View original document

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

ANNUAL REPORT
OF THE

FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION
FOR THE

FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1921

WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1921

ANNUAL REPORT, FISCAL YEAR 1920-21.
SUMMARY.
In the fiscal year the Federal Trade Commission concluded the sixth year of its
activities. During that period a governmental agency has been in existence for the
special study of the forms of organization such as present-day business adopts and the
practices it employs. While the personnel of the Commission has changed from time
to time, the tenor of the work of the Commission has persisted with continuity and
consistency. That tenor has been characterized by a single purpose to serve the public
interest by investigating and publishing all the facts that pertain to the forms and
practices of business without knowledge of which the public and business would
suffer, and by correcting those unfair methods of competition which are prohibited by
law.
The work of the Commission may be said to fall into two divisions--(l) the exercise
of its duty to prevent unfair competition, and (2) its investigations of domestic industry
and foreign trade. These activities, however, covering as they do the varying aspects
of business, are so closely interrelated as to form an organic whole.
Generally the Commission’s approach to the subject of unfair competition has been
over one of three roads.
First, through its knowledge of the tendencies toward concentration, the form and
manner of that concentration, and the results--a knowledge which has come through
its numerous inquiries, undertaken at the direction of the Congress, the President, or
upon its own initiative.
Second, through its knowledge of the practices employed by great units of business,
in enlarging further their size, by devices which lessen competition and tend to
monopoly--a knowledge which has come in part through the Commission’s endeavors
to apply those sections of the Clayton Antitrust Act which are especially under its
jurisdiction.
Third, through its knowledge of the practices usually employed by a small
proportion of the business world, which disturb, annoy, and injure competitors, which
in the long run lead to serious hindrances to open trade--a knowledge which has come
through the Commission’s complaints and orders in cases of unfair competition. In this
field the Commission has handled some 3,000 cases, has issued 788 formal complaints,
and issued 480 orders
5

6

ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

It is a significant fact that with very few exceptions these cases have been brought
to the attention of the Commission by business itself. They were initiated by business
men who appealed to the Commission for protection and elimination of unfair methods
of competitors, and they indicate the presence of a strong and healthy force in
American business life tending towards the suppression of obstructive elements and
the building of fair and moral commercial standards.
The Commission has no punitive powers. It can not fine or imprison. It may merely
issue a command to an offender to cease and desist, which command or order he may
have reviewed by a court.
On the score of the tendency to concentration there has come to the Commission
knowledge of combinations inimical to the principle of competition, and where the
Commission believed the Sherman Antitrust Law was violated it has referred such
matters to the Department of Justice.
On the score of absorption of competing companies by a single unit and other
practices tending to lessen competition and to create monopoly, the Commission has
handled cases under certain sections of the Clayton Antitrust Act, which are within its
jurisdiction. These relate to the acquisition of shares of capital stock, to interlocking
directorates, to discrimination in selling price, and to tying contracts. The Commission
has found that corporations frequently now absorb competitors, not by acquiring
capital shares, but by acquiring the physical assets which the Clayton Act does not
forbid. Likewise the Commission has found that a great business unit lessens
competition more often by the device of discrimination in price in buying its raw
material than by discrimination in price in selling its products. Similarly, it has been
found that concentration of control of supposedly competitive units in the hands of a
few is accomplished more often by ownership of capital shares by that few than by
control through common directors. The activities of the Commission under the Clayton
Antitrust Act have developed that frequently the effect of a tying contract may be to
enable the seller to hinder competition without bringing himself within the prohibitive
terms of the law. These ineffectual features of the law have been brought to the notice
of the Congress. In so far as the provisions of the Clayton Antitrust Act could be
applied by the Commission they have been applied. This has been done in many cases
and with marked helpfulness to free and open competition.
On the score of unfair methods of competition the Commission has been diligent in
its application of the remedies provided in its law, in the thought that it was not only
serving the public and business, the overwhelming bulk of which does not use unfair
practices, but

SUMMARY.

7

that in these practices are often concealed the restraints to commerce which, if
unchallenged, grow to be great hindrances.
In this activity in preventing unfair methods of competition the Commission has
found two general classes of cases as follows :
First, those practices where a difference of opinion as to right and wrong exists in
trade itself. Such questions are highly controversial. They include and are typified in
the question of resale-price maintenance--that is, the right of a vendor to compel a
dealer to whom he has sold to resell at a price fixed by the original vendor. The
Commission has not undertaken to pass upon the general principle, but has considered
the matter in concrete cases before it, issued its order and has carried the matter to the
Supreme Court of the United States, where such controverted practices must be finally
adjudicated.
Second, those practices where a difference as to the right and wrong does not exist
in trade itself, but where in given cases there is controversy over the facts. Such
disputes are not highly controversial so far as the law is concerned, but it is often
difficult to determine the facts. This class of cases includes false advertising, passing
off goods, simulation of names and kindred unfair practices. When the Commission
receives notice of an alleged unfair method of this nature, if it believes the matter is
of moment, it dockets the information as an application for complaint. The facts are
then developed by inquiry addressed to the complainant and to the respondent. A
report of the developed facts is then made to a board of review, composed of two
lawyers and an economist, who summarize the facts, and give an opinion as to the fair
or unfair features, the interstate commerce factor, and the public interest. A single
Commissioner then reviews the case and makes a recommendation to the Commission,
either that a complaint issue or that the application be dismissed. A majority vote of
the Commission determines the disposition of the application. The majority of
applications have been dismissed. If complaint is issued, a copy is served upon the
respondent, who is given 40 days to make answer. Trial before an examiner then
proceeds, and by sworn testimony and documentary evidence the facts are adduced.
The examiner then prepares a summary of the facts and a conclusion, which are served
upon counsel for respondent and counsel for the Commission. Counsel may make
exception and are heard in final argument on the merits of the case and the law before
the whole Commission. If the Commission confirms its complaint, an order is issued
directing the respondent to cease and desist the offensive practice. Appeal lies to the
Circuit Court of Appeals.
Evidence of the great care with which the Commission proceeds in these matters
is shown by the fact that instances of violation of

