View PDF

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

66th Congress
2nd. Session

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ANNUAL REPORT
OF THE

FEDERAL

TRADE COMMISSION
FOR THE

FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1919

WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

DOCUMENT
No. 751

1920

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

JOHN FRANKLIN FORT, Chairman.
VICTOR MURDOCK.
HUSTON THOMPSON.
WILLIAM B. COLVER.
J. P. YODER, Secretary

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
1919.
INTRODUCTION.

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 15, 1919.
To the Senate and House of Representatives:
During the first four months of the last fiscal year the Federal Trade Commission
centered its activities on such work as would aid in successful prosecution of the war.
Even after the signing of the armistice early in November and, indeed, for many
months thereafter, the Commission has responded to calls from other branches of the
Government to do post-bellum work, which necessarily has been of great importance.
This war work of the Commission, performed in every instance by direction of
request, was chiefly that of cost finding for all the great array of materials necessary
in the prosecuting of the war.
The Commission feels justifiably proud of its claim that it was among the first of all
independent arms of the Government to demobilize its war forces and return to peacestrength basis. When the armistice was signed November 11, 1918, the Commission
had a personnel of between 650 and 700 employees. While it was impossible
immediately to reduce this staff to a peace strength, notable reductions were made
from time to time as the work of the war grew lighter until on June 30th, 1919, the
Commission had 367 employees.
Nearly 25 per cent of its personnel was in the military of naval service. Federal
Trade Commission employees responded to Liberty loan, Red Cross, Y.M.C.A., K. Of
C., Salvation Army, and other patriotic appeals with a total of more than $400,000.
3

ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION.
There were no material changes in the arrangement of the different section of the
Administrative Division during the fiscal year, nor did the work materially change
except in volume. These different section are the ones usually employed in a
governmental establishment to care for the business end of governmental work, and
are under the direction and supervision of the assistant secretary of the Commission.
They are:
Auditor’s office, which has charge of the fiscal affairs.
Chief clerk’s office, in charge of buildings and quarters, purchase of supplies and
equipment, supervision of the mechanical force, laboring force, etc.
Personnel section, in charge of all matters relating to appointments, promotions,
demotions, transfers, changes in designation, etc..
Section of mail and files, where the receipt and distribution of the mail takes place,
and where all the papers and records of the commission except those of the docket
division are finally receivable and cared for.
Section of publications and printing, in charge of all matters having connection with
the Public Printer and the Superintendent of Documents. In this section are handled
the distribution of publications, maintenance of mailing lists, preparation of multigraph
and mimeograph duplicating work, and all of the clerical work necessary in keeping
the records of this branch of the Commission’s activities.
Stenographic section, from which is supplied to all of the force needed stenographic
and typewriting assistance.
Reportorial section, has charge of the official reporting for the Commission, the
necessary correspondence connected therewith the assignment of hearings, etc..
Docket section, is a section somewhat comparable to the office of a clerk of a court.
All applications for the issuance of complaints pass through this section; it files all
correspondence, exhibits, notices of assignments to attorneys, and field and office
reports in connection with such applications.. From it issue all formal complaints and
their service is attended to by this section. It certifies copies of formal records to the
different circuit courts of appeals when required, and keeps the current docket record
for the inspection of the public. This section also answers all inquires from the general
public and interested parities with reference to the status of formal proceedings; and
it also has the custody of the Commission’s seal.
QUARTERS.
At the beginning of the fiscal year the Commission occupied quarters in the
Davidson & Davidson Building, Fifteenth and K Streets NW., in which there was a
available floor space amounting to 35,790 square feet. Temporary additional space in
the Southern Building, amounting to 9,688 square feet, secured during the preceding
year, was occupied by accountants and clerks engaged in the war work of the
Commission. As the force increased, the above
5

6

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

units were not sufficient to house our employees, and there being no additional space
procurable in the Southern Building the Commission on October 5, 1918, took over
the lease of the Navy Department on the four upper floors of the Pope Building, 817
Fourteenth Street NW., which, after slight alterations to suit our needs, was used to
care for the additional force of employees made necessary by our increased activities
incident to the war. In securing these four upper floors it was very soon possible to
relinquish the space in the Southern Building and combine all of our forces in the
Davidson & Davidson and Pope Buildings.
Under the act making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial
expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1920, approved March
1, 1919, there was created a Public Buildings Commission, “with a view to the control
and allotment of space in owned or leased Government buildings in the District of
Columbia.” Under the powers granted that body it allotted space to this commission
in the Fuel Administration Building No. 3, and directed that the property and
employees of the Commission be immediately transferred to these new quarters. This
action was under date of May 26, 1919, and the transfer was immediately undertaken.
The Davidson & Davidson Building was finally vacated on June 6, and the lease for
the Pope Building was terminated on June 30, in accordance with its terms. The
building assigned for the commission’s use is one of the temporary war structures of
two stories in height and frame construction, and is located a Virginia Avenue,
Twentieth and Twenty-first Streets. It is not a suitable building for the commission’s
needs, nor is it properly located to carry out in full completeness the commission’s
functions. The commission has been allotted in this structure approximately 49,000
square feet. This is only about half of the buildings capacity, the other half contains
the furniture, equipment, and files of the Fuel Administration pending the final
disposition of the same in view of the ceasing of that body to function after June 30th
1919. The Public Buildings Commission has assigned to the Superintendent of State,
War, and Navy Department Buildings the supervision of maintenance, protection, etc..,
of all the temporary Government buildings, in which is included the one which we now
partly occupy.
PERSONNEL.
Changes in personnel.--On September 26, 1918, Victor Murdock, of Kansas, was
nominated by the President to succeed himself as commissioner. This nomination was
confirmed by the Senate October 25, 1918, and was for a full term of seven years
ending September 25, 1925.
On January 17, 1919, Huston Thompson, of Colorado, entered upon duty as a
commissioner to fill the unexpired term of William J. Harris, resigned. This
nomination by the President was confirmed by the Senate January 7, 1919.
Commissioner Thompson’s term of office under that nomination and confirmation
ends September 25, 1919.
On July 1, 1919, John Franklin Fort, formerly vice chairman, succeeded, under the
rules of the commission, to the chairmanship for the term of one year, and at the same
time Victor Murdock succeeded, under the rules, and for the term, as vice chairman.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

7

L. L. Bracken, of Indiana, who was the secretary of the commission from November
5, 1915, resigned, effective March 31, 1919, and was succeeded in this office April 1,
1919, by J. P. Yoder, of Kansas.
The entire number of new employees put to work in the commission during the fiscal
year was 399, and the entire number who left its active service by resignation,
termination of service, or death was 676.
The Federal Trade Commission began its career March 16, 1915, with a total of 144
employees and a total salary roll $280,900. At the close of June 30, 1917 the
personnel had increased to 193, with a total salary of $393,120. At the close of June
30, 1918, there were 640 employees in the actual service of the Commission (not
including those absent in the military of naval service), with a total salary of
$1,167,496. At the close of June 30, 1919, the Commission had 367 employees
drawing a total salary of $731,095. A material reduction in the force occurred during
the latter part of the fiscal year and was due to the cessation of a large amount of the
work the Commission had been performing for other Governmental departments and
establishments in the matter of ascertaining costs of production, etc.., incident to the
great war.
The following is an analysis of the personnel of the Federal Trade Commission and
its staff at the close of June 30, 1919:
Employees of the Federal Trade Commission at the close of business June 30, 1919, showing salary rates.
4 commissioners
1 secretary
4 clerks to commissioners
1 chief clerk
1 disbursing clerk
2 clerks
1 clerk
1 clerk
2 clerks
1 clerk
8 clerks
2 clerks
9 clerks
1 clerk
1 clerk
1 clerk
2 clerks
18 clerks
1 clerk
15 clerks
1 clerk
83 clerks
3 clerks
8 clerks
1 clerk
3 clerks
1 special attorney
3 special attorneys

$10,000
5,000
---------- $45,000
1,800
---------- 7,200
2,000
---------- 2,000
2,000
---------- 2,000
2,460
2,280
2,100
2,000
1,860
1,800
1,680
1,600
1,560
1,520
1,500
1,440
1,400
1,380
1,320
1,260
1,200
1,140
1,080
1,000
900
---------- 217,780
3,300
3,100

2 special attorneys
1 special attorney

2,280
2,100
---------- 19,260

8

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

1 attorney and examiner
7 attorneys and examiners
1 attorney and examiner
1 attorney and examiner
2 attorneys and examiners
2 attorneys and examiners
1 attorney and examiner
3 attorneys and examiners
1 attorney and examiner
2 attorneys and examiners
1 attorney and examiner
1 attorney ans examiner
1 attorney and examiner
1 special agent
1 special agent
1 special agent
1 special agent
3 special agents
3 special agents
1 special agent
1 special agent
6 special agents
2 special agents
1 special agent
1 special agent
2 special agents
3 special agents
2 special agents
3 special agents
1 special agent
1 special agent
1 special agent
1 special expert
1 special expert
1 special expert
1 special expert
1 special examiner
1 special examiner
2 special examiners
1 special examiner
1 special examiner
1 examiner
4 examiners
1 examiner
1 examiner
4 examiners
2 examiners
1 examiner
9 examiners
3 examiners
1 examiner
2 examiners
1 examiner
2 examiners
1 examiner
2 examiners
7 examiners

$ 4,500
4,000
3,750
3,600
3,300
3,000
2,920
2,820
2,700
2,640
2,500
2,460
2,280
----------- $79,050
4,500
4,000
3,600
3,300
3,000
2,750
2,640
2,500
2,400
2,280
2,250
2,220
2,100
2,000
1,800
1,740
1,620
1,600
1,500
---------- 88,800
4,800
2,400
2,100
1,800
----------- 11,100
6,500
5,000
4,500
2,520
2,500
---------- 25,520
5,000
4,500
4,200
3,750
3,600
3,300
3,250
3,000
2,820
2,800
2,750
2,700
2,640
2,500
2,460
2,400

1 examiner
2 examiners
2 examiners
6 examiners

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.
3 examiners
2 examiners
11 examiners
3 examiners
1 examiner
3 examiners
4 examiners
1 examiner
2 examiners
1 examiner
2 examiners
1 examiner 1
1 messenger
1 messenger
2 assistant messengers
5 assistant messengers
9 messenger boys
1 multigraph operator
1 general mechanic
1 telephone operator
1 skilled laborer
1 laborer
3 laborers
1 laborer

Grand total
Total number of employees, 367.

2,380
2,280
2,250
2,100

9
$2,000
1,920
1,800
1,680
1,620
1,600
1,500
1,440
1,400
1,320
1,200
4,745
------- $218,605
1,000
840
840
720
480
-------- 11,440
1,000
-------- 1,000
1,200
-------- 1,200
720
-------720
720
720
660
600
-------- 4,020
-----------731,095

Military service.--One hundred and sixty-one employees of the Federal Trade
Commission entered the military and naval service of the United States during the late
war. Fifty-one of this number entered such service during the fiscal year covered by
this report. Thirty-seven of these 161 former employees have returned to the actual
work of the Commission. Of these 37 who returned to duty from military service, 14
have since left to take up positions elsewhere. This still leaves 124 of our employees
who entered military service who have not as yet returned to the Commission for duty.
It is expected that many of them will apply for reinstatement as soon as they are
released from military service. So far as our records indicate, none of our employees
were seriously wounded or killed in action. Two died in the service from natural
causes, namely: Joseph G. McDonald, September, 1918; Charles L. Watts, October,
1918.
One of the serious things affecting this Commission is the employee turnover. Many
of our employees are attracted by the opportunities in the business world, both in the
matter of positions and salary which the Commission can not afford to pay. To
illustrate this turnover, since the organization of the Commission, March 16, 1915, the
Commission has employed a total of 1,626 persons. Of this number, up to June 30,
1919, 1,259 have left our service. This remarkable percentage will fully illustrate in

a statistical way one of the difficulties under which the Commission labors in the
matter of personnel.
Patriotic activities.--The Commission feels a deep sense of pride in the attitude of
its employees by reason of their responsiveness to

10

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION .

the calls made by the Government (in the matter of contributions and subscriptions to
the various loans and other activities necessary to give support to every function of the
Government) and our people in the winning of the war. Figures are not available for
the first Liberty loan, at which time the organization of the matters was not fully
developed, but the following will show the record made by our employees in the
appeals made to them for war needs and war relief. They contributed and subscribed
to all Liberty loan and other patriotic needs and appeals a total of upward of $400,000.
This surely bears testimony to their loyalty and liberty, and Commission has reason
to be proud of this record.
In the matter of social work within our ranks, the Commission is very much gratified
by the way these various activities are handled by the unit organized among the
employees and known as the “Fetracom.” During the period of the influenza epidemic
this organization nat only cared for those of our number who were ill, but they
generously volunteered their services to assist other governmental organizations, the
Red Cross and other bodies, in rendering what service they could in that calamity.
Entertainments for the personnel have been given, picnics, excursions, dances, etc.,
and the esprit de corps has been appreciably increased by the work of this
organization.
APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES.
The appropriations of the Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1919, under
the sundry civil appropriation act approved July 1, 1918, amount to $1,677,540. In
addition to this amount the Commission had available the sum of $31,016.39, which
was allowed by the ruling of the Comptroller of the Treasury under the second
paragraph of section 3 of the act creating the Commission, said amount representing
the unexpected balance of the appropriations for the Bureau of Corporations for the
fiscal years ended June 30, 1913 and 1914.
The expenditures of the Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1919, were
$1,564,739.12. The appropriations [including unexpended balances of appropriations]
for previous years, and expenditures are tabulated below:
Appropriation.

Federal Trade Commission, 1919:
Salaries, commissioners, secretary, etc..
All other authorized expenditures
Total, fiscal year 1919

Unexpected balances:
Federal Trade Commission, 1918
Federal Trade Commission, 1913-1914
National security and defense fund, Federal Trade
Commission, 1918
Expenses--(trading with enemy)
Grand total

Amount
available

Amount
expended

1

$177,540.00
1,500,000.00

2

2 $139,480.82
1,336,784.83

1

1,677.540.00

2

1,476,265.65

1

66,363.66
31,016.39

28,793.07
1,305.95

62,928.82
6,069.22

57,629.23
745.22

1,843,945.09

1,564,739.12

1 Of the total amount appropriated for the fiscal year 1919, $1,677,540, the Commission was able to
offer and the sundry civil act approved July 19, 1919, made it possible for the Commission to return, to

the general funds of the Treasury the sum $200,000.
2 Includes charges for the services rendered to the United States Fuel Administration of $24,096.52 and
traveling expenses of $568.08, for which credit was received by transfer of appropriations.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

11

It is estimated that the outstanding liabilities of the Commission as of June 30, 1919,
amount to $29,000, payment of which will be made from the unexpected balances of
the appropriations “Federal Trade Commission--1919" and “Federal Trade
Commission--without year” (1913-1914).
A detailed analysis of the expenditures of the Commission is given in the following
statement:
Detailed statement of the expenditures of the Federal Trade Commission for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 1919.
ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION.

Annual leave
Sick leave
Administrative, general
Mail and files section
Disbursement and accounts section
Purchase and supplies section
Docket section
Library
Messengers
Time excused by Executive or Commission’s order
Detailed to Congressional Reclassification Commission
Printing and publications section
Stenographic section
Personnel section
Labor, (watchmen, charwomen, etc..)
Research section
Contingent expenses
Rental quarters
Printing and binding
Telephone and telegraph
Total

Office
$76,388.11
25,680.92
65,877.70
26,062.97
13,031.46
7,979.71
8,152.30
5,952.38
10,881.54
1,323.36
474.10
7,631.38
22,867.56
12,900.27
14,699.55
4,745.13
51,249.05
39,565.18
14,934.21
7,248.33
417,645.21

Field

$544.69

8.00

552.69

ECONOMIC DIVISION.
Economic supervision
Detail
Informal complaints
Formal complaints
Miscellaneous computing machine work
Oil, general investigation
Resale prices
Foreign trade
Trading with the enemy
Alleged combination of salmon canners
Miscellaneous economic
Coal
Steel
Oil, war costs
Lumber
Cement
Nonferrous metals
Aluminum
Canned goods
Navy yards
Bread
Hoarding
Sisal binder twine
Box shooks
Lard substitutes
Sulphuric acid
Cotton textiles
Hollow building tile

33,784.91
1,489.59
3,918.38
1,106.97
517.32
7,715.08
3.24
1.91
Cr

26.52
3,123.04
976.47
1,421.75
.05
17.00

863.81
174.23
2,223.07
95,952.27
5,881.17
53,627.36
11,647.92
31,533.36
10,211.13
37,830.79
19,127.69
8,858.80
2,355.93
13,486.20
4,981.64
109.46
6.31
31,515.97
20,691.24
207.24
.33
192.09
312.23
8.06
6.44
14.10
17.42
33.25
81.94
318.83
4,115.33
1,625.54
2,091.93
80,484.44
4,619.39
1,903.27

Sand and gravel
Beans
Locomotives
Cost system for packers
Chestnut extract
Fire brick
Meat packers’ profits
Leather costs
Heavy forgings
Anchor chains

12

1,361.12
313.05
19,894.59
161.18
277.04
733.16
8,120.87
45.01

1,454.56
5.07
263.00
7,731.41
709.02
222.89
2,030.80
5,789.36
1,339.76
1,019.08

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.
Detailed statement of the expenditures of the Federal Trade Commission for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 1919--Continued
ECONOMIC DIVISION--Continued.

Common brick
Government paper contracts
Chip board
Woolen piece goods
Towing
Chile nitrate
Cottonseed oil
Wool dealers’ profits
Mohair
Chlorine and soda
Bleaching cotton linters
Locust treenails
Cooperage and wooden canned foods boxes
Wood chemicals
Brass and copper tubes
Towels
Woolen rags
Oakum
Gypsum and fiber board
Asbestos
Dynamite and glycerine
Mahogany
Automatic sprinklers
Cotton compresses
Manganese
Tobacco and cigarettes
Armor plate
Hardware (buildings)
Slaughtering
Hemlock and hardwoods
Rosin
Birch veneer and birch logs
Pintsch gas
Fusees and torpedoes
Sheepskin imports
Sausage casings
Insulated copper-wire
Kersey-lined breeches
Thermometers (clinical)
Transportation of war workers home
Cast-iron car wheels
Steel tires for locomotives
Syndolag
Locomotive driving springs and coil springs
Car couplers
Live stock and its products
Grain production
Grain and its products
Canned goods
Export trade
Paper schedules
Paper prices

Office
Field
$4,259.27
$2,465.16
3,845.24
1,703.53
2,308.30
5,604.67
1,308.64
1,601.38
1,127.69
630.53
41.44
80.49
606.61
511.88
1,048.54
317.53
40.30
3,958.14
1,898.02
290.13
429.44
93.40
87.03
6,629.29
3,440.12
1,536.76
406.98
1,011.71
378.83
492.19
229.04
3,910.68
11,044.31
21.59
2,136.89
1,319.42
185.75
104.06
67.15
1,853.03
2,143.61
909.61
50.37
280.72
672.25
603.87
2,520.60
1,238.99
104.20
81.35
5.04
94.99
95.72
2,679.14
1,662.45
2,790.44
2,015.59
88.89
72.19
2.88
1,867.40
176.53
123.58
1,956.75
3,131.66
89.32
89.29
384.09
200.82
201.48
133.48
1,908.30
1,061.37
430.12
521.97
154.77
467.05
138.44
138.16
156.77
141.05
57.62
400.80
262.44
35,518.11
2,521.54
10,854.21
5,913.27
50,565.07
14,032.82
1,817.08
584.12
1,176.60
22.17
12,597.43
332.91
3,116.09

Leather and shoes
Farm-operating equipment
Marketing meat and perishable food products
Collars (men’s)
Section 7, Clayton Act, general investigation
Premiums, coupons, and trading stamps
Section 8, Clayton Act, general investigation
Merger of corporations
Milk products
Total

10,989.25
66,986.40
24,735.95
440.35
26.44
606.69
113.54
40.16
3.087.25
636,945.95

3,106.43
15,916.64
4,791.21
104.42

174.51
287,013.08

NOTE.--The amount paid to accounting firms and for contact clerical assistance during the year, and included in
field expenditures, is $112, 162.45.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

13

Detailed statement of the expenditures of the Federal Trade Commission for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 1919.--Continued
LEGAL DIVISION.
Office
WASHINGTON, D.C., OFFICE.
Requests for information
Legal supervision
Special for the commissioners
Board of review
preliminary work on informal complaints
Informal complaints
Formal complaints
Briefs
Resale prices
Rulings, resolutions, and orders of the Commission, including
the reports of the Board of Review
Trading with the enemy
Miscellaneous legal
Cement
Live stock and its products
Grain products
Grain and produce exchanges
Export trade
Paper schedules
Paper prices
Leather and shoes
Farm operating equipment
Marketing meat and perishable food products
Section 7, Clayton Act, general investigation
Premiums, coupons, and trading stamps
Section 8, Clayton Act, general investigations
Stock securities
Total

$278.62
18,298.53
1,014.44
3,612.70
726.28
34,288.16
39,887.81
389.19
49.79
258.39
8,702.94
486.44
15.83
2,886.94

Field

$113.83
584.89
158.44
11,258.55
22,441.53

956.14
77.02
2,210.73
149.28
1,128.18
58.83

747.85
3,816.83
6.34
224.28
50.88
171.83
286.01
Cr. .38
21.65
2,776.80
1,063.98
3.45
361.04
114.68
2,006.65
391.22
121,124.66
40,951.46

NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE
Legal supervision
Stenographic
Preliminary work on informal complaints
Informal complaints
Formal complaints
Briefs
Combination of shoe-supply manufactures
Section 7, Clayton Act, general investigation
Section 8, Clayton Act, general investigation
Total

4,409.75
382.75
2,069.15
1,037.10
629.26
6,013.39
2,746.49
187.88
274.89
38.28
8.86
557.75
322.24
419.33
302.52
14,741.49
4,658.15
CHICAGO BRANCH OFFICE

Legal supervision
Stenographic
Preliminary work on informal complaints
Informal complaints
Formal complaints
Miscellaneous legal
Cost system for packers
Woolen piece goods
Live stock and its produce
Farm operating equipment
Section 7, Clayton Act, general investigation
Total

1,806.50
1,043.67
263.54
6,117.57
534.87

494.15
519.37
131.30
2,230.82
281.56
18.35

171.55
24.17
15.34
8.84
529.64
735.67
10,510.69 4,411.22
SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH OFFICE

Legal supervision
Stenographic
Preliminary work on informal complaints
Informal complaints
Formal complaints
Lumber
Cost system for packers
Live stock and its products
Paper prices
Farm-operating equipment
Section 7, Clayton Act, general investigation

204.35
796.48
878.21
1,258.51
241.79

246.38
851.78
212.10
10.00
30.08
91.65
17.11

31.30
41.81
4.32
295.73
128.10

Total

3,752.50

1,587.20

14

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Detailed statement of the expenditure of the Federal Trade Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 1919.--Continued
LEGAL DIVISION.--Continued
Office.
LEGAL SUMMARY
Washington, D.C.
New York, N.Y., branch
Chicago, Ill, branch
San Francisco, Calif., branch
Total legal

$121,124.66
14,741.49
10,510.69
3,752.50
150,129.34

Field.
$40,951.46
4,658.15
4,411.22
1,587.20
51,608.03

NOTE.--There is included in the field expenditures the sum of $10,085.55, which was paid to reporting
firms for stenographically reporting hearings, etc., conduct by the Commission or its employees.
SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES

Administrative
Economic
Legal
Total

Office.
$417,645.21
636,945.95
150,129.34
1, 204,720.50

Field.
$552.69
287,013.08
51,608.03
339,173.80

1

Total.
$418,197.90
923,959.03
201,737.37
1,543,864.30

1 Includes all charges for salaries of the commissioners and secretary, administrative force, economic
and legal supervision, annual and sick leave, contingent expenses, rental of quarters, printing and binding,
etc..

Adjustments.--The following adjustments are made to account for the differences
between the costs and the disbursements:
Total cost for the year ended June 30, 1919
Less transportation issued
New total
Plus transportation paid
Adjusted total
Payments in July, 1918, taken into costs of June, 1918 (add)
New total
Payments in July, 1919, taken into costs of June, 1919 (subtract)
Disbursement for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1919

$1,543,894.30
57,178.46
1,486,715.84
67,575.58
1,554,291.42
12,927.08
1,567,218.50
2,479.38
1,564,739.12

The appropriations for the Federal Trade Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 1919, were as follows:
For the five commissioners, at $10,000 each; secretary, $5,000; five clerks to commissioners, at $1,800
each; chief clerk, $2,000; disbursing clerk, $2,000; clerks-four of class four, five of class three, ten of class
two, seventeen of class one, twenty-one at $1,000 each, twenty-one at $900 each messenger; four assistant
messengers; nine messenger boys, at $480 each; general mechanics-one $1,200, one $840; three
watchmen; two elevator conductors, at $660 each; telephone operator, $720; forewomen, $300; eight
charwomen at $240 each; in all $177,540.
For all other authorized expenditures of the Federal Trade Commission in performing the duties
imposed by law or in pursuance of law, including personnel and other services and rental of quarters in
the District of Columbia and elsewhere, supplies and equipment, law books, books of reference,
periodicals, printing and binding, traveling expense, per diem in lieu of subsistence not exceeding $4,
newspapers, foreign postage, and witness fees and mileage in accordance with section nine of the Federal
Trade Commission act, $1,500,000.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL COMMISSION.

15

The following publications were issued by the Commission during the fiscal year
June 30, 1919:
Annual Report of the Federal Trade Commission. December 9, 1918. 131 pages.
Summary of the Report of the Federal Trade Commission on the Meat-Packing Industry. July 3, 1918.
51 pages.
Report of the Federal Trade Commission on the Meat-Packing Industry, Part II (Evidence of
Combination among Packers). November 25, 1918. 290 pages.
Report of the Federal Trade Commission on Canned Foods; Canned Salmon. December 27, 1918. 80
pages.
Report of the Federal Trade Commission on the Meat-Packing Industry, Part I (Extent and Growth of
Power of the Five Packers in Meat and Other Industries). June 24, 1919. 574 pages.
Resale Price Maintenance. June 30, 1919. House Document 145, Sixty-sixth Congress first session.
3 pages.
Report of the Federal Trade Commission on the Meat-Packing Industry, Part III (Method of the Five
Packers in Controlling the Meat-Packing Industry). June 28, 1919. 325 pages.
Cost Reports of the Federal Trade Commission--Cooper. June 30, 1919. 26 pages.
Cost Reports of the Federal Trade Commission--Coal, No. 1--Pennsylvania--Bituminous. June 30,
1919. 103 pages.

ECONOMIC DIVISION.
The work of the Economic Division during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1919, as
during the preceding year, was chiefly directed, under direction of the President, to
obtaining information required by various branches of the Government in connection
with the prosecution of the war. The cost of production of commodities was the chief
matter of inquiry, but in connection therewith information was obtained regarding
actual prices realized and the facts regarding profits and investment. Even months
after the use of other agencies charged with further temporary regulation of prices or
for the settlement of war contracts.
Since the armistice the Railroad Administration and the Fuel Administration
especially have made frequent requests for such information. For the Railroad
Administration these requests have arisen from a current need of information in
connection with its plans of purchasing supplies. Although the Fuel Administration
released coal producers from price control on February 1, it continued to watch costs
and prices.
Furthermore, for a short time during the latter part of the fiscal year the Industrial
Board of the Commerce Department made frequent requests for reports on the costs
of production previously ascertained.
The Commission while making every effort to furnish the information requested
with due regard to its confidential character, had no part in the fixing of prices by the
Industrial Board or in the policies of the other branches of the Government to which
it supplied information.
It may well be stated here that, during the whole period of the war, the work of the
Commission with respect to the war activities was a cost-finding and expert accounting
work and it at no time was a price-fixing agency.
The work of the Commission as cost-finding agency increased steadily during the
first half of the fiscal year--that is, until shortly after the armistice. The suspension of
hostilities resulted in a much smaller reduction in this war work called for, By the
beginning of March, 1919, most of the work originated during the war was terminated.
New demands of a similar character, however, as noted above, necessitated the
continuation of such work in certain lines on a substantial scale until the end of the
year. This was especially the case with respect to coal costs for the Fuel
Administration, iron and steel
147390 -- 20 ----- 2

17

18

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

costs for the Railroad Administration, and the costs of certain food products for the
Purchasing Board serving the military branches of the Government. Indeed for some
of these bodies it appears that the need of such information will extend considerably
beyond the fiscal year under consideration.
The cost-finding work of the Commission during the war resulted in the collection
of an immense mass of facts regarding many important industries which are of great
practical interest. The frequent deficiencies in numerous important industries of
essential records of costs of production and other accounting data, due to inadequate
methods--a subject to which this Commission frequently called attention before the
war--was made painfully apparent during the war and constituted a handicap to the
necessary coordination of industry. It will remain a handicap for the industries
themselves until corrected.
The Commission proposes, therefore, to outline the principle defects and to indicate
the general reforms in accounting which companies with such defective methods
should set themselves to accomplish. A few brief reports on the more important of
these industries are in the course of preparation for the publication in the near future,
which the Commission believes will have a wide interest for the business world.
Important general economic injuries ordered by Congress or the President were also
begun or continued during the fiscal year and engaged a considerable share of the
efforts of the Economic Division. Among these so directed by the President or by
Congress, or by both, may be mentioned especially the meat industry, the grain trade,
the flour-milling industry, the salmon-canning industry, the farm-machinery industry,
and the milk and dairy industry. The inquiry into the leather and shoe industry,
interrupted for a time by more urgent war work on leather, was also resumed. With
respect to several of these subjects a number of partial of full reports have already
been published, and it is expected that most of the others will be published at an early
day. Some of these reports published or authorized to be published before July 1 last
and now available for distribution are:
Copper Bulletin.
Resale Price Maintenance.
Report on Canned Foods--Canned Salmon.
Cost of Producing Bituminous Coal in Pennsylvania.
Cost of Producing Anthracite Coal in Pennsylvania.
Report on Meat Packing Industry, Part I.
Report on Meat Packing Industry, Part II.
Report on Meat Packing Industry, Part III.
Report on Meat Packing Industry, Part IV.
Report on Meat Packing Industry, Part V.
Report on Meat Packing Industry, Part VI.
Report on Meat Packing Industry, Part VII.
Report on Leather and Shoe Industries.
Wholesale Marketing of Foods.
Report on Woolen Rags.
Farm Machinery Report
Report on Private Car Lines.

The economic work of the Commission during the war was, above all, cooperation
with other branches of the Government. This was the whole basis of the cost-finding
work. Reports on cost were made to the War Industries Board, the Food
Administration, the

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

19

Fuel Administration, the Railroad Administration, the War Department, the Navy
Department, the Post Office Department, the Shipping Board, the Emergency Fleet
Corporation, the Public Printer, and to other branches of the Government.
But this cooperation was not limited to cost finding. At the request of the Fuel
Administration, the Commission, through monthly reports, which covered nearly a
year, acted as a check on the observation of price regulations, especially by jobbers
and retailers of coal, and also assisted the Fuel Administration in various other ways.
With the War and Navy Departments and the Food Administration the Commission
cooperated in the work of the Food Purchase Board, and it also cooperated with the
Food Administration in the examinations of profit reports made by the meat packers
and in the study of the methods of determining costs and profits.
Members of the Commission and members of the economic staff were also called
on to cooperate in the work of various interdepartmental committees.
The cost investigation and general economic injuries conducted by the Commission
during the fiscal year under report touched a large part of the industrial activities of
the country. Most of the industries in question were covered in a comprehensive way
both as to cost of production and investment. Embraced in these injuries were the
principal mining and quarrying industries, including coal, iron ore, copper, and other
nonferrous metals, petroleum, clay, sand and gravel, and various mineral materials, the
principal manufacturing industries, including iron and steel and their products,
machinery and engines, cement, brick, tile, and other mineral building materials, acids,
alkalis, and other chemicals, paper and paper products, lumber and its products,
refined mineral oils, glycerin, vegetable oils, meat and its by-products, flour and bread,
canned vegetables, fruits and fish, textiles and garments, leather and shoes, etc..,
besides various purely trading activities, such as in coal, grain, hides, rags, cloth, food
products, etc..
It has been roughly estimated that the total investment involved in these industries
was in the neighborhood of $20,000,000,000 and that their annual output was worth
about $30,000,000,000.
The total amount of money which has been saved through the work of the
Commission is impossible of even approximate estimate, but the savings were
undoubtedly very large.
For much of the work the Commission was, of course, an auxiliary agency which,
by determining the costs, made it practicable for other agencies to fix prices on a far
more reasonable level than the inflated basis then prevailing.
When it is considered that the prices of several hundred of millions of tons of coal
were reduced from one to two dollars per ton (and smaller tonnages by much larger
amounts), that the prices of some 40,000,000 tons of pig iron or steel products made
therefrom were reduced by amounts ranging from $20 to $50 and more per ton, that
hundreds of millions of yards of cotton textiles were reduced from 20 to 30 cents per
yard, and so on for many other raw materials and finished products, it is evident that
the amount of money thus saved to the Government and to the people of the United
States amounted to billion of dollars.

20

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

As these prices were fixed on the basis of the costs ascertained by the Commission,
it is also evident that for this saving the Commission may justly claim a substantial
part of the credit. Moreover, from the beginning of the crises the Commission,
because it was well posted as to the general cost and price situation, had an active
share in advising with regard to the general policy which should be pursued, and which
was in fact adopted.
For some industries the companies reported their costs to the Commission according
to their own methods of accounting, as generally for the principal iron and steel
products, where the accounting methods are fairly good and more or less uniform. For
other industries, as for example, coal, the Commission required the costs to be reported
according to a prescribed form partly on account of the defective methods frequently
in vague, partly because the immense work of tabulation made it necessary that the
returns should be in the most comparable form.
The urgency of the work necessitated prompt action along the most practicable lines,
and the Commission adjusted its procedure in each case to meet the particular
exigencies of actual conditions and the time limitations. For this reason also it was
sometimes obliged to engage the assistance of large accounting firms in order to have
sufficient personnel to get the necessary information promptly. In such cases,
however, the work was done under the general direction and supervision of the
Commission.
The methods of investigation varied considerably, but the examination of the books
of account by the staff of the Commission was deemed necessary at least for a
considerable part of the companies whose costs were obtained and especially for those
whose costs were reported to be high.
The results obtained unless they conformed substantially with those of the
companies in question were communicated to the companies, and they were given a
hearing before a final report was made. Consequently, the reports of the Commission
were almost invariably accepted both by other branches of the Government and by the
producers in question as an accurate and impartial statement of costs. This spared the
price-fixing and purchasing branches of the Government much trouble and delay and
facilitated the prompt dispatch of a business so essential to the prosecution of the war.
In no instance did the Federal Trade Commission act as a price-fixing body.
In all this work the best plans would have little availed, however, if the Commission
had not met with willing cooperation from the business world. It is a fact which the
Commission takes great pleasure in stating that the business men of the country, with
rare exceptions, showed a patriotic readiness in furnishing information and often under
conditions which involved no inconsiderable expense and inconvenience. The liberal
policy of the Government in its control of prices as well as the dangers to business and
the country at large if no check had been placed on the extraordinary conditions which
impelled prices upward, made this attitude as sensible as it was patriotic.
A brief descriptions given below of the principal lines of cost inquiry to indicate the
character and diversity of this work. These

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

21

descriptions do not attempt to indicate the relative importance of volume of the work
involved. Thus the investigation relating to coal was so extensive and that relating to
iron and steel was so complicated that a adequate description of them would be too
lengthy for this report.
COAL.
During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1919, the work of the Commission in
determining the cost of production of anthracite and bituminous coal was contained
in the manner described in the last annual report, by obtaining monthly reports in a
form prescribed by the Commission from all except very small mining operation.
These monthly cost reports which were begun in August, 1917, were collected up
to and including December, 1918. This information was complied for the use of the
Fuel Administration, but as that body did not desire such information for periods
subsequent to December, 1918, the collection of these reports was discontinued
thereafter, subsequent to December, 1918, in the compilation and analysis of the
information thus collected.
The Commission now has records showing the costs in detail from January, 1917,
through December, 1918, of operators who mined about 99 per cent of the anthracite
tonnage produced during those two years. It has similar detailed records covering
about 95 per cent of the total bituminous tonnage produced and including all of the
bituminous tonnage produced and including all of the bituminous coal producing
districts in the country. Such records cover a period from August, 1917, to December,
1918, inclusive, or a period of 17 months. In addition, similar detailed information has
been obtained for operators mining about 200,000,000 tons annually for the three years
1916, 1917, and 1918. The principal fields of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio,
Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, and eleven other States are represented in these 1916-1918
costs.
The Commission has in preparation a series of reports which it contemplates issuing
for the principal coal-producing States in the United States, showing the cost of
producing both anthracite and bituminous coal.
PETROLEUM.
The investigation of petroleum costs during the fiscal year was continued generally
along the same lines as for the previous year.
Refined products.--Information on costs of producing fuel oil and gasoline was
furnished to the Navy Department as a basis for its determination of its purchase
prices. This work was carried on by means of cost reports from refiners, which in
many cases and so far as appeared necessary were verified by examiners. Costs were
thus obtained from practically all the refiners in the country. As obtaining the costs
of refined products on a strict cost accounting basis would not be useful for fixing
prices, because some of the most valuable products normally cost the least to produce,
the Commission for such price fixing purposes allocated the total cost of refining to
the different products on the basis of the yield and value of each at the refinery. Costs
were determined in this manner for the second quarter of 1918 and also for the last six
months of the same year.

22

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

At the request of the Navy Department, a special investigation was made of the cost
of various lubricants used by the Navy.
From time to time the results of these cost determinations were furnished not only
to the Navy Department, but also to other Government departments which requested
them.
In response to a request from the Fuel Administration, a special inquiry was
instituted to ascertain the stocks of gasoline, kerosene, and crude oil held by various
refining , producing, and pipe-line companies in the territory east of the Rocky
Mountains.
Crude petroleum.--Work previously undertaken in connection with the cost of
producing crude oil in 1917 was practically completed, and the data secured from the
different oil fields are now being studied with a view to determining the salient facts
regarding the operations of representative producers.
Wyoming field.--In February in investigation into the situation in the Wyoming field
was instituted and is still in progress.
The Commission had under consideration the publication of a report on the cost of
production of petroleum products, and the accounting problems involved.
MINERAL BUILDING MATERIAL.
The investigation of the costs of a number of mineral building materials and related
products were continued during the fiscal year and certain additional products were
continued during the fiscal year and certain additional investigations were made at the
request of various branches.
Cement.--In the investigation of cement costs for the War Industries Board monthly
reports were required, as during the previous fiscal year, from all companies in the
United States throughout the latter half of the calender year 1918. There are about 90
cement-producing companies, operating about 120 plants and producing about
80,000,000 barrels of cements, from each of which a monthly cost report has been
received for the entire calender year 1918.
Special reports on cement costs were prepared for the Industrial Commission of the
Department of Commerce, the Railroad Administration and the State of Illinois, and
a report is now in course of preparation for the Department of Agriculture.
A report on the costs of cement with particular reference to the accounting problems
of the industry is under consideration.
Common brick.--In July, 1918, the Commission at the request of the War Industries
Board, started an investigation to ascertain the cost of producing common brick by 29
companies located in New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington. Costs
were obtained covering the year 1917 and the first six months of 1918.
In August, 1918, the War Industries Board requested the investigation of a large
number of additional brick companies, but its request was modified later and confined
to 63 companies located east of the Mississippi River. Costs were obtained for 46 of
the 63 companies for a period covering January to October, 1918.

During January, 1919, another request was received for cost data from 78 companies
covering the complete year of 1918. Costs were secured from 78 companies.
Subsequently a report was prepared showing a summary of costs for the Industrial
Board of the Industrial Board of the Department of Commerce.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

23

A report is in preparation for publication on the cost of production of common brick
with particular reference to the accounting problems of this industry.
Hollow building tile.--The cost findings on the production of hollow building tile
were continued during the year for the use of the War Industries Board in fixing prices.
A report was made which covered 63 representative plants in all parts of the country,
giving costs for the second quarter of the year 1918 and the months of July and
August. The cost reported by the companies were checked by the Commission’s
examiners so far as appeared necessary.
The Commission received monthly reports from the producers from January, 1918,
up to and including the month of September, 1918, for about 78 plants. A report
giving a general survey of the Commission’s findings, together with suggestions for
improvement in accounting methods, has been compiled.
Sand and gravel.--In accordance with a request from the War Industries Board, an
investigation of the cost of producing sand and gravel by companies located in the
vicinity of Norfolk was ordered by the Commission in August, 1918. Six companies
were examined for periods covering the year 1917 and the first six months of 1918.
Towing.--At the request of the War Industries Board an investigation was made of
the costs and profits in the towing business in New York Harbor and vicinity. This
investigation developed in connection with examination of the costs of sand and gravel
companies whose increased costs were partly due to increased towing charges. Nine
companies were examined for periods covering the year 1917 and the first six months
of 1918, but owing to the extremely poor records encountered the results were not very
satisfactory.
Riprap stone.--At the request of the War Department Board of Appraisers, the
commission in January, 1919, began an investigation to determine the costs of
producing granite riprap. This investigation to determine the costs of seven companies
located in the States of Georgia, Alabama, and North and South Carolina.
Gypsum wall and fiber board.--At the request of the War Industries Board, the
commission in August, 1918, began an investigation into the cost of gypsum wall and
fiber board. The request specified a list of 44 companies, from only 20 of which, for
various reasons, were cost data secured. Owing to the deficient character of the cost
records in this industry, it was imperative that examiners be sent direct to the
companies’ offices in practically all cases. The period covered was from January to
October, 1918, inclusive.
Asbestos fiber.--At the request of the War Department in August, 1918, an
investigation of the cost of producing asbestos fiber was undertaken. An examination
was made covering the year of 1917 and the first six months of 1918.
Syndolag.--An investigation of the cost of producing syndolag, a patented
construction material, was ordered by the commission in February, 1919, in
accordance with a request from the paymaster general of the Navy, but owing to the
refusal of this company to allow an examination of its records this work was not
completed.
Legal proceedings have been instituted against the recalcitrant company.

