Circuit. U. S. C. C. A.-5th Circuit. U. S. C. C. A.-4th Circuit. 256 U. S. p. U. S. Supreme Western Sugar Refining Co. v. U. S. C. C. A.-9th Circuit. The docket of the Commission will show a much larger list; and by the time this paper is read the list will be increased. CLAYTON ANTI-TRUST ACT Oct. 15, 1914; 38 St. L., c. 323, p. 730. "AN ACT to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for other purposes." The constitutionality of Section 3 of the Clayton Act, prohibiting sales or leases in interstate commerce on the condition that lessee or purchaser shall not use or deal in the goods of competitors, where the effect of such lease or sale or condition may be to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly, is affirmed as to leases of patented machines, and held not to violate the 5th Amendment nor impair vested rights nor the obligation of contracts in U. S. v. United Machinery Co., 264 Fed. 138 (same case in 234 Fed., 127 and 227 Fed. 507; affirmed in 247 U. S., 32, in an opinion which does not discuss the constitutional questions or refer to the CLAYTON Act, but bases the decision upon the Sherman Act). The constitutionality of the Labor sections of the CLAYTON Act is taken for granted without discussion in Duplex Co. v. Deering and District 14 Association of Machinists, 254 U. S.,. 443 (decided January 3, 1921,) reversing 252 Fed., 722, where also it is taken for granted. Judge ROGERS, in his dissenting opinion, below, remarks that "liberty of contract is a constitutional right secured to employers and employees alike." He finds that picketing, coercion and a secondary boycott were resorted to, and are not rendered lawful by Section 20 of the CLAYTON Act. The Supreme Court sustained this dissenting opinion. This constitutionality is also assumed in American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades Council, decided December 5, 1921 (U. S. Supreme Court Advance Opinions (Co-op Ed.) Jan. 21, 1922, pp. 103-113), partially affirming and partially reversing the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 238 Fed., 728. A tying clause in a contract was held void under the Sherman Act without reference to the CLAYTON Act in Motion Picture Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 243 U. S., 502. The District Court for Delaware holds that the sale by an owner of a part of its business, viz. the bottling of syrups manufactured by the vendor, to another corporation, which agrees to buy from the vendor all the syrups necessary to a performance of the agreement, does not violate the CLAYTON Act. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 269 Fed., 796 (D. C. Del. 1920). FUTURE TRADING ACT August 24, 1921 (No. 66), Fed. St. Ann., 1921, Supp. pp. 5-11 "AN ACT taxing contracts for the sale of grain for future delivery and options for such contracts, and providing for the regulation of boards of trade, and for other purposes. On May 15, 1922, this Act was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in Hill v. Wallace (Advance opinions, 66 Lawyers Co-op Ed., p. 527). 1913-1916-1920 PHYSICAL VALUATION ACT March 1, 1913, 37 St. L., c. 92, p. 701 "AN ACT to amend an Act entitled 'An Act to regulate commerce,' approved February fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, and all Acts amendatory thereof, by providing for a valuation of the several classes of property of carriers subject thereto and securing information concerning their stocks, bonds, and other securities." ESCH-CUMMINS TRANSPORTATION ACT Feb. 28, 1920; 41 St. L., c. 91, p. 456 "AN ACT to provide for the termination of Federal control of railroads and systems of transportation; to provide for the settlement of disputes between carriers and their employees; to further amend an Act entitled 'An Act to regulate commerce,' approved February 4, 1887, amended, and for other purposes. RURAL POST ROAD ACTS (for aiding States in constructing same) as "AN ACT to provide that the United States shall aid the States in the construction of rural post roads, and for other purposes." July 11, 1916, 39 St. at L. C. 241, p. 355 cost of the roads: the other half to be furnished "AN ACT making appropriations for the service of the Post Office Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1920, and for other purposes." Feb. 28, 1919, 40 St. at L. C. 69, p. 1189: Sections 5, 6. Section 5 increases the limit of payments allowed to the States to $10,000 per mile for roads and $20,000 per mile for bridges. Section 6 makes additional appropriations of $50,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1919; and $75,000,000 each for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1920, and 1921. (The Act of March 3, 1921, making appropriations for fortifications, etc., 41 St. at L. C. 128, pp. 1347, 1349, directs the Secretary of War "to transfer and deliver to the Secretary of Agriculture for distribution among the highway departments of the several States for use on roads constructed in whole or in part by Federal aid, one thousand two hundred and fifty (1,250) tractors owned by the War Department.") SCALE OF EXPENDITURE INVOLVED Some idea of the extent of national expenditures in aid of the various objects indicated may be formed from the following summary issued by the Civic Federation of Chicago as a supplement to its Bulletin No. 44: |