8

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

the Commission's orders are very rare, and further by the circumstance that only 32
appeals have been taken from orders issued during the life of the Commission. Of
these 32 appeals, 12 were pump and tank cases which involved the same principle and
are for the purposes of this report considered one case, which would reduce the
number to 21.
The general economic inquiries conducted by the Commission have covered a large
part of the industrial and commercial activities of the country. A knowledge of the
organization of business and the competitive conditions in various industries and of
the costs of doing business, investments, prices, and profits is of vital importance for
an intelligent understanding and satisfactory solution of some of the most pressing
domestic problems that confront the Nation at the present time. Experience has shown
that such governmental inquiry leads to constructive results in the preservation and
upbuilding of business.
The growth of domestic trade must necessarily be considered hand in hand with the
development of foreign trade, which at the present time is a problem of serious import.
In meeting the new conditions that affect the foreign trade of the United States, and in
accord with the efforts made to retain and increase our export trade, the Commission
has cooperated with our export industries in a spirit of sympathy and with a desire to
render such service as comes within the scope of its jurisdiction. Appreciative
response has come to the Commission not only from manufacturers and exporters at
home but also from business men and the press in foreign countries emphasizing the
fact that the export trade policy of the United States as expressed by the operation of
the export trade act is a valuable asset in promoting abroad a good will for American
foreign trade and a reputation for integrity and superior service.
The plan of an independent governmental agency, such as the Commission, neither
prosecuting nor promoting, with power to undertake investigations of business and
trade conditions and to report thereon to the legislative and executive branches of the
Government, together with certain restraining powers in cases of unfair competition,
has received close attention in this country and abroad. The pioneer work of this
Commission is doubtless responsible for the creation of quite similar agencies abroad.
Several States of this country have enacted similar legislation, and similar
governmental machinery has been established in Great Britain, the Scandinavian
countries, Canada, Argentina, the Union of South Africa, and New Zealand.
In all its various lines of activity the Commission has maintained an attitude of
impartiality. Each problem presented has been considered in the light of the peculiar
facts out of which it has grown.

SUMMARY.

9

It is recognized that competition may take many forms and that as a principle it may,
in specific instances, be obscured by changes in form of organization and by variations
in trade practices. But the Commission believes that the maintenance of the principle
of fair competition is imperatively required for the protection of the public interest,
and for the preservation of business, and that it is vital to the well-being of the
Republic. So believing, it has exercised its duties and powers in accordance with the
clear mandate of Congress, as set forth in the Federal Trade Commission act and the
other laws with the administration of which the Commission is charged.

ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION.
The sections in this division are the ones generally adopted in all Federal
Government departments and establishments to care for the business end of the work,
and changes in arrangement and functions are less liable to occur in this than in the
other divisions of the Commission where the character of the work is continually
varying according to the demands made upon them through the several sources of
direction that govern their scope and activities.
For these reasons there has not been any material change in the management,
organization, and procedure of this division; all of its functions are largely governed
by general statutes and orders applicable to all work of this character wheresoever
situate in the Government service. Units in this division are:
Office of the secretary.--The secretary is the custodian of the minutes, of all
confidential papers, and of the seal of the Commission; he signs all orders of the
Commission in formal docket cases and intraoffice orders to all chiefs of divisions and
employees. The clerks in this office attend to the writing up of minutes, preparation
of answers to all inquiries from the general public and interested parties with reference
to the status of formal and informal proceedings. They are also responsible for the
service of all formal complaints and orders and for notices of assignments of trial to
interested parties in formal proceedings. It is the duty of this office also to arrange for
reporting of all formal proceedings before the Commission. The secretary's office is
also responsible for certification of copies of formal records to the different Circuit
Courts of Appeal, to the United States Supreme Court, and of such documents as are
requested by the public or other departments of the Government.
Auditor’s office and disbursing clerk, having charge of the fiscal affairs.
Chief clerk’s office, in charge of building and quarters; purchase of supplies and
equipment, supervision of the messenger, mechanical, and laboring forces.
Personnel section, in charge of all matters relating to appointments, promotions,
demotions, transfers, changes in designation, and the relationship between this
Commission and the Civil Service Commission.
Mail and files section, where the receipt and distribution of the mail takes place and
where all the papers and records of the Com10

ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION.

11

mission except those of the docket section are finally receivable and cared for.
Publications section, 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,
mimeograph, and photostat duplication 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.--The official reporting of the Commission's cases is done under
contract. Whenever a case is to be tried anywhere in the United States the necessary
directions are transmitted to the official reporters by the reportorial section in the
Commission’s office. All of the necessary work involved in the direction of the official
reporters, the receipt, care, and custody of the transcripts of hearings, the auditing of
vouchers, etc., is performed in this section.
Library section.-The functions carried on in the library during the fiscal year covered
by this report were under the direction of the Administrative Division.
The law library includes the following volumes and series of reports:
Statutes at Large.
Complied Statutes.
United States Reports.
Federal Reporter.
Northeastern Reporter.
Northwestern Reporter.
Atlantic Reporter.
Pacific Reporter.

Interstate Commerce Commission Reports.
American Digest.
Lawyers’ Reports Annotated.
Session laws of the States.
Briefs, decrees, etc., in antitrust cases.
Law encyclopedias, dictionaries, reference books, etc.