24

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.
NONFERROUS METALS.

The commission’s cost findings for nonferrous metals was continued during the
year, reports being submitted to the War Industries Board and other branches of the
Government from time to time. The metals covered were copper, lead, zinc,
aluminum, and quicksilver. In each case the cost of the main semifinished products
manufactured from the metal, and this information was supplemented by the
ascertainment of investment and average price realized. The facts were generally
obtained by direct audit of the companies’ books, such audits being supplemented by
cost schedules to be filled in and certified by the companies.
Copper.--About 100 copper companies were covered, producing 2,250,000,000
pounds of refined copper annually. This covered over 95 per cent of the total United
States production and over 90 per cent of the production of the Western Hemisphere.
The costs cover mining, concentrating, smelting, and refining. Several reports were
submitted to the War Industries Board giving comparative costs by months, the last
report being submitted in January, 1919.
A report giving a general survey of the extent and methods of this investigation,
together with statistics for the year 1918, has been published and is available for
distribution.
Lead.--The investigation of lead costs was not continued, because prices were not
fixed, the supply being greater than the demand.
Zinc.--Two reports concerning the cost of producing zinc were made to the War
Industries Board, covering not only zinc smelter, but also high-grade zinc, and zinc
plates and sheets. A report was also made to the Treasury Department covering the
cost of the reduction of zinc concentrates to both common and grade “A” spelter. The
Commission also made an extensive investigation of the cost of producing zinc
concentrates covering practically the whole Joplin district, together with
representatives companies of other districts.
Aluminum.--This metal is practically al produce by one company, the Aluminum Co.
of America, which is also the largest producer of semifinished material. Its operations
extended from mining of bauxite to the manufacture of finished wares, and costs were
ascertained and reported for the various stages of production. A report was made
thereon to the War Industries Board covering the first six months of June, 1918.
Quicksilver.--At the request of the War Industries Board, the cost of producing
quicksilver during the years 1913, to 1917, inclusive, and also the first six months of
1918 and the months of July and August, 1918, were investigated. A report submitted
to the War Industries Board covered 15 companies, whose production amounted to 88
per cent of the total output of the country.
Brass and copper products.--In August, 1918, the Navy Department requested the
Commission to ascertain cost of production of brass and copper rods, sheets, and
seamless tubing. An examination was made of 13 companies and report compiled for
various sizes of sheets, rods, and tubing. Costs were as a whole compiled from tests,
which was the only practicable method under the circumstances.
Insulated copper wire.--At the request of the War Department the Commission
investigated the cost of producing No. 17 B. & S.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

25

copper-clad distributing wire, twisted pair outpost wire, and conductor for outpost
wire. This investigation covered not only the company with whom the contract for
furnishing this wire was made but in addition cost data were secured on the six
subcontractors who furnished approximately 95 per cent of the wire for the contracting
company. The period covered was for the five months ending November 30, 1918.
All data were secured by examiners from the records of the companies.
Manganese ore.--At the request of the War Industries Board, the cost of producing
manganese ore in the Philipsburg, Montana District, was investigated. Investment and
costs were obtained for eight companies, covering practically the total production.
Costs were compiled for the last six months in 1917, first months in 1918, and the
third quarter for 1918.
A report was also complied for the Bureau of Mines, Department of Interior, from
the same data.
IRON AND STEEL.
The principal work in the iron and steel investigation was the determination of the
costs of production of the raw materials, intermediate products, and principal finished
products, this being a continuation of the work undertaken in the previous fiscal year
and was done at the request of the War Industries Board.
Chief materials and products.--Costs were obtained monthly from several hundred
companies for each of the various materials and products produced or manufactured,
and these were tabulated and summarized and reported quarterly to the War Industries
Board. The costs reported by the producing companies were carefully examined and
revised to assure comparability of methods, and whenever it appeared necessary
special audits were made of the books of the companies to insure accuracy in the
returns, especially for companies whose costs were unusually high.
A continuous monthly record of cost was thus obtained, which began with October,
1917, of the previous fiscal year and was brought to an end with the costs for
December, 1918, after which date the War Industries Board ceased to concern itself
with the price regulation of iron and steel.
The principal commodities for which the costs were tabulated and reported include
coke, pig iron, steel ingots, slabs, blooms and billets, plate shapes and rails, merchant
bar, wire rods, sheets and tin plate. The costs of iron ore were not obtained by months,
but generally for periods of six months of more, as monthly figures were of little
practical value.
Summarized reports of certain of these costs were also furnished to the Navy
department, the War Department, the Railroad Administration, the Tariff Commission,
and to the Industrial Board of the Department of Commerce.
Information was also obtained from most of the steel companies regarding their
monthly average selling prices and the margin of profit obtained thereon, as well as
financial data as to earnings and investment for the whole year.

26

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

The commission has under consideration the publication of a brief report on the iron
and steel industry, with particular reference to problems of accounting.
Special inquiries.--A number of special investigations into the costs of iron and steel
products were made at the request of various branches of the Government, including
the War Industries Board, the War Department, the Navy Department, and the
Railroad Administration. These investigations involved careful audits of the books of
the companies and often presented very difficult cost accounting problems.
Malleable castings.--The costs of malleable iron and steel castings for railway use
were examined for 12 companies at the request of the War Industries Board.
Cost-iron pipe.--The costs of cast-iron pipe for two companies were examined for
the same branch of the Government.
Locomotive cranes.--At the request of the War Department, an inquiry was made
into the cost of locomotive cranes as made by nine manufactures.
Acid-proof iron castings.--Also at the request of the War Department, the cost of
making acid-proof iron castings was determined for one company.
Forged billets.--The Navy Department requested information as the cost of forged
billets as made by one company.
Nickel and carbon bars.--The cost of nickel and carbon bars for one company were
investigated for the Navy.
Davis wheels.--The cost of a special kind of wheel, known as the Davis wheel, was
determined by the Commission for the Navy Department.
Locomotives.--At the request of the Railroad Administration, an inquiry was made
into the costs of various typed of locomotives for the principal builders.
Fuses and torpedoes.--For the same branch of the Government , the costs of fuses
and torpedoes were investigated for three manufactures.
The following cost investigations, also requested by the Railroad Administration, are
now in process, namely, (1) locomotive tires for three companies, (2) locomotive
springs for six companies, (3) car couplers for five companies, (4) cast-iron car wheels
for nine companies. The same branch of the Government has also requested a general
report on the cost of lake iron ore for the whole year 1918 and costs for the principal
materials and products of ten important steel manufactures for the month of April,
1919.
LUMBER AND LUMBER PRODUCTS.
The Commission continued its work in cost finding for lumber and lumber products.
All of the work was undertaken at the request of the War Industries Board, with the
exception of the investigation of locust treenail costs for the Shipping Board. In most
instances the information was secured by cost schedules prepared for each of the
various lumber-producing section, the returns being made monthly and subject to
verification by examiners. The species of lumber included in the Commission’s
investigation were yellow pine, fir, spruce, hemlock, hardwoods, birch, locust, and
mahogany.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

27

Yellow pine.--An average of 275 companies reported monthly up to and including
December, 1918, the costs of producing short and long leaf yellow-pine lumber in the
States of Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, Georgia,
Florida, North and South Carolina, and Virginia. The annual production represented
was about 1,000,000,000 feet.
Fir.--Costs of fir, spruce, and hemlock in the States of Washington and Oregon
covered were reported monthly up to and including December, 1918, by about 110
companies, with an annual production of about 3,500,000,000 feet. In the Pacific
Northwest logging, to a great extent, is a distinct industry. Costs were secured
monthly from an average of 75 loggers in Washington and Oregon, with an annual
production of 2,500,000,000 feet.
New England spruce.--Spruce costs were obtained from 15 mills located in New
Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine for the months of June to September, 1918, inclusive,
representing an annual production of 2,500,000,000 feet.
Pennsylvania hemlock.--Costs were secured from producers of hemlock in
Pennsylvania, which represented about 98 per cent of the total production in the State.
Cypress.--The Commission prepared costs schedules and instructions for securing
information on the cypress industry, but as the armistice was signed before the work
was begun reports were not required. The cypress manufactures used these
instructions, however, as a basis for formulating a cost system for their industry.
Retail yards.--An investigation was made of the operating costs, sales, and margins
for 25 representative retail dealers located in the vicinity of New York, New Jersey
metropolitan district, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. The period included the first eight
months of 1918, and the average footage received and handled was over 200,000,000
feet.
Mahogany.--On August 27, 1918 the War Industries Board, at the request of the War
Department, ordered an investigation of the costs, investments, and profits of
companies producing African and Central American mahogany in order to ascertain
whether the price paid for propeller stock was excessive. Seven companies were
investigated, whose annual output of 15,500,000 feet represented about 85 per cent of
the total quantity milled in the United States.
Hardwoods.--Costs were obtained from 56 companies for July, August, and
September, 1918, producing hemlock and hardwoods in the Appalachian regions and
Arkansas.
Birch veneer and birch logs.--A report was prepared concerning 12 representatives
companies in Michigan and Wisconsin producing birch logs for the purpose of
showing costs of face stock of ply wood entering into the construction of aircraft.
Sashes and doors.--An investigation of representative sash and door manufactures
in New England, the South, middle West, and the Pacific coast was made in order to
determine whether increases in materials justified an increase in prices of certain types
of doors and windows purchased by the Government. Costs, investments, and profits
were secured from 10 companies for the period 1913, 1917, and the first six months
of 1918.

28

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Boxes and barrels.--Reports on the cost of production and prices of canned foods
boxes and of vinegar and pickle barrels were made to the Was Department.
Locust treenails.--A report was prepared at the request of the Shipping Board
showing costs, investments, and profits for 41 companies producing locust treenails.
These companies were located in the Eastern, Southern, and Middle Western States,
and represented 100 per cent of the treenails produced in the United States.
Rosin.--A report was prepared showing the costs of producing and marketing rosin
for 38 companies, whose production amounted to 337,077 commercial barrels.
Chestnut-wood extract.--Pursuant to a request of the War Industries Board, the
commission made an investigation of the cost of producing chestnut-wood extract. An
examination was made of the books and records of six representative companies,
producing 30 per cent of the output, and a report prepared covering the year 1917 and
the month of April, 1918.
PAPER.
The Commission made various injuries into the cost of paper and paper products
during the year. It also obtained periodical statistical reports from manufactures of
paper, as well as certain data from consumers, which were compiled and published
periodically.
Cost inquiries.--The principal cost inquiries with respect to paper were as follows:
Chip board.--At the request of the War Department the cost of production of chip
board was investigated and a report made thereon.
Printing paper and fine paper.--At the request of the Government Printing Office
the cost of producing printing paper and various kinds of fine paper (ledger, bond,
writing paper, ect.) was determined and reported on a number of companies.
Envelopes and miscellaneous stationary.--At the request of the Postmaster General
the costs of envelopes, of postal guides, blank books, receipt books, ect., the printing
of blank forms and other stationary, together with various other items, were
investigated and reports made thereon.
Statistical reports.--Weekly and, later, monthly reports were made by paper
manufactures on the output of various grade including newsprint, book, wrapping, and
hanging paper, together with information as to prices. Similar reports were received
periodically from pulp makers for various kinds of product. Publishers also made
reports of their consumption both of newsprint and book paper. The operations of
jobbers and certain other aspects of the paper trade were also reported. The facts so
received were compiled and monthly reviews were issued for different branches of the
trade giving the more important data. After March, 1919, the scope of these reports
was considerably reduced.
CHEMICALS.
Several investigation were made of the costs of production of chemicals which were
not of a continuous character.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

29

Alkalies.--During 1918 the Commission received various requests from the War
Industries Board, the Navy Department, and the War Department for information
concerning the cost of production of certain chlorine and sodium products. In
response to these requests the Commission in December, 1918, transmitted to the Navy
Department a special report on caustic soda, and in January, 1919, it made a report on
bleach to the War Department. In March, 1919, a final report was made embodying
all the results of its investigation into chlorine and sodium products. This report
covered the records of 12 companies, 5 of which used the Solvay process and 7 the
electrolytic process. These companies are the principal producers of alkalies in the
United States. Costs were obtained for the 12 months’ period January to December,
1917; the 6 months’ period, January to June, 1918; and the 2 months’ period, July and
August, 1918. This final report presents costs for 31 of principal chemicals which are
produces by these companies.
Sulphuric acid.--The reports were made to the War Industries Board on the costs of
producing sulphuric acid, one giving the costs for first six months of 1918 and the
months of June and July, and covering six companies producing over 50 per cent of
the total United States production, and another for the third quarter of 1918, covering
28 companies operating 49 plants, which constitutes a very large percentage of the
total production. All the data for a very large percentage of the total production. All
the data for these two reports were compiled from the books and records of the
companies.
Wood chemicals.--At the request of the War Industries Board a comprehensive
inquiry was made into the cost of production of wood chemicals--namely, wood
alcohol and acetate of lime--and incidentally the costs of charcoal. The period covered
by the cost report was for the year 1918 and covered the cost of 45 companies.
Glycerin.--At the request of the Navy Department, an investigation was made by the
Commission into the cost of manufacturing glycerin by three prominent firms of soap
manufactures. An examination was made of their books and a report embodying the
results was transmitted to the Navy Department in December, 1918.
RAW COTTON, WOOL, AND RAGS.
Several inquires were made by the Commission regarding the treating or handling
of raw cottons, woolen rags, and similar raw materials for textiles.
Ginning cotton and crushing cotton seed.--At the request of the United States Food
Administration, the Commission ascertained the cost per ton of crushing cotton seed
and the cost per bale of ginning cotton. Reports were made to the Food Administration
upon this subject in July of the fiscal year 1919.
The investigation of the cost of ginning cotton covered the operations of 256
ginneries, distributed over the principal cotton-growing States. Costs were obtained
for a total of more than 360,000 bales.
The investigation of the cost of crushing cotton seed covered 148 oil mills operated
by 82 companies. The information furnished the Food Administration included the
cost per ton of crushing cotton seed and the production of oil, meal, linters, and hulls

per ton of

30

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

seed. These mills were scattered throughout the cotton belt and truly representative
of the industry as a whole.
Cotton compress.--At the request of the War Industries Board, the Commission
estimated the increase in cotton-compressing rates necessary to cover the increase in
the cost of compressing cotton. Reports were obtained from 72 companies, of which
48 were used, the balance being incomplete. Statements were obtained covering the
cost of labor and other items of expense during the years 1915-16 and 1917-18 and
estimates made for October 1, 1918.
Wool dealers.--At the request of the War Industries Board, the Commission
examined the books of the various wool dealers to determine whether they had been
living up to the Government regulations. The Commission also cooperated with the
War Industries Board in the preparation of report forms for the wool dealers to report
their transactions.
Woolen rags.--At the request of the War Industries Board an investigation was made
by the Commission into the conducts of the woolen-rag trade. The main use of woolen
rags is for the manufacture of shoddy, a substitute for raw-wool supply there ensued
much speculation in woolen rags market. Information regarding the prices in the
industry and the cost of doing business was obtained from the records of some of the
principal firms in the industry.
Mohair.--The War Industries Board requested the Commission to make a
preliminary survey of the mohair trade, as at that time it had under consideration the
possible necessity of commandeering this commodity. A preliminary investigation
was made by the Commission, and the result were reported to the War Industries
Board on August, 1918, which decided not to take any regulative action in regard to
mohair.
Cotton and woolen textiles.--An extensive investigation was made into the costs of
production of the principle cotton yarns and fabrics and certain other miscellaneous
textile goods. An inquiry was also made into speculation in woolen piece goods.
Cotton textiles.--There were two main lines of investigation into the cost of
production of cotton textiles.
The first was instituted at the request of the War Industries Board, which desired to
obtain cost of production of certain types of cotton textiles for consideration in fixing
the prices of cotton goods. Information was obtained from the books of about 120
companies, and including most of the principal producers of cotton yarn, ducks,
denims, prints, gauze, and sheeting.
The Commission contemplates issuing a general report on the information collected
on this part of the investigation of cotton textiles.
The second line of investigation was undertaken in response to a request of the
Board of Appraisers of the War Department, which desired information regarding the
cost of production of duck which had been made in response to commandeer orders,
placed by the War Department with mills which were not regular manufactures of
duck. Twenty-eight reports were made to the War Department, each report covering
the audit of a company specified by the War Department.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

31

Towels.--At the request of the Quartermaster Division of the War Department the
Commission instituted an investigation of the cost of producing towels on a series of
contracts which were taken by a large towel-manufacturing company in the South.
Woolen piece goods.--In July, 1918, a request was made by the War Industries Board
for an investigation into the supply and prices of woolen piece goods in the hands of
the jobbers on account of alleged speculation therein. This work was terminated in
accordance with the suggestion of the War Industries Board on August 30, 1918, on
the ground that the Commission’s inquiry had checked speculation and thus
accomplished the main purpose for which it was requested.
Kersey-lines breeches.--At the request of the Board of Appraisers of the War
Department an investigation was made of the cost of producing kersey-lined breeches.
This involved an examination of the books of the concern which had the contract with
the War Department.
LEATHER AND SHOES.
Cost of leather.--At the request of the War Department in the latter part of the fiscal
year 1918, the Commission undertook to ascertain costs as to 11 classes or groups of
leather. Before the work was complete the armistice was signed and the work was
discontinued. The cost of producing sole leather and upper leather, including calf, kip,
and side upper, was procured and reports were made to the War Industries Board. The
report on sole leather involved the production of more than 60,000,000 pounds, and
the report on the production of upper leather covered the production of 69,000,000
square feet.
Cost of importing pickled sheepskins.--At the request of the liquidating officer of the
War Industries Board, the Commission found the cost of importing pickled sheepskins
from New Zealand. Certain importers of sheepskins agreed with the War Industries
Board to make importations and sell the skins at the cost of importing and delivering.
The books and records of a number of importers were examined and reports were
made to the liquidating officers in complete detail as to the importations of two large
concerns--the cost of the skins to the importers, the legitimate charges for bringing in
and delivering those skins to the tanners, and the amount of commission the importers
were entitled to. The value of the skins involved in this investigation was more than
$180,000.
General leather and shoe investigation.--In 1917 complaint came to the Commission
that the prices of shoes had advanced unduly compared with the advances in the prices
of hides. Accordingly the Commission directed a general investigation of the leather
industry, including the conditions in the hide market and an investigation of the boot
and shoe industry, including the merchandising of boots and shoes. The investigation
was began in January, 1918.
An investigation was made of the hide market, covering the principal centers for
hides east of the Rocky Mountains. A comparative study was made of the price
relation between country hides and packer hides to determine whether or not a parity
between these two classes had been maintained.

32

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

The books of account of a number of tanning concerns were examined by the
accountants of the Commission to determine the cost of producing leather and the
profits of tanners.
From more than 250 shoe manufactures balance sheets and earning statements were
obtained, and from these data were computed their rates of earnings upon investment.
The cost of producing standard staple shoes was obtained from 34 factories, which are
fairly representative of the entire production of boots and shoes made of leather.
The records of wholesale and retail merchants dealing in shoes were examined to
ascertain the prices they paid for shoes and the prices which they charge the public.
TOBACCO PRODUCTS.
At the request of the War Industries Board, the Commission ascertained the cost of
producing those grades and brands of chewing and smoking tobacco and cigarettes that
were purchased in large quantities by the War and Navy Departments. Reports were
made during the latter half of the fiscal year. These reports were needed by the War
Department and Navy Department in adjusting prices and making settlements with the
manufacturers. More than 20 brands of tobacco and cigarettes were covered.
PINTSCH GAS.
The Railroad Administration requested the Commission to ascertain the cost of
producing Pintsch gas and the profits in production. This commodity is produced by
one company only and is used in illuminating railroad cars. Costs and profits were
secured for the first nine months for the calender year 1917 and the first nine months
of calender year 1918. There was also secured cost of production for a full calender
year 1917, and an estimates were made as to the probable increase in cost during the
last quarter of the calender year 1918. These data were compiled and a report was
submitted to the Railroad Administration about the middle of this fiscal year.
AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS.
At the request of the War Industries Board the Commission conducted an
investigation on the cost of automatic sprinklers. Reports were compiled covering
costs of all contracts which had been completed since July 1, 1918, and the cost of the
port of Newark terminal job was estimated under conditions existing on October 1,
1918. Reports were obtained from five companies, compromising practically the
whole industry.
CLINICAL THERMOMETERS.
The Commission made an investigation of the cost of clinical thermometers at the
request of the War Department. An examination was made of the 12 companies and
the costs secured for periods ranging from 6 to 12 months during the year 1918.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

33

COST FINDINGS FOR FOOD PURCHASE BOARD.
During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1919, the Commission has continued to
conduct investigations begun in August, 1917, into the cost of canned-food and driedfruits products.
It became evident in August, 1917, that the bid and tender plan of purchasing
restored to by the Army and Navy would not enable these departments to secure an
adequate supply of canned-food and dried-fruit products. Consequently the Food
Purchase Board was formed consisting of a representative of the Army and Navy, the
United States Food Administration, and the Federal Trade Commission.
Whenever any difficulty was experienced in securing a supply of canned-goods and
dried-fruit products, the Food Purchase Board would order that such commodities be
allotted to all producers of such products proportionately.
The Federal Trade Commission was then requested to make cost investigations to
assist the Food Purchase Board in determining recommendations of “fair and just”
prices for the approval of the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy.
For the products produced in 1917, but two divisions were in the country--east of the
Rocky Mountains ans west of the Rocky Mountains. For the products produced in
1918, however, in order to establish prices to correspond with crop and manufacturing
conditions, the country was split up into zones, each zone representing an area wherein
crop and manufacturing conditions were fairly uniform.
The Commission has made approximately a thousand investigation to date in
determining costs of the following canned-food and dried-fruit products:
Apricots.
Apples.
Pears.
Cherries.
Corn.
Spinach.
String beans.
Peaches.
Dried prunes.
Dried apples.

Prunes in sirup.
Tomatoes.
Asparagus.
Salmon.
Pineapple.
Catsup.
Evaporated and condensed milk.
Dried peaches.
Raisins.

SAUSAGE CASINGS.
The Commission was requested by the Food Administration to make examination
into the costs of sausage casings, so that the Food Administration could place this
product under license, but after working on the case for a short time the Food
Administration canceled all sausage-casing dealers’ license, thus obviating the
necessity for making any further investigations.
CANNED SALMON.
The canned salmon investigation, which was started during the preceding year as
part of the general food investigation, was finished and the report published during the
fiscal year. This report covers the cost of production, prices, investment, and profits
in the industry during 1916 and 1917.

34

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

The cost figures covered 89 per cent of the total production of canned salmon in
1917. The report shows that the success of failure of a salmon cannery depends
largely upon obtaining an adequate supply of fish. As the supply of fish is uncertain,
the profits of individual canners fluctuate widely from year to year. Most canners
made large profits in both 1916 and 1917. In spite of the fact that 13 per cent of the
canners reported losses in each of these years, the average net profit on investments
was 22.1 per cent in 1916 and 52.7 per cent in 1917.
There are relatively few large companies in the industry, but many of the small
companies were bound together into groups by common ownership or sales contracts.
Five groups of companies canned 53 per cent of the total pack in 1917. Some of the
Chicago meat packers have extensive interests in the salmon-canning industry, and at
least two of these groups are dominated by Chicago meat-packing firms.
The reports show that the large companies have an advantage in the cost of fish and
containers, but on other items they have higher costs of production than the small
companies.
MEAT.
The field investigation of the meat industry, which was undertaken in accordance
with the directions of the President, was substantially completed before July, 1918,
and a summary of the Commission’s report, together with a letter of submittal, was
sent to the President and released for publication by him on August 8 of the fiscal year.
Several detailed reports supporting the summary were also issued during the fiscal
year.
GRAIN TRADE.
At the close of the fiscal year (June 30, 1918) the work field work in the
investigation of the grain trade was well advanced, although all field work was not
finally completed until about the close of the calender year 1918.
Except during the first few months of the present fiscal year, practically all of the
force was engaged in digesting and analyzing field reports and in tabulating,
compiling, classifying, and analyzing the very comprehensive and extensive statistical
information obtained by examiners in the field and by schedules. This work is
comprehended in four main divisions: First, country elevators and country marketing;
second, terminal markets and terminal market operation; third cash and future prices
and future trading; fourth, the costs and profits of grain marketing.
Country elevators and country marketing.--The study of country elevators and
country marketing involved the classification of schedule returns from more than 5,000
country stations, and the compilation of the answers made by these elevators to the
various questions. These questions, among other matters, related to the form of
organization, i.e., corporation, partnership, etc..; type of organization, i.e., line,
cooperative, etc..; construction; capacity; market

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. 35
news and quotations service employed; markets and trade factors to which grain is
shipped; quantities of grain bought; methods of selling; side lines handled; cleaning
facilities; use of hedging; sources and amounts of loans. During the fiscal year this
information was practically all tabulated, also analyzed and written up. Other
information in regard to country elevators was obtained by the agents of the
Commission and the Department of Agriculture directly from the country elevators.
In the Northwest territory, moreover, a large amount of correspondence was obtained
from the files of line elevator and others bearing upon the operation of country
elevators, especially relating to such matters as competition, cooperation, etc..
Practically all the information obtained from these two sources was digested, analyzed,
and written up during the year.
Terminal markets.--On terminal markets the principal sources of information are
schedule returns from various firms various firms operating on the exchanges in these
markets, the reports of field agents as to conditions existing in various markets and
published reports and statistics of the various grain exchanges. The schedule
information obtained from terminal market concerns includes, among other matters,
the character of organization, classes of the grain business engaged in, amounts of
money borrowed and character of loans, interests in other grain concerns, interlocking
directorships, and methods of purchase and sale. Hundreds of returns received in
answer to this schedule were also classified, tabulated , and partially written up during
the year. A canvass of the published sources of information on grain exchanges and
grain marketing was also made and the relevant material analyzed and digested. A
large proportion of the hundreds of field reports an the various terminal markets was
also digested and written up.
Cash and future trading.--The sources of information on cash and future prices and
future trading are the published daily cash and future prices, the field reports of the
Commission’s agents, and a considerable quantity of schedule information in regard
to future trading. From the daily cash and future prices for the different grains
monthly and yearly averages for a series of years were compiled to furnish the basis
for a study of price movements. The cash averages were carefully studied, and from
these figures a detailed discussion of cash price movements was practically completed
during the course of the year. The study of the movement of the future prices was also
begun. In addition a small proportion of the field reports relating to future trading was
digested, analyzed, and written up. It is important to ascertain the volume of grainfuture trading, and probably the most accurate figures available have been secured.
For Chicago, the largest future market, the Commission was able, with the assistance
of the Food Administration, to obtain not only detailed figures of the volume of future
trading, but also a considerable amount of detailed information as to the classification
of trade, deliveries on future contracts, volume of open trades, volume of pit scalping,
etc.. The greater proportion of this schedule information was obtained during the
present fiscal year and has been completely compiled.

36

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Cost and profits of marketing grain.--The material obtained regarding costs and
profits in marketing grain may be divided into two classes: First, costs and profits of
country elevators; second, costs and profits of terminal market operators. Information
regarding country elevators was obtained from the books of line elevators companies
and from schedules sent out to country elevators. Over 5,000 schedules were prepared
and sent out to country elevators, and the work of editing, classifying, and tabulating
information was well under way at the close of the year. Costs and profits data were
taken from the books of about 300 terminal-market grain operators. These accounts
included those of commission men, terminal elevators, brokers, warehouses, etc.., the
data in question being obtained from several different markets, including Chicago,
Minneapolis, Duluth, Milwaukee, Kansas City, Buffalo, New York, and the Pacific
coast. During the present fiscal year practically all of these 300 accounts were
consolidated, analyzed, and the results written up.
There will be several volumes of the grain report, the first of which the Commission
hopes to issue shortly.
FLOUR.
During the first half of the fiscal year the field work on the costs of wheat-flour
milling was continued. The primary purpose of the work during this six months was
cooperation with the Enforcement Division of the Food Administration in the
examination of millers’ records covering the 10 months’ period ending July 1, 1918
but later the work was extended to cover the collection of data for the entire mill year
1917-18. The preparation of a report on the operations of the larger commercial
milling companies of the country was not completed at the end of the fiscal year.
FARM-OPERATING EQUIPMENT.
The farm-operating equipment investigation was started at the close of the last fiscal
year in response to a resolution of the Senate directing the Commission to investigate
and report upon the Senate directing the Commission to investigate and report upon
(a) the causes of the high prices of farm machinery, (b) whether these high prices
prevented the farmers making a fair profit , and © the facts in regard to the existence
of any unfair methods of competition on the part of manufacturers and dealers in
respect to restraint of trade.
Scope of the information secured.--Thirty of the more important manufacturing
companies have been examined with the respect to their costs of production and
expenses for particular machines and their investments and profits in the farm
machinery business as a whole, together with such other information as was necessary
to the understanding of their manufacturing and marketing methods. Information from
seven other manufactures was obtained through the use of schedules which were filled
out by the companies themselves.
Information was also secured regarding the costs, profits, and investments of 214
retail dealers, and similar facts were secured from 94 dealers through schedules.
Prices paid by the dealers for selected implements and prices charged the farmers by
the dealers were se-

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

37

cured by means of schedules from about 8,500 dealers located in over 2,000 countries
throughout the United States. The Department of Agriculture also furnished the
Commission with over 1,300 schedules compiled bu its country agents, showing the
prices paid by farmers for agriculture implements.
The correspondence and records of several of the more important trade associations,
both of manufacturers and of dealers, have been examined in response to the third part
of the Senate resolution as outlined above.
The field work was practically completed in May, 1919, besides a large part of the
necessary tabulations and the writing of the draft report was partly completed.
Inadequate accounting records.--The investigation has emphasized a condition
which the Commission has frequently called attention to--namely, the inadequate, and
in many cases complete, lack of essential accounting records of business concerns.
This is often true even of a large implement manufactures and even more pronounced
among retail dealers. Of the 12,000 dealers who returned schedules to the
Commission, about 1,200 reported they had prepared financial statements for the last
three years. On further inquiry and examination by agents of the Commission it
developed that many of these had no records from which adequate profit and loss
statements and balance sheets could be made up. It is estimated from this examination
that only about 4 per cent of the retail implement dealers of the country keep adequate
records of their business.
While in most cases the manufactures kept records from which specifications of
estimated costs could be compiled, and records from which the profits and investment
could be ascertained, there was, however, much essential information that was lacking
and such a complete lack of uniformity both in their cost and financial accounting
systems that it necessitated an immense amount of detail work by the Commission’s
accountants in order to render heir statements comparable.
MILK.
A general investigation of milk industry, particularly canned milk and other milk
products, was ordered by Senate Resolution No. 431. The Commission was also
directed in this resolution to investigate the activities of the Food Administration with
respect to the milk industry during the war. At about the same time that the Senate
ordered the milk investigation the Commission was requested by the War Department
to audit the accounts of the producers of canned milk who sold to the War Department
during 1918. The Commission’s audit is to be used as the basis for any possible
refund which the producers may have to make, as in accordance with their agreement
with the War Department.
This investigation has therefore three phases--study of the canned-milk industry, a
study of the raw-milk industry, and a study of the butter and cheese industry. The
Commission has already made considerable progress in analyzing the accounts of the
producers in these industries for the five-year period specified in the Senate resolution.

38

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.
LIBRARY.

The library of the Commission is peculiar to its function and consists more largely
of corporation reports, association records, current financial and statistical service
publications, newspapers, financial and trade journals, catalogues, trade lists, and
addresses than of books ordinarily found in libraries even of a technical character.
Much of this material is furnished gratuitously and much of it is of a confidential
character. In other words, the library is an adjunct to investigation, and is adapted to
furnish leads for examinations rather than substantive information on the subject
matter. For ordinary library facilities the Commission relies generally on other
Government libraries in Washington.
LIST OF COST REPORTS.
There is given below a list of the principal confidential reports furnished to various
branches of the Government regarding costs of production and other matters which are
not, of course, available for public distribution. The printed publications of general
economic investigations are listed elsewhere (see p. 15) and were not so numerous as
usual on account of the extraordinary demands of this work:
Cost reports submitted during year 1918-19.
Subject.

Date.
1918
July 2
3

10
10
12
16
16
16
16
17
20
29
30
31
Aug. 1
2
6
6
6
6
6
8
8
9
10

Cost of producing sulphur
Report covering cost and sales realization for 12,619,274 tons of coal
mined during April, 1918, in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio,
Indiana Illinois and Kentucky.
Cost of producing sand, gravel, and crushed stone in the Norfolk district,
year 1917 and six months ended June 30,1918.
Government contract with Hawthorne Paper Co.
Cost of producing sole leather.
Cost of producing aluminum.
Cost of producing sand, gravel, and crushed stone in Philadelphia
district during 1917 (supplement).
Cost of crushing cotton seed.
Cost of ginning cotton
Report on the cost of retailing coal in the city of Washington, D.C.
Rail costs from ore to finished rails.
Data showing increased cost of copper resulting from 50 cent wage
increase.
Statement of prices for ice by Fruit Growers Express Co.
Government contract with American Writing Paper Co.
Cost of producing refractory brick, one company, April, May, June, 1918.
Production and distribution of domestic mohair (preliminary)
Cost of producing copper during the month of May, 1918, and the first
five months of 1918.
Government contract with a paper company.
do.
do.
Anthracite coal, cost of production tonnage of 99 companies, May,
1917-1918.
Government contract with a paper company
Cost of producing common brick, one company, for period ending June
30, 1918.
Cost of producing forged billets of company supplying Navy.
Average selling price on certain dimensions of hemlock lumber produced
by two companies, January, 1913 to August, 1918.

For-

Navy

Fuel Administration.
Do.
Public Printer.
War Industries Board.
Navy.
War Industries Board.
Food Administration.
Do.
Fuel Administration.
Navy.
War Industries Board.
Food Administration.
Public Printer.
War Industries Board
Do.
Do.
Post Office.
Do.
Do.
Fuel Administration.
Post Office.
War Industries Board.
Navy.
War Industries Board.

12
12

Cost of producing hemlock lumber in State of Pennsylvania months of
April, May, June, and July, 1918.
Cost of producing 3½ per cent nickel and basic carbon bars of company
supplying the Navy.

Do.
Navy.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.
Cost reports submitted during years 1918-19--Continued.
Date.
1918
Aug. 13
16
17

Subject.

For-

Government contract with a paper company.
Public Printer.
do.
Do.
Table showing number of animals slaughtered by local wholesalers
Food Administration
slaughterers in 1916 and the first six months of 1917.
17 Cost of producing “Grade A” zinc, sheet and plate, April and May,
War Industries Board
1918.
19 Cost of producing aluminum products, first six months of 1918 and
Do.
July 1918.
19 Anthracite coal, cost of production tonnage of 99 companies, period
Fuel Administration
May, 1917, May 1918.
20 Cost of producing locomotives on Government orders of company
Railroad Administration
supplying Railroad Administration.
23 Cost of producing copper and nickel products of one company, April
War Industries Board.
And May, 1918.
23 Cost of producing sand, gravel, and crushed stone in the Boston district,
Do.
year, 1917.
24 Cost and profits of six Philadelphia flour jobbers for first half of 1918
Food Administration.
26 Report showing differences between costs reported by 16 anthracite
Fuel Administration.
coal companies direct to the Fuel Administration and the costs
reported by those companies to the Federal Trade Commission.
27 Cost of six producers of chestnut-wood extract, August, 1918.
War Industries Board.
27 Government contract with a paper company.
Public Printer.
29 Cost of producing cast-steel slugs, one company
War Industries Board.
Sept. 6 Bituminous coal, cost of production tonnage, 2,751 companies, for
Fuel Administration.
January-May, 1918.
7 Government contract with a paper company.
Public Printer.
11
do.
Do.
13 Cost of coke, pig iron, and steel, November, 1917, and April, May,
War Industries Board.
June, 1918.
13 Cost of pig iron in June, 1918, in certain States
Railroad Administration
17 Cost of production of steel (preliminary).
War Industries Board.
17 Cost of manufacturing a certain type of wheels, one company.
Navy.
17 Cost of producing sand, gravel, and crushed stone in the Norfolk
War Industries Board.
district, year 1917 and first six months 1918.
17 Cost of producing yellow-pine lumber and timber--southern pine group
War Industries Board.
States of Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi type, and Texas,
May, June, and July, 1918.
19 1918 tinned spinach costs, spring pack, in Baltimore, Md.
Food Purchase Board.
19 Cost of producing sulphuric costs, first six months and June and July,
War Industries Board.
1918.
20 Cost of producing yellow-pine lumber and timbers, Virginia-Florida
Do.
group, July, 1918.
22 Cost of producing quicksilver, first six months of 1918, and June, July,
Do.
and August, 1918.
23 Government contract with a paper company.
Public Printer.
24 Costs and profits of several chip and container board manufactures
War Industries Board.
under contract with Ordnance Department.
24 Report on Pittsburgh, Chicago, and St. Louise flour jobbers.
Food Administration.
25 Cost of producing common brick in New York and Philadelphia
War Industries Board.
districts, year ending Dec. 31, 1917, and six months ending June, 1918.
26 Cost of producing sand, gravel, and crushed stone in the Norfolk district
Do.
year 1917, and six months ended June 30, 1918, and month of June,
1918.
30 Cost of bleaching cotton linters
Do.
Oct. 3 Comparative cost of steel ingots, plates, and shapes of one company.
Do.
8 Cost of producing fir, spruce, and hemlock lumber in the State of
Do.
Washington and Oregon, May. June, and July, 1918.
8 Tanning costs of upper leather.
Do.
10 Cost and prices of certain lubricating oils produced by one company.
Navy Department.
10 Cost and prices of certain lubricating oils produced by one company.
Do.
11 Cost of producing fir, spruce, and hemlock logs in the States of
War Industries Board.
Washington an Oregon, May, June, and July, 1918.
14 Use of Cuban ores at plant of a certain steel company
Tariff Commission.
14
Cost of producing common brick in Baltimore and Washington, year
War Industries Board.
1917 and first six months, 1918.
14 Memorandum on operations of a certain company covering cost of
War Department.
production of asbestos fiber, air cell pipe covering, and 3-ply flexstone roofing and return on investment, 1917 and first six months
1918.
16 Cost of producing Portland cement for seven months, 1917, and April,
War Industries Board.
May, and June, 1918.
17 Intercompany profits on rails
Railroad Administration
17 Government contract with a paper company
Post Office.

39

18
do.
19 Mahogany--average selling price of New York companies, JanuarySeptember, 1918.
21 Costs of locomotives.
21 Costs of producing gypsum wall board, one company.
24 Cost of producing gypsum plaster board and plaster board of one
company, first 6 months, 1918.

Do.
War Industries Board.
Railroad Administration
War Industries Board.
Do.

40

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.
Cost reports submitted during year 1918-19--Continued.