Care is exercised to limit the selection of books to supply only those needed
constantly and immediately in the Commission's work. The Commission is far
removed from other governmental law libraries and the library of the Supreme Court
of the United States and must have immediately available sufficient volumes to answer
the calls of the legal force. In all other cases use is made of the other law libraries in
this city.
There is another function, however, peculiar to the Commission's library in the
character of the work that it performs and that is in the material that it gathers in the
way of books and pamphlets, trade and economic periodicals, and trade association
material in book form, corporation reports, association records, current financial and
statistical services, publications, newspapers, catalogues, trade lists,

12

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

etc. Much of this useful material is not ordinarily found in libraries even of a technical
character. The greater amount is furnished gratuitously and much of it is of a
confidential character. The material and data available in the library section furnish
a valuable adjunct to the investigatory work and is adapted to furnish leads to
examinations rather than complete and substantive information on the subject matter.
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 records and
files all correspondence, exhibits, notices of assignments to attorneys, field and office
reports, and all other material in connection with such applications. In its custody also
are pleadings, exhibits, correspondence, and other material relating to formal
complaints which have been served, and it maintains the current docket record for the
inspection of the public, together with a proper supply of mimeographed copies of
pleadings in the Various cases before it for distribution to interested parties upon
application. This section also indexes and files a large quantity of legal material of a
general nature not directly connected with specific applications for complaints or
formal complaints and performs various miscellaneous services for the legal staff of
the Commission.
The following tables show in detail the receipt and disposition of applications for
complaints and formal complaints, by months, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1921,
and by fiscal years from the organization of the Commission to June 30, 1921.
Table showing receipt and disposition of applications for complaints and formal complaints, by fiscal
years, from organization of the commission to June 30, 1921.
Applications for complaints.

Formal complaints.

Disposed of.

Disposed of.
Css
ae
apOrders
pad
el .
e
to cease Total.

Fiscal year.
Docketed.

Served.
Dis-

Formals Total

missed served.
Organization (Mar.16, 1915)
and prior thereto to June
30 1915
112
Ended June 30, 1916
134
Ended June 30, 1917
153
Ended June 30, 1918
332
Ended June 30, 1919
535
Ended June 30, 1920
724
Ended June 30, 1921
426
Total

2,416

8
105
79
160
301
339
357

80
125
220
157

1,349

601

3
16

Dismissed

8
108
5
95
9
1
240 154
7
426 135 13
559 308 43
514 177 37
1,950

788 101

and
desist.

3
71
75
112
118

4
78
88
155
155

4
7
19

379

480

30

ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION.

13

Table showing receipt and disposition of applications for complaints and formal
complaints, fiscal year ended June 80, 1921.
Applications for complaints.

Formal complaints.

Disposed of.

Disposed of.

Month.
Docketed.

1920.
July
August
September
October
November
December

Dismissed without publicity.

Formal
complaints
served.

Served.
Orders
Total.
Dis- to cease
missed. and
desist.

59
14
16
39
16
31

20
3
56
57
25
74

5
1
8
36
22
8

25
4
64
93
47
82

5
1
8
36
29
10

23
55
62
25
24
62

12
7
28
14
59
2

18
10
13
10
20
6

30
17
41
24
79
8

26
10
14
10
22
6

2
3

426

357

157

514

177

2

Total.

8
1
5
10
5
5

10
1
14
12
9
15

3

38
23
11
2
2
8

40
26
11
4
2
11

37

118

155

9
2
4
10

1921.
January
February
March
April
May
June
Total

2

A significant feature of the table showing statistics for the current fiscal year is the
large percentage of applications dismissed without publicity being given to the names
of the parties filing applications with the Commission or those complained against, the
preliminary investigations having failed to disclose prima facie cases of unfair
competition. During the period in question 357 applications were disposed of in this
manner, as against 426 new applications were disposed of in this manner, as against
426 new applications docketed, or nearly 84 per cent. This is the highest percentage
so disposed of in any fiscal year since the organization of Commission. Nevertheless,
the proportion of applications dismissed without publicity has always been large,
averaging for the seven years of the Commission’s existence over 55 per cent.
During the current fiscal year 177 new formal complaints were served. This total,
while not as large as that of the previous year, which was exceptional in this respect,
was greater than that for any other similar period. Moreover, during the current year,
155 formal complaints were disposed of, either by orders to cease and desist or orders
of dismissal, the highest percentage (of those served) disposed of for any year thus far.
The discrepancies in both tables between the number of applications disposed of by
the service of formal complaints and the number of the latter served are due, on the
one hand, to the consolidation of applications against similar respondents, and, on the
other, to the fact that some applications had several respondents who were proceeded
against individually.

14 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.
APPROPRIATIONS AND EXPENDITURES.

The appropriations of the Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1921, under
the sundry civil appropriation act approved June 5, 1920, amount to $955,000. In
addition to these amounts the Commission had available the sum of $20,792.50, 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 unexpended 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, 1921, were
$935,505.26. The appropriations, including unexpended balances of appropriations
for previous years and expenditures, are tabulated below :
Amount Amount
available. expended.
Federal Trade Commission, 1921:
Salaries, commissioners and secretary
All other authorized expenses
Total, fiscal year 1921

55,000.00
900,000.00
955,000.00

51,972.21
798,435.09
850,407.30

Unexpended balances:
Federal Trade Commission, 1920
Federal Trade Commission, 1919
Federal Trade Commission, 1913-14
Expenses, trading with the enemy

243,073.58
14.44
20,792.50
5,347.94

84,600.70
11.94
485.32

$1,224,228.46

$935,505.26

Grand total

It is estimated that the outstanding liabilities of the Commission as of June 30, 1921,
amount to $29,281.18, payment of which will be made from the unexpended balances
of the appropriations "Federal Trade Commission, 1921" and "Federal Trade
Commission, without year" (1913-14).
A detailed analysis of the expenditures of the Commission is given in the following
statement :
Detailed statement of the expenditures of the Federal Trade Com mission for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 1921.
ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION.
Annual leave
Sick leave
General administration
Mail and files
Disbursements and accounts
Purchases and supplies
Docket
Library
Messengers
Time excused by Executive or Commission’s order
Special briefs
Legal supervision
Detail to United States Senate--Calder Committee--Coal

Office.
$14,606.93
4,781.17
77,713.83
12,888.89
13,059.62
5,759.92
12,701.42
7,041.31
11,106.44
194.51
3.33
263.53
7.20

Field.