Date.
1918
Oct. 24
24
26
29
29
30
30
Nov. 4
6
7
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
16
18
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
23
24
25
27
27
29
29
29
29

29
29
29
31
Dec. 4

9
10
10
10
10
10
13
14
14
16

17
19
19

Subject.
Prices paid by various eastern refining companies for Mexican crude
oil delivered on recent contracts.
Increases in cost of compressing cotton and average profit based on
comparison of the season 1915-16 with October, 1918.
Cost of producing locust treenails, January to August, 1918.
Cost of canned salmon.
Prices paid for pickle and vinegar barrels, 1917 and 1918.
Report on raisin prices.
Costs of producing charcoal, alcohol, and acetate of lime for 1917 and
January to July, inclusive, 1918.
Report showing in detail the costs of each coal operator in the central
Pennsylvania field, by months, January-May, 1918.
Cost of high-speed tool steel, one company.
Cost of producing gypsum plaster board by one company
Profits from tanning leather.
Salaries paid officials of locomotive company for year 1917.
Cost of producing copper, June and July, 1918.
Cost of producing certain types of windows and doors purchased by the
Government, years 1913, 1917, and six months, 1918.
Cost of high-speed tool steel, one company.
Slaughtering meat animals (one company).
Cost and profits towing industry in New York Harbor and vicinity
during 1917 and 1918.
Cost of canned peas in Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Indiana,
Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Delaware, New York, and Baltimore Md.
Cost of cigarettes and tobacco for four companies.
Comparative costs of birch logging and stumpage values, Michigan
and Wisconsin, year 1917.
Government contract with a paper company.
do.
Profits of shoe manufactures.
Government contract with a paper company.
do.
do.
do.
do.
do.
Wool dealers’ profits.
Salaries paid officials of locomotive company for year 1917.
1918 tinned spring spinach in Ohio.
1918 tinned spring spinach in California.
Cost of producing cast-iron pipe.
do.
Cost of producing wood chemicals.
Cost per pound of producing copper, August, 1918, also comparison
with cost for year 1917 and months March, April, May, June, and
July, 1918.
1918 report on rice protests.
do.
Report on rice protests.
Cost of producing nickel and monel metal, year ending Mar. 31, 1917,
and July, 1917.
Report showing comparative figures of royalties paid per ton and
tonnage produced by anthracite coal operators for May-August, 1917
and May-August, 1918.
Cost of coke, pig iron, and steel, June, August, September, October,
1918.
Earnings of a steel company.
do.
Cost of 1918 canned corns in New York State.
Cost of 1918 canned tomatoes in New York State.
Cost of canned string beans (green ans wax).
Cost of producing Portland cement, months July, August, September,
and October, 1918.
Woolen piece goods.
Cotton textiles.
Cost of gasoline and fuel oil, first six months 1918, and refinery
investment and estimates covering the fiscal year ended June 30,
1918.
Cost, prices, and profits of box manufactures, first six months 1918,
and estimates for October, 1918.
Cost of Portland cement.
Cost of duck on Army order.

ForWar Industries Board.
Do.
Do.
Food Administration.
Quartermaster General.
Food Purchase Board.
War Industries Board.
Fuel Administration.
Navy Department.
War Industries Board.
Do.
Railroad Administration
War Industries Board.
Do.
Navy Department.
War Industries Board.
Do.
Food Purchase Board.
War Industries Board.
Do.
Post Office.
Do.
War Industries Board.
Post Office.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Public Printer.
War Industries Board.
Railroad Administration
Navy Department.
Do.
Do.
War Industries Board.
Do.
Do.

War Department.
Navy Department.
War Department
Navy Department
Fuel Administration.

War Industries Board.
Do.
Do.
Food Purchase Board.
Do.
Do.
War Industries Board.
Do.
Agriculture Department
Navy Department.

Quartermaster General
War Industries Board.
War Industries Board.

20
20
24

Glycerine costs of three companies.
Navy.
Report showing in detail the costs of each bituminous coal operator in
Do.
the Ohio fields by months, January-May, 1918.
Manganese ore in Phillipsburg, Mont., district, six months, ending
Tariff Commission.
December 31, 1917, and six months ending June 30, 1918, and three months
September, 1918.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.
Cost reports submitted during year 1918-19--Continued.
Date.
1918
Dec. 24
26
31
1919
Jan. 8
9
13
14
14

Subject.
Cost of production of a special illuminated gas.
Cost of production of gypsum and fiber wall board, first six months
1918, July-October, 1918.
Cost of production of common brick for January-October, 1918

Railroad Administration
War Industries Board.

Railway steel and malleable iron castings (eight companies).
Cost of producing bleaching powder, (two companies).
Cost of producing common brick (supplemental), January-August,
1918.
Cost of production of duck of one company on Army order.

Navy Department.
War Department.
War Industries Board.

17
17
17

Cost of equipment and preparatory expenses of company to
manufacture duck.
Cost of construction of plant to manufacture duck.
do.
Cost of production of duck of one company on Army order.

17
21
21
21
24
25

do.
do.
do.
Kersey lined breeches costs of one company on Army order.
Gasolene. Kerosene, and crude oil.
Riprap stone costs of seven companies

29
29
30

Mahogany, six to eight months of 1918.
Post office contract with a paper company (complete report).
Cost of production of insulated wire, various periods for each
subcontractor.
Brass and copper products (sheets, rods, and seamless tubing),
latter part 1918.
Cost of production of duck of one company on Army order.

30
Feb. 3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
13

Manufacturing costs of open-hearth and bessemer standard steel rails,
October, 1917-September, 1918.
Cost of production of duck of one company on Army order.

28

Cost of production of tape and webbing, one company.
Cost of production of duck of one company on Army order.
do.
do.
do.
do.
Special steel castings manufactured by a certain company, MayNovember, inclusive, 1918.
Cost of production of duck, one company, on Army order.
do.
Post Office contract with a paper company.
Sand, lime, brick, year 1918.
Reducing zinc concentrates, representative month first half May,
September 1918.
Cost of production of rosin first 10 months of 1918.

28
25

Cost of importing sheepskins by one company.
Cost of production of clinical thermometers.

15
15
15
25
26

Mar. 3

Cost of production of duck of one company on Army order.
3
3
7

12

17
17

For-

do.
Investment and profits of certain representative cement companies,
year 1918
Cost of manufacture of fusees and torpedoes, January-November,
1917.
Alkaline chemicals (various periods for different companies).

18

Post Office contract with a paper company.
Open-hearth and bessemer steel rails (five companies), October and
November, 1918.
Cost of production of duck of one company on Army order.

18
24

Cost of importing sheepskins (one company)
Cost of production of duck of one company on Army order.

Navy.

War Department Board
of Appraisers.
Do.
Do.
Do.
War Department, Board
of Appraisers.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Fuel Administration.
War Department, Board
of Appraisers.
Department of Justice.
Post Office.
War Department,
Signal Corps.
Navy Department.
War Department, Board
of Appraisers.
Tariff Commission.
War Department, Board
of Appraisers.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Post Office Department.
War Industries Board.
Treasury Department.
War Industries Board
and Navy.
War Industries Board.
Medical Corps, War
Department.
War Department, Board
of Appraisers.
Do.
Industrial Board, Department of Commerce
Railroad Administration
War Industries Board,
Navy Department,
Tariff Commission,
Board of Appraisers.
Post Office Department.
Railroad Administration
War Department, Board
of Appraisers.
War Industries Board.
War Department, Board

41

Apr. 2
2

do.
Locomotive cranes (five companies).

of Appraisers.
Do.
War Department.

42

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.
Cost reports submitted during year 1918-19--Continued.

Date.
1919
Apr. 2

Subject.
Cost of production of duck of one company on Army order.

11
14
21
23
25

Open-hearth and bessemer steel rails, December, 1918.
Beehive coke in Birmingham district, November, 1917, February, May
August, November, 1918.
Bituminous coal costs, southwest field of Pennsylvania, JanuaryDecember, 1918.
Cost data on pig iron of two corporations.

25

Bituminous coal costs, central field of Pennsylvania, JanuaryDecember, 1918.
Tobacco and cigarettes (specific brands), Jan. 1 to Sept. 30, 1918.

26
28

Bituminous coal costs, Pocahontas field, January-December, 1918.
Portland cement, costs of Illinois companies.

May 1

6
6
8

19
26
28
28
June 9
9

14

14
21

24
25
26
27
27

ForWar Department, Board
of Appraisers.
Railroad Administration
Do.
Fuel Administration.
Do.
Nitrate Division, War
Department.
Fuel Administration
Navy Department, Marine Corps, War
Industries Board, and
Army.
Fuel Administration.
Industrial Board, Department of Commerce
Fuel Administration.

Bituminous coal costs in New River field of West Virginia, JanuaryDecember.
Bituminous coal costs in Nos. 3, 4, and 6 fields of Illinois, JanuaryDo.
December, 1918.
Bituminous coal costs in various fields of the State of Alabama, JanuaryDo.
December, 1918.
Portland cement cost data, four months ending Oct. 3, 1918.
Railroad Administration
Bleached sulphite pulp, cost of manufacture by company on contract,
Post Office Department
December, 1917 [12 months ended Nov. 30, 1918, December, 1918,]
four months ended Mar. 31, 1919.
Steam coal: Total f.o.b. mine costs and sales (commercial) realization
Fuel Administration.
during 1918 in various fields of Alabama.
Smoking tobacco (supplemental report), costs of two companies,
Navy Department.
various periods.
Bituminous coal costs in the State of North Dakota, January-December
Fuel Administration.
1918.
Bituminous coal costs for the Milburn By-products Coal Co. producing
Do.
coal in Kanawhafield, W. Va.
Bituminous coal costs for Nos. 3, 4, and 6 fields of Illinois, showing
Do.
revised cost by months, 1918.
Coal: cost of production for the month of December, 1918, in the
Do.
Faimont field of West Virginia and the upper Potomac field in West
Virginia and Maryland.
Certain information for 429 bituminous coal operators producing coal
Do.
in fields Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 of West Virginia,
January-December, 1918.
Certain information on 63 bituminous coal operators producing coal in
Do.
fields Nos. 1, 2, and 5 of the State of Illinois, January-December, 1918.
Cost of production, selling expenses, and realization of bituminous coal
Do.
in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 3a, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and special-price fields, Ohio,
January-December, 1918.
Tabulation showing Portland cement costs for three months ending
Department of Agriculture
June 30, 1918, and four months ending Oct. 31, 1918.
Certain information from 130 bituminous coal operators in field
Fuel Administration.
No. 142, Indiana, January-December, 1918.
Certain information of 273 bituminous coal operators in fields Nos.
Do.
1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Kentucky, January-December, 1918.
Certain information of 88 bituminous coal operators producing coal
Do.
in fields Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the State of Colorado.
Cost of production, selling expenses, and realization of bituminous coal
Do.
in fields Nos. 1 and 2, Oklahoma, January-December, 1918, 62
companies.

PERSONNEL OF THE ECONOMIC DIVISION.
The personnel of the Economic Division at the beginning of the fiscal year numbered
421, at the date of the armistice 499, and at the close of the fiscal year 195.
SALARIES AND COST OF LIVING.
The war, which compelled the Commission to greatly expand its economic staff, was

accompanied by such a marked increase in the

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

43

cost of living that it became necessary to pay higher salaries than those prevalent in
the service of the Commission before the war, at least for new appointments, although
many accepted employment at rates lower than they had obtained elsewhere from
patriotic motives. After the close of the way the heavy reduction of the force, resulting
partly from diminution of the work required and partly from the necessary
economizing of expenditures in addition thereto, led to extensive resignations, but in
almost every case such members of the expert staff of the Economic Division left the
service to accept employment at higher rates of salary than they received from the
Commission. In a number of cases, indeed, they received double or even triple the
salaries paid them by the Commission. In several instances the salaries so obtained
in private employment ranged from $10,000 to $12,000 per annum, and for a large
proportion of the cases they were $5,000 of more. Even those who accepted
employment in other branches of the Government service almost invariably obtained
larger salaries than they had received from the Commission, through compelled to do
so by the greatly increased cost of living in relation to their personal financial
responsibilities.

LEGAL DIVISION.
The functioning of the Federal Trade Commission in the business life of our country
has brought forth questions of great importance. The Commission was given
jurisdiction over “unfair methods of competition in commerce,” and the power and
duty to initiate proceedings whenever it had reason to believe that proceedings against
those practicing unfair methods were in the public interest.
Previous to the creation of the Commission the courts had ruled upon various forms
of unfair practices. Their decisions are designated as cases arising under the common
law. But upon the creation of the Commission it was empowered to leave the shores
defined by the common law and, taking the knowledge of those decisions with it, to
embark on an uncharted sea, using common sense plus the common law for its
compass.
In the clear language of Mr. Justice Baker in the opinion in the case of Sears,
Roebuck & Co. v. the Federal Trade Commission in the Seventh Circuit of the United
States Circuit Court of Appeals, the commissioners, representing the Government as
parens patriae are “to exercise their common sense, as informed by their knowledge
of the general idea of unfair trade at common law, and to stop all those practices that
have a capacity or a tendency to injure competitors directly or through deception of
purchasers quite irrespective of whether the specific practices in question have yet
been denounced in common-law cases.”
The legal duty laid upon the Commission was, if anything, still mare enlarged by the
language of the Clayton Act, since the Commission was there empowered not only to
stop certain unfair methods of competition, but to do so at their inception, or as soon
thereafter as discovered, for it is empowered to begin at any initial stage where the
effect of the act prohibited might be to substantially lessen competition or tend to
create a monopoly. This was another great departure from the substantive law, since
formerly under the Sherman Antitrust Act the Department of Justice could not proceed
until a monopoly was full flowered.
Not only did the Clayton Act require the Commission to function when the matter
complained of might tend toward a monopoly, in the judgement of the Commission,
but when it might substantially restrain trade. The Government through the
Department of Justice could not act until a wrong had been committed, or until the
monopoly was complete and the injury to the competitor such as, in most cases to put
him out of business. The Federal Trade Commission act and the Clayton Act, then ,
offer relief to the injured competitor and the public long before the trouble complained
of has reached the state of legal rigor mortis. The offending party has his warning and
opportunity to cease in abundant time to avoid the indictment day under the Sherman
Antitrust Act that awaits him, if his restraint of trade of tendency shall, finally,
culminate in a monopoly.

45

46

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

While the use of “common sense,” such as suggested by Justice Baker, and the
advice of counsel learned un the common law should, in most cases brought before the
Commission, have saved the respondent from the annoyance of being brought before
it upon complaint of a competitor or on behalf of the public, nevertheless, there are a
relatively few which can be fairly said to be within a zone of doubt in the business
mind, owing to the economic question involved or some custom which, while almost
universally practiced, is wrong per se.
The legislative mandate thus far defined is broad enough to challenge the interest of
the most ambitious, but when it is realized that the Commission must substitute a
constructive measure for a destructive measure, revive an economic principle, or
remove an uneconomic factor, the task devolving upon the Commission and its legal
department must appear almost overwhelming. Were it not for the efficient service of
the economic department, the work imposed would be impossible. Once, however, the
facts are investigated, established, and classified by the latter, the legal question
becomes much simplified.
The geographic scope of the Commission has been enlarged in the Webb-Pomerene
law, enacted April 10, 1918, so that the Federal Trade Commission “shall have all the
powers, so far as applicable, granted to it by its organic act” to restrain the export
associations organized under it from engaging in unfair competition toward each other
in any foreign country.
In staking out the lines outside of which unfair competition falls the Commission has
up to the close of this fiscal year passed on many hundreds of applications for
complaints initiated, in a large per cent of the cases, by one competitor against another,
or a group of competitors, and only in a few cases through the initiative of the
Commission. In many of these cases the Commission has concluded that a complaint
should issue. Many of those formerly charged have stipulated an admission of the
facts complained of and agreed without contest that an order issue against them to
cease and desist from such practices. Only five have appealed, and upon these and
other appeals of the future there will undoubtedly be set within a few years the legal
corner stones that will clarify the general principles, defining what is unfair
competition and put the business mind at rest as to much that now seems to it to be a
zone of legal doubt.
The decision in the case of Sears, Roebuck & Co., heretofore referred to and decided
April 29, 1919, from which there has been no application to the Supreme Court for
review, established the constitutionality of the act of Congress approved September
26, 1914, creating the Commission. The charge against the respondent was that in
doing an interstate merchandise business they had made misrepresenting in the
advertisement of their goods which were false, misleading, and injurious to their
competitors.
The court found that although the respondents had discontinued the methods in
question sometime previous to the issuance of the complaint, nevertheless, there was
no assurance in sight that if respondent could shake the Commission’s “hand from its
shoulders it would not continue its former course,” and hence so long as the

respondent continued to contest the Commission’s authority, it could

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

47

not avail itself of the defense that it had ceased to do the act charged before the
complaint was issued.
The court also held that the phrase “unfair methods of competition” was not void for
indefiniteness even through the methods referred to were such as were not necessarily
condemned at common law. It supported its position by stating that the “general idea
of dishonesty and fraud are so well, widely, and uniformly understood” that the
commissioners by the exercise of “their common sense, as informed by their
knowledge of the general idea of unfair trade at common law,” and the power to
declare whether the act complained of came within the language of the statute.
The restraining order that might issue would be provisional, being subject to review
by the appellate tribunal. The court rejected the suggestion that this function of the
Commission was a transgression of a legislative or judicial power, it also found that
selling below cost was not prohibited by the language of the act and only came within
the purview of the statute when the sale or representations concerning the same had
a “capacity or tendency to injure or discredit competitors and deceive purchasers as
to the real character or the transaction.”
Previous to the floating of the Victory Liberty loan the Secretary of the Treasury,
chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Capital Issues Committee, and many citizens
requested that they be allowed to appear before the Commission with counsel and
present argument in support of their claim that the Commission had jurisdiction to
prohibit the sale of what are commonly termed “wild-cat stocks and securities” when
transported from one State to another and sold in competition with bona fide stocks
and securities. The hearing was had and after a full presentation of the matter the
Commission decided that according to the latest utterances of the courts the sale of
stocks, when stocks were taken from one State to another and sold, constituted an act
in interstate commerce, and when by misrepresentation through advertisements or
otherwise they sold in competition with other stocks and securities that are bona fide,
the Commission would take jurisdiction of such circumstances.
Where the evidence sustained the complaint an order would be issued against the
respondent to cease and desist from misrepresentations in respect to the value or status
of the “wild-cat stocks.” A division, organized to handle this litigation, prepared and
issued hundreds of questionnaires to companies complained of and has received
hundreds of responses. A number of applications for complaints have been filed, and
some complaints have already been issued by the Commission. Testimony in these
cases is in the process of being taken.
The Commission finds in the “blue-sky” cases that frequently its order to cease and
desist does not issue until some overt practice has occurred. Those desiring to evade
the order put on a campaign under high pressure, which results in complete sale of the
stocks or securities floated before the Commission can act. Legislative action in
respect to the control of the advertisements or representatives of the promoters of the
stock will be the most effectual way of keeping the situation in statu quo until the
Commission’s process can function. The law should provide that the advertising be
in a form

48

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

requiring every individual, corporation, or association offering for sale to the public
in interstate commerce, bonds, stocks, or other evidences of ownership in any
corporation to print on the front page of any and all circulars, prospectuses, letters,
literature, and in the body of any advertisements describing and mentioning the
securities for sale, in type larger than the type otherwise used, the rate of commission
or commissions, the profits received by those promoting, consolidating, underwriting,
or selling said securities, and the net amount to be received from said sale by the
issuing entity, corporation, or association.
PROCEEDINGS PENDING JUNE 30, 1919.
Complaint No. 5.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Shredded Wheat Co. Charge:
Unfair methods of competition against the Ross Food Co., in alleged violation of
section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: Testimony has been taken in
this proceeding, and the briefs on behalf of the Commission and the respondent are in
course of preparation.
Complaint No. 15.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Curtis Publishing Co.
Charges: Stifling and suppressing competition by refusal to sell its publications to
dealers who will not agree not to sell or distribute the publications of certain of its
competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act;
and, further, attempting to create a monopoly by means of price fixing conditioned on
the nonsale of competitors’ publications, in alleged violation of section 3 of the
Clayton Act. Status: Evidence has been taken in this proceeding and the matter has
been submitted to the Commission for final decision.
Complaint No. 19.--Federal Trade Commission v. Mishawaka Woolen
Manufacturing Co. Charges: (1) Unfair methods of competition by fixing a schedule
of resale prices, by requiring purchasers to agree to maintain such prices, by refusing
to sell unless such agreement is entered into, and by refusing to sell if agreement is
violated, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act; (2)
price discrimination, the effect of which may be to substantially lessen competition or
tend to create a monopoly, in alleged violation of section 2 of the Clayton Act. Status:
Evidence has been taken in this proceeding and the matter has been submitted to the
Commission for decision after argument.
Complaint No. 24.--Federal Trade Commission v. Galena Signal Oil Co. Charge:
Stifling and suppressing competition in the manufacture and sale of lubricants, etc..,
by price discrimination, in alleged violation of section 2 of the Clayton Act; and by
fixing its sales price or discount or rebate thereof on the condition that the purchaser
shall nor use the goods or competitors, in alleged violation of section 3 of the Clayton
Act, the effect of both practices being to substantially lessen competition or tend to
create a monopoly. Status: This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the
Commission and the answer of the respondent, and evidence is being taken by the
Commission in support thereof.
Complaint No. 25.--Federal Trade Commission v. J. F. Hillerich & Son Co. Charge:
Unfair methods of competition in connection with the manufacture, marketing, and
scale of baseball bats by fixing resale prices and refusing to supply those who do not

agree to maintain such selling prices or who do not sell at the prices fixed, in alleged
violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act; price discrimination, the
effect of which may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a
monopoly in alleged violation of section 2 of the Clayton Act. Status: Proceeding now
awaits completion of negotiations for agreed statement of facts.
Complaint No. 28.--Federal Trade Commission v. Ward Baking Co. Charge: Stifling
and suppressing competition by fixing resale prices and refusing to sell to those who
will not agree to maintain such standard resale prices or who do not resell at such
standard selling prices, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act. Status: Proceeding awaits completion of negotiations for agreed
statement of facts.
Complaint No. 30.--Federal Trade Commission v. Western Clock Co. Charge:
Attempting to eliminate competition in the sale of certain alarm clocks by fixing resale
prices and refusing to sell to those who fail to maintain such prices,

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

49

in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act; price
discrimination, the effect of which may be to substantially lessen competition or tend
to create a monopoly in alleged violation of section 2 of the Clayton Act. Status: This
proceeding is at issue upon the Complaint of the Commission and the answer of the
respondent, and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 31.--Federal Trade Commission v. National Biscuit Co. Charge:
Stifling and suppressing competition in certain bakery products by means of a system
of rebates and discounts calculated to cause the trade to purchase its goods either
which largely or exclusively, and by making contracts with advertising agencies which
tend to stifle and suppress competition, all in alleged violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act. Status: This proceeding is at issue on the complaint
of the Commission and the answer of the respondent, and is awaiting the completion
of the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 33.--Federal Trade Commission v. American Radiator Co. Charge:
Stifling and suppressing competition in the manufacture and sale of radiators by
offering to the trade certain rebates or discounts, in alleged violation of section 5 of
the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: This proceeding is awaiting the disposition
of compliant No. 31, Federal Trade Commission v. National Biscuit Co.
Complaint No. 40.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Colorado Milling & Elevator
Co. Charge: Attempting to eliminate competition by fixing resale prices and by
refusing to sell to those who will not agree to maintain such prices in alleged violation
of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: This proceeding is at issue
upon the complaint of the Commission, and the answer of the respondent and is
awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 82.--Federal Trade Commission v. Photo-Engravers Club of Chicago.
Charge: Adopting a standard scale or uniform price at which the members sell their
products, with the intent of stifling and suppressing competition in the manufacture
and sale of photo-engravings; the respondent having entered into an agreement with
the Chicago Photo-Engravers’ Union No. 5, I. P. E. U., by the terms of which the
respondent’s members employ only union labor in their manufacturing plants, and the
members of the union do not accept employment from any manufacturing photoengraver not a member of the respondent club. In furtherance of such agreement the
union has adopted a rule whereby union labor is to cease working in photo-engraving
plants which do not maintain such standard scale of prices; and has initiated a series
of fines and threats to withdraw labor, thereby compelling members to maintain such
prices against their will, all in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act. Status: This case is pending before the Commission on a motion be
respondent to dismiss the proceedings.
Complaint No. 83.--Federal Trade Commission v. American Mailing Device
Corporation. Charge: Stifling and suppressing the competition of its sole and only
competition, the Cutler Mail Chute Co., in the manufacture, sale, and installation of
its product in interstate commerce, by selling its products at and for a price which is
at or less than the cost of producing the same, in alleged violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act. Status: This proceeding is awaiting the final
introduction of testimony by respondent.
Complaint No. 84.--Federal Trade Commission v. Cutler Mail Chute Co. Cause :
Stifling and suppressing competition on the part of its sole and only competitor, the
American Mailing Device Corporation, in the manufacture, sale, and installation of

its product in interstate commerce, has sold, and is now selling, the same at and for a
price which is at or less than the cost of producing the same in alleged violation of
section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: This proceeding is at issue on
the complaint of the Commission and the answer of the respondent and is awaiting the
further taking of the testimony by the Commissioner.
Complaint No. 85.--Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Oil Co. of Indiana.
Cause: Unfair methods of competition in the manufacture sale, and distribution of
petroleum products by refusing to sell in quantity lots outside of its territory except to
other Standard companies, by selling its surplus to other Standard companies at prices
below the tank-wagon prices maintained by it in its own territory, selling at tankwagon prices direct to customers in certain local competitive areas, etc., in alleged
violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act; price discrimination and
price fixing contingent on the nonuse of competitors’ products by the purchaser
tending to create a monopoly and substantially lessen competition in alleged violation
of sections 2 and 3 of the Clayton Act. Status: this pro147390--20----4

50

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL COMMISSION.

ceeding is pending before the Commission for final disposition on an agreed statement
of facts.
Complaint No. 86 .--Federal Trade Commission v. F. E. Atteaux & Co. Cause:
Unfair methods of competition in the manufacture and sale of dyestuffs and chemicals
by giving gratuities and making gifts to employees of its own and its competitors’
customers and by loaning and offering to loan money to such employees, all with the
intent of inducing the respective employees to purchase materials from the respondents
or to influence such employees to refrain from dealing or contracting to deal with its
competitor, in alleged violation of section of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Status: This proceeding is awaiting the final introduction of evidence by respondent.
Complaint No. 87.--Federal Trade Commission v. Crescent Manufacturing Co.
Cause: Stifling and suppressing competition in the manufacture, marketing, and sale
of baking powder, spices, teas, coffees, and flavoring extracts by fixing resale prices
and refusing to sell to those who will not agree to maintain such specified standard
resale prices in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Status: This proceeding is at issue on the complaint of the Commission and the answer
of the respondent , and negotiations are now in progress with a view to agreeing on the
facts and submitting the matter to the Commission for final disposition.
Complaint No. 88.--Federal Trade Commission v. Beech-Nut Packing Co. Cause:
Stifling and suppressing competition in the manufacture, marketing, and sale of
chewing gum by fixing specified standard resale prices and refusing to sell to those
who will not agree to maintain such prices in alleged violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act. Status: This proceeding is at issue on the complaint
of the Commission and the answer of the respondent, and negotiations are now in
progress with a view to agreeing on the fats and submitting the matter to the
Commission for final disposition.
Complaint No. 89.--Federal Trade Commission v. L.E. Waterman Co. Cause:
Stifling and suppressing competition in the manufacture, marketing, and sale of
fountain pens by fixing specified standard resale prices and refusing to sell to those
who will not agree to maintain such prices in alleged violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act. Status: This proceeding is at issue on the complaint
of the Commission and the answer of the respondent, and is awaiting the taking of
testimony.
Complaint No. 90.--Federal Trade Commission v. Cluett, Peabody & Co (Inc.).
Cause: Stifling and suppressing competition in the manufacture, marketing, and sale
of men’s collars by fixing and maintaining resale prices, requiring its purchasers to
maintain such prices, and refusing to sell to those who refuse so to maintain such
prices in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status:
This proceeding is at issue on the complaint of the Commission and the answer of the
respondent, and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 91.--Federal Trade Commission v. Massachusetts Chocolate Co.
Cause: Stifling and suppressing competition in the manufacture, marketing, and sale
of candy by fixing resale prices and refusing to sell to those who will not agree to
maintain such specified standard resale prices in alleged violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act. Status: This proceeding is at issue on the complaint
of the Commission and the answer of the respondent , and negotiations are now in
progress with a view to agreeing on the facts and submitting the matter to the

Commission for final disposition.
Complaint No. 92.--Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Oil Co. of Now York.
Cause: Acquiring a large part of the stock of the Magnolia Petroleum Co., the effect
of which may be to substantially lessen competition between the two companies and
to restrain commerce in petroleum or tend to create a monopoly in that business in
alleged violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act. Status: This proceeding is at issue
on the complaint of the Commission and the answer of the respondent. Stipulation has
been made as to certain essential facts, and negotiations are now in progress in an
effort to agree on all facts and submit the matter to the Commission on an agreed
statement of facts for its final disposition.
Complaint No. 97 .--Federal Trade Commission v. S. M. Hexter & Co. Cause:
Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of cotton fabrics by offering its cotton
fabric to the public under the trade name of “Sol Satin,” which simulation is designed
and calculated to, and does, deceive the public and cause purchasers to believe that
respondents’ fabric is composed of silk, in alleged

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

51

violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: This proceeding
is awaiting the further taking of evidence by the Commission.
Complaint No. 123.--Federal Trade Commission v. American Can Co. Cause: Price
discrimination and price fixing on condition that the purchasers shall not use or deal
in the product of competitors, the effect of which is to substantially lessen competition
and to tend to create a monopoly in the tin can business in alleged violation of
sections 2 and 3 of the Clayton Act; stifling and suppressing competition in the
manufacture and sale of tin cans by attempting to induce customers to enter into long
term contracts, by giving certain customers more favorable terms than others in
reference to allowances for leaky cans, and storage privileges by rebating if prices are
lowered and by other discriminations in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission act. Status: This proceeding is at issue on the complaint of the
Commission and the answer of the respondent, and is awaiting the decision of the
Commission at to the date to be set for the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 126.--Federal Trade Commission v. Ironite Co., Master Builders Co.,
and United Products Co. Cause: Stifling and suppressing competition in connection
with the manufacture and sale of cement amid concrete hardener containing crushed
iron particles by entering Into an agreements by which a consent decree was obtained
with the intent and purpose of securing a patents monopoly, by threatening suits for
alleged infringement against those who refuse to enter into license agreements, by
misleading statements as to the extent and effect of the consent decree, by concealing
the true agreement by which the suit was settled, by misleading statements as to the
scope of their patent, by false and disparaging statements regarding competitors, and
by resale price fixing in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act. Status: This proceeding is at issue on the complaint of the
Commission and the answer of the respondent.
Complaint No. 127.--Federal Trade Commission v. Meccano (Ltd.) and The
Meccano Co. (Inc.). Cause: Unfair methods of competition in the sale of “Meccano”
mechanical toys by vague and indefinite threats, not made in good faith, to institute
legal proceedings against their competitors and their competitors’ customers for
alleged unfair and unlawful competition with the Meccano outfits and books of
instruction in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Status: This proceeding is at issue on the complaint of the Commission and the answer
of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 128.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Vaudeville Managers
Protective Association, The National Vaudeville Artists (Inc.), The United Booking
Office et al. Cause: Combining in restraints of trade and creating a monopoly of the
vaudeville theater, burlesque theater, and circus business by Insisting, except in
isolated cases, that performers be members of time National Vaudeville Artists (Inc.);
that they be not members of the White Rats Actors Union and Associated Actresses
of America, by circumventing the law relative to maximum fees to be paid by
performers to secure engagements, by controlling and domination the vaudeville
industry, by requiring actors to advertise in “Variety,” by publishing blacklists, etc.,
in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: All the
testimony has been taken in this proceeding and briefs are now being prepared by
attorneys for the Commission and respondents.
Complaint No. 130 .--Federal Trade Commission v. Gilbert & Barker Manufacturing

Co. Cause: Unfair methods of competition in the manufacture and sale of automatic
measuring oil pumps, tanks, etc., by falsely representing the product of certain of their
competitors to be unsatisfactory, defective, and that such would not operate and was
being sold at exorbitant prices, by inducing competitors’ customers to cancel orders,
and by holding itself out to be the agent of its competitors, quoting exorbitant prices,
in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act ; price discrimination, the effect of which may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to
create a monopoly, in alleged violation of section 2 of the Clayton Act. Status: This
proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the Commission and answer of the
respondent, and is awaiting the taking of testimony
Complaint No. 131.--Federal Trade Commission v. Atlantic Refining Co. Cause:
Unfair methods of competition in the sale of petroleum and in the sale of automatic
measuring oil pumps, tanks, etc., the product of the Gilbert & Barker Manufacturing
Co. (see Complaint No. 130), by falsely representing the product of certain of their
competitors to be unsatisfactory, defective, and that such would not

52

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

operate and was being sold at exorbitant prices, by inducing competitors’ customers
to cancel orders, selling and lending pumps, etc., without adequate consideration,
threatening to sell oil direct by retail unless dealers used the Gilbert & Barker product,
and by holding itself outs to be the agent of its competitors as well as of the Gilbert &
Barker Manufacturing Co., quoting exorbitant prices, in alleged violation of section
5 of the Federal Trade Commission act; price discrimination, the effect of which may
be to substantially competition or tend to create a monopoly, in alleged violation of
section 2 of the Clayton Act. Status: This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint
of the Commission and answer of the respondent, and a proposed agreed statement of
facts has been submitted to the respondent for its final approval.
Complaint No.132.--Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Oil Co. of Ohio. Cause:
Unfair methods of competition in the sale of petroleum and In the sale of automatic
measuring oil pumps, tanks, etc., the product of the Gilbert & Barker Manufacturing
Co. (see Complaint No 130), by falsely representing the product of certain of their
competitors to be unsatisfactory, defective, and that such would not operate and was
being sold at exorbitant prices, by inducing competitors’ customers to cancel orders,
selling and lending pumps, etc., without adequate consideration, threatening to sell oil
directs by retail unless dealers used the Gilbert & Barker product, and by holding itself
out to be the agent of its competitors as well as of the Gilbert & Barker Manufacturing
Co., quoting exorbitant prices, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act; price discrimination, the effect of which may be to substantially
lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly, in alleged violation of section 2 of
the Clayton Act. Status: This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the
Commission and answer of the respondent, and a proposed agreed statement of facts
has been submitted to the Commission for its final approval.
Complaint No. 133.--Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Oil Co. of Indiana.
Cause: Unfair methods of competition in the sale of petroleum and in the sale of
automatic measuring oil pumps, tanks, etc., the product of the Gilbert & Barker
Manufacturing Co. (see Complaints No. 130), by falsely representing the product of
certain of their competitors to be unsatisfactory, defective, and that such would nots
operate and was being sold at exorbitant prices, by inducing competitors’ customers
to cancel orders, selling and lending pumps, etc., without adequate consideration,
threatening to sell oil direct by retail unless dealers used the Gilberts & Barker
product, anti by holding itself omit to be the agent of its competitors as well as of the
Gilberts & Barker Manufacturing Co., quoting exorbitant prices in alleged violation
of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act; price discrimination, the effect of
which may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly, in
alleged violation of section 2 of the Clayton Act. Status: This proceeding is at issue
upon the complaint of the Commission and answer of the respondent, and a proposed
agreed statement of facts has been submitted to the Commission for its final approval.
Complaint No 134.--Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Oil Co. of New York.
Cause: Unfair methods of competition in the sale of petroleum and in the sale of
automatic measuring pumps, tanks, etc., the products of the Gilbert & Barker
Manufacturing Co. (see Complaint No. 130) by falsely representing the product of
certain of their competitors to be unsatisfactory, defective, and that such would not
operate and was being sold at exorbitant prices, by inducing competitors’ customers
to cancel orders, selling and lending pumps, etc., without adequate consideration,

threatening to sell oil direct by retail unless dealers used the Gilbert & Barker product,
and by holding itself outs to be the agent of its competitors as well as of the Gilbert &
Barker Manufacturing Co., quoting exorbitant prices, in alleged violation of section
5 of the Federal Trade Commission act; price discrimination, the effects of which may
be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in alleged violation
of section 2 of the Clayton Act. Status: This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint
of the Commission and answer of the respondent, and a proposed agreed statement of
facts has been submitted to the Commission for its final approval.
Complaint No. 135.--Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana.
Cause: Unfair methods of competition in the sale of petroleum and in the sale of
automatic measuring pumps, tanks, etc., the product of the Gilbert & Barker
Manufacturing Co. (see Complaint No. 130) by falsely representing the product of
certain of their competitors to be unsatisfactory, defective, and that

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

53

such would not operate and was being sold at exorbitant prices, by inducing
competitors’ customers to cancel orders, selling and lending pumps, etc., without
adequate consideration threatening to sell oil direct by retail unless dealers used the
Gilbert & Barker product and by holding itself out to be the agent of its competitors
as well as of the Gilbert & Barker Manufacturing Co., quoting exorbitant prices, in
alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act ; price
discrimination, the effect of which may be to substantially lessen competition or tend
to create a monopoly in alleged violation of section 2 of the Clayton Act. Status: This
proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the Commission and answer of the
respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 136.--Federal Trade Commission v. American Tank & Pump Co.
Cause: Unfair methods of competition in the manufacture and sale of automatic
measuring oil pumps, etc., by inducing and attempting to induce, by divers means and
methods, its customers and the customers of its competitors to cancel and rescind
orders and contracts for the purchase of the products of its competitors with the intent
and effect of stifling and suppressing competition in alleged violation of section 5 of
the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: This proceeding is at issue upon the
complaint of the Commission and answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking
of testimony.
Complaint No. 138.--Federal Trade Commission v. Tokheim Manufacturing Co.
Cause: Unfair methods of competition in the manufacture and sale of automatic
measuring oil pumps, etc., by inducing and attempting to induce, by divers means and
methods, its customers and the customers of its competitors to cancel and rescind
orders and contracts for the purchase of the products of its competitors with the intent
and effect of stifling and suppressing competition in alleged violation of section 5 of
the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: This proceeding is at issue upon the
complaint of the Commission and answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking
of testimony.
Complaint No. 139.--Federal Trade Commission v. Guarantee Liquid Measure Co.
Cause: Unfair methods of competition in the manufacture and sale of automatic
measuring oil pumps, etc., by inducing and attempting to induce, by divers means and
methods, its customers and the customers of its competitors, to cancel and rescind
orders and contracts for the purchase of the product of its competitors and by falsely
representing certain products of its competitors to be old style and to have been or to
be about to be condemned by public officials, with the intent and effect of stifling and
suppressing competition, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act. Status: This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the
Commission and answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 141.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Evans Dollar Pen Co.
Cause: Stifling and suppressing competition in the manufacture, marketing, and sale
of its fountain pens, as a means of securing the trade of dealers and with the purpose
of eliminating competition in the selling price of its fountain pens by fixing certain
specified standard resale prices and by refusing to sell to those who will not agree to
maintain such resale prices, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act. Status: This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the
Commission and answer of the respondent, and a proposed agreed statement of facts
has been submitted to the respondent for its final approval.

Complaint No. 144.--Federal Trade Commission v. Weyl-Zuckerman Co. Cause:
Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale and distribution of farm products and
foodstuffs by obtaining the use of freight cars by means of an preferential order
secured through statements made that such cars were to be employed in the
transportation of farm products, foodstuffs, and perishable commodities to be used by
the Government in persecution of the war, and then diverting certain of such cars to
its private muse, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Status: This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the Commission and answer
of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 145.--Federal Trade Commission v. Consolidated Rendering Co.,
New Haven Rendering Co., Atlantic Packing Co., and L.T. Frisbie Co. Cause: Stifling
and suppressing competition in the rendering business by purchasing and offering to
purchase in certain local areas raw materials necessary in the manufacture of their
products at and for prices unwarranted by trade conditions and so high as to be
prohibitive to small competitors in such areas, in alleged violation of section 5 of time
Federal Trade Commission act.