$1,339.59

Medical attendant
Study of procedure

1,194.04
6.71

ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION.

15

Detailed statement of the expenditures of the Federal Trade Commission for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 1921--Continued.
ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION-Continued.
Printing and publications
Stenographic
Appointment Division
Labor
Special for the commissioners
Board of review
Preliminary work on informal complaints
Informal complaints
Formal complaints
Grain and produce exchanges
Report on increased cost of shoes
Trade practice submittal, guarantee against price decline
Report on prices loose leaf tobacco
Contingent
Rent
Printing and binding
Total

Office.
$11,023.70
15,930.91
9,845.98
4,216.37

Field.
$ 228.00

30.78
8.67
30.91
117.04
76.84
2.40
58.81
35.13
44.14
49,976.12
4,740.60
37,182.56
$294,625.03

20.40
356.86

$1,975.63

ECONOMIC DIVISION.
Annual leave
Sick leave
General administration
Mall and files
Disbursements and accounts
Library
Time excused by Executive or Commission's order
Economic supervision
Legal supervision
Detailed to Department of Justice
Detailed to United States Senate--Calder Committee--Coal
Military leave
Printing and publications
Special fort he commissioners
Informal complaints
Formal complaints
Miscellaneous computing-machine work
Oil
Lumber
Procedure of mandamus
Trading with the enemy
Miscellaneous economic
Coal
Steel
Lumber
Canned goods
Cotton textiles
Government paper contracts
Tobacco and cigarettes
Hemlock and hardwoods
Rosin
Live stock and its products
Grain products
Grain and produce exchanges
Export trade
Paper schedules
Farm operating equipment
Market meat and perishable food products
Milk products
Stock securities (blue-sky)
Food hoarding
California oil
Commercial feeds for animals
Sugar
Increased cost of shoes
News-print paper
Gasoline prices, etc

Office.
Field.
$32,614.08
6,857.53
979.05
4.00
379.39
38.58
401.38
1,247.46
$1,526.48
18.96
85.74
Cr. 396.21
65.01
156.71
224.12
445.87
1,211.46
1,461.71
731.31
323.99
.50
4.40
121.42
20.50
6.67
Cr. 2.00
14,024.30
30.91
2,165.09
10,118.47
.10
1,351.06
Cr.
1.00
Cr. 1,077.79
Cr. 323.96
436.30
286.37
Cr.
.40
Cr.
2.00
Cr.
.30
$ 685.50
29.19
837.81
26.90
41,935.88
6,759.08
416.65
156.51
6,773. 69
49.22
21.00
Cr.
.25
24,170.97
1,608.56
962.98
9.34
30,510.14
1,080.71
24,592.14
2,024.89
3,731.45
293.06
29,951. 64
1,784.54
5.00
1, 545. 66
3.50

Prices of combed-cotton yarns
Prices loose-leaf tobacco
Decline in wheat prices
Total

32,304. 82
2157.02
3,113.33
308,275.90

12,450.36
1,242.96
877.01
29,872.22

16

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.
Detailed statement of the expenditures of the Federal Trade Commission for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 1921--Continued.
LEGAL DIVISION.
CHIEF COUNSEL
.

Annual leave
Sick leave
Time excused by Executive or Commission’s order
Economic supervision
Briefs
Legal supervision
Study of procedure
Stenographic
Special for the commissioners
Preliminary work on informal complaints
Informal complaints
Formal complaints
Injunction proceedings against the Commission
Trading with the enemy
Canned goods
Grain and produce exchanges
Export trade
Milk products
Stock securities
Sugar
Trade practice submittal, guaranteed against price decline
Creamery industry trade practice
Trade practice submittal, macaroni
Total

Office.
$ 7,335.37
1,902.74
83.58
7.61
17,273.94
55.19
14.40
309.48
12.26
3,471.47
70,215.34
543. 31
135.25
5.77
122.87
24.00
42.87
34.53
1,387.38
5.70
103,316.20

Field.

33.31
$33.31

221.65
22,690.71

Cr.

2.00

175.08
31.56
Cr.
.40
513.42
23,663.33

CHIEF EXAMINER.
WASHINGTON (D. C.) OFFICE.
Annual leave
Sick leave
General administration
Time excused by Executive or Commission’s order
Briefs--Immunity of witnesses
Briefs-Digested decisions on interstate commerce
Legal supervision
Detailed to United States Senate--Calder Committee--Coal
Study of procedure
Stenographic
Special for the commissioners
Preliminary work on Informal complaints
Informal complaints
Formal complaints
Oil
Lumber
Trading with the enemy
Lumber
Grain and produce exchanges
Export trade
Stock securities
California oil
Commercial feeds for animals
Trade practice submittal, guarantee against price decline
Creamery Industry trade practice
Trade practice submittal, knit goods
Prices combed--cotton yarns
Prices loose-leaf tobacco
Decline In wheat prices
Total

5,041.65
901.51
22.80
68.15
426.91
175.74
10,648.29
320.05
263.93
889.26
29.14
2,823.99
16,211.45
11,470.92
8.00
2,762.17
154.65

77.29

259.72
460.78
5,462.24
8,415.02
1,949.03
Cr.