54

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Status: This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the Commission and answer
of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No.156.--Federal Trade Commission v. Purity Pre-serving Co. and R J.
McGuiar Co. Cause: The same interests are alleged to control and directs the two
companies: The Purity Preserving Co. between January and September, 1917, entered
into a large number of contracts for sale of tomato catsup; during September, October,
and November a sharp rise in price occurred in the catsup market; the company made
no effort to fill contracts; the McGuiar Co. took over the Purity Co. plants and during
November and December offered for sale, in open market, catsup manufactured in the
Purity plant by the employees of said company and under the direction and supervision
of the officers of the Purity Co. at prices higher than the prices at which the Purity Co.
Agreed to sell said catsup, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act. Status: This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the
Commission and answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 157 .--Federal Trade Commission v. Saenger Amusement Co. Cause:
Stifling and suppressing competition in the purchase and sale, leasing and exhibition
of moving-picture films by forcing exchanges to accept its terms on threat to cause
exhibitors to refuse to handle otherwise; causing contracts between exhibitors and
exchanges to be broken by divers means and methods, including prior exhibition of
films in neighboring theaters after “first exhibition” had been advertised by the other,
threatening withdrawal of patronage if exchanges continued to supply exchanges,
threatening curtailing supply unless exhibitors dealt with respondent, inducing
employees of competitors to leave their employment, all in alleged violation of section
5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: This proceeding is awaiting the final
introduction of testimony by respondent.
Complaint No.159 .--Federal Trade Commission v. The United Rendering Co., M.
L. Shoemaker & Co. (Inc.), the Berg Co., The D. B. Martin Co., Consolidated Dressed
Beef Co., Baugh & Sons Co., Winfield S. Alien, Nathan Berg, F. W. English,
Christopher Offenhauser. Cause: Stifling and suppressing competition in the business
of refining animal fats and the manufacture and sale of products therefrom by engaging
in a combination or conspiracy to purchase and offer to purchase raw materials in
certain local areas at prices unwarranted by trade conditions and prohibitive to small
competitors thus punishing the latter for refusing to enter into a working arrangement
to eliminate competitive bidding, and by interfering with competitors’ business by
causing their trucks to be followed for the purpose of spying on competitors’ business
and customers, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Status: This proceeding has been submitted to the Commission for final decision upon
the evidence submitted on behalf of the Commission and respondent and the briefs
filed.
Complaint No.163.--Federal Trade Commission v. Armour & Co. Cause: Stifling
and suppressing competition in the manufacture and sale of dairy products by
concerning its control of and affiliation with Beyer Bros. Co., a creamery company,
while directing the efforts and business of said company; discriminating in prices paid
for butter fat or cream; and by purchasing and offering to purchase butter fats or cream
in certain localities at prices unwarranted by trade conditions and so high as to be
prohibitive to small competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act. Status: This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the

Commission and answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 167.--Federal Trade Commission v. United Electric Co. Cause:
Stifling a and suppressing competition in the manufacture, marketing, selling, and
reselling of its vacuum cleaning machines by fixing standard resale prices and refusing
to sell to those who fail to maintain such prices. in alleged violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act; price fixing and establishing discounts or rebates on
condition that the purchaser shall not use or deal in the goods of competitors, the effect
of which is to substantially lessen competition or to tend to create a monopoly, in
alleged violation of section 3 of the Clayton Act. Status: This proceeding is at issue
upon the complaint of the Commission and answer of the respondent and is awaiting
the taking of testimony.
Complaint No.168 (June 29, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. The National
Wholesale Druggists Association et al. Cause: Wrongfully and unlawfully engaged
in a combination or conspiracy among themselves with the intent, purpose, and
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. 55
effect of discouraging, stifling and suppressing competition in the wholesale drug trade
and of unfairly hampering and obstructing certain of their competitors, by inducing or
compelling manufacturers to refuse to recognize competitors as jobbers and as entitled
to the benefits such competitors, as jobbers, would receive, by means of oral and
written notices, to manufacturers to the effect that certain competitors, not eligible to
membership in the association, were not entitled to recognition as jobbers, the
appointment of committees to confer with manufacturers to the end that they adopt
sales methods in harmony with the policies of the association, written and oral notices
by the secretary of the association to manufacturers to effect that competitors are
selling below the manufacturers’ established resale price or that such competitors are
persistent price cutters, the compilation and distribution among manufacturers and
wholesalers of lists of so-called legitimate jobbers. and by bringing influence to bear
on various local associations of drug jobbers and wholesalers to adopt policies in
harmony with the policies of the association, in alleged violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act. Status: This case is pending before the Commission
on motion by respondent to dismiss the proceeding.
Complaint No. 170.--Federal Trade Commission v. Kryptok Sales Co. Charge:
(Ante.) Status: Proceeding at issue under the complaint of Commission and answer
of the respondent, and the matter is now pending negotiations for an agreed statement
of facts.
Complaint No. 171.--Federal Trade Commission v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
Charge: (Ante.) Status: Proceeding at issue under the complaint of Commission and
answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 173.--Federal Trade Commission v. D. M. Ferry & Co. Charge:
(Ante.) Status: Proceeding at issue under the complaint of Commission and answer
of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 182.--Federal Trade Commission v. Hoover suction Sweeper Co.
Charge: (Ante.) Status: Proceeding at issue under the complaint of Commission and
answer of the respondent, and the matter is now pending negotiations for an agreed
statement of facts.
Complaint No. 183.--Federal Trade Commission v. Vortex Mfg. Co. Charge: (Ante.)
Status: Proceeding at issue under the complaint of Commission and answer of the
respondent, and the matter is now pending negotiations for an agreed statement of
facts.

Complaint No. 184.--Federal Trade Commission v. Enders Sales Co. (Inc.) Charge:
(Ante.) Status: Proceeding at issue under the complaint of Commission and answer
of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 189.--Federal Trade Commission v. H. L. Hildreth Co. Charge:
(Ante.) Status: Proceeding at issue under the complaint of Commission and answer
of the respondent, and the matter is now pending negotiations for an agreed statement
of facts.
Complaint No. 196.--Federal Trade Commission v. De Miracle Chemical Co.
Charge: (Ante.) Status: Proceeding at issue under the complaint of Commission and
answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 198.--Federal Trade Commission v. Closset & Devers. Charge:
(Ante.) Status: Proceeding at issue under the complaint of Commission and answer
of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 199.--Federal Trade Commission v. National Grocery Co. Charge:
(Ante.) Status: Proceeding at issue under the complaint of Commission and answer
of the respondent, and the matter is now pending negotiations for an agreed statement
of facts.
Complaint No. 200.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Rogers Co. Charge: (Ante.)
Status: Proceeding at issue under the complaint of Commission and answer of the
respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 201.--Federal Trade Commission v. Schwabacher Bros. Co. Charge:
(Ante.) Status: Proceeding at issue under the complaint of Commission and answer
of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 202.--Federal Trade Commission v. Seattle Grocery Co. Charge:
(Ante.) Status: Proceeding at issue under the complaint of Commission and answer
of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.

56

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Complaint No. 203.--Federal Trade Commission v. Washington Retail Grocers &
Merchants Association. Charge: (Ante.) Status: Preceding is at issue under the
complaint of the Commission and answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking
of testimony.
Complaint No. 204.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Commonwealth Color &
Chemical Co. et al. Charge: (Ante.) Status: This proceeding is pending before the
Commission on briefs on counsel and the examiner’s report awaiting final disposition
by the Commission.
Complaint No. 205.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Tobacco Products
Corporation et al. Charge: (Ante.) Status: Preceding is at issue under the complaint
of the Commission and answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of
testimony.
Complaint No. 206.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Marinello Co. of Wisconsin.
Charge: (Ante.) Status: Preceding is at issue under the complaint of the Commission
and answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 207.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Cleveland Marconi Co.
Charge: (Ante.) Status: Preceding is at issue under the complaint of the Commission
and answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 208.--Federal Trade Commission v. Royal Cinema Corporation et al.
Charge: (Ante.) Status: Proceeding is at issue under the complaint of Commission and
answer of the respondent, and matter is now pending negotiations for an agreed
statements of facts.
Complaint No. 210.--Federal Trade Commission v. Joseph Simmonds, doing
business under the trade name and style of W. H. Productions Co. Charge: (Ante.)
Status: The evidence on behalf of the Commission has been concluded and the
proceeding is awaiting the introduction of testimony by respondent.
Complaint No. 211.--Federal Trade Commission v. Henry Miller Foundry Co.
Charge: (Ante.) Status: The proceeding is at issue under the complaint of the
Commission and the answer of the respondent and is awaiting the disposition of
Docket No. 31.
Complaint No. 212.--Federal Trade Commission v. A.T. McClure et al. Charge:
(Ante.) Status: Evidence has been concluded on behalf of the Commission and the
respondent and the proceeding is awaiting the filing of briefs.
Complaint No. 213.--Federal Trade Commission v. American Thermos Bottle Co.
Charge: (Ante.) Status: Proceeding is at issue under the complaint of Commission and
answer of the respondent, and matter is now pending negotiations for an agreed
statements of facts.
Complaint No. 214.--Federal Trade Commission v. Winsted Hosiery Co. Charge:
(Ante.) Status: Preceding is at issue under the complaint of the Commission and
answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 215.--Federal Trade Commission v. Minerals Separation (Ltd.) et al.
Charge: (Ante.) Status: Preceding is at issue under the complaint of the Commission
and answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 216.--Federal Trade Commission v. Gregory Furniture Mfg. Co.
Charge: (Ante.) Status: Preceding is at issue under the complaint of the Commission
and answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 217.--Federal Trade Commission v. Klaxon Co. Charge: (Ante.)
Status: Preceding is at issue under the complaint of the Commission and answer of the

respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 218.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Proctor & Gamble Co. et.
al. Charge: (Ante.) Status: Preceding is at issue under the complaint of the
Commission and answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 221.--Federal Trade Commission v. Vapo-Cresolene Co. Charge:
(Ante.) Status: Proceeding is at issue under the complaint of Commission and answer
of the respondent, and matter is now pending negotiations for an agreed statements of
facts.
Complaint No. 224.--Federal Trade Commission v. National Bridge Co. et al.
Charge: (Ante.) Status: Preceding is at issue under the complaint of the Commission
and answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

57

Complaint No. 226.--Federal Trade Commission v. Kinney-Rome Co. Charge:
(Ante.) Status: Preceding is at issue under the complaint of the Commission and
answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 227.--Federal Trade Commission v. Helvetia Milk Condensing Co.
Charge: (Ante.) Status: Preceding is at issue under the complaint of the Commission
and answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 235.--Federal Trade Commission v. Brown Portable Conveying
Machinery Co. Charge: (Ante.) Status: Preceding is at issue under the complaint of
the Commission and answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 236.--Federal Trade Commission v. Carter Paint Co. Charge: (Ante.)
Status: Preceding is at issue under the complaint of the Commission and answer of the
respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 237.--Federal Trade Commission v. General Chemical Co. Charge:
(Ante.) Status: Proceeding is at issue under the complaint of Commission and answer
of the respondent, and matter is now pending negotiations for an agreed statements of
facts.
Complaint No. 239.--Federal Trade Commission v. Royal easy Chair Co. Charge:
(Ante.) Status: Preceding is at issue under the complaint of the Commission and
answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 240.--Federal Trade Commission v. Buffalo Specialty Co. Charge:
(Ante.) Status: Preceding is at issue under the complaint of the Commission and
answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 241.--Federal Trade Commission v. Malzo Coffee Co. Charge:
(Ante.) Status: Proceeding is at issue under the complaint of Commission and answer
of the respondent, and matter is now pending negotiations for an agreed statements of
facts.
Complaint No. 242.--Federal Trade Commission v. Niles Normalizing Machine Co.
(Inc.) Charge: (Ante.) Status: The evidence has been concluded and the proceeding
is awaiting the filing of briefs.
Complaint No. 245.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Harrison Specialty Co.
Charge: (Ante.) Status: Proceeding is at issue under the complaint of Commission and
answer of the respondent, and matter is now pending negotiations for an agreed
statements of facts.
Complaint No. 248.--Federal Trade Commission v. Aluminum Co. of America.
Charge: (Ante.) Status: Preceding is at issue under the complaint of the Commission
and answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 249.--Federal Trade Commission v. Corcoran Mfg. Co. Charge:
(Ante.) Status: Preceding is at issue under the complaint of the Commission and
answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 250.--Federal Trade Commission v. Borden’s Farm Products Co.
(Inc.) Charge: (Ante.) Status: Preceding is at issue under the complaint of the
Commission and answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 251.--Federal Trade Commission v. American Sheet & Tin Plate Co.
Charge: (Ante.) Status: Preceding is at issue under the complaint of the Commission
and answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 252.--Federal Trade Commission v. Mercury Tire Co. (Inc.). Charge:
(Ante.) Status: Preceding is at issue under the complaint of the Commission and
answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.

Complaint No. 253.--Federal Trade Commission v. William H. Batcheller et al.
Charge: (Ante.) Status: Preceding is at issue under the complaint of the Commission
and answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 254.--Federal Trade Commission v. Western Sugar Refining Co. et
al. Charge: (Ante.) Status: Preceding is at issue under the complaint of the
Commission and answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.

58

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Complaint No. 255.--Federal Trade Commission v. Rudd Mfg Co. at al charge:
(Ante.) Status: Proceeding is at issue under the complaint of the Commission and
answer of the respondent, and the matter is now pending negations for an agreed
statements of facts.
Complaint No. 256.--Federal Trade Commission v. Universal Battery Service Co.
Charge: ( Ante.) Status Proceeding is at issue under the complaint of the Commission
and answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 257--Federal Trade Commission v. Twin City Binders’ Roller Co.
Charge: (Ante.) Status: Proceeding is at issue under the complaint of the Commission
and answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 258--Federal Trade Commission v. McKnight Keaton Grocery Co.
Et al. Charge: (Ante.) Status: Proceeding is at issue under the complaint of the
Commission and answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 259--Federal Trade Commission v. Oldburg Electro Chemical Co. Et
al. Charge: (Ante.) Status: Proceeding is at issue under the complaint of the
Commission and answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 264--Federal Trade Commission v. Engineering Supply Co. Charge:
(Ante.) Status: Proceeding is at issue under the complaint of the Commission and
answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 265--Federal Trade Commission v. Butterick Co. Et al. Charge:
(Ante.) Status: Proceeding is at issue under the complaint of the Commission and
answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 266--Federal Trade Commission v. Pictorial Review Co. Charge:
(Ante.) Status: Proceeding is at issue under the complaint of the Commission and
answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 268--Federal Trade Commission v. The Aeolan Co. Charge: (Ante.)
Status: Proceeding is at issue under the complaint of the Commission and answer of
the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 269--Federal Trade Commission v. American Graphophone Co.
Charge: (Ante.) Status: Proceeding is at issue under the complaint of the Commission
and answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 271--Federal Trade Commission v. Fruit Growers’ Express. Charge:
(Ante.) Status: the matter is pending before the Commission on motion by respondent
to dismiss the proceedings.
Complaint No. 272--Federal Trade Commission v. William Walke & Co. Charge:
(Ante.) Status: Proceeding is at issue under the complaint of the Commission and
answer of the respondent and is awaiting the taking of testimony.
Complaint No. 273--Federal Trade Commission v. Pan Motor Co. And Samuel C.
Pandolfo. Charge: (Ante.) Status: Answer to the Commission’s complaint in this
proceeding is not yet due.
Complaint No. 274--Federal Trade Commission v. Nestles Food Co. Charge: (Ante.)
Status: Answer to the Commission complaint in this proceeding is not yet due.
Complaint No. 275--Federal Trade Commission v. Mutual Candy Co. (Inc.) Charge:
(Ante.) Status: Answer to the Commission complaint in this proceeding is not yet due.
Complaint No. 276--Federal Trade Commission v. Jacob Lanski. Charge: (Ante.)
Status: Answer to the Commission complaint in this proceeding is not yet due.
Complaint No. 277--Federal Trade Commission v. Boston Piano & Music Co.
Charge: (Ante.) Status: Answer to the Commission complaint in this proceeding is not

yet due.
Complaint No. 278--Federal Trade Commission v. Tokheim Oil Tank & Pump Co.
Charge: (Ante.) Status: Answer to the Commission complaint in this proceeding is not
yet due.
Complaint No. 279-- Federal Trade Commission v. Chamberlin Cartridge & Target
Co. Charge: (Ante.) Status: Answer to the Commission complaint in this proceeding
is not yet due.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

59

Complaint No. 280.--Federal Trade Commission v. Prestolite Co. (Inc.) Charge:
(Ante.) Status: Answer to the Commission’s complaint in this proceeding is not yet
due.
Complaint No. 281.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Sweater Shop. Charge:
(Ante.) Status: Answer to the Commission’s complaint in this proceeding is not yet
due.
PROCEEDINGS DISPOSED OF.
Complaint No. 11 (May 31, 1917).--Federal Trade Commission v. Botsford Lumber
Co. Et al. Charge: Engaging in a conspiracy and combination to suppress competition
in the lumber and building material trade with the purpose of driving mail-order houses
out of retail lumber business and forcing consumers to purchase supplies of lumber
from local dealers, and carried out by procuring manufactures to discontinue
furnishing materials to competitors, by surreptitiously obtaining trade secrets, spying
upon the business of competitors, submitting to them bogus and suppress request for
estimates, quotations, and other printed matter relating to the issue of lumber, in
alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition: After
hearing an order was entered dismissing the complaint against certain of the
respondents to cease and desist front the course of action complained of.
Complaint No. 12 (June 4, 1917).--Federal Trade Commission v. Warren, Jones &
Gratz et al. Charges: Discouraging and stifling competition in the sale of jute bagging
by refusing to sell steel ties for binding bales of cotton separate and apart from jute
bagging in corresponding quantities, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission act; making contracts respondents, in alleged violation of section
3 of the Clayton Act. Disposition: After hearing an order was entered requiring
respondents to cease and desist from using the practice complained of under section
5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 16 (Aug. 1, 1917).--Federal Trade Commission v. The whole -sale
Saddlery Association of the United States and the National Harness Manufacturing
Association of the United States. Charge: Engaging in a combination and conspiracy
to discourage and suppress competition in the wholesale harness and saddlery
accessories to refuse to recognize such competitors as legitimate jobbers or
wholesalers entitled to jobbers and wholesalers’ trade discounts and terms, in alleged
violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition: After hearing
an order was entered requiring respondents to cease and desist from the course of
action complained of.
Complaint No. 20 . (Nov. 15, 1917).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Cudahy
Packing Co. Charges: Price discrimination in the sale of “Old Dutch Cleanser” in
alleged violation of section 2 of the Clayton Act. Using the following unfair methods
of competition : Fixing a schedule of resale prices for “Old Dutch Cleaner” and
enforcing maintenance thereof by means of agreements with jobbers and wholesalers,
and threats to discontinue selling its products to jobbers and wholesalers failing to
maintain the resale prices thereof; by selling at lower prices to jobbers and
wholesalers failing to maintain the resale prices; by procuring jobbers and wholesalers
to refrain from selling its product to other jobbers and wholesalers failing to maintain
the resale price thereof; and by diverting retail orders for “Old Dutch Cleaner” from
wholesalers and jobbers failing to maintain the resale price thereof, in alleged violation

of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition: Upon an agreed
statement of facts, an order was entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from
using the practices complained of.
Complaint No. 21 (Nov. 21, 1917).--Federal Trade Commission v. Ward Baking Co.
Charge: Using an unfair method of competition in the sale of bread by supplying gratis
to customers in certain localities, with each purchase, by such customers, in alleged
violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition: After hearing
an order was entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice
complained of.

60

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Complaint No. 22 (Nov. 27. 1917).--Federal Trade Commission v. Chicago Flexible
Shaft Co. Charge: Attempting to lessen competition and create a monopoly by selling
and contracting to sell sheep-shearing and horse -clipping machines subject to
agreements on the part of purchasers not to use or deal in similar products
manufactured by competitors of respondent in alleged violation of section 3 of the
Clayton Act. Disposition: After hearing an order was entered requiring respondent to
cease and desist from following the practices complained of.
Complaint No. 29 (Dec. 18, 1917).--Federal Trade Commission v. Nulomoline Co.
Charge: Using an unfair method of competition in the sale of inverted sugar sirup, viz,
claiming ownership of the exclusive right to employ said process of manufacture, said
exclusive right being founded upon a patent issued on the basis of false representations
made by respondent; threatening to sue dealers handling sugar manufactured by
competitors of respondent by means of the inverted process; and publishing false and
misleading advertising, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act. Disposition: After hearing, an order was entered requiring respondent
to cease and desist from following the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 32 (Jan. 29 1918.)--Federal Trade Commission v. Untied Drug Co.
Charge: Using an unfair method of competition in the sale of proprietary and patent
medicines, tobacco, candy, and other merchandise, namely, selling and offering for
sale at retail such articles at cost or less than cost, in alleged violation of section 5 of
the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition: Upon the respondent’s answer, an
order was entered dismissing the complaint, on the ground that the public interest was
not involved in the proceeding.
Complaint No.41 (Feb. 19, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Rockford Varnish
Co. Charge: Using an unfair method of competition in the sale of varnish and kindred
products, consisting in giving gratuities of different kinds, including sums of money,
to the employees of customers of competitors, as an inducement to influence their
employers to purchase respondent ‘s products and to refrain from purchasing those of
respondent’s competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act. Disposition: After hearing an order was entered requiring respondent
to cease and desist from using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 53 (Feb. 19, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. McCloskey
Varnish Co. Charge: Using an unfair method of competition in the sale of varnish and
kindred products, consisting in giving gratuities of different kinds, including sums of
money, to the employees of customers and prospective customers and the customers
and perspective customers of competitors, as an inducement to influence their
employers to purchase respondent’s products and to refrain from purchasing those of
respondent competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act. Disposition: An order was entered requiring to cease and desist from
using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 89, (Feb. 25, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. American
Agricultural Chemical Co. And The Brown Co. Charges: Using unfair methods of
competition in the purchase of raw materials employed in the manufacture of fertilizer
and refined animal fat products, namely, purchasing and offering to purchase such
materials in certain local areas at prices unwarranted by trade conditions and
prohibitive to certain local small competitors for the purpose of punishing such
competitors because they had declined to enter into an agreement with respondents to

eliminate competitive bidding for such raw materials; interfering with the business of
certain competitors by causing collisions between vehicles owned by respondent and
vehicles used by such competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission act, acquiring all of the stock of a competing corporation, in
alleged violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act. Disposition: Upon an agreed
statement of facts, an order was entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from
doing the acts complained of.
Complaint No. 93, (Apr. 15, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Atlantic Ice &
Coal Corporation. Charges: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of coal
and ice by entering into agreements with competitors to eliminate competition by
partitioning territory; and obtaining business secrets

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. 61
of competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act;
discriminating in price in the sale of coal and ice, in violation of section 2 of the
Clayton Act; acquisition of stock of competing corporations, in alleged violation of
section 7 of the Clayton Act. Disposition: Dismissed by order of the Commission, on
the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support the allegations of the
complaint.
Complaint No. 96 (Apr. 15, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Ringwalt
Linoleum Works (Inc.). Charge: Using an unfair method of competition in the sale of
floor covering by representing to the public as linoleum a certain product composed
of felt base impregnated with asphaltum and painted to represent linoleum, with the
effect of deceiving customers and members of the public into believing such product
to be linoleum, in alleged violation of the public into believing such product of
linoleum, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Disposition: After hearing an order was entered requiring respondent to cease and
desist from using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 99 (Apr. 19, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. C.F. Bonsor & Co.
(Inc.). Charge: Using an unfair method of competition in the sale of coffee and tea,
namely, offering as inducements to purchase respondents’s products certain coupons
redeemable in prizes and premiums, distributed according to lot, in alleged violation
of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition: Upon the answer of
respondent admitting the allegations of the complaint, an order was entered requiring
respondent to cease and desist from using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 103 (Apr. 19, 1918) .--Federal Trade Commission v. J. S. Elliott
Coffee Co. Using an unfair method of competition in the sale of coffee, namely,
offering as inducements to purchase respondent’s products certain coupons redeemable
in prizes and premiums, distributed according to lot, in alleged violation of section 5
of the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition: Upon respondent’s answer
admitting the allegations of the complaint, an order was entered requiring respondent
to cease and desist from using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 104 (Apr. 19, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Enterprise Coffee
Co. Using an unfair method of competition in the sale of coffee, namely, offering as
inducements to purchase respondent’s products certain coupons redeemable in prizes
and premiums, distributed according to lot, in alleged violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition: Upon respondent’s answer admitting the
allegations of the complaint, an order was entered requiring respondent to cease and
desist from using the practice complained of.
Complaint No.106 (Apr.19, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. B L. Gerhart &
Co. Using an unfair method of competition in the sale of coffee, namely, offering as
inducements to purchase respondent’s products certain coupons redeemable in prizes
and premiums, distributed according to lot, in alleged violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition: Upon respondent’s answer admitting the
allegations of the complaint, an order was entered requiring respondent to cease and
desist from using the practice complained of.
Complaint No.107 (Apr.19, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Grocers
Coffee Co. Charge: Using an unfair method of competition in the sale of coffee,
namely, offering as inducements to purchase respondent’s products certain coupons
redeemable in prizes and premiums, distributed according to lot, in alleged violation
of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition: Upon respondent’s

answer admitting the allegations of the complaint, an order was entered requiring
respondent to cease and desist from using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 111 (Apr. 19, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. G. D. Kenny Co.
Charge: Using an unfair methods of competition in the sale of roasting coffee and tea,
namely, offering as inducements to purchase respondent’s prod-

62

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

ucts certain coupons redeemable in prizes and premiums distributed according to lot,
in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition:
Upon respondent’s answer admitting the allegations of the complaint, an order was
entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice complained
of.
Complaint No. 121 (Apr. 30, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. E. J. Brach &
Sons. Charge: Using an unfair method of competition in the sale at cost of less than
cost, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Disposition: Upon respondent’s answer admitting the allegations of the complaint, an
order was entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice
complained of.
Complaint No. 122 (Apr. 30, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. George Muench.
Charge: Using an unfair method of competition in the sale of machinery, consisting in
giving gratuities of different kinds, including sums of money, to the employees of
customers and prospective customers and the customers and prospective customers of
competitors as an inducement to influence their employers to purchase respondent’s
competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Disposition: After hearing, an order was entered requiring respondent to cease and
desist from using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 129 (May 13, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Wayne Oil Tank
& Pump Co. Charge: Using the following unfair methods of competition in the sale
of automatic-measuring oil pumps: Inducing persons to cancel orders for pumps
manufactured by respondent’s competitors, enticing employees of competitors, making
false representations regarding its own products and alleged violation of section 5 of
the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition: Upon an agreed statement of facts an
order was entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice
complained of.
Complaint No.137. (May 13, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Milwaukee Tank
Co. Charge: Using an unfair method of competition in the sale of automatic-measuring
oil pumps by inducing persons to cancel orders for pumps manufactured by
competitors of respondent, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act. Disposition: Upon an agreed statement of facts an order was entered
requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice complained.
Complaint No. 140 (May 15, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Stanley Booking
Corporation. Charge: Using the following unfair methods of competition in selling
and leasing moving-picture films: Procuring the breach of contracts between movingpictures houses and competitors of respondent; causing the exhibition of films in
theaters in close proximity to those of competitors, prior to exhibition of such films by
competitors and subsequent to the advertisement that such films would be exhibited
by competitors; intimidating and threatening owners and operators of moving-picture
theaters and causing them thereby to pay respondent a sum equal to 10 per cent of the
cost of all moving-picture films booked directly from the producers thereof;
compelling owners and operators of moving-picture theaters to book films through
respondent by threatening to cut off their supply of films; inducing producers of
moving- picture films and exchanges handling films to cease suppling films to certain
competitors of respondent, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act; leasing and selling moving-picture films subject to the condition that
the lessee of purchaser refrain from exhibiting films produced by or procured from

competitors of respondent, in alleged violation of section 3 of the Clayton Act.
Disposition: After hearing, an order was entered requiring respondent to cease and
desist from using the practices complained of.
Complaint No. 142 (May 17, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Wilson & Co.
Charge: Using an unfair method of competition, namely, selling meats to the United
States with the knowledge tat said meats were spoiled and unfit for human
consumption, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Disposition: After hearing, the proceeding was dismissed by order of the Commission
on the ground that the proof was insufficient to support the allegations of the
complaint.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

63

Complaint No 143 ( (May 17, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Morris & Co.
Charge: Using an unfair method of competition; namely, selling meats to the United
States with the knowledge that said meats were spoiled and unfit for human
consumption, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Disposition: After hearing, the proceeding was dismissed by order of the Commission
on the ground that the acts complained of had been discontinued and that there was no
likelihood of a recurrence thereof.
Complaint No.146 (June 6, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Acme White
Lead & Color Works. Charge: Using an unfair method of competition in connection
with the sale of paint and kindred products, consisting in giving gratuities of different
kinds, including sums of money, to the employees of of customers and prospective
customers and the customers and prospective customers of competitors as an
inducement to influence their employees to purchase respondent’s products and to
refrain from purchasing those of respondent’s competitors, in alleged violation of
section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition: Upon respondent’s
answer admitting the allegations of the complaint an order was entered requiring
respondent to cease and desist from using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 148 (June 6, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Chicago Varnish
Co. Charge: Using an unfair method of competition in connection with the sale of
paint and kindred products, consisting in giving gratuities of different kinds, including
sums of money, to the employees of customers and prospective customers and the
customers and prospective customers of competition as an inducement to influence
their employers to purchase respondent’s products and to refrain from purchasing
those of respondent’s competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission act. Disposition: Upon respondent’s answer admitting the
allegations of the complaint an order was entered requiring respondent to cease and
desist from using the practice complained of.
Complaint No.151 (June 6, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. G. J. Liebich Co.
Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in connection with the sale of paint and
kindred products, consisting in giving gratuities of different kinds, including sums of
money, to the employers of customers and prospective customers and the customers
and prospective customers of competition as an inducement to influence their
employers to purchase respondent’s products and to refrain from purchasing those of
respondent’s competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act. Disposition: Upon respondent’s answer admitting the allegations of
the complaint an order was entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using
the practice complained of.
Complaint No.152 (June 6, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Royal Varnish
Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in connection with the sale of paint
and kindred products, consisting in giving gratuities of different kinds, including sums
of money, to the employers of customers and prospective customers and the customers
and prospective customers of competition as an inducement to influence their
employers to purchase respondent’s products and to refrain from purchasing those of
respondent’s competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act. Disposition: Upon respondent’s answer admitting the allegations of
the complaint an order was entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using
the practice complained of.
Complaint No.153 (June 6, 1918.)--Federal Trade Commission v. Twin City Varnish

Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in connection with the sale of
varnish and kindred products, consisting in giving gratuities of different kinds,
including sums of money, to the employers of customers and prospective customers
and the customers and prospective customers of competition as an inducement to
influence their employers to purchase respondent’s products and to refrain from
purchasing those of respondent’s competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition: Upon respondent’s answer admitting the
allegations of the complaint an order was entered requiring respondent to cease and
desist from using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 154 (June 6, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Wheeler
Varnish Works. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in connection with the
sale of paint and kindred products, consisting in giving gratuities of different kinds,
including sums of money, to the employers of customers and prospective customers
and the customers and prospective cus-

64

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

tomers of competition as an inducement to influence their employers to purchase
respondent’s products and to refrain from purchasing those of respondent’s
competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Disposition: Upon respondent’s answer admitting the allegations of the complaint an
order was entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice
complained of.
Complaint No.155 (June 6, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Eli Lilly & Co.
Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of drugs, namely, fixing a
schedule of prices to govern the resale of its products by wholesalers and jobbers and
refusing to sell to customers failing to maintain the resale of respondent, in alleged
violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act; discrimination in price in
the sale of drugs, in violation of section 2 of the Clayton Act; selling and contracting
to sell drugs subject to the condition that the purchaser refrain from dealing in similar
products manufactures by respondent’s competitors, in alleged violation of section 3
of the Clayton Act. Disposition: Upon an agreed statement of facts an order was
entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practices complained
of.
Complaint No. 158 (June 6, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Clayton F,.
Summy Co. Charge: Using an unfair method of competition in the sale of sheet music,
by fixing a schedule of prices to govern the resale of its sheet music by wholesalers
and jobbers and refusing to sell to customers failing to maintain the resale prices fixed
by respondent, in alleged violation of the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition:
Upon an agreed statement of facts an order was entered requiring respondent to cease
and desist from using the practices complained of.
Complaint No.160 (June 10, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Time Victor
Electric Corporation. Charges: Using the following unfair methods of competition in
the sale of X-ray machines; making false and misleading statements with respect to Xray machines manufactures by competitors of respondent, recommending to customers
of competitors of respondent, making false and misleading statements regarding the
financial responsibility of competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission act; acquisition of stock in competing corporations, in alleged
violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act. Disposition: Dismissed by order of the
Commission.
Complaint No. 161 (June 28, 1918). --Federal Trade Commission v. Dearborn
Chemical Co. Charge: Using an unfair method of competition in the sale of
locomotive boiler compounds, consisting in giving gratuities of different kinds,
including sums of money, to the employees of customers and prospective customers
of competitors as an inducement to influence their employers to purchase respondent’s
product and refrain from purchasing those of respondent’s competitors, in alleged
violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition: Upon the
answer of respondent admitting the allegations of the complaint, an order was entered
requiring it to cease and desist from using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 162 ( June 28, 1918). -- Federal Trade Commission v. Henry O.
Shepard Co. Charge: Using an unfair method of competition in the sale of railway
tariffs and schedules, consisting in giving gratuities of different kinds, including sums
of money, to the employees of customers and prospective customers of competitors as
an inducement to influence their employers to purchase respondent’s products and to
refrain from purchasing those of respondent’s competitors, in alleged violation of

section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition: Upon the answer of
respondent admitting the allegations of the complaint, an order was entered requiring
it to cease and desist from using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 165 (June 29, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Esterbrook
Steel Pen Mfg. Co. Charge: Using the following unfair methods of competition: Fixing
resale prices for steel pens manufactured by respondent, and maintaining such prices,
by refusing to sell to dealers and jobbers failing to maintain such resale prices, and
selling at lower prices to jobbers and retailers maintaining such prices, in alleged
violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition: Dismissed
by order of the Commission on the ground that the allegations of the complaint were
not supported.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. 65
Complaint No. 166 (June 29, 1918).-- Federal Trade Commission v. E.E. Gray Co.
Charge: Using the following unfair method of competition: Selling and offering for
sale Santos and Columbia coffees under the trade brand or label “M & J” coffee,
whereby purchasers and the general public were deceived and misled into believing
that such coffee was Mocha and Java coffee, in alleged violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition: Upon the answer of respondent admitting
the allegations of the complaint, an order was entered requiring it to cease and desist
from using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 169 (July 9, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Twin City Varnish
Co. Of Illinois. Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: Upon the answer of respondent
admitting the allegations of the complaint, an order was entered requiring it to cease
and desist from using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 172 (July 16, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Auto Strop Safety
Razor Co. Charges: (Ante.) Disposition: Upon an agreed statement of facts an order
was entered requiring the respondent to cease and desist from using the practices
complained of.
Complaint No. 174 (July 16, 1918)--Federal Trade Commission v. Geographical
Publishing Co., of Chicago. Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: Upon the answer of
respondent admitting the allegations of the complaint, an order was entered requiring
it to cease and desist from using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 175 (July 16, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Blakley Printing
Co. Et al. Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: Upon the pleadings, an order was entered
dismissing the complaint as to certain of the respondents and requiring certain others
of the respondents to cease and desist from the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 176 (July 22, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. John F. Buckie
& Son. Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: Upon the answer of respondent admitting the
allegations of the complaint, an order was entered requiring it to cease and desist from
using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 177 (July 22, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Samuel
Bingham’s Son Mfg. Co. Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: Upon the answer of
respondent admitting the allegations of the complaint, an order was entered requiring
it to cease and desist from using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 178 (July 22, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Bingham
Brothers Co. Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: Upon the pleadings, an order was entered
dismissing the proceeding as to certain of the respondents and ordering other
respondents to cease and desist from the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 179 (July 22, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Bird Archer Co.
Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: Upon an agreed statement of facts, an order was entered
directing respondent to cease and desist from the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 180 (July 22, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Kansas City
Printing Ink Co. Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: Upon the answer of respondent
admitting the allegations of the complaint, an order was entered requiring it to cease
and desist from using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 181 (July 22, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Miller Cooper
Ink Co. Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: Upon the answer of respondent admitting the
allegations of the complaint, an order was entered requiring it to cease and desist from
using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 185 (Aug. 3, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Printers

Roller Co. Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: Upon the answer of respondent admitting the
allegations of the complaint, an order was entered requiring it to cease and desist from
using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 186 (Aug. 3, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. D.H. Donegan,
doing business under the name and style of American Printing Roller Ink Co. Charge:
(Ante.) Disposition: Upon the answer of respondent admitting the allegations of the
complaint, an order was entered requiring it to cease and desist from using the practice
complained of.
Complaint No. 187 (Aug. 3, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. William C. Hart,
doing business under the name and style of Hart & Zugelder. Charge: (Ante.)
Disposition: Upon the answer of respondent admitting the allegations of the complaint,
an order was entered requiring it to cease and desist from using the practice
complained of.
Complaint No. 188 (Aug. 3, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Harry C.
Goodman. Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: Upon the answer of respondent ad
147300 ---20-----5

66

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

mitting the allegations of the complaint, an order was entered requiring it to cease and
desist from using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 190 (Sept. 25, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Gartside Iron
Rust Soap Co. Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: After hearing, an order was entered
requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 191 (Sept. 25, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Bert Symonds,
Genevieve Symonds, and Irving Symonds, copartners, doing business under the firm
name and style of Auto Surplus Stock Co. Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: Upon and
agreed statement of facts an order was entered requiring respondent to cease and desist
from using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 192 (Sept. 25, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Silvex Co.
Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: Upon an agreed statement of facts an order was entered
requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 193 (Sept. 25, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Consolidated Oil
Co. Et al. Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: Upon an agreed statement of facts an order
was entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice
complained of.
Complaint No. 194 (Oct. 8, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. C.W. Baker &
Sons. Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: Upon an agreed statement of facts an order was
entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice complained
of.
Complaint No. 195 (Oct. 8, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. J.H. Paterson Co.
Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: Upon an agreed statement of facts an order was entered
requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 197 (Oct. 15, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Baltimore HubWheel & Mfg. Co. Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: Upon an agreed statement of facts
an order was entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice
complained of.
Complaint No. 209 (Oct. 30, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. St. Lawrence
Lumber Co. Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: Upon an agreed statement of facts an order
was entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice
complained of.
Complaint No. 220 (Nov. 25, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Gordon Van
Tine Co. Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: Upon an agreed statement of facts an order was
entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice complained
of.
Complaint No. 223 (Dec. 2, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Allen Sales
Service (Inc.), C. Louis Allen, and William H. Yetman. Charge: (Ante.) Disposition:
Upon an agreed statement of facts an order was entered dismissing the complaint as
to Allen Sales Service (Inc.), C. Louis Allen, and requiring respondent William H.
Yetman to cease and desist from using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 225 (Dec. 14, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. M.L.P. Packing
& Supply Co. Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: After hearing, an order was entered
requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 229 (Dec. 14, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Consolidated
Packing & Supply Co. Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: Upon the answer of respondent
admitting the allegations of the complaint, an order was entered requiring it to cease
and desist from using the practice complained of.

Complaint No. 230 (Dec. 14, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. North American
Linseed Products Co. Charge: Using an unfair method of competition, namely,
circulating advertisements and making representations to the effect that its product was
linseed oil, whereas, in fact, it was adulterated, in alleged violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition: Dismissed by order of the Commission
on the ground that respondent had dissolved its corporate existence.
Complaint No. 231 (Dec. 31, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Farmers’
Cooperative Fertilizer Co. Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: Upon stipulation, an order
was entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice
complained of.
Complaint No. 232 (Jan. 6, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Wall Rope Works
(Inc.). Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: After hearing, an order was

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

67

entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice complained
of.
Complaint No. 233 (Jan. 6, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. The New Jersey
Asbestos Co. Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: After hearing an order was entered
requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 234 (Jan. 6, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Stewart Dickson
& Co. Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: Upon the answer of respondent admitting the
allegations of the complaint, an order was entered requiring it to cease and desist from
using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 238 (Jan. 11, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Hoover
Suction Sweeper Co. Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: Upon an agreed statement of facts,
an order was entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice
complained of.
Complaint No. 243 (Jan 23, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. E.J. Janes, S.A.
Paul, and Ironclad Tire Co. (Inc.) Et al. Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: Upon an agreed
statement of facts, an order was entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from
using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 244 (Jan. 15, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Berry Brothers
(Inc.) Et al. Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: After hearing, and upon an agreed statement
of facts, an order was entered dismissing the complaint as to William H. Kennedy and
requiring respondents, Berry Brothers (Inc.) And Evart W. Hinckley, to cease and
desist from using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 246 (Feb. 6. 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. W.P. Wilkin Co.
Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: Upon the answer of respondent admitting the allegations
of the complaint, an order was entered requiring it to cease and desist from using the
practice complained of.
Complaint No. 247 (Feb. 6, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. American Chicle
Co. Charge: Using an unfair method of competition, viz, instituting suits in bad faith
against jobbers dealing in certain products manufactured by competitors of respondent,
for the purpose of intimidating persons dealing with such competitors, in alleged
violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.. Disposition: Dismissed
by order of the Commission.
Complaint No. 260 (Mar. 17, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. C.R. Fenton and
F.P. Fenton, copartners, styling themselves as Standard Soap Manufacturing Co.
Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: Upon the answer of respondent admitting the allegations
of the complaint, an order was entered requiring it to cease and desist from using the
practice complained of.
Complaint No. 261 (Mar. 19, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Rome Soap Mfg.
Co. Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: Upon an agreed statement of facts an order was
entered requiring it to cease and desist from using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 262 (Mar. 19, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. F. Kennedy Mfg.
Co. Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: Upon the answer of respondent admitting the
allegations of the complaint, an order was entered requiring it to cease and desist from
using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 263 (Mar. 18, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Edward L. Swan
and Harmanus Swan, doing business under the name and style of William H. Swan &
Sons. Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: Upon the answer of respondent admitting the
allegations of the complaint, an order was entered requiring it to cease and desist from

using the practice complained of.
Complaint No. 267 (Mar. 26, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Chicago
Millwork Supply Co. Charge: (Ante.) Disposition: Upon an agreed statement of facts
an order was entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice
complained of.
Complaint No. 270 (Apr. 15, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. C.L. Chase,
trading under the name and style of Chase Shoe Co. Charge: (Ante.) Disposition:
Upon an agreed statement of facts an order was entered requiring respondent to cease
and desist from using the practice complained of.
PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED SINCE JULY 1, 1917.
Complaint No. 169 (July 9, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Twin City Varnish
Co., of Illinois. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in connection with the
sale of varnish and kindred products, viz, giving money to employees of customers,
prospective customers, and customers and prospective customers of competitors as an
inducement to influence their em-

68

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

ployers to purchase the products of respondent and to refrain from purchasing from
competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 170 (July 16, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Kryptok Sales
Co. Charge: Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of “Kryptok” spectacle
lenses by fixing and maintaining resale prices, requiring dealers to maintain such
resale prices, and refusing to sell to those who will not maintain such resale prices, in
alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 171 (July 16, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Co. Charges: Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of
automobile tires by fixing and maintaining resale prices, requiring dealers to maintain
such resale prices, and refusing to sell to those who will not maintain such resale
prices; falsely advertising that it furnishes certain unique services which are such as
are ordinarily furnished by retail dealers; compelling dealers to carry excessive stocks;
refusing to allow dealers to make adjustments on unsatisfactory tires; requiring dealers
who also handle automobiles to specify Goodyear tires on all automobiles, motor
trucks, and motor cycles ordered by them: requiring dealers to permit respondent to
make inventories of all tires handled by such dealers; compelling dealers to refrain
from selling competitor’s tires as substitutes for respondents when such dealer is
unable to furnish the particular size of respondent’s tire requested; selling tire-applying
machinery to dealers, but restricting the use of it to respondent’s tires; selling
consumers direct at the same price as dealers when such consumers will agree to use
respondent’s tires exclusively, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act; selling its products on the condition, agreement, or understanding
that the purchasers shall not use or deal in the goods of a competitor, the effect of
which is to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly, in alleged
violation of section 3 of the Clayton Act.
Complaint No. 172 (July 16, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Auto Strop Safety
Razor Co. Charges: Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of safety razors
and blades by fixing and maintaining resale prices, requiring dealers to maintain such
resale prices, and refusing to sell to those who will not maintain such resale prices in
alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act; discriminating in
prices between different purchasers of its products, the effect of which may be to
substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly, in alleged violation of
section 2 of the Clayton Act.
Complaint No. 173 (July 16, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. D.M. Ferry & Co.
Charge: Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of garden and flower seeds
by fixing and maintaining resale prices, requiring dealers to maintain such resale
prices, and refusing to sell to those who will not maintain such resale prices, in alleged
violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 174 (July 16, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Geographical
Publishing Co. Of Chicago. Charge: Copying and publishing a war map published by
a competitor, labeling it “Liberty War Map” in simulation of competitor’s “Liberty
May,” and appropriating and using competitor’s advertising matter; false and
misleading advertising, to the effect that respondent’s map is identical with that of
competitor, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 175 (July 18, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Blakely Printing
Co. and 16 other respondents. Charge: Combination to suppress competition in the
business of printing and selling railroad tariffs, schedules, and other printed matter by

maintaining fixed prices of such printed matter and by gifts to employees of their
customers and prospective customers and the customers and prospective customers of
competitors as an inducement to influence their employers to purchase respondent’s
printed
railroad tariffs, schedules, and other printed matter, in alleged violation of section 5
of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 176 (July 22, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. John F. Buckie
& Son. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of printing-press
rollers, viz, giving gratuities of different kinds, including sums of money, to employees
of its customers, prospective customers, and customers and prospective customers of
competitors as an inducement to influence their employers to purchase respondent’s
printing press rollers and to refrain from

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.
69
purchasing those of respondent’s competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission Act.
Complaint No. 177 (July 22, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Samuel
Bingham’s Son Manufacturing Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in
the sale of printing-press rollers, viz, giving gratuities of different kinds, including
sums of money, to employees of its customers, prospective customers, and customers
and prospective customers of competitors as an inducement to influence their
employers to purchase respondent’s printing-press rollers and to refrain from
purchasing those of respondent’s competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 178 (July 22, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Bingham Bros.
Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of printing press rollers,
viz, giving gratuities of different kinds, including sums of money, to employees of its
customers, prospective customers, and customers and prospective customers of
competitors as an inducement to influence their employers to purchase respondent’s
printing-press rollers and to refrain from purchasing those of respondent’s competitors,
in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 179 (July 22, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Bird Archer Co.
Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of boiler compounds, viz,
giving gratuities of different kinds, including sums of money, to employees of its
customers, prospective customers, and customers and prospective customers of
competitors as an inducement to influence their employers to purchase respondent’s
boiler compounds and to refrain from purchasing those of respondent’s competitors,
in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 180 (July 22, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Kansas City
Printing Ink co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of printing
ink, viz, giving gratuities of different kinds, including sums of money, to employees
of its customers, prospective customers, and customers and prospective customers of
competitors as an inducement to influence their employers to purchase respondent’s
printing ink and to refrain from purchasing that of respondent’s competitors, in alleged
violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 181 (July 22, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Miller Cooper
Ink Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of printing ink, viz,
giving gratuities of different kinds, including sums of money, to employees of its
customers, prospective customers, and customers and prospective customers of
competitors as an inducement to influence their employers to purchase respondent’s
printing ink and to refrain from purchasing ink from respondent’s competitors, in
alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 182 (July 31, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Hoover
Suction Sweeper Co. Charge: Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of
vacuum cleaners by fixing and maintaining resale prices, requiring dealers to maintain
such resale prices, and refusing to sell to those who will not maintain such resale
prices, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 183 (July 31, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Vortex
Manufacturing Co. Charges: Stifling and suppressing competition in the manufacture
and marketing of metal holders, paraffin paper cups and dishes by fixing and
maintaining resale prices, requiring dealers to maintain such resale prices, and refusing

to sell to those who will not maintain such resale prices, in alleged violation of section
5 of the Federal Trade Commission act; selling and making contracts of sale of metal
holders, paraffin paper cups and dishes on one condition, agreement, and
understanding that the purchasers thereof shall not use or deal in the products or
competitors, the effect of which is to substantially lessen competition or tend to create
a monopoly, in alleged violation of section 3 of the Clayton act.
Complaint No. 184 (July 31, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Enders Sales Co.
(Inc.). Charges: Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of safety razors and
blades by fixing and maintaining resale prices, requiring dealers to maintain such
resale prices, and refusing to sell to those who will not maintain such resale prices, in
alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act; and discriminating
in price between different purchasers of respondent’s product, the effect of which may
be to substantially

70

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly, in alleged violation of section 2 of
the Clayton Act.
Complaint No. 185 (Aug. 3, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Printers
Rollers Co. Charges: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of printing-press
rollers, viz, giving gratuities of different kinds, including sums of money, to employees
of its customers, prospective customers, and customers and prospective customers of
competitors as an inducement to influence their employers to purchase respondents’
printing-press rollers and to refrain from purchasing those of respondent’s
competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 186 (Aug. 3, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. D.H. Donegan,
trading as American Printing Roller Ink Co. Charge: Using unfair method of
competition in the sale of printing-press rollers, viz, giving gratuities of different
kinds, including sums of money, to employees of its customers, prospective customers,
and customers and prospective customers of competitors as an inducement to influence
their employers to purchase respondent’s printing-press rollers and to refrain from
purchasing those of respondent’s competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 187 (Aug. 3, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. William C. Hart,
trading as Hart & Zugelder. Charge: Using unfair method of competition in the sale
of printing-press rollers, viz, giving gratuities of different kinds, including sums of
money, to employees of its customers, prospective customers, and customers and
prospective customers of competitors as an inducement to influence their employers
to purchase respondent’s printing-press rollers and to refrain from purchasing those
of respondent’s competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act.
Complaint No. 188 (Aug. 3, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. H.C. Godwin.
Charge: Using unfair method of competition in the sale of printing-press rollers, viz,
giving gratuities of different kinds, including sums of money, to employees of its
customers, prospective customers, and customers and prospective customers of
competitors as an inducement to influence their employers to purchase respondent’s
printing-press rollers and to refrain from purchasing those of respondent’s
competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 189 (Sept. 3, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. H.L. Hildreth Co.
Cause: Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of candy by fixing and
maintaining resale prices, requiring dealers to maintain such resale prices, and refusing
to sell to those who will not maintain such resale prices, in alleged violation of section
5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 190 (Sept. 25, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Gartside Iron
Rust Soap Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of iron-rust
and stain removers, consisting of false representations that similar products of
competitors are infringements of respondent’s patents and are put up in a form
enabling them to be passed off as the product of respondent, threats of suits, not made
in good faith, for infringement and unfair competition, and false and misleading
statements regarding the financial responsibility of competitors, in alleged violation
of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 191 (Sept. 25, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Bert Symonds,
Genevieve Symonds, and Irving Symonds, partners, trading as Auto Surplus Stock Co.
Charge: Unfair methods of competition in adopting a firm name similar to that of a

competitor, and by misleading advertising causing the public to believe that
respondents’ firm is one and the same as that of competitor, in alleged violation of
section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 192 (Sept. 25, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Silvex Co.
Charge: Unfair methods of competition in the sale of spark plugs, viz, advertisements
inserted in newspapers and periodicals having the effect of inducing a false belief that
the spark plugs manufactured by respondent have been certified by a department of the
United States Government, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act.
Complaint No. 193 (Sept. 25, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Consolidated Oil
Co. And five other oil companies. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the
manufacture and sale of paints, oils, and kindred products by means of false
representations that certain of respondents’ adulterated products are not adulterated
but are composed of second-run turpentine and

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. 71
Manchurian and Japanese oils prepared and made from oriental seeds and gums and
that if they were adulterated they would have to be labeled as such by virtue of a ruling
of the Ohio Food and Drug Commission, whereas no such ruling had been made;
publishing a cut upon their letterheads of several buildings to mislead the public into
the false belief that they own and operate the large plants represented in said cut, in
alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 194 (Oct. 8, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. C.W. Baker &
Sons. Charge: Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of canned goods by
fixing and maintaining resale prices, requiring dealers to maintain such resale prices,
and refusing to sell to those who will not maintain such resale prices, in alleged
violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 195 (Oct. 8, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. J.H. Patterson Co.
Charge: Using unfair methods of competition, viz, adopting and maintaining a system
of sending and causing others to send to mail-order houses engaged in selling lumber
and building materials spurious requests for estimates of the quantity and quality of
lumber and building materials required for certain building purposes, prices therefor,
and for printed matter, advertisements, and special information furnished to bona fide
customers and prospective customers, for the purpose of hindering, embarrassing, and
restraining such mail-order houses in the conduct of their business, in alleged violation
of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 196 (Oct. 8, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. DeMiracle
Chemical Co. Charges: Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of depilatories
and other toilet specialties by fixing and maintaining resale prices, requiring dealers
to maintain such resale prices, and refusing to sell to those who will not maintain such
resale prices, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 197 (Oct. 15, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission . Baltimore HubWheel & Manufacturing Co. And The Holland - Baden Ramsey Co. Charge: Using
unfair methods of competition consisting in a combination to cut off competitor’s
supply by threatening to withhold patronage from manufacturers extending jobbers
discounts to competitor, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act.
Complaint No. 198 (Oct. 15, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Closset & Devers
(Inc.). Charge: Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of coffee by fixing and
maintaining resale prices, requiring dealers to maintain such resale prices, and refusing
to sell to those who will not maintain such resale prices, in alleged violation of section
5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 199 (Oct. 15, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. National Grocery
Co. Charge: Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of coffee by fixing and
maintaining resale prices, requiring dealers to maintain such resale prices, and refusing
to sell to those who will not maintain such resale prices, in alleged violation of section
5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 200 (Oct. 15, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Rogers Co.
Charge: Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of coffee by fixing and
maintaining resale prices, requiring dealers to maintain such resale prices, and refusing
to sell to those who will not maintain such resale prices, in alleged violation of section
5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 201 (Oct. 15, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. National Grocery
Co. Charge: Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of coffee by fixing and

maintaining resale prices, requiring dealers to maintain such resale prices, and refusing
to sell to those who will not maintain such resale prices, in alleged violation of section
5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 202 (Oct. 15, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Seattle Grocery
Co. Charge: Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of coffee by fixing and
maintaining resale prices, requiring dealers to maintain such resale prices, and refusing
to sell to those who will not maintain such resale prices, in alleged violation of section
5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 203 (Oct. 15, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Washington
Retail Grocers & Merchants Association. Charge: Using unfair methods of
competition, consisting of a combination or conspiracy to compel wholesale coffee
dealers to maintain a system of fixing prices at which their coffee shall

72

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

be sold by dealers and to refuse to sell coffee to dealers who will not agree to maintain
resale prices, publishing articles in its official organ, The Northwestern Merchant,
urging retail coffee dealers to boycott wholesalers who do not maintain resale prices,
and boycotting the goods of coffee dealers who are not members of respondent
association and who do not maintain resale prices, in
alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 204 (Oct. 17, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Commonwealth
Color & Chemical Co. and Herbert L. Wittnebel. Charge: Using unfair methods of
competition in the sale of colors, chemicals, and dyestuffs, viz, giving gratuities of
different kinds, including sums of money, to employees of their customers, prospective
customers, and customers and prospective customers of competitors as an inducement
to influence their employers to purchase respondents’ colors, dyestuffs, and chemicals
and to refrain from purchasing those of respondents’ competitors, in alleged violation
of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 205 (Oct. 18, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Tobacco
Products Corporation et al. Charges: Stifling and suppressing competition by
concealing its ownership and control of other corporations and holding them out as
independent companies; paying commissions to its customers and its competitor’s
customers, with the understanding that the customers will not advertise the goods of
competitors, and by paying to one of its customers a rebate proportionate to the
increased amount of purchases made in one year over the preceding year, in alleged
violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act; discriminating in price
between different purchasers of respondent’s products, the effect of which may be to
substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly, in alleged violation of
section 2 of the Clayton Act; and acquiring the whole of the stock and share capital of
various tobacco companies, where the effect of such acquisition may be and is to
substantially lessen competition and create a monopoly, in alleged violation of section
7 of the Clayton Act; and several of the individual respondents acting as directors in
several of respondent corporations, thereby through agreements eliminating
competition among these corporations, in alleged violation of section 8 of the Clayton
Act.
Complaint No. 206 (Oct. 30, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Marinello Co. Et
al. Charges: Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of cosmetics, toilet
articles, and preparations by fixing and maintaining resale prices, requiring dealers to
maintain such resale prices, and refusing to sell their products to those who will not
maintain such resale prices; maintaining a school of cosmeticians and granting to
graduates of such schools licenses to practice the “Marinello System” and use the
name “Marinello” upon condition that the licensees shall maintain such resale prices
and not deal I the products of competitors; threatening to revoke the licenses of such
graduates who refuse to maintain such resale prices and deal exclusively in the
products of respondents, and threatening to establish competitive shops adjacent to
those of their competitors and others who refuse to deal exclusively in respondent’s
products and who do not maintain the resale prices of such products, in alleged
violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act; selling cosmetics, toilet
articles, and preparations under condition, agreement, or understanding that the
purchasers thereof shall not use or deal in the products of competitors, the effect of
which is to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly, in alleged
violation of section 3 of the Clayton act.

Complaint No. 207 (Oct. 30, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Cleveland
Macaroni Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of macaroni,
noodles, and kindred products, viz, giving premiums of jewelry, silverware, and other
personal property to salesmen of jobbers handling respondent’s product, and giving
dinners to jobbers and their salesmen, retail buyers, customers, and prospective
customers of respondent, and competitor’s customers and prospective customers as an
inducement to influence them to purchase respondent’s macaroni, noodles, and kindred
products, and to refrain from purchasing those of respondent’s competitors, in alleged
violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 208 (Oct. 30, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Royal
Cinema Corporation and two other motion-picture companies. Charge: Using unfair
methods of competition, viz, producing, selling, leasing, and advertising a motion
picture under the title “Mothers of Liberty” which is substantially a copy of another
and copyrighted motion picture entitled “The Ordeal,” with-

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

73

out notifying the exhibitors and the public that it is such, and falsely accusing
exhibitors who refuse to exhibit said “Mothers of Liberty” of being German
sympathizers and disloyal to the Government of the United States, in alleged violation
of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 209 (Oct. 30, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. St. Lawrence
Lumber Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition, viz, adopting and
maintaining a system of sending and causing others to send to mail-order houses
engaged in selling lumber and building materials spurious requests for estimates of the
quantity and quality of lumber and building materials required for certain building
purposes, prices therefor, and for printed matter, advertisements, and special
information furnished to bona fide customers and prospective customers, for the
purpose of hindering, embarrassing, and restraining such mail-order houses in the
conduct of their business, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act.
Complaint No. 210 (Oct. 30, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Joseph
Simmonds, trading as W.H. Productions Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of
competition in the production of motion-picture films, viz, adopting a trade name
similar to that of a competitor, marketing old pictures of a certain competitor under a
similar trade name and under similar titles, and marketing under new titles motion
pictures of well-known motion-picture actors and actresses which had previously been
exhibited to the public, without notifying the public or others that they were such, in
alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 211 (Oct. 30, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Henry Miller
Foundry Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition, viz, maintaining a system
of cumulative rebates given to customers upon their aggregate purchases during a
certain period, the effect thereof being to cause such purchasers to confine their trade
to the products of respondent and to prevent competitors from selling similar products
except at such prices as will offset the loss of rebates granted to such customers in the
event that such customers divide their patronage, in alleged violation of section 5 of
the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 212 (Oct. 30, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. A.T. McClure,
Arthur W. McClure, and John R. McClure, partners, trading as A.T. McClure Glass
Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in misbranding glass, viz, changing
the labels and other marks used by manufacturers to denote quality, so as to mislead
the public into the belief that the glass is of better quality, in alleged violation of
section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 213 (Oct. 30, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. American
Thermos Bottle Co. Charges: Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of
temperature-retaining vessels by fixing and maintaining resale prices, requiring dealers
to retain such resale prices, and refusing to sell to those who will not maintain such
resale prices is alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act;
discriminating in price between different purchasers of respondent’s products, the
effect of which may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a
monopoly, in violation of section 2 of the Clayton Act.
Complaint No. 214 (Oct. 30, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Winstead
Hosiery Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition consisting of false and
misleading advertisements tending to deceive the public into the belief that underwear
manufactured by respondent is composed wholly or wool whereas in fact it contains

but a small amount of wool, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act.
Complaint No. 215 (Nov. 12, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Minerals
Separation (Ltd.) et al. Charges: Stifling and suppressing competition in lines of
commerce dependent upon apparatus and processes and other commodities used in the
separation and concentration of ores, by entering into and enforcing and attempting to
enter into and enforce agreements which are for the purposes of preventing
independent concerns from selling or licensing any independent commodities without
respondents’s permission, permitting no independent concern to manufacture, license,
or lease independent commodities except by the payment of an exorbitant commission
for such permission, of discriminating in the amount of commissions exacted from
different inde-

74

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

pendent concerns, of compelling mine operators and others not in respondents, employ
to surrender to them the ownership and control of inventions respecting the separation
and concentration of ores, of preventing mine operators and others from publishing
any data or other information respecting the separation or concentration of ores except
with respondents’ permission, of compelling mine operators and others not in
respondents’ employ to withhold advice and information regarding apparatus and other
commodities from anyone against whom the respondents may be engaged in patent
litigation, of exacting from mine operators and exorbitant royalty for the use of
commodities controlled by respondents, including operations involving the use of
commodities not controlled by respondent and discriminating as to royalties between
different mine operators; by false and malicious disparagement of independent
commodities, concerns, and those dealing with independent concerns, false assertions
of exclusive rights under patents and otherwise in excess of those actually possessed
by respondents, threats of suits for patent infringement not made in good faith, threats
to withhold licenses from mine operators and others unless they refrain from using
independent commodities, and intimidation of independent concerns and others to join
in the aforesaid agreement, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act; discriminating in price between different purchasers of the products
handled by respondents, the effects of which may be to substantially lessen
competition or tend to create a monopoly, in alleged violation of section 2 of the
Clayton act; selling commodities handled by respondents on the condition, agreement,
or understanding that the purchasers thereof shall not use or deal in the goods of a
competitor the effect of which is to substantially lessen competition or tend to create
a monopoly, in alleged violation of section 3 of the Clayton act.
Complaint No. 216 (Nov. 12, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Gregory
Furniture Manufacturing Co. Charge: Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale
of furniture by fixing and maintaining resale prices, requiring dealers to maintain such
resale prices, and refusing to sell to those who will not maintain such resale prices, and
refusing to sell to those who will not maintain such resale prices, in alleged violation
of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 217 (Nov. 12, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Klaxon Co.
Charges: Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of automobile horns by
fixing and maintaining resale prices, requiring dealers to maintain such resale prices,
and refusing to sell to those who will not maintain such resale prices; selling and
making contracts for sale of its products to dealers in automobile accessories upon the
condition, agreement, or understanding that said dealers shall at all times carry a stock
of Klaxon warning signals in the minimum amount of $300, in alleged violation of
section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act; selling and making contracts for sale
of its products on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the purchasers
thereof shall not use or deal in the warning signals of competitors, the effect of which
is to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly, in alleged violation
of section 3 of the Clayton Act.
Complaint No. 218 (Nov. 12, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Proctor &
Gamble Co., and the Proctor & Gamble Distributing Co. Charge: Stifling and
suppressing competition in the sale of soap and kindred articles by fixing and
maintaining resale prices, requiring dealers to maintain such as sale prices, and
refusing to sell mixed carload lots of its products unless the purchaser thereof will also
buy from them respondents’ “Ivory” soap, in alleged violation of section 5 of the

Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 219 (Oct.. 14, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Vacuum Oil Co.
Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in connection with the marketing of
petroleum products, by shipping its products to customers of respondent’s competitors
without having received any order therefor, and inducing and attempting to induce
such consignees to accept and purchase such consignments by extending long-term
credits and guaranteeing the resale of such consignments and the assistance of
respondent’s salesmen in procuring the same, in alleged violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 220 (Nov. 14, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Gordon Van
Tine Co. Charge: The use of unfair methods of competition by a mail-order house in
the sale of lumber and building materials consisting of advertising a gross
misrepresentation of the terms of an order and decision issued by the

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.
75
Federal Trade Commission against certain “regular dealers,” secretly offering and
paying local contractors and builders a bonus or commission as an inducement to
influence them to favor respondent’s products over those of its competitors, and
circulating catalogues and publishing statements containing false and misleading
advertisements tending to induce the belief that “regular dealers” do not deal fairly,
in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 221 (Dec. 2, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Vapor Cresoline
Co. Charge: Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of propriety medicine
by fixing and maintaining resale prices, requiring dealers to maintain such resale
prices, and refusing to sell those who will not maintain such resale prices, in alleged
violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 222 (Dec. 2, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Lasso
Pictures Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition, viz, securing motionpicture films which have been exhibited and displayed to the public, giving them new
names and titles, and reissuing them with the intent, purpose, and effect of deceiving
exhibitors and the public and leading them to believe that the said picture films are
new and original and have never before been exhibited, in alleged violation of section
5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 223 (Dec. 2, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Allen Sales
Service (Inc.), C. Louis Allen, and William H. Yetman. Charge: Using unfair methods
of competition in the manufacture and sale of fire extinguishers, consisting of the acts
of the individual respondents appropriating for their own use and for the benefit of the
Allen Sales Service (Inc.) Lists of customers, confidential information, and trade
secrets of the Pyrene Co., of which they had been previously the president and
manager, respectively; inducing manufacturers by false statements to break contracts
had with the Pyrene Co. And sell their products exclusively to the respondent
company; placing employees in the office of a manufacturer from whom the Pyrene
Co. Obtained its supplies for the purpose of securing information concerning their
business dealings; inducing the Pyrene Co.’s employees to leave by offers of higher
wages; having various manufacturers establish their branch offices in the office of
respondent company whereby the latter was enabled to secure contracts from the
United States Government for the sale of its products in the names of such
manufacturers and receive commissions on such sales without the Government’s
knowledge; and giving gratuities to employees of their customers and prospective
customers and to officers of the armed forces of the United States and other persons
concerned in the conduct of the war as an inducement to influence their employers and
the Government to purchase fire-extinguishing apparatus of the respondent company,
in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 224 (Dec. 2, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. National Bridge
Co., Daniel B. Luten, and Frank H. Drury. Charge: Using unfair methods of
competition, consisting of threats of patent infringement and demands for royalty made
to municipalities, bridge builders, and contractors; procuring consent decrees for
patent infringements in favor of respondent and publishing them without showing that
they were entered by consent; publishing and circulating among bridge contractors and
builders false and misleading advertisements to the effect that such consent decrees
were entered after full trials upon the merits, in alleged violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act.

Complaint No. 225 (Dec. 14, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. M.P.L. Packing
& Supply Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of packaging
and engine-room supplies, viz, giving gratuities of different kinds, including sums of
money, to employees of its customers, prospective customers, and customers and
prospective customers of competitors as an inducement to influence their employers
to purchase respondent’s products and to refrain from purchasing from competitors,
in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 226 (Dec. 14, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Kinney Rome
Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of bed springs and
kindred products by giving to salesmen of merchants handling its products and those
of its competitors gratuities, consisting of watches and other personal property, as an
inducement to influence them to push the sales of respondent’s products to the
exclusion of the products of its competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act.

76

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Complaint No. 227 (Dec. 14, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Helvetia Milk
Condensing Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition I the sale of evaporated
milk, viz, guaranteeing its customers against decline in the price of goods purchased
and not resold at the time of any subsequent decline in the market price, and in the
event of such decline refunding to such purchasers an amount equal to the difference
between the purchase price of the undisposed goods and the market price to which
they had declined, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission
act.
Complaint No. 228 (Mar. 26, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. The De Laval
Separator Co. Charges: Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of cream
separators by fixing and maintaining resale prices, requiring dealers to maintain such
resale prices, and refusing to sell to those who will not maintain such resale prices, I
alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act; selling and
making contracts for sale of its cream separators on the condition, agreement, or
understanding that the purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the cream separators
of a competitor, the effect of which is to substantially lessen competition or tend to
create a monopoly, in alleged violation of section 3 of the Clayton Act.
Complaint No. 229 (Dec. 14, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Consolidated
Packing & Supply Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in connection
with the sale of packings and engine-room supplies, viz, giving gratuities of different
kinds, including sums of money, to employees of its customers, prospective customers,
and customers and prospective customers of competitors as an inducement to influence
their employers to purchase respondent’s products and to refrain from purchasing
those of respondent’s competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 230 (Dec. 14, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. North American
Linseed Products Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition, consisting of
false advertising and representing certain of its products as linseed oil which was
composed of linseed oil, but which had been adulterated with low-grade mineral oils
and other ingredients, in alleged violation of section 5
of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 231 (Dec. 31, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Farmers’
Cooperative Fertilizer Co. And Armour & Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of
competition in the sale of fertilizing materials by Armour & Co., concealing the fact
that it owns the controlling interest in the Farmers’ Cooperative Fertilizer Co., and
holding out the latter as an independent company, and thereby securing trade which
the Armour Co. could not secure if its ownership of the Farmers’ Cooperative
Fertilizer Co. was known to the public, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 232 (Jan. 6, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Wall Rope Works
(Inc.). Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of rope, oakum, and
cordage, viz, secretly paying money to employees of its customers, prospective
costumers, and customers and prospective customers of competitors as an inducement
to influence their employers to purchase respondent’s rope, oakum, and cordage, and
to refrain from dealing with respondent’s competitors, in alleged violation of section
5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 233 (Jan. 6, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. The New Jersey
Asbestos Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of asbestos

packings, flax, wood fiber, and kindred products, viz, giving gratuities of different
kinds, including sums of money, to employees of its customers, prospective customers,
and customers and prospective customers of competitors as an inducement to influence
their employers to purchase respondent’s products and to refrain from purchasing
those of competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act.
Complaint No. 234 (Jan. 6, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Stewart Dickson
& Co. (Inc.). Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of asbestos,
flax, and kindred products, viz, giving gratuities of different kinds, including sums of
money, to employees of its customers, prospective customers, and customers and
prospective customers of competitors as an inducement to influence their employers
to purchase respondent’s products and to refrain from purchasing those of competitors,
in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 235 (Jan. 6, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Brown Portable
Conveying Machinery Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of compe-

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

77

tition, viz, threatening competitors with suits patent infringements, which threats are
not made in good faith, and false and misleading statements with respect to alleged
pending lawsuits against competitors and with respect to the invention of a portable
elevator manufactured by a competitor, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 236 (Jan. 6, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Carter Paint Co.
Charge : Using
unfair methods of competition, consisting of giving gratuities of different kinds to
salesmen of jobbers handling respondent's products as an inducement to push the sale
of respondent's products in preference to those of its competitors, In alleged violation
of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No.237 (Jan. 11, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. General Chemical
Co. Charge: Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale if baking powder by
fixing and maintaining resale prices, requiring dealers to maintain such resale prices,
and refusing to sell to those who will not maintain such resale prices, in alleged
violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Com mission act.
Complaint No.238 (Jan.11, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Hoover
Suction Sweeper Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of
vacuum sweepers, consisting of giving cash bonuses to employees of both its
competitors and of dealers handling competitors' products as an inducement to
influence them to push the sale of respondent's products, in alleged violation of section
5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 239 (Jan. 11, 1919) --Federal Trade Commission v. Royal Easy Chair
Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of reclining chairs and
kindred products by giving a cash bonus on each chair sold to salesmen of retail
merchants handling the products of respondent and those of its competitors as an
inducement to push the sale of respondent's products, in alleged violation of section
5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No.240 (Jan.15, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Buffalo Specialty
Co. Charges: Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of liquid veneer, tire
fluids, and similar products by fixing and maintaining resale prices, requiring dealers
to maintain such resale prices, and refusing to sell to those who do not maintain such
resale prices, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act;
and discriminating in price between different purchasers of respondent's products, the
effect of which may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a
monopoly, in alleged violation of section 2 of the Clayton Act.
Complaint No.241 (Jan. 21, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. J. Frank Bates,
trading as Malzo Coffee Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale
of coffee, consisting of the adoption and use of the trade name Malzo Coffee Co.,
which name is so similar to that of a competitor as to deceive and mislead the trade
and purchasing public and cause them to believe that respondent's coffee is one and
the same as that of its competitor, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act.
Complaint No. 242 (Jan.23, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Niles Normalizing
Machine Co. (Inc.). Charge: Using unfair methods of competition, consisting of threats
of suit not made in good faith against its competitors and competitors' customers for
alleged violation of respondent's patent rights in and to certain flesh-reducing
machines, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.

Complaint No. 243, (Jan. 23, 1919) --Federal Trade Commission v. E. P. Janes, S.
A. Paul, Ironclad Tire Co., and three other tire companies. Charge: Using unfair
methods of competition in the sale of automobile tires, viz, purchasing old and
discarded tires, retreading them, remarking them with new brand names, and
advertising and selling them as new tires with a guarantee of 4,000 miles of service,
in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 244 (Jan. 15, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Berry Brothers
(Inc.), Everet W. Hinckley and William H. Kennedy. Charge: Using unfair methods
of competition in the sale of varnish and kindred products, viz, giving gratuities of
different kinds, including sums of money, to employees of customers, prospective
customers, and customers and prospective customers of competitors as an inducement
to influence their employers to purchase the products of respondents and to refrain
from purchasing those of competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission act.

78

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Complaint No. 245 ( Feb. 6, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Harrison
Specialty Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in connection with the
sale of plugs for leaking tubes in steam boilers, viz, giving money to employees of
customers, prospective customers, and customers and prospective customers of
competitors as an inducement to influence their employers to purchase the products
of respondent amid to refrain from purchasing from competitors, in alleged violation
of section 5 of time Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 246 (Feb.... 6, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. W. P. Welkin
Co. (Inc.). Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in connection with the sale
of ship supplies, viz, giving money to employees of customers, prospective customers,
and customers and prospective customers of competitors as an inducement to influence
their employers to purchase their ship supplies from respondent’s and to refrain from
dealing with respondent's competitors in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission act.
Com plaint No. 247 ( Feb. 6, 1919) .--Federal Trade Commission v. American Chicle
Co Charge: Using unfair fair methods of competition in the sale of chewing gum, viz
instituting suits against jobbers distributing “Chicle Dainties” for unfair competition
with respondent’s “Chiclets,” which suits are alleged not to be brought in good faith
hut for the purposes of intimidating customers or a competitor, and also making a
practice of refusing to sell its chewing gum to dealers who deal in the products of
certain of respondent’s competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 248 (Feb. 6, 1919).-Federal Trade Commission v. Aluminum Co. of
America. Charge: Acquiring and owning a large part of the stock and share capital of
the Aluminum Rolling Mill Co., the effect of such acquisition being to substantially
lessen competition between the respondent amid the Aluminum Rolling Mill Co., and
to tend to create a monopoly, in alleged violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act.
Complaint No.249 (Feb. 6, 1919) .--Federal Trade Commission v. The Corcoran
Manufacturing Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition In the manufacture
and sale of automobile radiators, consisting of manufacturing a radiator so similar In
shape and design to that of a competitor that it is calculated to, and does. deceive and
cause purchasers to believe that respondent's radiator is one and the same as that of a
competitor, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 250 (Feb. 6, 1919 ) -Federal Trade Commission v. Borden's Fa rm
Products Co (Inc.). Charge : Acquiring and owning the whole of the stock and share
capital of the Alexander Campbell Milk Co., the effect of such acquisition being to
substantially lessen competition between the respondent and the Alexander Campbell
Milk Co. and tend to create a monopoly, in alleged violation of section 7 of the
Clayton Act.
Complaint No. 251 (Feb. 6, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. American Sheet
& Tin Plate Co). Charge : Discriminating In price between different purchasers of the
products manufactured and sol(h by respondent, the effect of which may be to
substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly, in alleged violation of
section 2 of the Clayton Act.
Com plaint No. 252 (Feb. 6, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Mercury Tire Co.
(Inc.). Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of automobile tires,
viz, purchasing old and discarded tires, retreading them, and re-marking them with new
brand names. and advertising and selling them as new tires with a guarantee of 4,000

miles of service, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 253 (Feb. 6, 1919) .--Federal Trade Commission v. William H.
Batcheller. George Batcheller, and Akron Tire Co. (Inc.). Charge: Using unfair
methods of competition In the sale of automobile tires, viz, purchasing old and
discarded tires, retreading them, re-marking them with new brand names, and
advertising and selling them as new tires with a guarantee of 4,000 miles of service,
in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 254 (Feb. 20. 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Western Sugar
Refining Co., California-Hawaiian Sugar Refining Co., Seven Wholesalers Grocers
of Los Angeles, Calif., and Nineteen Members of the Southern California Association
of Manufacturers’ Representatives. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition,
consisting of a refusal of the respondent sugar refining companies to sell cane sugar
to the Los Angeles Grocery Co., a wholesale grocer; conspiring together to prevent the
Los Angeles Grocery.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. 79
Co. from obtaining commodities from manufacturers and manufacturers’ agents;
and by boycotts and threats of boycotts inducing manufacturers and agents to refuse
to sell to the Los Angeles Grocery Co. The 19 members of the Association of
Manufacturers' Representatives are charged with permit-ting the seven Los Angeles
wholesale grocers to Intimidate them by boycotting and threatening to boycott tile
products sold by them if same were sold to the Los Angeles Grocery Co., the result
of such Intimidation being that said agents have refused to sell the products
manufactured by their respective principals to the Los Angeles Grocery Co., in
alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 255 (Mar. 3, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Ruud
Manufacturing Co. and Pittsburgh Water Heater Co. Charge : Using unfair methods
of competition in connection with the manufacture and sale of water heaters by
agreeing among themselves to fix and maintain resale prices, requiring purchasers
to maintain such resale prices, and refusing to sell to those who will not maintain
such resale prices, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act.
Complaint t No.256' (Afar. 3, 1919) .--Federal Trade Commission v. James B.
Schafer, trading as Universal Battery Service Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of
competition in the sale of electric batteries, consisting of the adoption and use of
the trade name “Universal Battery Service Company,” which name is so similar to
that of a competitor as to deceive and mislead the trade and purchasing public and
cause them to believe that the respondent's products are one and the same as that of
its competitor, imitating the color scheme of competitor's advertisements, and
falsely advertising that respondent's batteries last forever, in alleged violation of
section. 5 of the Federal Traders Commission act.
Complaint No. 257 (Mar. 7, 1919) .--Federal Trade Commission v. Twin City
Printers Roller Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in connection
with the sale of printing-press rollers, viz, giving. gratuities of different kinds,
including sums of money, to employees of customers, prospective customers, and
customers and prospective customers of competitors as an inducement to influence
their employers to purchase respondent's printing-press rollers and to refrain from
purchasing those of respondent’s competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of
the Federal Trade Commission Act.
Complaint No. 258 (Mar.17, 1919) .--Federal Trade Commission v. McKnightKeaton Grocery Co., Wood & Bennett Co., The Scudders-Gale Grocery Co., and
Ray L. Hosmer & Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition, consisting of
the respondents, both individually and by means of a combination among
themselves, unfairly hampering a competitor by inducing manufacturers of
groceries and kindred merchandise to refuse to recognize such competitor as a
wholesaler and entitled to buy at a wholesaler's price, thus forcing competitor to
buy at higher prices, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act.
Complaint No. 259 (Mar.17, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Oldbury
Electro-Chemical Co.-, J. L. & D. S. Riker (Inc.), and Central Railway Signal Co.
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the manufacturers and sale of
railway signal fusees by an alleged combination between the respondents whereby
the Oldbury Co., through its sales agent, J. L. & D. S. Riker (Inc.), refuses to
manufacture and sell any chlorate of potash 'In addition to the amount. required by

the Central Railway Signal Co., and thus giving the latter a monopoly in the
manufacture and sale of railway signal fusees, in alleged violation of section 5 of
the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 260 (Mar. 17, 1919--).Federal Trade Commission v. C. R. Fenton
and F. P. Fenton, partner, trading as Standard Soap Manufacturing Co. Charge :
Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of soap and kindred products, viz,
giving gratuities of different kinds, Including sums of money, to employees of
customers, prospective customers, and customers and prospective customers of
competitors as an inducement to influence their employers to purchase respondent's
soaps and kindred products and to refrain from purchasing those of competitors, in
alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 261 (Mar.19, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Rome Soap
Manufacturing Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of
soap and kindred products, viz, giving gratuities of different kinds, including sums
of money, to employees of customers, prospective cus-

80

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

tomers, and customers and prospective customers of competitors as an inducement
to influence their employers to purchasers respondent's soaps and kindred products
and to refrain from purchasing those of competitors, in alleged violation of section
5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 262 (Mar.19, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. F. Kenney
Manufacturing Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of
soap and kindred products, viz, giving gratuities of different kinds, including sums
of money, to, employees of customers, prospective customers, and customers and
prospective customers of competitors as an inducement to) influence their
employers to purchase respondent's soaps and kindred products and to refrain from
purchasing those of competitors, in alleged violation II of section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission act.
Complaint No.263 (Mar. 18, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Edward L.
Swan and Harmanus Swan, partners, trading as William H. Swan & Sons, Charge :
Using unfair methods of competition In connection with the sale of steamship
supplies, viz, giving gratuities of different kinds, including sums of money, to
employees of customers, prospective customers, and customers and prospective
customers of competitors as an inducement to influence their employers to purchase
respondents’ steamship supplies and to refrain from purchasing those of
competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No.264 (Mar. 18, 1919) .--Federal Trade Commission v. Roy C.
Downs and George W. Lord, partners, trading as Engineering Supply Co. Charge :
Using unfair methods of competition in connection with the sale of boiler
compounds, oils and greases, viz, giving gratuities of different kinds, including
sums of money, to employees of customers, prospective customers, and customers
and prospective customers of competitors as an inducement to influence their
employers to purchase respondent’s boiler compounds, oils, and greases and to
refrain from purchasing those of competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No.265 (Mar.24, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Butterick Co.
and four other dress-pattern publishing companies. Charges : Stifling and
suppressing competition in the sale of paper dress patterns by fixing and
maintaining resale prices, requiring dealers to maintain such resale prices, and
refusing to sell to those who will not maintain such resale prices, in alleged
violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act; selling and making
contracts for sale of paper dress patterns on the condition, agreement, or
understanding that the purchasers thereof shall not use or deal in the paper dress
patterns of competitors, the effect of which may be to substantially lesson
competition or tend to create a monopoly, in alleged violation of section 3 of the
Clayton Act.
Complaint No.266 (Mar.24, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Pictorial
Review Co. Charges : Using unfair fair methods of competition in the sale of paper
dress patterns, consisting of selling patterns to dealers under a contract permitting
the dealers to return all unsold patterns on the termination of con-tract at threefourths of the cost thereof upon the condition that during the continuance of such

contracts they have sold no patterns except those manufactured by respondent or
shall have sold such patterns at the prices fixed by respondent, in alleged violation
of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act; selling and making contracts for
sale of its paper dress patterns on the condition, agreement, or understanding that
the purchasers thereof shall not use or deal in the patterns of competitors, the effect
of which is to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in
violation of section 3 of the Clayton Act.
Complaint No.267 (Mar.26, 1919) .--Federal Trade Commission v. Chicago Mill
Works Supply Co. Charge : The use by respondent, which is a mail-order house
engaged in the sale of lumber and building materials, of unfair methods of
competition, consisting of advertising matter and circular letters containing false
statements derogatory of so-called "regular dealers" in lumber, and false and
misleading statements concerning the alleged benefits which the public might
derive from trading with respondent, and secretly paying bonuses to local
contractors, builders, and carpenters as an inducement to influence them to push the
sale of respondent's lumber and building materials over those of Its competitors, in
alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Com plaint No.268 (Apr. 8, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Aeolian
Co Charge : Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of pipe organs.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