48.06
4.00
605.89

.25
204.15
133.82

232.36
52.99
723.33
27.00
9.80
5,470.80
263.53
59,656.37

25.14
30.66
2,142.74
19,160.34

NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE.
Annual leave
Sick leave
Time excused by Executive or Commission’s order
Legal supervision
Study of procedure
Stenographic
Special for the commissioners
Preliminary work on informal complaints
Informal complaints
Formal complaints
Oil
Lumber
Trade practice submittal, hosiery

888.62
388.26
4.02
2,433.03
7.60
2,669. 45
118.02
1,375.01
8, 781. 12
2,457.60
74.01
18. 80

66.46

34.30
237.57
2,376.19
563.96
47.69
2.00
9.96

ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION.

17

Detailed statement of the expenditures of the Federal Trade Commission for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 1921--Continued.
LEGAL DIVISION--Continued
Office.

Field.

CHIEF EXAMINER--Continued.
NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE-Continued.
Trade practice submittal, knit goods
Prices loose-leaf tobacco
Total

$9.40
19, 224.94

CHICAGO BRANCH OFFICE.
Annual leave
Sick leave
Time excused by Executive or Commission’s order
Legal supervision
Stenographic
Special for the commissioners
Preliminary work on informal complaints
Informal complaints
Formal complaints
Lumber
California oil
Trade practice submittal, guarantee against price decline
Total

1,207.73
210.89
14.75
1,137.50
4,120.94
117.26
472.13
4,738.29
1,041.08
5,644.12
446.84
26.71
18,366.77

Cr.

$.75
80.58
3,417.96

5.99

161.39
1,720.48
192.54
1,524.48
66.71
30.03
3,635.36

SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH OFFICE.
Annual leave
219.81
Sick leave
39.61
Legal supervision
458.95
Stenographic
1,306.22
preliminary work on informal complaints
1,119.34
Informal complaints
2,738.29
1,797.48
Formal complaints
726.37
794. 28
Lumber
85.92
California oil
446.84
66.71
Trade practice submittal, guarantee against price decline
13.94
Total
7,155.29
3,031.49
SUMMARY, CHIEF EXAMINER.
Washington office
New York branch office
Chicago branch office
San Francisco branch office
Total

59,656.37
19,224.94
18,366.77
104,403.37

19,160.34
3,417.96
3,635.30
29,245.15

BOARD OF REVIEW.
Annual leave
Sick leave
Time excused by Executive or Commission’s orders
Stenographic
Board of Review
Total

1,352.62
401.49
16.68
8.87
13,514.21
15,293.87

EXPORT TRADE BRANCH.
Annual leave
1,089.49
Sick leave
234.51
Time excused by Executive or Commission’s orders
12.57
Informal complaints
59.44
Formal complaints
8.00
Trading with the enemy
13.33
Export trade
8,087.51
Total
9,504.85
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY.
Annual leave
Sick leave
261.42
Time excused by Executive or Commission’s orders
4.86
Trading with the enemy
2,971.21
Export trade
4.67
Total
3,396.02

38.66
227.91
266.57

153.86
841.92
841.92

71822--21--2

18

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.
Detailed statement of the expenditures of the Federal Trade Commission for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 1921--Continued.
SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES.
Office.

Administrative
Economic
Legal
Chief counsel
Chief examiner
Board of Review
Export Trade Branch
Trading with the enemy

Field.

$294.625.03 $1,975.63
308,275.90 29,872.22
103,316.20
104,403.37
15,293.87
9,504.85
3,396.02

Grand total

838,815.24

23,663.33
29,245.15
266.57
841.92
85,864.82

Total.
$296,600.66
338,148.12
126,979.53
133,648.52
15,293.87
9,771.42
4,237.94
924,680.06

Adjustments.--The following adjustments are made to account for the difference between the cost and disbursements:
Total cost for the year ended June 30, 1921
Less transportation issued
New total
Plus transportation paid
Adjusted total
Allotted to retirement fund
New total
Credit received for work done for other departments (add)
Disbursements for the year ended June 30, 1921

$924, 680.06
32, 664. 41
892,015.65
35,087.86
927,103.51
7,000.00
934,103.51
1,401.75
935,505.26

The appropriations for the Federal Trade Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 1921, were as follows:
"For five commissioners, at $10,000 each; secretary, $5,000; in all, $55,000.
"For all other authorized expenditures of the Federal Trade Commission in
performing the duties imposed by law or in pursuance of law, including personal and
other services in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, supplies and equipment, law
books, books of reference, periodicals, printing and binding, traveling expenses, per
diem in lieu of subsistence not to exceed $4, newspapers, foreign postage, and witness’
fees and mileage in accordance with section 9 of the Federal Trade Commission act,
$900,000."
PERSONNEL.
Changes in personnel.--The term of office for which William B. Culver was
appointed expired September 25, 1920. He was succeeded by Senator John F. Nugent,
of Idaho, who was nominated by the President December 20, 1920, for a full term of
seven years. Confirmed by the Senate December 20, 1920, he took the oath of office
and entered on duty January 15, 1921. His term of office will expire January 14, 1928.
Vice Chairman Huston Thompson, of Colorado, was elected chairman of the
Commission for the ensuing year and entered on duty

ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION.