81

perforated music rolls, musical instruments of the phonograph type and parts and
accessories thereto, and phonograph records, by fixing and maintaining resale
prices, requiring dealers to maintain such resale prices, refusing to sell to those who
will not retain such resale prices, maintaining a system of requiring dealers who
deal in other types of phonograph instruments, records, or talking machines to
advertise, promote, and sell respondent's products as the best and unqualified
leaders of any and all goods of the phonograph type, and refusing to sell and
prohibiting dealers who sell Aeolian instruments, parts, an(l accessories from
selling the perforated music rolls therefore to anyone other than the purchaser of an
Aeolian pipe organ, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act.
Complaint No. 269 (Apr. 9, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. American
Graphophone Co., Columbia Graphophone Co., and Columbia Graphophone
Manufacturing Co. Charge : using unfair methods of competition in connection
with the sale of talking machines and records, viz, the American Graphophone Co.
and Columbia Graphophone Manufacturing Co. fix and maintain certain specified
resale prices by issuing catalogues periodically, addressing circular letters to retail
dealers, and printing notices upon the paper envelopes designed and commonly
used as wrappers or containers for Columbia records; respondents American
Graphophone Co. and Columbia Graphophone Manufacturing Co., through the
Columbia Graphophone Co., require retail dealers to maintain specified resale
prices fixed upon Columbia products and refuse to sell their products to dealers
who will not agree to maintain such specified resale prices, in alleged violation of
section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 270 (Apr.15, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. C. L. Chase,
trading as Chase Shoe Co.- Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in
connection with the sale of shoes, consisting of false and misleading statements
contained in advertising matter sent to customers and prospective customers by
which the respondent represents himself as a manufacturer, whereas in fact he is a
dealer, and false and misleading statements concerning alleged benefits which the
public might derive from trading with respondent, in alleged violation of section 5
of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 271 (Apr. 15, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Fruit Growers
Express. Charge : Tying contracts with various railroads for the use of refrigerator
cars, having the effect of substantially lessening competition in the transportation
of fresh fruits and vegetables and the creation of a monopoly in such transportation,
such contracts containing a clause that the railroad shall use the respondent's
equipment exclusively in the movement of fruits and vegetables under refrigeration,
in alleged violation of section 3 of the Clayton Act.
Complaint No. 272 (Apr. 15, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. We. Waltke &
Co. Charge : Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of soaps and toilet
sundries by fixing and maintaining resale prices, requiring dealers to retain such
resale prices, and refusing to sell to those who will not retain such resale prices, in
alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Com plaint No. 273 (May 26, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Pan Motor

Co. and Samuel C. Pandolfo. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition,
consisting in making, publishing, advertising, and circulating false and misleading
statements concerning the organization, assets, progress, financial standing, and
responsibility of the Pan Motor Co., and concealing from time public facts relating
to and affecting time organization and financial standing of said company, and
making, publishing, and advertising false statements in circulars, advertisements,
and other publications regarding the design, manufacture, production, and price of
certain automobiles represented as being manufactured by the said Pan Motor Co.,
in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 274 (May 27, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Nestle's Food
Co. (Inc.). Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in connection with the
sale of milk in Mexico, consisting in adopting and using upon cans of condensed
milk certain forms of labels which mislead the public in Mexico to believe that
such condensed milk is manufactured in Europe, whereas it is manufactured in and
shipped from the United States, In alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission act, as extended by section 4 of the Webb Act.
147390--2----6

82

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Complaint No. 275 (May 27, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Mutual
Candy Co. (Inc.). Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in connection with
the sale of confections and chewing gum, consisting of fixing and maintain prices
at which the confections and chewing gum manufactured by the Beech-Nut Packing
Co. shall be resold by stockholders and other jobbers of respondent to retail dealers
and by retail dealers to the consuming public, requiring its stockholders, Jobbers
,and retail dealers to agree to maintain such resale prices, refusing to sell its
products to stockholders, jobbers, or retail dealers who will not agree to maintain
such resale prices, and occupying the dual role of selling agent for the products
manufactured by the Beech-Nut Packing Co. and other chewing gum manufacturers
and of purchasing agent for its stockholders although ostensibly purchasing such
products from the manufacturer and reselling them to its own stockholders, in
alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act
Complaint No. 276 (May 27, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Jacob
Lanski. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the purchase of scrap iron
by knowingly accepting, unloading, and converting to his own use freight cars of
iron and steel scrap delivered to him by railway companies, but originally
purchased by and shipped to the I. Lanski & Son Scrap Iron Co., and by means of
information contained In freight bills and other correspondence relating to such
shipments delivered by mistake through the malls to respondent, learning the names
of numerous dealers with whom the I. Lanski & Son Scrap Iron Co. were doing
business, and attempting to Induce such persons to transact their business with him,
in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No.277 (May 27, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Boston
Piano & Music Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in connection
with the sale of talking machines by purchasing talking machines under the brand
name of “Masterphone”; selling such machines by the use of a sales plan,
consisting of false representations and fraudulent schemes and practices, such as
providing the salesmen with what purports to be order blanks, which are in reality,
when signed, binding contracts of purchase; extravagant statements regarding the
quality and nature of the machine and records, the facility with which they may be
disposed of, the representation that machines are sent on approval, and that
respondent operates its own factory; that under respondent's plan a dealer can lose
no money; that respondent will conduct an advertising campaign for the benefit of
such dealers; and that the salesmen will return and lend their personal aid in a
selling campaign, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission
act.
Complaint No.278 (May 27, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Tokheim Oil
Tank & Pump Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in manufacturing
and selling automatic measuring oil pumps, tanks, and kindred products, by
systematically and on a large scale inducing and enticing and at-tempting to induce
and entice employees from its competitors to leave their employers by offering
them employment with respondent, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 279 (May 27, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. The
Chamberlain Cartridge & Target Co. Charges : Using unfair methods of cornpetition, consisting of refusing to lease its patented traps for throwing clay-pigeon

targets to those who will not agree to use them exclusively in connection with the
targets made by respondent, and canceling and threatening to cancel its leases of
said traps when the lessees have attempted to use them for throwing targets
manufactured by respondent's competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act; leasing traps for throwing clay-pigeon targets on
the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessees thereof shall not use in
connection with said traps the goods, wares, and merchandise of a competitor, the
effect of which is to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly,
in alleged violation of section 3 of the Clayton Act.
Complaint No. 280 (May 27, 1919) .--Federal Trade Commission v. The PrestO-Lite Co. (Inc.). Charge : Selling and making contracts for sale of acetylene gas
in specially constructed steel containers for which containers purchasers are
required to make a deposit equal to their fair market value, and which, when empty,
they have the right to return and receive in exchange. therefor a recharged container
upon the payment of the price of the gas, no provision being made for a refund of
the cash deposit in the event that the

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.
83
customer should purchase no more of respondent’s gas and also to agree not to use
in connection with said containers the acetylene gas of competitors, the effect of
which is to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly, in alleged
violation of section 3 of the Clayton Act.
Complaint No.281 (July 27, 1919 ).--Federal Trade Commission v. Emil West
trading as The Sweater Store. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition
consisting of conducting a store for the sale of men's and women’s wearing apparel
and knitted goods under the name of “The Sweater Store,” which name is so
similar to that of a competitor as to deceive and mislead the trade and purchasing
public and cause them to believe that respondent’s firm, store, and business are one
and the same as that of its competitor, in alleged violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 282 (June 21, 1919) .--Federal Trade Commission v. Federal
Color & Chemical Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in connection
with the sale of dyestuff, chemicals, soap and kindred products,. viz,. giving
gratuities of different kinds, including sums of money, to employees of its
customers, prospective customers, and customers and prospective customers of
competitors as an inducement to influence their employers to purchase respondent’s
products and to refrain from purchasing those of competitors, in alleged violation
of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 283 (June 23, 1919).-Federal Trade Commission v, WebbJensen-Davis Co. (Inc.). Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in
connection with the sale of printing ink and kindred products, viz, giving gratuities
of different kinds, including sums of money to employees of it’s customers,
prospective customers, and customers and prospective customers of competitors as
an inducement to influence their employers to purchase respondent’s products and
to refrain from purchasing those of competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of
the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 284 (June 21, 1919).-- Federal Trade Commission v. William
Mohrmann. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in connection with the
sale of chemicals, dyestuffs textile soap, and kindred products, viz, giving gratuities
of different kinds, including sums of money, to employees of his customers,
prospective customers, and customers and prospective customers of competitors as
an inducement to influence their employers to purchase respondent’s products and
to refrain from purchasing those of competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of
the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 285 (June 21, 1919)) .--Federal Trade Commission v. Original
Bradford Soap Works (Inc.). Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in
connection with the sale of soap and kindred products, viz, giving gratuities of
different kinds, including sums of money, to employees of its customers,
prospective customers, and customers and prospective customers of competitors as
all inducement to influence their employers to purchase respondent’s products find
to refrain from purchasing those of competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of
the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 286 (June 21, 1919) .--Federal Trade Commission v. Harry
Bentley, doing business under the name and style of The Standard Soap Co.

Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in connection with the sale of soap
and kindred products, viz, secretly paying money to employees of his customers,
prospective customers, and customers and prospective customers of competitors as
an inducement to Influence their employers to purchase respondent’s products and
to refrain from dealing with respondent’s competitors, In alleged violation of
section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 287 (June 21, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Charles J.
Fox. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in connection with the sale of
soap and kindred products, viz, secretly paying money to employees of his
customers, prospective customers, and customers and prospective customers of
competitors as an inducement to influence their employers to purchase respondent’s
products and to refrain from dealing with respondent’s competitors, in alleged
violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 288 (June 21, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. J. L.
Quimby, doing business tinder the name and style of J. L. Quimby & Co. Charge:
Using unfair methods of competition in connection with the sale of lubricating oil,
greases, and kindred products, viz, giving gratuities of different kinds, including
sums of money, to employees of his customers, prospective customers, and
customers and prospective customers of competitors as an inducement to influence
their employers to purchase respondent’s products and

84

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

to refrain from purchasing those of competitors, In alleged violation of section 5 of
the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 289 (June 21, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Woodley
Soap Manufacturing Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in
connection with the sale of soap and kindred products, viz, giving gratuities of
different kinds to employees of Its customers, prospective customers, and
customers and prospective customers of competitors as an inducement to influence
their employers to purchase respondent's products and to refrain from purchasing
those of competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act.
Complaint No. 290 (June 21, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Enterprise
Soap Works ( Inc.) Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in connection
with the sale of soap and kindred products, viz, giving gratuities of different kinds,
including sums of money, to employees of Its customers, prospective customers,
and customers and prospective customers of competitors as an inducement to
Influence their employers to purchase respondent's products and 10) refrain from
purchasing those of competitors, In alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 291 (June 21, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Arabol
Manufacturing Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in connection
with the sale of dyes, soap, glue, and kindred products, viz, giving gratuities of
different kinds, including sums of money, to employees of Its customers,
prospective customers, and customers and prospective customers of competitors as
an inducement to influence their employers to purchase respondent’s products and
to refrain from purchasing those of competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of
the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No.292 (June 21, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Roxbury
Chemical Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in connection with the
sale of soap and kindred products, viz, giving gratuities of different kinds, including
sums of money, to employees of its customers, prospective customers, and
customers and prospective customers of competitors as an inducement to influence
their employers to purchase respondent’s products and to refrain from purchasing
those of competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act.
Complaint No. 293 (June 21, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. NonDerrick Drilling Machine Co. (Inc.). Charge: Using unfair methods of competition
in connection with the sale of its corporate stock, consisting of publishing,
advertising, and circulating extravagant, false, and misleading statements, promises,
and predictions concerning the business, organization, assets, capital stock,
financial standing, and prospective profits of respondent, and concealing from the
public material facts relating to and affecting the plans, organization, business, and
capital stock of the respondent, and making, publishing, and circulating false
statements regarding the existence, character, strength, efficiency, and operation of
a drilling device or apparatus for the manufacture of which the respondent was
ostensibly organized, and also falsely stating, representing, and advertising that it is
engaged in business as a drill contractor, whereas its activities have been confined
solely to the sale of its capital stock, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal

Trade Commission act.
Complaint No.- 294 (June 23, 1919) .--Federal Trade Commission v. O. P.
Olsen & Co. (Inc.). Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in connection
with the sale of ship supplies, viz, secretly paying money to employees of its
customers, prospective customers, and customers and prospective customers of
competitors as an inducement to influence their employers to purchase respondent's
products and to refrain from dealing with respondent’s competitors, in alleged
violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 295 (June 23, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Bosson &
Lane. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in connection with the sale of
dyes, soaps, and kindred products, viz, giving gratuities of different kinds,
including sums of money, to employees of its customers, prospective customers,
and customers and prospective customers of competitors as an inducement to
influence their employers to purchase respondent's products and to refrain from
purchasing those of competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 296 (June 23, 1919) .--Federal Trade Commission v. Dobbins
Soap Manufacturing Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.
85
connection with the sale of soap and kindred products, viz, giving gratuities of
different kinds to employees of its customers, prospective customers, and
customers and prospective customers of competitors as an inducement to influence
their employers to purchase respondent’s products and to refrain from purchasing
those of competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act.
Complaint No. 297 (June 23, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. India Alkali
Works. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in connection with the sale
of savogram, washing powders, and kindred products, viz, giving gratuities of
different kinds to employees of its customers, prospective customers, and
customers and prospective customers of competitors as an inducement to influence
their employers to purchase respondent’s products and to refrain from purchasing
those of competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act.
Complaint No. 298 (June 23, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. National
Oil Products Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in connection with
the sale of oil, soap, and grease products, viz, giving gratuities of different kinds to
employees of its customers, prospective customers, and customers and prospective
customers of competitors as an inducement to influence their employers to purchase
respondent’s products and to refrain from purchasing those of competitors, in
alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No.299 (June 23, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. U. S. Oil &
Supply Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in connection with the
sale of on, soap, and mill supplies, viz, giving gratuities of different kinds to
employees of its customers, prosecutive customers, and customers and prospective
customers of competitors as an inducement to influence their employers to purchase
respondent’s products and to refrain from purchasing those of competitors, in
alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Com plaint No. 300 (June 23, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Robert
Cohn and Adolph Cohn, doing business under the name and style of Lois Cohn &
Sons. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in connection with the sale of
ship supplies, viz, secretly paying money to employees of their customers,
prospective customers, and customers amid prospective customers of competitors
as an inducement to influence their employers to purchase respondent's products
and to refrain from dealing with respondent’s competitors, in alleged violation of
section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 301 (June 23, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Arne
Meyer, doing business under the name and style of Marine Supply Co. Charge :
Using unfair methods of competition in connection with the sale of lifeboats, motor
boats, gas engines, machinery, and other ship supplies, viz, giving gratuities of
different kinds, including sums of money to employees of his customers,
prospective customers, and customers and prospective customers of competitors as
an inducement to influence their employers to purchase respondent's products and
to refrain from purchasing those of competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of
the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 302 (June 21, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. North

American Construction Co. Charge : The use by respondent, which is a mail-order
house engaged in the sale of lumber and building materials, of unfair methods of
competition, consisting of advertising matter and circular letters containing false
statements derogatory of so-called "regular dealers" in lumber, and false and
misleading statements concerning the alleged benefits which the public might
derive from trading with respondent, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission act.
Complaint No.303 (June 26, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Utah-Idaho
Sugar Co., Amalgamated Sugar Co., E. R. Wooled, A. P. Cooper, and E. F. Cullen.
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in connection with the manufacture
and sale of beet sugar, consisting in the circulation of false and misleading reports
concerning the business methods and financial standing of competitors and the
inability of competitors to produce sugar, due to the alleged fact that all the
producing territory is controlled by respondent; making long-term contracts with
growers in territories where competitors were intending to erect factories; causing
railroads to delay building tracks and other facilities for competitors and causing
banks to withhold credit; spying upon the private and business affairs of
competitors; establishing factories and buying

EXPORT TRADE DIVISION.
American business has lifted its eyes from our shores and is today projecting its
vision to the uttermost parts of the world. It is only within the last 20 years that our
business consciousness has been transposed from the national to the international
viewpoint. The Spanish War gave us possession of the Philippines and launched us
in foreign trade, which expanded steadily. The World War thrust upon us the
gigantic task of supplying the world. In 1918 there crystallized in Congress a
desire to put American commerce upon a basis where it could better compete with
that of foreign countries. This resulted in the passage of an act to promote export
trade, known as the Webb-Pomerene law, approved April 10, 1918, which
authorizes the formation of export associations to be, composed of two or more
persons, partnerships, or corporations for the sole purpose of engaging in export
trade or commerce. The passage -of the act was a signal for an outburst of fear and
criticism in some of the foreign countries, where it was imagined that this country
with its tremendous power would absorb the business of the world through
legalized combinations. The international press was generally hostile, and in the
respective countries manufacturers were urged to combine to meet "the invasion" of
these American business combinations formed under the Webb-Pomerene law. The
press of Denmark, the Argentine, and, in some instances, Great Britain and her
colonies believed their respective countries were about to be exploited.
The Melbourne Age of April 26, 1919, says editorially, “If Australian
manufacturers, now engaged in cutting one another's throats-in a strictly
commercial sense--on the foreign market, were to link arms in brotherly pursuit of
the common objective of exploiting the foreign market, they would, it is contended,
receive not only higher prices for their goods, but would sell more of them. This, in
short, is the ‘Webb Act’ of the United States of America, which is designed to
encourage for foreign operation the precise form of cooperation and organization
that is condemned for home use.” Undoubtedly the reason for the fear and hostility
toward the Webb-Pomerene law was due, in part, to a cursory reading of the act or
perhaps only cabled excerpts. When it was discovered that the Federal Trade
Commission was given the authority to apply the power already granted under its
organic act and other legislation to issue orders against unfair competition among
the American exporters (and to follow through to culmination the transactions of
American exporters) in their relation to each other in foreign countries, this fear
and hostility was arrested. This was due, no doubt, to the fact that the foreign trade
journals, the press, and Govern89

90
COMMISSION.

ANNUAL

REPORT

OF

THE

FEDERAL

TRADE

ment officials have followed very closely the decisions of the Federal Trade
Commission and are conversant with its attitude toward unfair competition.
Presently a sympathetic attitude began to set in, and it became recognized that the
Webb-Pomerene law might prove a beneficial factor in the development of
international trade. Mr. F. W. Field, British Trade Commissioner at Toronto,
Comments as follows on the act in a recent official report to his Government:
The approval of the export trade association act (Webb Act) in April, 1918, in the United States
attracted considerable attention on the part of Ontario manufactures. This act as is generally known,
assures to United States exporters those privileges of cooperation and combination long enjoyed by certain
of their competitors, but which had been prohibited to Americans under the general interpretation of the
antitrust laws of the United States. Naturally, the Ontario manufacturer is watching developments under
this act so far as they relate to this country. The act has not been in operation sufficiently long for its
results to be judged so far as this area is concerned. In addition, the prevalence of war conditions
temporarily nullified its benefits to a considerable extent. The general view is that indue course it will
prove a factor in increasing the trade of the United States with this market.

The Canadian Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce, in dis-cussing the
advantages derived from centralization and the Webb-Pomerene Act, in the twentyseventh annual report of the Department of Trade and Commerce of Canada, for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1919, states that in presenting the annual report of the
Department of Trade and Commerce last year he “laid considerable stress upon the
opinion that it was imperative that the various industries in Canada should organize
upon such basis as would permit of effort in the prosecution of foreign trade.” He goes
on to say that “events in the last few months have but tended to accentuate the
importance of this suggestion,” and that he is “glad to be able to report that his
suggestion has been received with marked favor and has led to active measures being
taken by a considerable number of Canadian industries to combine for the prosecution
of foreign trade.”
Machinery similar to that provided for in the Webb-Pomerene law has been
proposed in Great Britain by the committee on commercial and industrial policy after
the war, in its final report issued in 1918, as follows:
We accordingly recommend :
(a) That it should be a legislative requirement that all International combinations or agreements (or
combinations or agreements which are made directly or Indirectly on behalf of foreign interests) to which
British companies or firms are parties, made for the regulation of the prices of goods or services, or for
the delimitation of markets, should be registered at the board of trade by the British persons, firms, or
companies concerned, with a statement of the names of all the parties thereto and of the general nature and
object of the combination or agreement, and that all modifications of such agreements and all adhesions
and withdrawals should also be notified.
(b) That it should he optional for the parties to any combination or agreement between British firms
having for its object joint marketing arrangements, either in the United Kingdom or abroad, or the
regulation of prices or output or the delimitation of markets, to register such combination or agreement
at the Board of Trade, with a statement of the names of the parties thereto and as to its general nature and
object, and that such steps as may be necessary should be taken to make any price or other marketing
arrangements made by or resulting from combinations and agreements so registered enforceable at law as
between parties thereto.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

91

(c) That, in order that the Board of Trade may be able to keep itself fully informed
as to the nature, extent, and operations of industrial combinations in the United
Kingdom or of international combinations of which British firms, companies, or
associations form part, that department should have power to call upon individual
consolidations or combines from time to time to furnish for its confidential use such
information as it may require.
More recently still, in 1919, a committee 0£ the British Ministry of Reconstruction,
under the chairmanship of the lion. Charles A. McCurdy, M. P., after a study 0£ the
Federal Trade Commission of the United States, has recommended that a similar body
be created by Parliament, in the following language :
We are unanimously of opinion that it would be desirable to Institute in the United Kingdom machinery
for the investigation of the operation of monopolies, trusts, and combines, similar to the commissions and
other tribunals created for that purpose in the United States of America and the British Colonies above
referred to. The problems to be considered, before any just conclusion can be arrived at with regard to
the actual existence of abuses, If proved, are not matters on which It is possible for a committee such as
this to form any final or considered judgment. But we are satisfied that trade associations and combines
are rapidly Increasing In this country, and may within no distant period exercise a paramount control over
all Important branches of the British trade.
(d) There shall be established a tribunal, consisting of a person of legal qualifications as permanent
chairman, and not less than two nor more than seven other members selected by him from time to time
from a panel appointed for the purpose by the president of the Board of Trade after considering
nominations made by representative trade organizations, including the Cooperative Movement and Trade
Unions, which tribunal shall have power (1) on the application of the Board of Trade to make orders of
the kind specified under (c) (1) above, and (2) on reference from the Board of Trade, to Investigate the
operation of any organization specified in (a) and for that purpose to call for all books and papers, to take
evidence upon oath, and to adopt such other measures of inquiry as it may deem necessary to elicit the
facts, and when It shall be proved that acts injurious to the public interest have been committed such facts
as are relevant to the particular offense shall be published immediately on the conclusion of each inquiry.

This report reveals economic difficulties remarkably like those confronting our
country and an equitable and broad view of the legislative mind toward trade matters.
Canada has already created a trade commission and in Australia the interstate
commission operates along similar lines. The thought occurs that if the business
interests of the respective nations 0£ the world are to contend in the international arena
for their rightful shares of business, they must strive for the same in an harmonious
atmosphere. There can be no such thing unless there are standard rules of guidance
on the subject of competition adopted by the several nations and at least a potential
method of enforcement of the rule.
The time seems propitious for proposing to the business interests of the world the
idea that there shall be formed an international trade commission comprising
representatives of the several counties composing the league of nations. The following
skeleton outline is briefly sketched only as a tentative basis for launching the
suggestion :
In the event that the several nations composing the league create trade commissions,
and there seems to be a trend in that direction, a member or representative from each
might be selected as a representative on the international body. Where an offense is
alleged by business interests of one nation against those of another, the complaint
would come through the trade commission of the nation whose

92

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

citizens were complaining and be lodged with the international commission. The latter
body could then, in order that there might be no charge of discrimination, have the
cause tried by representatives of the international body not belonging to either one of
the nations at issue. The international body should adopt a rule agreeing after
investigation and hearing, to publish its findings and dismiss the complaint, if the
charge was groundless, or render its verdict to the trade commission of the nation
against whose citizens the verdict was rendered.
The publicity of such a proceeding should bring before the l)e()pies of the several
nations the real situation and would undoubtedly have a salutary effect in clarifying
and stabilizing international and national opinions where a complaint was lodged
unjustly or a wrong inflicted. In the event of the creation of such an international
body, the same would only consider disputes over unfair methods of competition as
between individuals or associations of different nations.
Rapid expansion of our export trade and concerted efforts of American business men
to promote foreign trade reflected themselves in number as well as importance of
export associations formed during the past year.
In order to handle effectively and efficiently the numerous matters of detail which
arise in connection with the export-trade act (Webb-Pomerene law), a special division
of the Commission, known as the Export Trade Division, has been created. Under the
supervision of the Commission a staff of trained economists and lawyers attend to
inquiries which come in from all parts of the country for information in connection
with the act, and advise with representatives of export associations and others
interested in the law. All documents required by the Webb-Pomerene law to be filed
with the Commission are received, examined, and kept on file by the Export Trade
Division.
Because of the dislocation of trade and industry brought about by the war, and
because rapidly changing economic conditions, which are growing up constantly in
foreign markets where American business relations have been established, are likely
at any time to affect competitive trade conditions generally, and the interests of
America’s export trade and export trade associations operating under the WebbPomerene law in particular, the Division keeps in close touch with all the new
developments in international trade, with a view to ascertaining their possible bearing
on the foreign trade of the United States, in so far as matters of this kind come within
the province of the Federal Trade Commission, both under the Webb-Pomerene law
and the Federal Trade Commission act. The latter act provides, in section 6 (h) that
the Commission shall have power-to investigate, from time to time, trade conditions in and with foreign countries where associations,
combinations, or practices of manufacturers, merchants, or traders, or other conditions may affect the
foreign trade of the United States, and to report to Congress thereon with such recommendations as it
deems advisable.

This phase of the work comprises, among other things, comparative investigations
of domestic and foreign prices in connection with export associations operating under
the Webb-Pomerene law; study

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

93

of unfair practices of competition in international trade; general competitive conditions
in foreign markets where American business relations have been established; analysis
of foreign and American legislation and judicature relating to trade combinations;
cartels, syndicates, etc.; studies and reports of foreign trade policies of foreign
countries; and other matters whereby our national foreign trade policy may be affected.
SUMMARY OF THE EXPORT TRADE ACT (WEBB-POMERENE) LAW.1
The export trade act, the purpose of which is to promote the export trade of the
United States, authorizes the formation of an export “association,” which may be
composed of “any corporation or combination, by contract or otherwise, of two or
more persons, partner ships, or corporations.” Such “association,” if complying with
the law, is, under sections 2 and 3 of this act, exempt from the Sherman law, approved
July 2, 1890, and from section. 7 of the Clayton act, a pp roved October 15, 1914. But
such arrangements or agreements must be entered into “for the sole purpose of
engaging in trade or commerce only in goods, wares, or merchandise exported or in
the course of being exported from the United States or any territory thereof to any
foreign nation.” Otherwise they will come within the provisions of the antitrust laws.
By the provisions of the act the words “export trade” shall not be deemed to include
“the production, manufacture, or selling for consumption or for resale, within the
United States or any territory thereof, of such goods, wares, or merchandise, or any act
in the course of such production, manufacture, or selling for consumption or for
resale.”
The “association” is also forbidden to restrain trade within the United States, to
commit acts in restraint of the export trade of any domestic competitor of such
“association,” or, either in the United States or elsewhere, to enter into any agreement,
understanding, or conspiracy to do any act which artificially enhances or depresses
prices within the United States of commodities of the class exported by such
association, or to substantially lessen competition within the United States or
otherwise restrain trade therein.
“Associations” now, or hereafter, solely engaged in export trade are required to file
certain statements with the Federal Trade Commission in the form specified by the act.
Whenever the Federal Trade Commission may have reason to believe that any
unlawful act of the character above mentioned has been committed, it is given power
to summon any officers of the or other persons it may choose, for the purpose of
conducting an investigation into the acts of the “association.” If it should be found
that the law has been violated the Commission may suggest readjustment in the
business of the association, so that it may be conducted in accordance with the law.
If the “association” fails to comply with the recommendations of the Commission, the
Commission is required to refer its findings and recommendations to the Attorney
General of the United States "for such action thereon as he may deem proper.”
1

Public No.126, 65th Congress

94

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Statements filed. - Section 5 of the Webb-Pomerene law provides that within 60 (lays
after its passage] every association then engaged solely in export trade shall file a
verified written statement with the Commission, setting forth the location of its offices
or places of business and the names and address of all its officers, stockholders, or
members, and, if a corporation a copy of its certificate or articles of incorporation and
by-laws., and if unincorporated, a copy of its articles or contract of association
Associations entered into subsequent to the passage of the Webb-Pomerene law are
required to file similar statements with the Commission within 30 days after their
creation.
On January 1 of each year every association is required to file with the Commission
a like statement, including all amendments to and changes in its articles or certificate
of incorporation, or in its article or contract of association.
Since the enactment of the Webb-Pomerene law, up to the end of the present fiscal
year, a total of 92 concerns have filed statements purporting to be under section 5 of
that act. They comprise an aggregate of 840 member concerns, several of which are
trade associations with a large membership of their own. Among the industries and
products for export covered (raw materials as well as manufactured goods) are the
following : Copper, steel, forest products, phosphate rock, magnesia, textiles, webbing
materials, cement, soda pulp, office equipment, paper and stationery, meats, provisions
and packing-house products, canned milk and milk products, fertilizers, tanning
materials, caustic soda and soda ash, clothes pins, pine-tar products, etc. The
individual member concerns are distributed throughout the United States, the various
plants being located in practically every State of the Union. The associations comprise
both large and small concerns. Among them are some representing a capital as small
as $5,000, while others are million-dollar corporations.
During the past fiscal year papers have been filed with the Commission by the
following concerns :
Adtama Trading Co., 44 Court Street, Brooklyn, N. Y.
Allied Manufacturers’ Export Corporation, The, 60 South Street, Boston, Mass.
American Export Lumber Corporation, Wilmington, Del.
American Industry Supply Export Co., 149 Broadway, New York.
American Magnesia Exporters Association, 721 Bulletin Building, Philadelphia, Pa.
American Paper Exports (Inc.), 30 Broad Street, New York City.
American Pitch Pine Export Co., 7 West Tenth Street, Wilmington, Del.
American Tanning Materials Corporation, Wilmington, Del.
American Webbing Manufacturing Export Corporation, 395 Broadway, New York.
Amsinck & Co., G., of Mexico (Inc.), 120 Broadway, New York.
Australian General Electric Co., Schenectady, N. Y.
American Provisions Export Co., 316-319 Royal Insurance Building, Chicago, Ill.
American Soda Pulp Export Association, 200 Fifth Avenue, New York.
American Locomotive Sales Corporation, 30 Church Street, New York.
American Milk Products Corporation, 302 Broadway, New York.
Alexander Hinchuk Co. (Inc.), 5 Beekman Street, New York.
Compangnia General Electric Sud-Americana (Inc.), Schenectady, N. Y.
Consolidated Steel Corporation, 165 Broadway, New York.
Copper Export Association (Inc.), 60 Broadway, New York.
Cosmo Trading Co., 133 West Washington Street, Chicago, Ill.
Cement Export Co. (Inc.), 40 Wall Street, New York.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

95

Carolina Wood Export Corporation, Wilmington, Del.
Canned Foods Export Corporation, 1739 H Street NW., Washington, D. C.
Deister Miners' Supply Co., Fort Wayne, Ind.
De Lima, Correa & Corrtissoz (Inc.), 8-10 Bridge Street, New York City.
Export Clothes-Pin Association of America (Inc.), 90 West Broadway, New York.
Franklin International Corporation, 958 Hoe Avenue, New York City.
Florida Hard Rock Phosphate Export Association, 106 East Bay Street, Savannah,
Ga.
Florida Pebble-Phosphate Export Association, 99 John Street, New York City.
Companhia General Electric do Brazil (Inc.), Rotterdam, Schenectady County N.
Y.
Getz Brothers of the Orient (Ltd.) (Inc.), 530 Davis Street, San Francisco, Calif.
Harper & Co., Locke T., 220 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, Calif.
Herzberg & Son, B., 1119 Fillmore Street, San Francisco, Calif.
Levy Co. (Inc.), A. A., 43 East Nineteenth Street, New York City.
M. P. Trading Co. (Inc.), 60 Wall Street, New York City.
Market & Schaefer Co., 193 West Street, New York City.
Maxim Munitions Corporation, 120 Broadway New York City.
National Trading Co., 460 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, Calif.
Oceanic Trading Corporation, First National Bank Building, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Overseas Products Corporation, 67 Wall Street, New York City.
Pennsylvania Importing and Exporting Co., 1101 Commonwealth Building,
Philadelphia, Pa.
Portuguese-American Trading Corporation, 120 Broadway, New York.
Pan American Exporters (Inc.), 517 Codehaux Building New Orleans, La.
Pan American Trading Co., 45 Pearl Street, New York City.
Pearson Export Corporation, 170 Broadway, New York City.
Peck & Co., William E., 104 Pearl Street, New York City.
Phosphate Export Association, 99 John Street, New York City.
South African General Electric Co., Schenectady, N. Y.
Southern Pacific Trading Corporation, Los Angeles, Calif.
Strong & Trowbridge Co., 17 Battery Place, New York, N. Y.
Textile Alliance Export Corporation, 45 East Seventeenth Street, New York.
United States Handle Export Co., Piqua, Ohio.
United States Office Equipment Export Association, care of Globe Wernicke Co.,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
United States Forest Products Co., care of Corporation Trust Company of Delaware,
Dover, Del.
United States Alkali Export Association (Inc.), 171 Madison Avenue, New York, N.
Y.
United States Provision Export Corporation, 175 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Ill.
Walnut Export Sales Co. (Inc.), 115 Broadway, New York.
Zaldo & Martinez Co). (Inc.), 66 Beaver Street, New York.

In listing the foregoing concerns, the Commission does not indicate that they are
qualified under the Webb-Pomerene law or entitled to the benefits of sections 2 and
3 of that act.
During the first few months after the enactment of the law a number of concerns
apparently thought it advisable to file statements to avoid any question as to the
penalty, imposed by section 5 for failure to do so. In several other cases it appears that
papers were filed without a careful consideration of the Webb-Pomerene law, particularly the provisions of sections 2, 3, and 5, which require that associations, in order to
qualify under the act, be entered into for the sole purpose of engaging in export trade
and that they be engaged solely and actually in "export trade," as that term is defined
in section 1 of the act.
However, a closer study of the provisions of the act is reflected in the statements
filed with the Commission during the past fiscal year.

96

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Forms for reports from export associations.-- For the convenience of those who
desire to file the statements required by section 5 of the act, the following printed
forums have been prepared, which are available upon application, viz., (1) first report
from export associations (due within 30 days after creation), and (2) report from export
associations (due Jan. 1 of each year.) (See Exhibits 6 and 7.)
Enforcement of the Webb-Pomerene law.--The Webb-Pomerene saw itself charges
the Federal Trade Commission with the enforcement of its salient provisions. Under
section 5, associations shall furnish to the Commission such information as it may
require as to their organization business conduct, practices, management, and relation
to other associations, corporations, partnerships, and individuals. The Commission is
authorized also to make recommendations as to how export associations may maintain
their organization and management and conduct their business in accordance with law.
Should it become necessary for an export association or for others engaged in the
export trade to seek the enforcement of the Commission’s power to prevent unfair
methods of competition under section 4 of the Webb-Pomerene law, the rules of
practice do not require formalities in the filing of information or the lodging of
complaints, but it is worth remembering that the fuller and more exact the information
and references as to proof thereof the speedier the results before the Commission. This
is especially true where the charges come from foreign countries, where the time
necessary for transmission might render the case academic through the sheer lapse of
time. Where the allegations come from abroad, the procedure of the Commission can
be more quickly set in motion if the papers are in such condition as to give the
Commission "reason to believe" that the alleged facts exist. Copies of letters,
advertisements, exhibits, and affidavits are extremely helpful, as also the names of
witnesses and sources of information, both in this country and abroad.
On May 27, 1919, the Commission issued its first formal complaint (Complaint
No.274) under section 4 of the act against an American manufacturer for unfair
methods of competition in export trade in connection with the exportation of
condensed milk to Mexico. (See list of proceedings instituted since July 1, 1918,
p.67.)
In order to meet the numerous requests from manufacturers, exporters, lawyers, and
business men generally for information of a general nature, as well as concerning the
practice and procedure under the Webb-Pomerene law, the Commission issued a
pamphlet entitled “Discussion of and Practice and Procedure under the Export Trade
Act (Webb-Pomerene law), 1919.” This publication, forming Foreign Trade Series
No.1, contains :
l. Practice and procedure.
2. Discussion of the export trade act.
3. An act to promote export trade (Webb-Pomerene law; Public 126, 65th Congress).
4. Sections 73 and 76, Wilson Tariff Act (approved Aug.27, 1894; amended and approved Feb.12,
1913).
5. Section 6 (h) Federal Trade Commission act (foreign investigations).

Copies of this pamphlet may be had on application to the Federal Trade
Commission, Washington, D. C., and marked “Export Division.”
June 28,1919.

ENEMY TRADE DIVISION.
By virtue of the authority vested in it by the act of October 6, 1917, known as the
“trading with the enemy act,” and the Executive order of October 12, 1917, the
Commission during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1919, received and considered 97
applications for license under enemy owned or controlled patents. Thirty-five licenses
were issued, while 26 applications remained pending at the close of the year. Twentyfour applications were denied, three returned as not falling within the purview of the
“enemy trade act,” and two were withdrawn.
In some instances several patents were included in a single license or added to a
license previously issued, which will explain the apparent discrepancy between the
number of applications received and the number accounted for. Licenses granted were
all nonexclusive in character and covered a wide range of subjects, including dyes,
drugs, chemicals, machinery, and apparatus of various sorts.
In addition to four licenses previously granted for the manufacture of arsphenamine
(or 606), two additional licenses were issued during the fiscal year, one to the Division
of Laboratories and Research of the New York State Department of Health and the
other to the Massachusetts State Department of Health, such licenses being issued for
the purpose of furnishing free for the clinics and institutions of the States named the
necessary quantities of this vital drug. The license issued to the Massachusetts State
Department of Health also authorized the distribution at actual cost to the boards or
departments of health of Maine, New Hampshire Vermont, Rhode Island, and
Connecticut such amounts of arsphenamine as were required for use in the institutions
of their respective States and the official clinics established for the treatment of
syphilis in accordance with the cooperative plan for venereal disease control entered
into by the United States Public Health Service and the various State boards or
departments of health. From every lot of arsphenamine which is produced a specimen
must be submitted to the Public Health Service, by whom it must be approved before
such lot is released for sale or use. In this way the purity of the drug is maintained at
the standard set by the Public Health Service.
ENEMY-OWNED TRADE-MARKS.
Since the passage of the trading with the enemy act 12 applications under enemyowned trade-marks have been received. Of this number four received favorable action
as follows :
Lehn & Fink, of New York City, were licensed to use the trademark “Pebeco” for
tooth paste; the Anchor Packing Co., of Philadelphia Pa., was licensed under the trademark “Tauril” for packing The Draeger Oxygen Apparatus Co., of Wilkensburg, Pa.,
was granted license to use the trade-mark “Pulmotor” in connection
147390--20----7

97

98

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

with life-saving apparatus, for which certain patent licenses were also granted them,
and the Abbott Laboratories, of Chicago, Ill., were licensed in connection with certain
patent licenses to use the trade-mark “Veronal” in placing on the market the product
introduced as “Barbital.” The eight remaining applications were denied.
In this connection, subsequent to the issue of license to Lehn & Fink under the trademark “Pebeco,” this trade-mark was seized by the Alien Property Custodian and sold
to Lehn & Fink for a consideration of $1,000,000.
ENEMY-CONTROLLED COPYRIGHTS.
During the fiscal year two applications only under enemy-controlled copyrights were
received, one from the John Crerar Library, of Chicago, Ill., covering (an important)
technical work entitled “Die Organischen Geschmacksstoffe,” and the other from
Joseph w. Herbert, of Palisade, N. J., covering the drama, “Der Seerauber.” License
was issued under each of these applications.
On April 10, 1919, the Alien Property Custodian, by virtue of the authority vested
in him, seized a large number of important patents, approximately 4,500, covering the
classes of dyes, drugs, and chemicals, which patents he turned over to the corporation
known as the Chemical Foundation (Inc.). This list of patents embraced a large number
under which the Federal Trade Commission had previously granted licenses, and while
the licenses theretofore granted were not affected the jurisdiction of the Commission
to issue additional licenses under such patents Ceased at the date the Alien Property
Custodian made demand and seizure, they being the no longer “enemy-owned” within
the meaning of the act. This fact, together with the signing of the armistice, with
prospective ratification of the treaty of peace (which would automatically terminate
the authority of the Commission to issue licenses under the terms of the enemy-trade
act), doubtless explains the decreasing volume of applications received for the fiscal
year.
As stated, the seizure of the patents by the Alien Property Custodian and the
subsequent transfer to the Chemical Foundation does not affect the licenses issued by
the Commission prior to the date of seizure, as all patents so seized and transferred to
American owners were seized and transferred subject to any licenses granted prior
thereto. with a single exception, the licenses granted by the Commission during the
year are all still effective, the exception being in the case of the Pfanstiehl Co.,
licensed under pyrophoric alloy. Surrender in this case was tendered by reason of the
patent having been sold by the Alien Property Custodian to another licensee of the
Commission, who is satisfactorily supplying the market demand.
The Executive order of April 11, 1918, revoked the authority of this Commission to
issue licenses to file or prosecute or to pay taxes concerning patents and trade-marks
in enemy countries. The Executive order referred to remains in full force and effect,
and hence during the fiscal year no licenses were issued by the Commission to file or
prosecute or to pay taxes or annuities concerning patents and trade-marks in enemy
countries.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

99

ORDERS OF SECRECY REGARDING INVENTIONS.
Section 10 (i) of the “trading with the enemy act” authorized the President, who
delegated his power to the Federal Trade Commission, to order that an invention be
kept secret and the grant of such patent withheld until the end of the war whenever the
publication of such invention or the grant of such patent might in his opinion be
detrimental to the public safety or defense or might assist the enemy or endanger the
successful prosecution of the war. Pursuant thereto approximately 1,300 orders of
secrecy were issued by the Commission during the year, over 1,000 inventions being
involved in such orders. Subsequent to the signing of the armistice a vacating order
was issued in practically all of the cases involved, and the orders of secrecy have
almost without exception been lifted.
INVESTIGATION OF ENEMY-CONTROL OF CORPORATIONS.
During the year questionnaires were sent out by the Commission to about 100
corporations for the purpose of disclosing stock owner-ship or control by enemies. The
reports thus received were placed at the disposal of the Alien Property Custodian for
whatever action 'night be justified by the information disclosed.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
JOHN FRANKLIN FORT,
Chairman.
VICTOR MURDOCK,
HUSTON THOMPSON,
WILLIAM B. COLVER,
Commissioners.