19

as such December 1, 1920, Succeeding Commissioner Murdock, Commissioner
Gaskill becoming vice chairman for the same period.
The term of office for which John Garland Pollard, of Virginia, was appointed and
confirmed expires September 25, 1921.
Resume.--The Federal Trade Commission organized March 16, 1915, with a total of
144 employees. At the close of the fiscal year ended June 30, 1915, the total force of
employees numbered 143, and at the close of June 30, of the years since, the number
of employees has been: 1916, 224; 1917, 214; 1918, 663; 1919, 376; 1920, 418.
It may be interesting to note that the total number of employees on the rolls on April
6, 1917, the date of declaration of war against Germany, was 198.
The number of employees November 11, 1918, the date of the signing of the
armistice, was 766 (including 34 employees on extended leave without pay in the
military service, 40 on assigned duty in the United States Fuel Administration, and 1
on extended personal leave), making 691 in actual service and on duty November
11, 1918.
The highest number of employees, however, that the Commission has ever had
actually on duty at any one time was December 9, 1918, when there was 780 people
on the roll and 710 of these actually on the job. Of the balance 31 were in military
service, 38 in the United States Fuel Administration, and 1 on leave without pay.
Summary.--During the fiscal year 31 employees entered the service of the
Commission and 134 left the service.
At the close of June 30, 1920, the Commission had 418 employees, with a total basic
salary of $914,110.
At the close of June 30, 1921, there were 315 employees, with a total basic salary
of $718,140.
At the close of the year there were 53 employees who have had United States
military or naval service. The number of female employees on that date was 106. For
the same date there were 191 employees coming under the provisions and benefits of
the Civil Service Retirement Law.
The Commission is still seriously affected by the constantly occurring turnover in
its force. The attraction of the outside business world and the increased salaries
obtainable therein for the same character of work has caused the Commission to lose
a large number of employees. It takes considerable time to train new employees so that
they render complete and efficient service and the losses by separation and the
consequent loss of motion in training new employees is one of the serious difficulties
under which the Commission still has to labor.

20

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Employees of the Federal Trade Commission at the close of business June 30,
1921, showing salary rates.
5 Commissioners
1 Secretary

$10,000
5,000
$55,000

4 Clerks to commissioners
1 Clerk to commissioner

1,800
1,600

1 Chief clerk

3,250

1 Disbursing clerk

2,880

8,800
3,250
2,880
3 Clerks
1 Clerk
1 Clerk
1 Clerk
1 Clerk
2 Clerks
5 Clerks
1 Clerk
1 Clerk
9 Clerks
2 Clerks
4 Clerks
1 Clerk
1 Clerk
1 Clerk
1 Clerk
10 Clerks
10 Clerks
8 Clerks
16 Clerks
20 Clerks
3 Clerks
31 Clerks
1 Clerk
1 Clerk

3,000
2,880
2,520
2,500
2,220
2,100
2,000
1,920
1,860
1,800
1,740
1,680
1,620
1,600
1,560
1,520
1,500
1,440
1,400
1,380
1,320
1,260
1,200
1,140
900
201,900

2 Special attorneys
2 Special attorneys
1 Special attorney
1 Special attorney

5,000
3,600
3,000
2,280

1 Attorney and examiner
3 Attorneys and examiners
1 Attorney and examiner
4 Attorneys examiners
7 Attorneys and examiners
4 Attorney and examiner
4 Attorneys and examiners
2 Attorneys and examiners

8,000
5,000
4,500
4,200
3,800
3,500
3,300
2,820

25,680

21

ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION.

Employees of the Federal Trade Commission at the close of business June 30
1921, showing salary rates--Continued.
1 Attorney and examiner
1 Attorney and examiner

$2,700
2,460
$133,800

1 Special agent
1 Special agent
1 Special agent
1 Special agent
4 Special agents
2 Special agents
3 Special agents
4 Special agents
4 Special agents
1 Special agent
1 Special agent
3 Special agents
1 Special agent

4,800
4,500
4,000
3,600
3,300
3,000
2,500
2,400
2,280
2,250
2,100
2,000
1,800

1 Special expert
1 Special expert
1 Special expert
1 Special expert
1 Special expert

6,000
3,000
3,000
2,000
1,320

1 Special examiner
1 Special examiner
1 Special examiner
2 Special examiners

7,500
6,000
5,000
3,000

2 Examiners
1 Examiner
1 Examiner
1 Examiner
2 Examiners
1 Examiner
1 Examiner
1 Examiner
6 Examiners
1 Examiner
2 Examiners
2 Examiners
1 Examiner
1 Examiner
1 Examiner
2 Examiners
1 Examiner
4 Examiners
1 Examiner
2 Examiners
2 Examiners
3 Examiners
3 Examiners
7 Examiners
3 Examiners

5,000
4,800
4,500
3,600
3,500
3,300
3,200
3,100
3,000
2,940
2,880
2,820
2,800
2,740
2,640
2,500
2,460
2,400
2,340
2,280
2,160
2,000
1,920
1,800
1,680

74,470

12,320

24,500

22

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Employees of the Federal Trade Commission at the close of business June 30,
1921, showing salary rates--Continued.
1 Examiner
$1,640
1 Examiner
1,600
3 Examiners
1,500
3 Examiners
1,440
1 Examiner
1,380
1 Examiner
1,200
$152,340
1 Multigraph operator
1,800
1 Multigraph operator
1,200
3,000
1 Draftsman
1,200
1,200
1 Messenger
1,060
1 Messenger
900
7 Assistant messengers
900
1 Assistant messenger
720
1 Messenger boy
900
6 Messenger boys
480
12,760
1 General mechanic
1,260
1,260
1 Telephone operator
900
1 Telephone operator
720
1,620
1 Skilled laborer
780
1 Laborer
1,200
1 Laborer
780
1 Laborer
600
3,360
Grand total
718,140
Grand total, employees, 315.
PUBLICATIONS ISSUED.
The following publications were issued by the Commission during the fiscal year ended June
30,1921:
Annual Report of the Federal Trade Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1920;
December 27, 1920. 192 pp.
Cost Reports of the Federal Trade Commission--Coal No. 7--Trans-Mississippi ,States-Bituminous; February 1, 1921. 459 pp.
Commercial Feeds, Summary; April 20, 1921. is pp.
Commercial Wheat Flour Milling; November 15, 1920. 118 pp. Combed Cotton Yarns,
Summary; May 6, 1921. 8 pp.
Decisions, Findings and Orders of the Federal Trade Commission; Volume II, June 30, 1920;
January 25, 1921. 631 pp.
The Grain Trade, Volume I (Country Grain Marketing) ; January 8, 1921. 350 pp.
The Grain Trade, Volume 11 (Terminal Grain Markets and Exchanges ; January 12, 1921.
333 pp.
The Grain Trade, Volume V (Future Trading Operations in Grain) ; January 12, 1921. 347
pp.

Milk and Milk Products, 1914-1918, Summary of Report; June 15, 1921.

ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION.

23

Pacific Coast Petroleum Industry, Part 1 (Production, Ownership, and Profits),
Summary of Report; May 2; 1921. 19 pp.
Rules of Practice Before the Commission (amended to May 20, 1921); 8 pp. Sugar
Supply and Prices; December 13, 1920. 205 pp.
Shoe and Leather Costs and Prices, Summary of Report; July 1, 1921.
Tobacco Industry; May 9, 1921. 162 pp.
Wheat Prices for the 1920 Crop; March 17, 1921. 91 pp.
Petroleum Industry of Wyoming; February 14, 1.921. 54 pp.
Letter of the Federal Trade Commission to the President of the United States; April
18, 1921. 8 pp.
HOSPITAL.
The Commission maintains a small unit of a very serviceable nature in the way of
a hospital and retirement or rest room for its employees. This unit is under the care of
a graduate nurse and has shown great usefulness and rendered beneficial service to
employees. Many employees arc here from other cities and do not have facilities so
easily obtainable in home surroundings and this unit partly supplies some of these
needs. The graduate nurse in all cases of sudden or prolonged illness renders in the
former cases immediate assistance and makes periodic visits in the latter. Thus the
Commission is kept in closer touch with conditions of this sort and this activity has
been the means of rendering desirable assistance that could not otherwise have been
obtained.
QUARTERS.
The Commission's force is located in one of the temporary buildings erected for
war purposes. It occupies one-half of the structure that is located between Twentieth
and Twenty-first Streets and New York Avenue. It was the building formerly occupied
by the Fuel Administration and the Commission's force moved into it the latter part of
May and the early part of June, 1919. It is of frame construction and two stories in
height and of the most temporary character. During the fiscal year covered by this
report the Fuel Ad-ministration moved out all of its force from the eastern half of the
structure and at different times other Government offices moved in. This Commission
has no jurisdiction over the care and custody of the building. It is operated under the
direction of the Superintendent of the State, War, and Navy Department Building,
through an assignment made by the Public Buildings Commission.

LEGAL DIVISION.
The Legal Division of the Commission includes two subdivisions. The first is the
trial division, at the head of which is the chief counsel, who is also the Commission's
chief legal adviser. The second subdivision is the examining or investigating staff
under the chief examiner.
CHIEF COUNSEL.

During the year the Commission disposed of 156 formal cases that were submitted
to it upon oral argument or briefs. Of this number 119 resulted in orders to cease and
desist and 37 were dismissed. Of the cases resulting in orders to cease, 21 were
appealed to the Circuit Courts of Appeals. But of this number of appealed cases, 12
involved leases of oil equipment in which like questions were presented and can be
properly regarded for this report as one case, so that as a practical matter there were
only 10 cases appealed to the courts. Three of these appeals have been argued and
decided by the Court of Appeals adversely to the Commission, and the Commission
has applied to the United States Supreme Court for writs of certiorari in two of these
cases; one of these has been granted; the other is pending. Of the remaining seven
appeals, two have been argued and now await decision of the court, while the
remaining five cases will be argued early in the fall.
A new development of the year in the Commission's Legal Division was the
attempt, in two instances, to have courts of equity enjoin the Commission from hearing
and determining the charges stated in complaints issued by it, under the provisions of
section 5 of the commission act and certain sections of the Clayton Act; in both instances the attempt failed and the injunction suits were dismissed.
THE HURST CASE.

The case first decided had been brought in the District Court of the United States
for the Eastern District of Virginia by T. C. Hurst & Son, a partnership; injunction was
denied by District Judge Waddill in an opinion reported in 268 Fed., 874. Jn the
complaint against Hurst & Son it was charged that respondents were engaged at
Norfolk, Va., in the business of selling chandlery supplies to ships reaching the port
of Norfolk, Va., while engaged in interstate and foreign commerce; that in the course
of their business respondents had given cash commissions and gratuities to captains
and other officers and employees in charge of ships reaching said port to induce them
to purchase from respondents, to the exclusion of competitors
24

LEGAL DIVISION.