EXHIBIT l.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT.
AN ACT To create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties,
and
for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That a commission is hereby created and established,
to be known as the Federal Trade Commission (hereinafter referred to as the
commission), which shall be composed of five commissioners, who shall be appointed
by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Not more than
three of the commissioners shall be members of the same political party. The first
commissioners appointed shall continue in office for terms of three, four, five, six, and
seven years, respectively, from the late of the taking effect of this act, the term of each
to be designated by the President, but their successors shall be appointed for terms of
seven years, except that any person chosen to fill a vacancy shall be appointed only for
the unexpired term of the commissioner whom he shall succeed. The commission
shall choose a chairman from its own membership. No commissioner shall engage in
any other business, vocation, or employment. Any commissioner may be removed by
the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. A vacancy in
the commission shall not impair the right of the remaining commissioners to exercise
all the powers of the commission.
The commission shall have an official seal, which shall be judicially noticed.
SEC. 2. That each commissioner shall receive a salary of $10,000 a year, payable in
the same manner as the salaries of the judges of the courts of the United States. The
commission shall appoint a secretary, who shall receive a salary of $5,000 a year,
payable in like manner, and it shall have authority to employ and fix the compensation
of such attorneys, special experts, examiners, clerks, and other employees as it may
from time to time find necessary for the proper performance of its duties and as may
be from time to time appropriated for by Congress.
With the exception of the secretary, a clerk to each commissioner, the attorneys, and
such special experts and examiners as the commission may from time to time find
necessary for the conduct of its work, all employees of the commission shall be a part
of the classified civil service, and shall enter the service under such rules and
regulations as may be prescribed by the commission and by the Civil Service
Commission.
All of the expenses of the commission, including, all necessary expenses for
transportation incurred by the commissioners or by their employees under their orders,
in making any investigation, or upon official business in any other places than in the
city of Washington, shall be allowed and paid on the presentation of itemized vouchers
therefor approved by the commission.

Until otherwise provided by law, the commission may rent suitable offices for its
use.
The Auditor for the State and Other Departments shall receive and examine all
accounts of expenditures of the commission.
SEC. 3. That upon the organization of the commission and election of its chairman,
the Bureau of Corporations and the offices of Commissioner and Deputy
Commissioner of Corporations shall cease to exist; and all pending investigations and
proceedings of the Bureau of Corporations shall be continued by the commission.
All clerks and employees of the said bureau shall be transferred to and become
clerks and employees of the commission at their present grades and salaries. All
records, papers, and property of the said bureau shall become records, papers, and
property of the commission, and all unexpended funds and appropriations for the use
and maintenance of the said bureau, including any allotment already made to it by the
Secretary of Commerce from the contingent
101

102

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

appropriation for the Department of Commerce for the fiscal year nineteen hundred
and fifteen, or from the departmental printing fund for the fiscal year nineteen hundred
and fifteen, shall become funds and appropriations available to be expended by the
commission in the exercise of the powers, authority, and duties conferred on it by this
act. The principal office of the commission shall be in the city of Washington, but it
may meet and exercise all its powers at any other place. The commission may, by one
or more of its members, or by such examiners as it may designate, prosecute any
inquiry necessary to its duties in any part of the United States.
SEC. 4. That the words defined in this section shall have the following meaning
when found in this act, to wit:
“Commerce” means commerce among the several States or with foreign nations, or
in any Territory of the United States or in the District of Columbia, or between any
such Territory and another, or between any such Territories and any State or foreign
nation, or between the District of Columbia and any State or Territory or foreign
nation.
“Corporation” means any company or association incorporated or unincorporated,
which is organized to carry on business for profit and has shares of capital or capital
stock, and any company or association, incorporated or unincorporated, without shares
of capital or capital stock, except partnerships, which is organized to carry on business
for its own profit or that of its members.
“Documentary evidence” means all documents, papers, and correspondence in
existence at and after the passage of this act.
“Acts to regulate commerce” means the act entitled “An act to regulate commerce,”
approved February fourteenth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, and all acts
amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto.
“Antitrust acts” means the act entitled “An act to protect trade and commerce against
unlawful restraints and monopolies,” approved July second, eighteen hundred and
ninety; also the sections seventy-three to seventy-seven, inclusive, of an act entitled
“An act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Government, and for other
purposes,” approved August twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-four; and
also the act entitled “An act to amend sections seventy-three and seventy-six of the act
of August twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-four, entitled ‘An act to reduce
taxation, to provide revenue for the Government, and for other purposes,’” approved
February twelfth, nineteen hundred and thirteen.
SEC. 5. That unfair methods of competition in commerce are hereby declared
unlawful.
The commission is Hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships,
or corporations, except banks, and common carriers subject to the acts to regulate
commerce, from using unfair methods of competition in commerce.
Whenever the commission shall have reason to believe that any such person,
partnership, or corporation has been or is using any unfair method of competition in
commerce, and if it shall appear to the commission that a proceeding by it in respect
thereof would be to the interest of the public, it shall issue and serve upon such person,
partnerships or corporation a complaint starting its charges in their respect, and
containing a notice of a hearing upon a day and at a place therein fixed at least thirty
days after the service of said complaint. The person, partnership, or corporation so
complained of shall have the right to appear at the place and time so fixed and show

cause why an order should not be entered by the commission requiring such person,
partnership, or corporation to cease and desist from the violation of the law so charged
in said complaint. Any person, partnership, or corporation may make application, and
upon good cause shown may be allowed by the commission, to intervene and appear
in said proceeding by counsel or in person. The testimony in any such proceeding
shall be reduced to writing and filed in the office of the commission. If upon such
hearing the commission shall be of the opinion that the method of competition in
question is prohibited by this act, it shall make a report in writing in which it shall state
its findings as to the facts, and shall issue and cause to be served on such person,
partnership, or corporation an order requiring such person, partnership, or corporation
to cease and desist from using such method of competition. Until a transcript of the
record in such hearing shall have been filed in a circuit court of appears of the United
States, as hereinafter provided, the commission may at any time, upon such notice and
in such manner as it shall deem proper, modify or set aside, in whole or in part, any
report or any order made or issued by it under this section.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. 103
If such person, partnership, or corporation fails or neglects to obey such order of the
commission while this same is in effect, the commission may apply to the circuit court
of appeals of the United States, within any circuit where the method of competition in
question was used or where such person, partnership, or corporation resides or carries
on business, for the enforcement of its order, and shall certify and file application
transcript of the entire record in the proceeding, including all testimony taken and the
report and order of the commission. Upon such filing of the application and transcript
the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon such person, partnership, or
corporation and thereupon shall have jurisdiction of the proceeding and of the question
determined therein, and Shall have power to make and enter upon the pleadings,
testimony, and proceedings set forth in such transcript a decree affirming, modifying,
or setting aside the order of the commission. The findings of the commission as to the
facts, if supported by testimony, shall be conclusive. If either party shall apply to the
court for leave to adduce additional evidence, and shall show to the satisfaction of the
court that such additional evidence is material, and that there were reasonable grounds
for the failure to adduce such evidence in the proceeding before the commission, the
court may order such additional evidence to be taken before the commission and to be
adduced upon the hearing in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as to the
court may seem proper. The commission may modify its findings as to the fact, or
make new findings, by reason of the additional evidence so threat, and it shall file such
modified or new findings, which, if supported by testimony, shall be conclusive, and
its recommendation, if any, for the modification or setting aside of its original order,
with the return of such additional evidence. The judgment and decree of the court
shall be final, except that the same shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court
upon certiorari as provided in section two hundred and forty of the Judicial Code.
Any party required by such order of the commission to cease and desist from using
such method of competition may obtain a review of such order in said circuit court of
appeals by filing in the court a written petition praying that the order of the
commission be set beside. A copy of such petition Shall be forthwith served upon the
commission, and thereupon the commission forthwith shall certify and file in the court
a transcript of the record as hereinbefore provided. Upon the filing of the transcript
the court shut have the same jurisdiction to affirm, set aside, or modify the order of the
commission as in the case of an application by the commission for the enforcement of
its order, and the findings of the commission as to the facts, if supported by testimony,
shall in like manner be conclusive.
The jurisdiction of the circuit court of appeals of the United States to enforce, set
aside, or modify orders of the commission Shall be exclusive.
Such proceedings in the circuit court of appeals Shall be given precedence over other
cases pending therein, and shall be in every way expedited. No order of the
commission or judgment of the court to enforce the same shall in anywise relieve or
absolve any person, partnership, or corporation from any liability under the antitrust
acts.
Complaints, orders, and other processes of the commission under this section may
be served by anyone duly authorized by the commission, either (a) by delivering a
copy thereof to the person to be served, or to a member of the partnership to be served,
or to the president, secretary, or other executive officer or a director of the corporation
to he Served ; or (b) by leaving a copy thereof at the principal office or place of
business of such person, partnerships or corporation; or (c) by registering and mailing

a copy thereof addressed to such person, partnership, or corporation at his or its
principal office or place of business. The verified return by the person so serving said
complaint, order, or other process setting forth the manner of said service shelf be
proof of the same, and the return post-office receipt for said complaint, order, or other
process registered and mailed as aforesaid shall be proof of the service of the same.
SEC. 6. That the commission shall also have power-(a) To gather and compile information concerning, and to investigate front time to
time the organization, business, conduct, practices, tied management of any
corporation engaged in commerce, excepting, banks and common carriers and it
subject to the act to regulate commerce, relation to other corporations and to
Individuals, associations, and in partnerships.
(b) To require, by general or Special orders, corporations engaged in commerce,
excepting, banks, and common carriers subject to the act to regulate

104

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

commerce, or any class of them, or any of them, respectively, to file with the
commission in such form as the commission may prescribe annual or special, or both
annual and special, reports or answers in writing to specific questions, furnishing to
the commission such information as it may require as to the organization, business,
conduct, practices, management, and relation to other corporations, partnerships, and
individuals of the respective corporations filing such reports or answers in writing.
Such reports and answers shall be made under oath, or otherwise, as the commission
may prescribe, and shall be filed with the commission within such reasonable period
as the commission may prescribe, unless additional time be granted in any case by tile
commission.
(c) Whenever a final decree has been entered against any defendant corporation in
any suit brought by the United States to prevent and restrain any violation of the
antitrust acts, to make investigation, upon its own initiative, of the manner in which
the decree has been or is being carried out, and upon the application of the Attorney
General it shall be its duty to make such investigation. It shall transmit to the Attorney
General a report embodying its findings and recommendations as a result of any such
investigation, and the report shall be made public in the discretion of the commission.
(d) Upon the direction of the President or either House of Congress to investigate
and report the facts relating to any alleged violations of the antitrust acts by any
corporation.
(e) Upon the application of the Attorney General to investigate and make
recommendation for the readjustment of the business of any corporation alleged to be
violating the antitrust acts in order that the corporation may thereafter maintain its
organization, management, and conduct of business in accordance with law.
(f) To make public from time to time such portions of the information obtained by
it hereunder, except trade secrets and names of customers, as it shall deem expedient
in the public interest; and to make annual and special reports to the Congress and to
submit therewith recommendations for additional legislation; and to provide for the
publication of its reports and decisions in such form and manner as may be best
adapted for public information and use.
(g) From time to time to classify corporations and to make, rules and regulations for
the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this act.
(h) To investigate, from time to time, trade conditions in and with foreign countries
where associations, combinations, or practices of manufacturers, merchants, or traders,
or other conditions, may affect the foreign trade of the United States, mid to report to
Congress thereon, with such recommendations as it deems advisable.
SEC. 7. That in any suit in equity brought by or under the direction of the Attorney
General as provided in the antitrust acts, the court may, upon the conclusion of the
testimony therein, if it shall be then of opinion that the complainant is entitled to relief,
refer said suit to the commission, as a master in chancery, to ascertain and report an
appropriate form of decree therein. The commission shall proceed upon such notice
to the parties and under such rules of procedure as tile court may prescribe, and upon
the coming in of such report such exceptions may be filed and such proceedings had
in relation thereto as upon the report of a master in other equity causes, but the court
may adopt or reject such report, in whole or in part, and enter such decree as the nature
of the case may in its judgment require.
SEC. 8. That the several departments and bureaus of the Government when directed
by the President shall furnish the commission, upon its request, all records, papers, and

information in their possession relating to any corporation subject to any of the
provisions of this act, and shall detail from time to time such officials and employees
to the commission as he may direct.
SEC. 9. That for the purposes of this act tile commission, or its duly authorized agent
or agents, shall at all reasonable times have access to, for the purpose of examination,
and the right to copy any documentary evidence of any corporation being investigated
or proceeded against; and the commission shall naive power to require by subpena the
attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of all such documentary
evidence relating to any matter under investigation. Any member of the commission
may sign subpoenas, and members and examiners of the commission may administer
oaths and affirmations, examine witnesses, and receive evidence.
Such attendance of witnesses, and the production of such documentary evidence,
may be required
from any place in the United States, at any designated place of hearing. And in case
of disobedience to a subpena the commission

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

105

may invoke the aid of any court of the United States in requiring the attendance and
testimony of witnesses and the protection of documentary evidence.
Any of the district courts of the United States within the jurisdiction of which such
inquiry is carried on may, in case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpoena issued
to any corporation or other person, issue an order requiring such corporation or other
person to appear before the commission, or to produce documentary evidence if so
ordered, or to give evidence touching the matter in question; and any failure to obey
such order of the court may be punished by such court is a contempt thereof.
Upon the application of the Attorney General of the United States, at the request
of the commission, the district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to
issue writs of mandamus commanding any person or corporation to comply with the
provisions of this act or any order of the commission made in pursuance thereof.
The commission may order testimony to be taken by deposition in any proceeding
or investigation pending under this act at any stage of such proceeding or investigation.
Such depositions may be taken before any person designated by the commission and
having power to administer oaths. Such testimony shall be reduced to writing by the
person taking the deposition, or under his direction, and shall then be subscribed by
the deponent. Any person may be compelled to appear and depose and to produce
documentary evidence In the same manner as witnesses may be compelled to appear
and testify and produce documentary evidence before the commission as hereinbefore
provided.
Witnesses summoned before the commission shall be paid the same fees and
mileage that are paid witnesses in the courts of the United States, and witnesses whose
depositions are taken and the persons taking the same shall severally be entitled to the
same fees as are paid for like services in the courts of the United States.
No person shall be excused from attending and testifying or from producing
documentary evidence before the commission or in obedience to the subpoena. of the
commission on the ground or for the reason that the testimony or evidence,
documentary or otherwise, required of him may tend to criminate him or subject him
to a penalty or forfeiture. But no natural person shall be prosecuted or subjected to
any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing
concerning which he may testify, or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise,
before the commission in obedience to a subpoena issued by it: Provided, That no
natural person so testifying shall be exempt from prosecution and punishment for
perjury committed in so testifying.
SEC. 10. That any person who shall neglect or refuse to attend and testify, or to
answer any lawful inquiry, or to produce documentary evidence, if in his power to do
so, in obedience to the subpoena or lawful requirement of the commission, shall be
guilty of an offense and upon conviction thereof by a court of competent jurisdiction
shall be punished by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000, or by
imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
Any person who shall willfully make, or cause to be made, any false entry or
statement of fact in any report required to be made under this act, or who shall
willfully make, or cause to be made, any false entry in any account, record, or
memorandum kept by any corporation subject to this act, or who shall willfully neglect
or fail to make, or to cause to be made, full, true, and correct entries in such accounts,
records, or memoranda of all facts and transactions appertaining to the business of
such corporation, or who shall willfully remove out of the jurisdiction of the United

States, or willfully mutilate, alter, or by ally other means falsify any documentary
evidence of such corporation, or who, shall willfully refuse to submit to the
commission or to any of its authorized agents, for the purpose of inspection and taking
copies, any documentary evidence of such corporation in his possession or within his
control, shall be deemed guilty of an offense against the United States, and shall be
subject, upon conviction in any court of the United States of competent jurisdiction,
to a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000, or to imprisonment for a term
of not more than three years, or to both such fine and imprisonment.
If any corporation required by this act to file any annual or special report shall fail
so to do within the time fixed by the commission for filing the same, and such future
shall continue for thirty days after notice of such default, the corporation shall forfeit
to the United States the sum of $100 for each and every day of the continuance of such
failure, which forfeiture shall be payable

106

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

into the Treasury of the United States and shall be recoverable in a civil suit in the
name of the United States brought in the district where the corporation has its principal
office or in any district in which it shall do business. It shall be the duty of the various
district attorneys, under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, to
prosecute for the recovery of forfeitures. The costs and expenses of such prosecution
shall be paid out of the appropriation for the expenses of the courts of the United
States.
Any officer or employee of the commission who shall make public any information
obtained by the commission, without its authority, unless directed by a court, shall be
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by
a fine not exceeding $5,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by fine
and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.
SEC. 11. Nothing contained in this act shall be construed to prevent or interfere
with the enforcement of the provisions of the antitrust acts or the acts to regulate
commerce, nor shall anything contained In the act be construed to, alter, modify, or
repeal the said antitrust acts or the acts to regulate commerce or any part or parts
thereof.
Approved, September 26, 1914.

EXHIBIT 2.
PROVISIONS OF THE CLAYTON ACT WHICH CONCERN THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.
“Commerce,” as used herein, means trade or commerce among the Several States and
with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia or any Territory of the
United States and any State, Territory, or foreign nation, or between any insular
possessions or other places under the jurisdiction of the United States, or between any
such possession or place and any State or Territory of the United States or the District
of Columbia or any foreign nation, or within the District of Columbia or any Territory
or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States:
Provided, That nothing in this act contained shall apply to the Philippine Islands.
The word “person” or “persons” wherever used in this act shall be deemed to include
corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of either the
United States, the laws of any of the Territories, the laws of any State, or the laws of
any foreign country.
SEC. 2. That it shall he unlawful for any person engaged In commerce, in the course
of such commerce, either directly or indirectly to discriminate in price between
different purchasers of commodities, which commodities are sold for use,
consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District
of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the
United States, where the effect of such discrimination may be to substantially lessen
competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce: Provided, That
nothing herein contained shall prevent discrimination in price between purchasers, of
commodities, on account of differences in the grade, quality, or quantity of the
commodity sold, or that makes only due allowance for difference in the cost of Selling
or transportation, or discrimination in price in the same or different communities made
in good faith to meet competition: And provided further, That nothing herein contained
shall prevent persons engaged in selling goods, wares, or merchandise in commerce
from .selecting their own customers in bona fide transactions and not in restraint of
trade.
SEC. 3. That it shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course
of such commerce, to lease or make a sale. or contract for sale of goods, wares,
merchandise, machinery, supplies or other commodities, whether patented or
unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory
thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the
jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefore or discount front, or
rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement or understanding that the lessee
or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery,
supplies, or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller,
where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement
or understanding may be to substantially lesson competition or tend to, create a

monopoly in any line of commerce.
SEC. 7. That no corporation engaged in commerce shall acquire, directly or
indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital of another
corporation engaged also in commerce, where the effect of such acquisition maybe to
substantially lessen competition between the corporation whose stock is so acquired
and the corporation making the acquisition, or to restrain such commerce in any
section or community, or tend to create a monopoly of any line of commerce.
No corporation shall acquire, directly or indirectly the whole or any part of the stock
or other share capital of two or more corporations engaged in commerce where the
effect of such acquisition, or the use of such stock by the voting or granting of proxies
or otherwise, may be to substantially lessen competition
107

108

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

between such corporations, or any of them, whose stock or other share capital is so
acquired, or to restrain such commerce in any section or community, or tend to create
a monopoly of any line of commerce.
This section shall not apply to corporations purchasing such stock solely for
Investment and not using the same by voting or otherwise to bring about, or in
attempting to bring about, the substantial lessening of competition. Nor shall anything
contained in this section prevent a corporation engaged in commerce from causing the
formation of subsidiary corporations for the actual carrying on of their immediate
lawful business, or the natural and legitimate branches or extensions thereof, or from
owning and holding all or a part of tile stock of such subsidiary corporations, when the
effect of such formation is not to substantially lessen competition.
Nor shall anything herein contained be construed to prohibit any common carrier
subject to the laws to regulate commerce from aiding in the construction of branches
or short lines so located as to become feeders to the main line of the company so
aiding in such construction or from acquiring or owning all or any part of the stock of
such branch lines, nor to prevent any such common carrier
from acquiring and owning all or any part of the stock of a branch or short line
constructed by an independent company where there is no substantial competition
between the company owning the branch line so constructed land the company owning
the main line acquiring the property or an interest therein, nor to prevent such common
carrier from extending any of its lines through the medium of the acquisition of stock
or otherwise of any other such common carrier where there is no substantial
competition between the company extending its lines and tile company whose stock,
property, or an interest therein is so acquired.
Nothing contained. in this section shall be held to affect or impair any right
heretofore legally acquired: Provided, That nothing in this section shall be held or
construed to authorize or make lawful anything heretofore prohibited or made illegal
by the antitrust laws, nor to exempt any person from the penal provisions thereof or
the civil remedies therein provided.
SEC. 8. That from and after two years from the date of the approval of this act no
person at the same time shall be a director in any two or more corporations, any one
of which has capital, surplus, and undivided profits aggregating more than $1,000,000,
engaged in whole or in part in commerce, other than banks, banking associations, trust
companies and common carriers subject to the act to regulate commerce, approved
February fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, if such corporations are or shall
have been theretofore, by virtue of their business and location of operation,
competitors, so that the elimination of competition by agreement between them would
constitute a violation of any of the provisions of any of the antitrust laws. The
eligibility of a director under the foregoing provision shall be determined by the
aggregate amount of the capital, surplus, and undivided profits, exclusive of dividends
declared but not paid to stockholders, at the end of the fiscal year of said corporation
next preceding the election of directors, and when a director has been elected in
accordance with the provisions of this act it shall be lawful for him to continue as such
for one year thereafter.
When any person elected or chosen as a director or officer or selected as an
employee of any bank or other corporation subject to the provisions of this act is
eligible at the time of his election or selection to act for such bank or other corporation
in such capacity his eligibility to act in such capacity shall not be affected and lie shall

not become or be deemed amenable to ally of the provisions hereof by reason of any
crime in the affairs of such bank or other corporation from whatsoever cause, whether
specifically excepted by any of the provisions hereof or not, until the expiration of one
year from the date of his election or employment.
SEC. 11. That authority to enforce compliance with sections two, three, seven and
eight of this act by the persons respectively subject thereto is hereby vested in the
Interstate Commerce Commission where applicable to common carriers, in the Federal
Reserve Board where applicable to banks, banking associates and trust companies, and
in the Federal trade Commission where applicable to all other character of commerce,
to be exercised as follows:
Whenever the Commission or Board vested with jurisdiction thereof shall have
reason to believe that any person is violating or has violated any of the provisions of
sections two, three, seven and eight of this act, it shall issue and serve upon such
person a complaint stating its charges in that respect, and containing a notice of a
hearing upon a day and at a place therein fixed at

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.
109
least thirty days after the service of said complaint. The person so complained of shall
have the right to appear at the place and time so fixed and show cause why an order
should not be entered by the commission or board requiring such person to cease and
desist from the violation of the law so charged in said complaint. Any person may
make application, and upon good cause spoken may be allowed by the commission or
board, to intervene and appear in said proceeding by counsel or in person. The
testimony in any such proceeding shall be reduced to writing and filed in the office of
the commission or board. If upon such hearing the commission or board, as the case
may be, shall be of the option that any of the provisions of said sections have been or
are being violated, it shall make a report in writing in which it shall state its findings
as to the facts, and shall issue and cause to be served on such person an order requiring
such person to cease and desist from such violations, and divest itself of the stock held
or rid itself of the directors chosen contrary to the provisions of sections seven and
eight of this act, if any there be, in the manner and within the time fixed by said order.
Until a transcript of the record in such notice shall have been filed in a circuit court of
appeals of the United States, as hereinafter provided, the commission or board may at
any time, upon such notice and in such manner as it shall deem proper, modify or set
aside, in whole or in part, any report or any order made or issued by it under this
section.
If such person fails or neglects to obey such order of the commission or board while
the same is in effect, the commission or board may apply to the circuit Court of
appeals of the United States, within any circuit where the violation complained or was
or is being committed or where such person resides or carries on business, for the
enforcement of its order, and shall certify and file with its application a transcript of
the entire record in the proceeding including all the testimony taken and the report and
order of the commission or board. Upon such filling of the application and transcript
the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon such person and thereupon shall
have jurisdiction of the proceeding and of the question determined therein, and shall
have power to make and enter upon the pleadings, testimony, and proceedings set forth
in such transcript a decree affirming, modifying, or setting aside the order of the
commission or board. The findings of the commission or board as to the facts, if
supported by testimony, shall be conclusive. If either party shall apply to the court for
leave to adduce additional evidence, and shall show to the satisfaction of the court that
such additional evidence is material and thwart there were reasonable grounds for the
failure to adduce such evidence in the proceeding before the commission or board, the
court may order such additional evidence. to be taken before the commission or board
and to be adduced upon the hearing In such manner and upon such terms and
conditions as to the court may seem proper. The commission or board may modify its
findings as to the facts, or make new findings, by reason of the additional evidence so
taken, and it shall file such modified or new findings, which, if supported by
testimony, shall be conclusive, and its recommendation, if any, for the modification
or setting aside of its original order, with the return of such additional evidence. The
judgment and decree of the court shall be final, except that the same shall be subject
to review by the Supreme Court upon certiorari as provided in section two hundred
laid forty of the Judicial Code.
Any party required by such order of the commission or board to cease and desist
from a violation charged may obtain a review of such order in said circuit court of

appears by finite in the court a written petition praying that the order of the
commission or board be set aside. A copy of such petition shall be forthwith served
upon the commission or board, and thereupon the commission or board forthwith shall
certify and file in the court a transcript of the record as hereinbefore provided. Upon
the filing of the transcript the court shall have the same jurisdiction to affirm, set aside,
or modify the order of the commission or board as in the case of an application by the
commission or board for the enforcement of its order, and the finding of the
commission or board as to the facts, if supported by testimony, shall in like manner be
conclusive.
The jurisdiction of the circuit court of appeals of the United States to enforce, set
aside, or modify orders of the commission or board shall be exclusive.
Such proceedings in the circuit court of appeals shall be given precedence. over
other cases pending therein, and shall be in every way expedited. No order of the
commission or board or the judgment of the court to enforce the same shall in any wise
relieve or absolve any person from any liability under the antitrust acts.

110

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Complaints, orders, and other processes of tile commission or board under this
section may be served by anyone duly authorized by the commission or board, either
(a) by delivering a copy thereof to the person to be served. or to a member of the
partnership to be served, or to the president, secretary, or other executive officer or a
director of the corporation to be served; or (b) by leaving a copy thereof at the
principal office or place of business of such person; or (c) by registering and mailing
a copy thereof addressed to such person at his principal office or place of business.
The verified return by tile person so serving said complaint, order, or other process
setting forth the manner of said service shall be proof of the same, and the return postoffice receipt for said complaint, order, or other process registered and mailed as
aforesaid shall be proof of tile service of the same.
Approved, October 15, 1914.

EXHIBIT 3.

RULES OF PRACTICE BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.
I. SESSIONS.
The principal office of the commission at Washington, D. C., is open each business
day from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The commission may meet and exercise all its powers at
any other place, and may, by one or more of Us members, or by such examiners as it
may designate, prosecute any inquiry necessary to its duties in any part of the United
States.
Sessions of the commission for hearing contested proceedings will be held as
ordered by the commission.
Sessions of the commission for the purpose of making orders and for the transaction
of other business, unless otherwise ordered, Will be held at the office of the
commission at Washington, D. C., on each business day at 10.30 a. in. Three members
of the commission shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
All orders of the commission shall be signed by the Secretary.
II. COMPLAINTS.
Any person partnership, corporation, or association may apply to the commission to
institute a proceeding in respect to any violation of law over which the commission has
jurisdiction.
Such application shall be in writing, signed by or in behalf of the applicant, and shall
contain a short and simple statement of the facts constituting the alleged violation of
law and the name and address of the applicant and of the party complained of.
The commission shall investigate the matters complained of in such application, and
if upon investigation the commission shall have reason to believe that there is a
violation of law over which the commission has jurisdiction, tile commission shall
issue and serve upon the party complained of a complaint, stating its charges and
containing a notice of a hearing -upon a day and at a place therein fixed at least 40
days after the service of said complaint.
III. ANSWERS.
Within 30 days from the service of the complaint, unless such time be extended by
order of the commission, the defendant shall file with the commission an answer to the
complaint. Such answer shall contain a short and simple statement of the facts Which
constitute the ground of defense. It shall specifically admit or deny or explain each of
the facts alleged in the complaint, unless the defendant is without knowledge, in which
case lie shall so state, such statement operating as a denial. Answers in typewriting
must be on one side of the paper only, on paper not more then 8 ½ inches wide and not
more than 11 inches long, and weighing not less then 16 pounds to the ream, folio
base, 17 by 22 Inches, with left-hand margins not less than 1 ½ inches wide, or they
may be printed in 10 or 12 point type on good unglazed paper 8 inches wide by 10 ½

inches long, with inside margins not less than 1 inch wide.
IV. SERVICE.
Complaints, orders, and other processes of the commission may be served by anyone
duly authorized by the commission, either (a) by delivering a copy thereof to the
person to be served, or to a member of the partnership to be served, or to the president,
secretary, or other executive officer, or a director of the corporation or association to
be served; or (b) by leaving a copy thereof at
111

112

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

the principal office or place of business of such person, partnership, corporation, or
association; or (c) by registering and mailing a copy thereof addressed to such person,
partnership, corporation, or association at his or its principal office or place of
business. The verified return by the person so serving said complaint, order, or other
process, setting forth the manner of said service, shall be proof of the same, and the
return post-office receipt for said complaint, order, or other process, registered and
wailed as aforesaid, shall be proof of the service of the same.
V. INTERVENTION.
Any person, partnership, corporation, or association desiring to intervene in a
contested proceeding shall make application in writing, setting out the grounds on
which lie or it claims to be interested. The commission may, by order, permit
intervention by counsel or in person to such extent and upon such terms as it shall
deem just.
Applications to intervene must be on one side of the paper only, on paper not more
than 8 ½ inches wide and not more than 11 inches long, and weighing not less than 16
pounds to the ream, folio base, 17 by 22 inches, with left-hand margin not less than 1
½ inches wide, or they may be printed in 10 or 12 point type on good unglazed paper
8 inches wide by 10 ½ inches long, with inside margins not less than 1 inch wide.
VI. CONTINUANCES AND EXTENSIONS OF TIME.
Continuances and extensions of time will be granted at the discretion of the
commission.
VII. WITNESSES AND SUBPOENAS:
Witnesses shall be examined orally, except that for good and exceptional cause for
departing from the general rule the commission may permit their testimony to be taken
by deposition.
Subpoenas requiring the attendance of witnesses from any place in the United States
at any designated place of hearing may be issued by any member of the commission.
Subpoenas for the production of documentary evidence (unless directed to issue by
a commissioner upon his own motion) will issue only upon application in writing,
which must be verified and must specify, as near as may be, the documents desired and
the facts to be proved by them.
Witnesses summoned before the commission shall be paid the same fees and mileage
that are paid witnesses in the courts of the United States, and witnesses whose
depositions are taken, and the persons taking the same, shall severally be entitled to
the same fees as are paid for like services in the courts of the United States.
VIII. TIME FOR TAKING TESTIMONY.
Upon the joining of issue in a proceeding by the Commission the examination of
witnesses therein shall proceed with all reasonable diligence and with the least
practicable delay. Not less than 5 nor more than 10 days’ notice shall be given by the
Commission to counsel or parties of the time and place of examination of witnesses
before the Commission, a commissioner, or an examiner.

IX. OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE.
Objections to the evidence before the Commission, a commissioner, or an examiner
shall, in any proceeding, be in short form. starting the grounds of objections relied
upon, and no transcript filed shall include argument or debate.
X. MOTIONS.
A motion in a proceeding by the Commission shall briefly state the nature of the
order applied for, and all affidavits, records, and other helpers upon which the same
is founded, except such as have been previously filed or served in the same
proceeding, shall be filed with such motion and plainly referred to therein.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

113

XI. HEARINGS ON INVESTIGATIONS.
When a matter for investigation is referred to a single commissioner for examination
or report, such commissioner may conduct or hold conferences or hearings thereon,
either alone or with other commissioners who may sit with him, and reasonable notice
of the time and place of such hearings shall be given to parties in interest and posted.
The general counsel or one of his assistants, or such other attorney as shall be
designated by the Commission, shall attend and conduct such hearings, anti such
hearings way, in the discretion of the commissioner holding same, be public.
VIII. DEPOSITIONS IN CONTESTED PROCEEDINGS.
The commission may order testimony to be taken by deposition in a contested
proceeding.
Depositions may be taken before any person designated by the commission and
having power to administer oaths.
Any party desiring to take the deposition of a witness shall make application in
writing, setting out the reasons why such deposition should be taken, and stating the
time when, the place where, and the name and post-office address of the person before
whom it is desired the deposition be taken, the name and post-office address of the
witness, and the subject matter or matters concerning which the witness is expected
to testify. if good cause be shown, the commission will make and serve upon the
parties of their attorneys an order wherein the commission shall name the witness
whose deposition is to be taken, and specify the time when, the place where, and the
person before whom the witness is to testify, but such time and place, and the person
before whom the deposition is to be taken, so specified in the commission’s order, may
or may not be the same as those named in said application to the Commission.
The testimony of the witness shall be reduced to writing by the officer before whom
the deposition is taken, or under his direction, after which the deposition shall be
subscribed by the witness and certified in usual form by the officer. After the
deposition has been so certified it shall, together with a copy thereof made by such
officer or under his direction, be forwarded by such officer under seal in an envelope
addressed to the commission at its office in Washington, D. C. Upon receipt of the
deposition and copy the commission shall file in the record in said proceeding such
deposition and forward the copy to the defendant or the defendant’s attorney.
Such depositions shall be typewritten on one side only of the paper, which shall be
not more than 8 ½ inches wide and not more than 11 inches long and weighing not less
than 16 pounds to the ream, folio base, 17 by 22 inches, with left-hand margin not less
than 1 ½ inches wide.
No deposition shall be taken except after at least 6 days’ notice to the parties, and
where the deposition is taken in a foreign country such notice shall be at least 15 days.
No deposition shall be taken either before the proceeding is at issue, or, unless under
special circumstances and for good cause shown, within 10 days prior to the date of
the hearing thereof assigned by the commission, and where the deposition is taken in
a foreign country it shall not be taken after 30 days prior to such date of hearing.
IX. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.
Where relevant and material matter offered in evidence is embraced In a document
containing other matter not material or relevant and not. intended to be put in
evidence, such document will not be filed, but a copy only of such relevant and

material matter shall be filed.
X. BRIEFS.
Unless otherwise ordered, briefs may be filed at the close of the testimony In each
contested proceeding. The presiding commissioner or examiner shall fix the time
within which briefs shall be filed and service thereof shall be made upon the adverse
parties.
All briefs must be filed with tile secretary and be accompanied by proof of service
upon the adverse parties. Fifteen copies of each brief shall be furnished for the use of
the commission, unless otherwise ordered.
174390--20----8

114

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Application for extension of time in which to file any brief shall be by petition in
writing, Stating the facts upon which tile application rests, which must be filed with
the commission at least 5 days before the time for filing the brief.
Every brief shall contain, in the order here stated(1) A concise abstract, or statement of the case.
(2) A brief of the argument, exhibiting, a clear statement of the points of fact or law
to be discussed, with the reference to the pages of the record and the authorities relied
upon in support of each point.
Every brief of more than 10 pages shall contain on its top fly leaves a subject index
with page references, the subject index to be supplemented by a list of all cases
referred to, alphabetically arranged, together with references to pages where the cases
are cited.
Briefs must be printed in 10 or 12 point type on good unglazed paper 8 inches by 101
inches, with inside margins not less than 1 inch wide, and with double leaded text and
single-leaded citations.
Oral arguments will be had only as ordered by the commission.
XI. ADDRESS OF THE COMMISSION.
All communications to the commission must be addressed to Federal Trade
Commission, Washington, D.C., unless otherwise specifically directed.

EXHIBIT 5.
EXTRACTS FROM THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT AND
EXECUTIVE ORDER OCTOBER 12, 1917
The act of Congress approved October 6, 1917, known as the trading with the enemy
act, contains the following provisions:
SEC. 10.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Any citizen of the United States, or any corporation organized within the United
States, may, when duly authorized by the President, pay to an enemy or ally of enemy
any tax, annuity, or fee which may be required by the laws of much enemy or ally of
enemy nation in relation to patents and trademarks, prints, labels, and copyrights; and
any such citizen or corporation may file and prosecute an application for letters patent
or for registration of trademark, print, label, or copyrights in the country of an enemy,
or of an ally of enemy, after first submitting such application to the President and
receiving license so to file and prosecute, and to pay the fees required by law and
customary agents’ fees, the maximum amount of which in each case shall be subject
to the control of the President.
(c) Any citizen of the United States or any corporation organized within the United
States desiring to manufacture, or cause to be manufactured, a machine, manufacture,
composition of matters or design, or to carry on, or to use any trademark, print, label,
or cause to be carried on a process under any patent or copyrighted matter owned or
controlled by an enemy or ally of enemy at any time during the existence of a state of
war may apply to the President for a license; and the President is hereby authorized to
grant such a license, nonexclusive or exclusive as he shall deem best, provided lie shall
be of the opinion that such grant is for the public welfare, and that the applicant is able
and intends in good faith to manufacture, or cause to be manufactured, the machine,
manufacture, composition of matter, or design, or to carry on, or cause to be carried
on, the process or to use the trademark, print, label, or copyrighted matter. The
President may prescribe the conditions of this license, including the fixing of prices
of articles and products necessary to the health of the military and naval forces of the
United States or the successful prosecution of the war, and the rules and regulations
under which such license may be granted and the fee which shall be charged therefore
not exceeding $100, and not exceeding one per centum of the fund deposited as
hereinafter provided. Such license shall be a complete defense to any suit at law or in
equity instituted by the enemy or ally of enemy owners of the letters patent, trademark, print, label, or copyright, or otherwise, against the licensee for infringement or
for damages, royalty, or other money award on account of anything done by the
licensee under such license, except as provided in subsection (f ) hereof.
(d) The licensee shall file with the President a full statement of the extent of the use
and enjoyment of the license, and of the prices received in such form and at such stated
periods (at least annually) as the President may prescribe; and the licensee shall pay
at such times as many be required to the alien property custodian not to exceed five per
centum of the gross sums received by the licensee from the sale of said inventions or
use of the trademark, print, label, or copyrighted matter or, if the President shall so
order, five per centum of the value of the use of such inventions, trademarks, prints,
labels, or copyrighted matter to the licensee as established by the President; and sums

so paid shall be deposited by said alien property custodian forthwith in the Treasury
of the United States as a trust fund for the said licensee and for the owner of the said
patent, trade-mark, print, label, or copyright registration as hereinafter provided, to be
paid from the Treasury upon order of the court, as provided in sub115

116

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

division (f) of this section, or upon the direction of the alien property custodian.
(e) Unless surrendered or terminated is provided in this act, any license, granted
hereunder shall continue during the term fixed in the license or in the absence of any
such limitation during the term of the patent, trademark, print, label, or copyright
registration under which it is granted. Upon violation by the licensee of any of the
provisions of this act, or of the conditions of the license, the President may, after due
notice and hearing, cancel any license granted by him.
(f) The owner of any patent, trade-mark, print, label, or copyright under which a
license is granted hereunder may, after the end of the war and until the expiration of
one year thereafter, file a bill ill equity against the licensee in the, district court of the
United States for the district in which the said licensee resides, or, if a corporation, in
which it has its principal place of business (to which suit the Treasurer of the United
States shall be made a party), for recovery from the said licensee for all use and
enjoyment of the said patented invention, trade-mark, print, label, or copyrighted
matter: Provided, however, That whenever suit is brought, as above, notice shall be
filed with the alien property custodian within thirty days after date of entry of suit:
Provided further, That the licensee may make any and all defenses which would be
available were no license granted. The court on due proceedings had may adjudge and
decree to the said owner payment of a reasonable royalty. The amount of said
judgment and decree, when final, shall be paid on order of the court to the owner of
the patent from the fund deposited by the licensee, so far as such deposit will satisfy
said judgment and decree; and the said payment shall be in full or partial satisfaction
of said judgment and decree, as the all such judgments and decrees, facts may appear;
and if, after payment of, there shall remain any balance of said deposit, such balance
shall be repaid to the licensee on order of the alien property custodian. If no suit is
brought within one year after the end of the war, or no notice is filed as above required, then the licensee shall not be liable to make any further deposits, and all funds
deposited by him shall be repaid to him on order of the alien property custodian. Upon
entry of suit and notice filed as above required, or upon repayment of funds as above
provided, the liability of the licensee to make further reports to the President shall
cease.
If suit is brought, as above provided, the court may, at any time, terminate the
license, and may, in such event, issue an injunction to restrain the licensee from
infringement thereafter, or the court, in case the licensee, prior to suit, shall have made
investment of capital based on possession of the license, may continue the license for
such period and upon such terms and with much royalties as it shall find to be just and
reasonable.
(g) Any enemy, or ally of enemy, may institute and prosecute suits in equity against
any person other than a licensee under this act to enjoin infringement of letter patent,
trade-mark, print. label, and copyrights ill the United States, owned or controlled by
said enemy or ally of enemy in the same manner and to the extent that he would be
entitled so to do if the United States was not at war: Provided, That no final judgment
or decree shall be entered in favor of such enemy or ally of enemy by any court except
after thirty days’ notice to the alien property custodian. Such notice shall be in writing
and shall be served in the same manner as civil process of Federal Court.
(h) All powers of attorney Heretofore or hereafter granted by an enemy or ally of
enemy to any person within the United States, in so far as they may be requisite to the
performance of acts authorized in subsections (a) and (g) of this section, shall be valid.
(i) Whenever the publication of an invention by the granting of a patent may, in the
opinion of the President, be detrimental to the public safety or defense, or may assist

the enemy or endanger the successful prosecution of the war, lie may order that the
invention be kept secret and withhold the grant of a patent until the end of the war:
Provided, That the invention disclosed in the application for said patent may be held
abandoned upon it being established before or by the Commissioner of Patents that,
in violation of said order, said invention has been published or that ,in application for
a patent therefor has been filed in any other country, by the inventor or his assigns or
legal representatives without the consent or approval of the commissioner or under a
license of the President.
When an applicant whose patent is withheld as herein provided, and who faithfully
obeys the order of the President above referred to shall tender his

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

117

invention to the Government of the United States for its use, the shall, if the ultimately
receives a patent, have the right to sue for compensation in the Court of claims, such
right to compensation to begin from the date of the use of the, invention by the
Government.
By the Executive order of October 12, 1917, the power and authority to administer
the above section was vested in the Federal trade Commission, as follows:
XVII. I further hereby vest in the Federal Trade Commission the power and
authority to issue licenses under such terms and conditions as are not inconsistent with
law or to withhold or refuse the same, to any citizen of the United States or any
corporation organized within the United States to file and prosecute applications in the
country of an enemy or ally of enemy for letters patent or for registration of trademark,
print, label, or copyright, and to pay the fees required by law and the customary
agents’ fees, the maximum amount of which in each case shall be subject to the control
of such commission ; or to pay to any enemy or ally of enemy any tax, annuity, or fee
which may be required by the laws of such enemy or ally of enemy nation in relation
to patents, trademarks, prints, labels, and copyrights.
XVIII. I hereby vest in the Federal Trade Commission the power and authority to
issue, pursuant to the provisions of section 10 (c) of the trading-with-the-enemy act,
upon such terms and conditions as are not inconsistent with law, or to withhold or
refuse a license to any citizen of the United States or any corporation organized within
the United States, to manufacture or cause to be manufactured a machine,
manufacture, composition of matter, or design, or to carry on or cause to be carried on
a process under any patent, or to use any trade-mark, print, label, or copyrighted matter
owned or controlled by all enemy or ally of enemy, at any time during the present war;
and also to fix the prices of articles and products manufactured under such licenses
necessary to the health of the military and the naval forces of the United States, or the
successful prosecution of the war; and to prescribe the fee which may be charged for
such license, not exceeding $100 and not exceeding 1 percent of the fund deposited
by the licensee with the alien property custodian as provided by law.
XIX. I hereby further vest in the said Federal Trade Commission the executive
administration of the provisions of section 10 (d) of the trading-with-the-enemy act,
the power and authority to prescribe the form of, and time and manner of filing
statements of the extent of the use and enjoyment of the license and of the prices
received and the times at which the licensee shall make payments to the alien property
custodian, and the amounts of said payments, in accordance with the trading-with-theenemy act.
XX. I further hereby vest in the Federal Trade Commission the power and authority,
whenever in its opinion the publication of an invention or the granting of a patent may
be detrimental to the public safety or defense or may assist the enemy, or endanger the
successful prosecuting of the war, to order that the invention be kept secret and the
grant letters patent withheld until the end of the war.
XXI. The said Federal Trade Commission is hereby authorized to take all such
measures as may be necessary or expedient to administer the powers hereby conferred.
By the Executive order of April 11, 1918, the power an authority vested in the
Federal Trade Commission under section 10 (b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act
ans Section XVII of the Executive order of October 12, 1917, was revoked as follows:

I hereby revoke the power and authority vested in the Federal Trade Commission by
section XVII of the Executive order of October 12, 1917, to issue license to any citizen
of the United States or any corporation organized within the United States, to file or
prosecute application in the country of an enemy or ally of enemy for letters patent or
for registration of trade-mark, print, label, or copyright, and to pay any fees or agent’s
fees in connection therewith or to pay to any enemy or ally of enemy any tax, annuity,
or fee in relation to patents, trade-marks, prints, labels, and copyrights, and no such
license shall be granted until further order.

118

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

APPLICATIONS FOR LICENSES UNDER PATENTS AND COPYRIGHTS
OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY AN ENEMY OR ALLY OF ENEMY.
Applicants for a license under patents or copyrights owned or controlled by an
enemy or an ally of an enemy are required to file a verified statement with the Federal
Trade Commission in concise and nontechnical language, covering the following
points, stating in each instance the facts upon which any conclusion may be based:
(a) If an individual, that he is a citizen of the United States. If a corporation, that
it is organized within the United States.
(b) That the patent or copyright desired to be licensed is owned or controlled by an
enemy or an ally of an enemy. (For definitions of “enemy” and “ally of an enemy,” see
footnote.)
If it is claimed that the patent or copyright is controlled by an enemy or ally of an
enemy, the nature and origin of the control should be plainly stated, whether by
contract, agency, stock ownership, or otherwise.
(c) There shall be attached to the application a Patent Office copy of the patent and
a certified abstract of title to it, or a specimen of the copyright article and a certified
copy of the copyright entries and, in the case of a patent, of a certified copy of the
petition and all powers of attorney in the file of the application.
DEFINITIONS OF “ENEMY” AND “ALLY OF ENEMY” IN THE TRADING WITH
THE ENEMY ACT
SEC. 2. That the word “enemy” as, used herein shall be deemed to mean, for the
purpose of such traditions and of this act(a) Any individual, partnership, or other body of individuals, of any nationality,
resident within the territory (including that occupied by their military and naval forces)
of any nation with which the United States is at war, or resident outside the United
States and doing business within such territory, and any corporation incorporated
within such territory of any nation with which the United States is at war or
incorporated within any country other then the United States and doing business within
such territory.
(b) The government of any nation with which the United States is at war, or any
political or municipal subdivision thereof, or any officer, official, agent, or agency
thereof.
(c) Such other individual, or body or class of individuals, as may be natives, citizens,
or subjects of any nation with which the United States is at war, other than citizens of
the United States, wherever resident or wherever doing business, as the President, if
he shall find the safety of the United States or the successful prosecution of the war
shall so require, may, by proclamation, include within the term “enemy.”
The words “ally of enemy,” as used herein, shall he deemed to mean(a) Any individual, partnership, or other body of individuals of any nationality,
resident within the territory (including that occupied by the military and naval forces)
of any nation which is an ally of a nation with which the United States is at and doing
business within such territory, and any incorporated within any country other than the

United States and doing business within such territory, and any corporation
incorporated within such territory of such ally nation, or incorporated within such
territory of such ally nations or incorporated within any country other than the United
States and doing business within such territory.
(b) The government of any nation which is ally of a nation with which the united
states is at war, or any political or municipal subdivision of such ally nation, or any
officer, official, agent, or agency thereof.
(c) Such other individuals, or body or class of individuals as may be natives, citizens,
or subjects of any nation which is an ally of a nation with which the United States is
at war, other than citizens of the United States, wherever resident or wherever doing
business, as the President, if he shall find the safety of the United States or the
successful prosecution of the war shall so require, may, by proclamation include
within the term “ally of the enemy.”

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.
119
(d) That licensing the applicant is for the public welfare. Specifically, that there is
a demand for the patented or copyrighted article or the product of the patented process
which is not being met.
(e) That the applicant is able to make or cause to be made the patented or
copyrighted article or exercise the patented process. Specifically, that the applicant
is technically and otherwise, equipped to undertake or procure the manufacture or
operate the process and is in fact able to do so.
(f) That the applicant intends to do so in good faith.
(g) The application must be verified by the person applying for the license, and in
the case of a, corporation by an officer thereof acquainted with the facts recited.
Each application shall be accompanied with a remittance of one hundred dollars.
A suggested form of application is appended.
A separate application is required for each patent or copyright.
The application should be prepared in duplicate and, for convenience in filing, on
good unglazed paper 8 inches by 10 ½ inches, directed to the Federal Trade
Commission, Patent, Trade-mark, and Copyright Division, and may be transmitted by
mail or delivered personally. Personal attendance at the outset is not necessary. If any
hearings are desired, notice of them will be given.
In every case where practicable notice of applications for license will be given to the
attorney of the patentee or copyright proprietor whose name appears in the file of the
application in the Patent Office. or the office of the Register of Copyrights.
The burden of establishing affirmatively the facts upon which under the terms of the
act, license may be granted is placed upon the applicant for license.
THE TERMS OF THE LICENSE.
The act provides and the Executive order vests in the Federal Trade Commission the
duty of prescribing the conditions of the license.
The form of licenses proposed to be issued is appended.
Only nonexclusive licenses will be issued unless the public interest shall otherwise
require.
DURATION OF LICENSE.
The act provides (sec. 10 [e]) that licenses shall continue during the terms fixed in
the license, or, in the absence of any such limitation, during the term of the patent *
* * or copyright registration under which it is granted, and that upon violation by the
licensee of any of the provisions of the act, or of the conditions of the license, after due
notice and hearing, the license may be canceled.
LICENSES UNDER TRADE-MARKS, PRINTS AND LABELS OWNED OR
CONTROLLED BY AN ENEMY OR ALLY OF AN ENEMY.

Licenses for the use, of trade-marks, prints, and labels will be granted only under
exceptional circumstances. Applications for licenses tinder the following conditions
will be entertained:

120

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

(1) Where the alleged trademark is the, name of a patented or copyrighted article
and a license is granted tinder the patent or copyright.
(2) Where the alleged trade-mark is the name of an article manufactured tinder tin
expired patent or copyright.
THE LICENSE FEE.
The act provides that the license fee shall not exceed $100, and not exceeding 1 per
cent of the sum deposited with the alien property custodian. This fund is an amount
not to exceed (a) 5 per cent of the gross sums received by the licensee from the sale
of the licensed subject matter, or (b) 5 per cent of the value of the use of the licensed
subject matter as established by the Federal Trade Commission.
ACCOUNTING AND PAYMENT TO THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN.
The licensee shall file with the Federal Trade Commission, semiannually on January
1 and July 1 of each year and oftener if required, a f till statement of the extent of the
use and enjoyment of the license, and of the prices received from the sale or use of the
subject matter of it, and within 30 days thereafter the licensee shall pay to the alien
property custodian not to exceed 5 per cent of the gross sums received from the sale
of the licensed subject matter, or if the Federal Trade Commission so order not to
exceed 5 per cent of the value of the use of the licensed subject matter as established
by the Federal Trade Commission.
FORM OF LICENSE UNDER PATENT.
Patent licenses issued by the Federal Trade Commission under the provisions of the
“Trading with the enemy act” will be in substantially the following form:
Patent No ------------------, dated ------------------------------- to --------------------------for -------------------------------.
The Federal Trade Commission, under the authority of and in conformity with the
“Trading with the enemy act,” and of the Executive order of October 12, 1917, hereby
licenses ------------------------------------------- to make, use, and vend within the United
States the invention described and claimed in United States letters patent to ------------------------------------ No - ------------- dated ------------------------------ (copy annexed
hereto) for the period of -------------------------------- unless sooner terminated.
The licensee during the continuance of this license shall pay to the alien property
custodian, semiannually, within 30 days after the 1st day of January and the 1st day
of July, respectively, of each year, a royalty at the rate of -------------- per cent of the
gross sums received by the licensee from the sale of the invention so herein licensed
(or ---------- per cent of the value of the use thereof to the licensee as established by the
Federal Trade Commission).

The licensee shall, during the continuance of this license, keep proper accounts and
separate books containing full particulars of:
(a) All articles made or caused to be made by the licensee under the said letters
patent and of the price or prices charged therefore;
(b) All items of cost incurred in the use of such invention and the manufacture and
sale of articles inside thereunder; and
(c) All other matters and things which in the opinion of the Federal Trade
Commission may be material for the purpose of showing the amounts from time to
time payable by the licensee concerning such royalty and what is a fair and reasonable
price to the public for such article.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

121

The licensee shall, within 10 days after each of the semiannual days aforesaid,
deliver a sworn statement to the Federal Trade Commission in writing showing the
aforesaid particulars.
The licensee shall, during the continuance of this license, give al such information
as the Federal Trade Commission may consider to be material for the purpose of
ascertaining the amount of royalty payable by the licensee under this license, the cost
of the use of such invention, the cost of producing and the price or prices charged by
the licensee for the said article, and for that purpose shall, if requested by the Federal
Trade Commission, permit such person or persons as shall be authorized in that behalf
by the Federal Trade Commission at any time or times to enter upon and inspect any
factory or place of bus in which the use of the said invention or the manufacture shall
be carried on and all books, papers, and documents of such licensee relating to such
use, manufacture, and sale.
If any payment under this license shall not be made, within one month after the same
shall have become due under the provisions herein contained (whether demand
therefor shall have been inside or not), or if the licensee shall or shall attempt to assign
or part with the benefit of or grant any sublicense under this license, or shall make
default in the performance or observance of any obligations on his part herein
contained, or shall have violated any of the conditions of this license or any of the
provisions of the statute under which it is granted, and if, after 10 days' notice in
writing, shall have failed to comply with the aforesaid, then the Federal Trade
Commission may, by notice in writing, and after a hearing, cancel and terminate this
license as from the date of such notice, but without prejudice to and so as not in any
annular to affect any liability hereunder on the part of the licensee which may then be
subsisting of have accrued.
If in the opinion of the Federal Trade Commission the licensee has failed to use this
license so as to satisfy the reasonable requirement of the public with regard to the
subject matter thereof; or
If in the opinion of the Federal Trade Commission the licensee has failed to supply
to thin public tire articles made under this license at reasonable prices; or
If in the opinion of the Federal Trade Commission the licensee has charged
unreasonable or excessive prices for articles made under this license; or
If in the opinion of the Federal Trade Commission the articles made under this
license are of unsatisfactory quality (and the licensee shall furnish to the Federal Trade
Commission in the manner prescribed by it and when and as often as required, samples
and specimens for inspection, analysis, and test); or
Circumstances have arisen which, in the opinion of the Federal Trade Commission,
make it just and equitable that this license be canceled in whole or in part ;
The Federal Trade Commission may, in its discretion, give notice In writing to the
licensee to terminate and cancer this license in whole or in part, and, if canceled and
terminated, the same shall be without prejudice to and so as not in any manner to affect
any liability hereunder on the part of the licensee which may then be subsisting or have
accrued.

Any sums which may at any time be payable by the licensee under the provisions of
this license shall be a debt due from the licensee to the people of the United States and
shall be recovered in an appropriate action in the name of the people of the United
States against the licensee.
Dated ____________ 191__
Accepted and agreed to.
______________________________________,
Licensee.
A copy of the patent is to be attached.
If the licensee is not to be the actual manufacturer, the licensee will be held accountable to the Federal
Trade Commission for the observance of the terms of his license by the actual manufacturer of the article,
and the license will contain the following addendum, naming the actual manufacturer who shall sign:
__________________, manufacturer for __________________________________, the licensee
_____________________ of the article herein licensed, separately agrees to keep separate books containing full particulars of all articles manufactured, and the cost thereof, sold to _______________________
the licensee, and the price or prices

122

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

charged therefore and his books and plant shall be open to inspection in the same
manner as provided for the licensee. The licensee and the undersigned, during the
continuance of the license, shall furnish or procure to be furnished all such information
as the Federal Trade Commission may consider to be material for the purpose of
ascertaining the amount of royalty payable by the licensee, the cost of producing or
procuring the patented article, the price or prices charged for said article, and shall
permit or procure permission to be given to such person or persons as shall be
authorized in that behalf by the Federal Trade Commission at any time or times to
enter upon and inspect any factory or place of business in which the manufacture of
the patented article shall be carried on by the undersigned for the licensee, and all
books, papers, and documents relating to such manufacture and sale.
The undersigned, manufacturer, is not authorized to make, use, or vend - the
Invention of the patent except for ______________________, the licensee, and not
further or otherwise, and the undersigned undertakes to observe and perform the terms
and conditions of the license to ____________________ to which this is attached.
Dated ____________, 191__.
Accepted and agreed to.
___________________________________,
Manufacturer.
FORM OF LICENSE UNDER COPYRIGHT.
Copyright licenses issued by the Federal Trade Commission under the provisions of
the “Trading with the enemy act” will be in substantially the following form:
Copyright No. ______, dated _____ to _____ for the (book, etc., as the case may be;
see copyright act of March 4, 1909, sec. 5, for classification) entitled (Insert title of
work).
The Federal Trade Commission, under the authority of and in conformity with the
“Trading with the enemy act” and of the Executive order of October 12, 1917, hereby
licenses _____ to exercise within the United States all the rights created by the
copyright laws of the United States of America, being the act of March 4, 1909, as
amended with respect to the subject matter of copyright to ______, No. _____, dated
_____ for the (book, etc., as the case may be; see copyright act of March 4, 1909, see.
5, for classification) entitled (insert title of work), a copy of which is annexed hereto,
for the period of ________, unless sooner terminated.
The licensee, during the continuance of this license, shall pay to the alien property
custodian, semiannually, within 30 days after the 1st day of January, and the 1st day
of July, respectively, of each year, a royalty at the rate of ___ per cent of the gross
sums received by the licensee front the sale of the copyright work so herein licensed
(or ___ per cent of the value of the use thereof to the licensee as established by the
Federal Trade Commission).
The licensee shall, during the continuance of this license, keep proper accounts and
separate books containing full particulars of(a) All copies of said copyright work made or caused to be inside by the licensee
under the said copyright and of the price or prices charged therefor;
(b) All items of cost incurred in the use of said copyright work and in the
manufacture and sale of such copyright work; and

(c) All other matters and things which, in the opinion of the Federal Trade
Commission, may be material for the purpose of slowing the amounts from there to
time payable by the licensee concerning such royalty and what is a fair and reasonable
price to the public for such copyright work.
The licensee shall, within 10 days after each of the semiannual days aforesaid,
deliver a sworn statement to the Federal Trade Commission in writing showing the
aforesaid particulars.
The licensee shall the continuance of this license give all such information as the
Federal Trade Commission may consider to be material for the purpose of ascertaining
the amount of royalty payable by the licensee under this license, the cost of producing,
and the price or prices charged by the licensee for the said copyright work, and for that
purpose shall, if requested by the Federal Trade Commission, permit such person or
persons as shall be authorized in that behalf by the Federal Trade Commission at any
time or times to enter upon and inspect any factory or place of business of the licensee

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.
123
in which the use or manufacture of the said copyright work shall be carried on, and all
books, papers, and documents of such licensee relating to such use, manufacture, and
sale.
If any payment under this license shall not be made within one month after the
same shall have become due under the provisions herein contained (whether demand
therefor shall have been made or not), or if the licensee shall or shall attempt to assign
or part with the benefit of or grant any sublicense under this license, or shall make
default in the performance or observance of any obligation on his part herein
continued, or shall have violated any of the conditions of this license or any of the
provisions of the statute under which it is granted, and if after 10 days’ notice, in
writing, shall have failed to comply with the aforesaid, then the Federal Trade
Commission may, by notice in writing, and after a hearing, cancel, and terminate this
license as from the date of such notice, but without prejudice to and so as not in any
manner to affect any liability hereunder on part of the licensee which may be
subsisting of have accrued.
If in the opinion of the Federal Trade Commission the licensee has failed to use this
license so as to satisfy the reasonable requirement of the public with regard to the
copyright work; or
If in the opinion of the Federal Trade Commission the licensee has failed to supply
to the public the copyright work at reasonable prices; or if in the opinion of the Federal
Trade Commission the licensee has charged unreasonable or excessive prices for said
copyright work; or
Circumstances have arisen which in the opinion of the Federal Trade Commission
make it just and equitable that this license be canceled in whole or in part;
The Federal Trade Commission may, in its discretion, give notice in writing o the
licensee to terminate this licensee in whole or in part, and if canceled and terminated
the same shall be without prejudice to and so as not in any manner to affect any
liability hereunder on the part of the licensee which may then be subsisting or have
accrued.
Any sums which may at any time be payable by the licensee under the provisions
of this license shall be a debt due from the licensee to the people of the United States
and shall be recovered in an appropriate action in the name of the people of the United
States against the licensee.
Dated____________, 191___
Accepted and agreed to.
__________________________________,
Licensee.
If the licensee is not to be the actual manufacturer or producer of the copyright work,
the licensee will be held accountable to the Federal Trade Commission for the
observance of the terms of his license by the actual manufacturer or producer of the
article, and the license will contain the, following addendum, naming the actual
manufacturer or producer of the article, who shall sign:
_____________________ , the manufacturer for _____________ the licensee of the
copyright work herein licensed, separately agrees to keep separate books containing
full particulars of all of such copyright works manufactured and the cost thereof, sold

to________ _____________, the licensee, and the price or prices charged therefor,
and his books and plant shall be open to inspection in the same manner as provided for
the licensee. The licensee and the undersigned, during the continuance of the license,
shall furnish or procure to be furnished till such information as the Federal Trade
Commission may consider to be material for the purpose of ascertaining the amount
of royalty payable by the licensee, the cost of producing or procuring the copyright
work, the price or prices charged therefor, and shall permit or procure permission to
be given to such person or persons as shall be authorized in that behalf by the Federal
Trade Commission at any time or times to enter upon and inspect any factory or place
of business in which the manufacture of the copyright work shall be carried oil by the
undersigned for the licensee, and all books, papers, and documents relating to such
manufacture and sale.
The undersigned, manufacturer, is not authorized to exercise any right conferred by
the. copyright statutes with respect to the copyright work here in-

124

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

volved except for __________ _________________, the licensee, and not further or
otherwise, and the undersigned undertakes to observe and perform the terms and
conditions of the license to ____________________ to which this is attached.
Dated _______, 191__.
Accepted and agreed to.
________________________________,
Manufacturer.
A surety company bond may be required of the licensee, if, in the opinion of the
Federal Trade Commission, it is necessary to safeguard the public interest.
FORM OF APPLICATION FOR LICENSE.
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT.
To the FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION:
Application of _____ for a license under patent to ____, date _______No.______.
(If under copyright, state title of work, name of copyright proprietor, and date of
copyright registration.)
The undersigned. for the purpose of securing a license, represents to the Federal
Trade Commission as follows:
(a) The undersigned is a citizen of the United States, residing at street, in the city
of ____, State of _____, United States of America. (If a corporation, state under the
laws of what State it is organized;
the location of its corporate offices, its business offices, and plants or factories.)
(b) The undersigned is desirous of being licensed hinder the patent (or copyright)
above United, which is owned or controlled by a citizen or subject of _____. (State the
enemy country or the ally of the enemy of which the patentee or copyright proprietor
is a citizen or subject, or if a corporation where it is incorporated. and if the patent or
copyright is not owned but is claimed to be controlled state fully the facts which
establish the nature and origin of the enemy or ally of enemy control, wether it is
means of an agency, by contract, by stock ownership in corporations, or otherwise.)
(c) Attached here is a Patent copy of the letters patent and a certified abstract of
its title, from the Patent Office and a certified copy of the petition and all powers of
attorney in the file of the application (or, in the ease of a copyright, a specimen of the
copyrighted work, and a certified copy of the copyright entries from the office of the
Register of Copyrights).
(d) It is for the public welfare that the license applied for be granted because-(Here state briefly but completely and in nontechnical language the reason why it is
for the public benefit that the license be granted and specifically the demand for the
article prior to the war, the demand for the article at the present time whether or not
this demand is being met or can be met, prices obtained prior to the war and prices at
the present time.)
(e) Applicant is able to make or cause to be made the patented or copyrighted article
because (Here state specifically the applicant’s experience in the production of articles
of the kind covered by the patent or copyright, his technical equipment for

manufacturing and selling such articles and his ability to do so, the estimated cost of
manufacture and price proposed to be charged if the license is granted.)
(If the applicant does not intend to manufacture but to procure the manufacture of
the article, state specifically what arrangements have been made or proposed to this
end and their terms and conditional. State the name and address of the manufacturer
proposed to be employed and his technical equipment,. etc., and article copies of any
contracts or proposals.)
(f) The license desired is exclusive or nonexclusive for the following reasons:(Here
state reasons why, in the opinion of the applicants the license be exclusive or
nonexclusive.)
(g) The license is desired(1) For the term of the patent or copyright, (2) the duration of the war, or (3) any
other period,
stating reasons in each case.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

125

(h) The application is also to contain the following: “The undersigned intends in
good faith to manufacture or cause to be manufactured the article licensed and
understands that the license, if granted, may not be assigned and may be canceled by
the Federal Trade Commission, after due notice of hearing upon violation by the
undermined of any of the provisions of the “Trading with the enemy act ' or of any of
the conditions of the license.”
(Signed)________________,
Applicant.
OATH FOR AN INDIVIDUAL.
STATE OF __________________
County of ________________, ss:
__________________________, being duly sworn, deposes and states that the is the
same person whose name is signed to the foregoing statement; that lie has read this
statement and' knows and understands its contents; and that it is true.
_____________________
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ___________ day of _______ , 191__.
_________________________,
Notary
Public.
OATH FOR A CORPORATION.
STATE OF _______________
County of ________________, ss:
___________________________, being duly sworn, deposes and states that he is
the _________________________ of __________________________, the corporation
whose name is signed to the foregoing statement; that the is duly ,authorized to swear
to such statement on behalf of such corporation; that the has read this statement and
knows and understands its contents; and that it is true.
____________________________
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ____________ day of __________, 19__.
________ _________
Notary Public.

(EXHIBIT 6.)
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
WASHINGTON, D. C.

FIRST REPORT FROM EXPORT ASSOCIATIONS,
DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER CREATION.

1. Name
Address
(Here insert address of principal office.)
2. Statement.--This corporation or association was organized or entered into for the
sole purpose of engaging in export trade, and is now or about to be solely engaged in
the export trade as defined in the export trade act, approved April 10, 1918, viz: "Trade
or commerce in goods, wares, or merchandise exported or In the course of being
exported from the United States or any territory thereof, to any foreign nation."
3. There is hereunto annexed and made a part hereof a schedule, showing in
paragraph “A” the location of its offices or places of business; in paragraph “B,” the
names and addresses of all its officers and directors; in paragraph “C” the names and
addresses of all its stockholders or members; in paragraph “D,” the products to be
exported; and in paragraph “E,” the capital authorized and paid in.
4. There is also annexed (F) a brief statement describing its methods and plan
under which it is doing business a statement of its relations with other associations,
corporations, and individuals, and such other information as this company or
association deems should be in the export files of the Federal Trade Commission.
5. If a corporation, a copy of its certificate or articles of incorporation and by-laws
is annexed and filed, and if unincorporated, a copy of its articles of contract of
association.
--------------------------------------------By --------------------------------------------STATE OF -----------------------------------ss:
COUNTY OF ----------------------------------------------------- , being first duly sworn, on oath deposes and says that he is an
officer, to-wit, ------------------------- of the above-named corporation or association; that
he has read the foregoing report and schedules annexed and that the same are in all
respects true and correct.
--------------------------------------------------------(Verifying officer sign here.)
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ------------ day of --------, 19------------------------------------- Notary Public

126

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.
127
SCHEDULE 1.
(A)

The following are the locations of all offices and places of business:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(B) The following officers or directors, as at January 1, 1919:
Names.

Office held.

Addresses.

---------------------------------------------

------------------------------

--------------------------

---------------------------------------------

------------------------------

--------------------------

(C) The following were stockholders or members January 1, 1919:
Names.

Addresses.

Number of

shares.
-------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------

---------------------

-------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------

---------------------

(D)
viz:

It desires to be classified as engaged in exporting the following products,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(Please limit to products now or about to be exported and supplement by letter when
others are taken on.)
(E) Capital:
(1) Authorized preferred, $----; par value, $----; issued, $----; paid in, $---(2) Authorized common, $----; par value, $----; issued, $----; paid in, $------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(F) The following briefly describes the methods and plan under which our business

is done and states our relations with other associations, corporations, and individuals,
with such other information as we deem should be in the export files of the Federal
Trade Commission:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------NOTES.
1. The information required by this report is to be furnished to the Federal Trade
Commission under “An act to promote export trade, and for other purposes,” approved
April 10, 1918 (the export trade act), which provides in section 5 thereof as follows:
SEC. 5. That every association now engaged solely in export trade, within sixty days
after the passage of this act, and every association entered into hereafter which
engages solely in export trade, within thirty days after its creation, shall file with the
Federal Trade Commission a verified written statement setting forth the location of its
offices or places of business and the names and addresses of all its officers and of all
its stockholders or members, and if a corporation, a copy of its certificate or articles
of incorporation and by-laws, and If unincorporated, a copy of its articles or contract
of association,. and on the first day of January of each year thereafter it shall make a
like

128

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

statement of the location of its offices or places of business and the names and
addresses of all its officers and of all its stockholders or members and of all
amendments to and changes in its articles or certificates of incorporation or in its
articles or contract of association. It shall also furnish to the commission. such
information. as the commission may require as to its organization, business, conduct,
practices, management, and relation to other associations, corporations, partnerships,
and individuals. Any association which shall fail (so to do) shall not have the benefit
of the provisions of section two and section three of this act, and it shall also forfeit
to the United States the sum of $100 for each and every day of the continuance of such
failure, which forfeiture shall be payable into the Treasury of the United States, and
shall be recoverable in a civil suit in the name of the United States brought in the
district where the association has its principal office, or in any district in which it shall
do business. It shall be the duty of the various district attorneys, under the direction of
the Attorney General of the United States, to prosecute for the recovery of the
forfeiture. The costs and expenses of such prosecution shall be paid out of the
appropriation for the expenses of the courts of the United States. * * *
2. The word “association” wherever used in the “export trade act” or in this report
means “any corporation or combination, by contract or otherwise, of two or more
persons, partnerships, or corporations.”

(EXHIBIT 7.)
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
WASHINGTON, D. C.
REPORT FROM EXPORT ASSOCIATIONS,
DUE JANUARY 1, 1919, OF:
1. Name ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Address -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(Here insert address of principal office.)
2. Statement.--This corporation or association was organized or entered into for the
sole purpose of engaging in export trade and is now solely engaged in the export trade
as defined in the export trade act, approved April 10, 1918, viz: “Trade or commerce
in goods, wares, or merchandise exported or in the course of being exported from the
United States or any Territory thereof, to any foreign nation.”
3. There is hereunto annexed and made a part hereof a schedule, showing in
paragraph “A” the location of its offices or places of business; in paragraph “B,” the
names and addresses of nil its officers and directors; in paragraph “C,” the names and
addresses of all its stockholders or members; in paragraph “D,” all amendments to and
changes in its articles or certificate of incorporation, or articles or contract of
association and by-laws, since its last report to the Federal Trade Commission.
4. There is also annexed (E) a brief statement describing its methods and plan
under which it is doing business, a statement of its relations with other associations,
corporations, and individuals, and such other information as this company or
association deems should be in the export files of the Federal Trade Commission.
-----------------------------------------------------By ------------------------------------------------------State of ------------------------------------------ss:
County of ---------------------------------------------------------, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes and says that he is an officer,
to wit, --------------------- of the above-named corporation or association; that he has
read the foregoing report and schedules annexed and that the same are In all respects
true and correct.
-----------------------------------------------(Verifying officer sign
here.)
Subscribed and sworn to before me this --------- day of -------, 19---.
----------------------------------Notary Public.
SCHEDULE 1.

(A)

The following are the locations of all offices and places of business:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(B) The following were officers or directors, as at January 1, 1919:
Names.
Office held.
Addresses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------174390--20----9

------------------------------------------

-----------------

------------------------------------------

----------------19
2

130

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

(C) The following were stockholders or members January 1, 1919:
Names.
Addresses.
Number
shares.

of

-----------------------------------------------

-----------------------------

----------------------------

--------------------------------------------

-----------------------------

----------------------------

(D) Since the last report to the Federal Trade Commission the articles of or
certificate of incorporation, articles of association, and by-laws have been amended
or changed as follows:
(E) The following briefly describes the methods and plan under which our business
Is done and states our relations with other associations, corporations, and Individuals,
with such other information as we deem should be in the export files of the Federal
Trade Commission:
NOTES.
1. The information required by this report is to be furnished to the Federal Trade
Commission under “An act to promote export trade, and for other purposes,” approved
April 10, 1918 (the export trade act), which provides Ill section 5 thereof, as follows:
SEC. 5. That every association now engaged solely in export trade, within sixty days
after the passage of this act, and every association entered into hereafter which
engages solely in export trade, within thirty days after Its creation, shall file with the
Federal Trade Commission a verified written statement setting forth the location of its
offices or places of business and the names and addresses of all its officers and of all
its stockholders or members, and if a corporation, a copy of its certificate or articles
of incorporation and by-laws, and If unincorporated, a copy of its articles or contract
of association, and on the first day of January of each year thereafter it shall make a
like statement of the location of its offices or places of business and the names and
addresses of all its officers and of all its stockholders or members and of all
amendments to and changes in its articles or certificate of incorporation or In its
articles or contract of association. It shall also furnish to the Commission such
information as the Commission may require as to its organization, business, conduct,
practices, management, and relation to other associations, corporations, partnerships,
and individuals. Any association which shall fail so to do shall not have the benefit of
the provisions of section two and section three of this act, and it shall also forfeit to
the United States the sum of $100 for each and every day of the continuance of such
failure, which forfeiture shall be payable into the Treasury of the United States, and
shall be recoverable in a civil suit in the name of the United States brought in the
district where the association has its principal office, or in any district in which it shall
do business. It shall be the duty of the various district attorneys, under the direction of
the Attorney General of the United States, to prosecute for the recovery of the
forfeiture. The costs and expenses of such prosecution shall be paid out of the
appropriation for the expenses of the courts of the United States * * *
2. The word “association” wherever used in the “export trade act” or in this report
means “any corporation or combination, by contract or otherwise, of two or more
persons, partnerships, or corporations.”

EXHIBIT 8.
[PUBLIC--NO. 126--65TH CONGRESS.]
[H. R. 2316.]
An Act To promote export trade, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States Of
America in Congress assembled, That the words “export trade” wherever used in this
act mean solely trade or commerce in goods, wares, or merchandise exported, or in the
course of being exported from the United States or any Territory thereof to any foreign
nation; but the words “export trade” shall not be deemed to include the production,
manufacture, or selling for consumption or for resale, within the United States or any
Territory thereof, of such goods, wares, or merchandise, or any act in the course of
such production, manufacture, or selling for consumption or for resale.
That the words “trade within the United States” wherever used in this act mean trade
or commerce among the several States or in any Territory of the United States, or in
the District of Columbia, or between any such Territory and another, or between any
such Territory or Territories and any State or States or the District of Columbia, or
between the District of Columbia and any State or States.
That the word “association” wherever used in this act means any corporation or
combination, by contract or otherwise, of two or more persons, partnerships, or
corporations.
SEC. 2. That nothing contained in the act entitled “An act to protect trade and
commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies,” approved July second,
eighteen hundred and ninety, shall be construed as declaring to be illegal an
association entered into for the sole purpose of engaging in export trade and actually
engaged solely in such export trade, or an agreement made or act done in the course
of export trade by such association, provided such association, agreement, or act is not
in restraint of trade within the United States, and is not in restraint of the export trade
of any domestic competitor of such association: And provided further, That such
association does not, either in the United States or elsewhere, enter into any
agreement, understanding, or conspiracy, or do any act which artificially or
intentionally enhances or depresses prices within the United States of commodities of
the class exported by such association, or which substantially lessens competition
within the United States or otherwise restrains trade therein.
SEC. 3. That nothing contained in section seven of the act entitled “An act to
supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and
131

132

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

monopolies, and for other purposes,” approved October fifteenth, nineteen hundred
and fourteen, shall be construed to forbid the acquisition or ownership by any
corporation of the whole or any part of the stock or other capital of any corporation
organized solely for the purpose of engaging in export trade, and actually engaged
solely in such export trade, unless the effect of such acquisition or ownership may be
to restrain trade or substantially lessen competition within the United States.
SEC. 4. That the prohibition against “unfair methods of competition” and the
remedies provided for enforcing said prohibition contained in the act entitled “An act
to create a Federal trade commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other
purposes,” approved September twenty-sixth, nineteen hundred and fourteen, shall be
construed as extending to unfair methods of competition used in export trade against
competitors engaged in export trade, even though the acts constituting such unfair
methods are done without the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
SEC 5. That every association now engaged solely in export trade, within sixty days
after the passage of this act, and every association entered into hereafter which
engages solely in export trade, within thirty days after its creation, shall file with the
Federal Trade Com-mission a verified written statement setting forth the location of
its offices or places of business and the names and addresses of all its officers and of
all its stockholders or members, and if a corporation, a copy of its certificate or articles
of incorporation and by-laws, and if unincorporated a copy of its articles or contract
of association , and on the first day of January of each year thereafter it shall make a
like statement of the location of its offices or places of business and the names and
addresses of all its officers and of all its stockholders or members and of all
amendments to and changes in its articles or certificate of incorporation or in its
articles or contract of association. It shall also furnish to the commission such
information as the com-mission may require as to its organization, business, conduct,
practices, management, and relation to other associations, corporations, partnerships,
and individuals. Any association which shall fail so to do shall not have the benefit of
the provisions of section two and section three of this act, and it shall also forfeit to
the United States the sum of $100 for each and every day of the continuance of such
failure, which forfeiture shall be payable into the Treasury of the United States, and
shall be recoverable in a civil suit in the name of the United States brought in the
district where the association has its principal office, or in any district in which it shall
do business. It shall be the duty of the various district attorneys, under the direction
of the Attorney General of the United States, to prosecute for the recovery of the
forfeiture. The costs and expenses of such prosecution shall be paid out of the
appropriation for the expenses of the courts of the United States.
Whenever the Federal Trade Commission shall have reason to believe that an
association or any agreement made or act done by such association is in restraint of
trade within the United States or in restraint of the export trade of any domestic
competitor of such association, or that an association either in the United States or
elsewhere has entered into any agreement, understanding, or con-

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION.

133

spiracy, or done any act which artificially or intentionally enhances or depresses prices
within the United States of commodities of the class exported by such association, or
which substantially lessens competition within the United States or otherwise restrains
trade therein it shall summon such association, its officers, and agents to appear
Therefore it, and thereafter conduct an investigation into the alleged violations of law.
Upon investigation, if it shall conclude that the law has been violated, it may make to
such association recommendations for the readjustment of its business, in order that
it may there-after maintain its organization and management and conduct its business
in accordance with law. If such association fails to comply with the recommendations
of the Federal Trade Commission , said commission shall refer its findings and
recommendations to the Attorney General of the United States for such action thereon
as he may deem proper.
For the purpose of enforcing these provisions the Federal Trade Commission shall
have all the powers, so far as applicable, given it in “An act to create a Federal Trade
Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes.”
Approved, April 10, 1918.


Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, One Federal Reserve Bank Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63102