25

of respondents, provisions and supplies for use and consumption upon such ships in
and beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Hurst & Son in their bill
for injunction averred that sections 5, 6, 9, and 10 of the act of Congress creating the
Commission were unconstitutional and void for the following reasons : (a) Because
beyond the powers Vested in Congress by the Constitution; (b) because there is
delegated to the Commission legislative authority; (c) because the Commission Is
empowered to define and determine what shall constitute "unfair methods of
competition in commerce"; (d) because it deprives the parties of the right of trial by
jury; (e) because the statute attempts to regulate intrastate as well as interstate
commerce; (f) because the proceedings sought to be enjoined discriminate between
persons engaged in the same line of business and take away the property of one
without the process of law and without just compensation, while not molesting others
using the same practice. and for other reasons more specifically set up in the bill of
complaint. The court held that the contention that the act was unconstitutional for any
of the reasons specified was without merit, and further held that the Commission had
acted entirely within its rights of and concerning a matter liable to injuriously affect
commerce, and declined to grant the injunction prayed for.
In the course of its opinion the court said :
The constitutionality of the act itself is challenged, also the right of the Commission
to decide what shall constitute unfair competition, and of Congress to authorize it so
to do, as well as the manner in which the Commission may proceed iii the discharge
of its duties to determine what is unfair com-petition, this specific complaint being that
the Commission may not proceed against a particular person, firm, or corporation,
believed to be engaged in unfair competition, but must in the same proceeding include
all other persons similarly engaged.
After quoting the provisions of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act, the
court then disposed of the various contentions made by the complainants, as follows
The contention that the act of Congress is unconstitutional for any of the reasons
specified, is without merit, as it is manifestly within the power of Congress to legislate
generally in respect to the burdens that may or may not be imposed upon foreign and
interstate commerce, and it is also within its power to declare what would be fair and
what unfair methods and dealings in relation thereto, and how the same should be
ascertained and determined. The Commission is given full power and authority to
investigate, make findings of fact, and render its judgment and order in relation
thereto, and before the same is carried into effect, the judgment of the circuit court of
appeals, the second highest court under the Government is to be sought by the
Commission, to enforce its order, and any party required by such order to cease and
desist from Using such method of competition, may obtain a review of such order in
the circuit court of appeals, by filing its written petition praying therefor. The action
of the circuit court of appeals is final, save when its interposition decision to the

Supreme

26

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Court of the United States. The jurisdiction of the circuit court of appeals to enforce,
set aside, or modify orders of the Commission is exclusive. In all of the proceedings,
whether before the Commission or the court, the amplest provision is made for notice
to and full hearing of all parties interested, and for this court, for any of the reasons
urged, to anticipate by injunction, the action of the Commission, and the judgment of
the court, charged under the law with the review thereof, would be clearly an
usurpation of authority.
While the constitutionality of the Federal Trade Commission act had already been
upheld by the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit in the Sears, Roebuck
& Co. case, 258 Fed., 307, and again by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit in the National Harness Manufacturers' Association case, 268 Fed., 705, and
inferentially as well by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Gratz case, 253
U.S., 421, the decision in the Hurst case is nevertheless important, because the statute
was there attacked upon a number of grounds not relied on in the other cases.
THE BUTTERICK CASE.
Similar suits were brought in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia by the
Butterick Co., a corporation, and its affiliated corporations, against which a complaint
had been issued by the Commission charging them with unfair methods of competition
(resale price maintenance in violation of section 5 of the commission act and with
violations of section 3 of the Clayton Act (tying contracts). In these suits the principal
ground for injunction relied upon was that the Commission was without jurisdiction
because its complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a violation of section
5 of the commission act or of section 3 of the Clayton Act. Thus was raised for
determination the important question of the right of parties proceeded against by the
Commission to prevent such proceedings by recourse to a court of equity. On the
argument counsel for the Commission contended, in opposition to the application for
injunction, that no ground whatever was shown for the interposition of a court of
equity, and that the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton
Act provided a method of review of the Commission’s orders by the United States
Circuit Court of Appeals, which afforded the respondents an adequate remedy under
these statutes, which remedy was by the very terms of the statute made exclusive. The
court refused to grant the injunction and dismissed the bills. An appeal was noted by
the Butterick Co.
DECISIONS ON REVIEW OF COMMISSION’S ORDERS.

In numerous proceedings wherein orders had been issued by the Commission
commanding the parties against whom complaints had been issued to cease and desist
from the practices charged in

LEGAL DIVISION.

27

the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in various circuits to review such orders
and within the year the following cases were disposed of :
National Harness Manufacturers' Association v. Federal Trade Commission,
268 Fed., 705 (CCA, Sixth Circuit).
In the above case the complaint charged that the association, its officers, members
of its executive committee, members, and affiliated associations had conspired
together to stifle and suppress competition in the saddlery and harness industry by
preventing nonmembers from obtaining supplies with which to carry on business and
by other means. The order issued by the Commission was assailed on the following
grounds: (a) That the Federal Trade Commission act is unconstitutional; (b) that the
Commission had no jurisdiction of this particular case, because trade associations were
not themselves engaged in commerce; (c) that the order to cease and desist was not
supported by the evidence. All of these contentions were rejected by the court and the
Commission's order as to all of the respondents was confirmed in toto.
In upholding the constitutionality of the Federal Trade Commission act the court
said:
The constitutionality of the act is assailed, first, as assuming "to combine
legislative, executive, and judicial powers and functions, and to confer them upon one
and the same administrative body, contrary to Articles I, II, and III of the Constitution,
and because it assumes to authorize the Commission, which is ostensibly an
administrative body, to deprive persons of their property without due process of law,
contrary to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
This proposition is to our minds without merit. Congress plainly has power to
declare unfair methods of competition unlawful and to require that their practice cease.
This Congress has done by the act in question. It with equal clearness has the power
to authorize an administrative commission to determine (a) the question what methods
of competition the given trader employs, and (b) provisionally, the mixed question of
law and fact whether such methods are unfair. These questions being determined
against the trader, the administrative requirement to cease and desist, prescribed by
Congress, follows as a matter of course, but only provisionally. The Commission's
determination of these questions is not final. Not only does the statute give a right of
review thereon, upon application by an aggrieved trader, to a Circuit Court of Appeals
of the United States, but the Commission's order is not enforceable by the Commission, but only by order of court.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
The criticism that the statute makes the Commission both judge and prosecutor is too
unsubstantial to justify discussion.
On the subject of the liability of unincorporated trade associations to be proceeded
against under section 5 of the Trade Commission act, the court said :

By section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act the Commission is given
jurisdiction, when it has reason to believe that “any * * * person, part-

28

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

nership, 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" Section 4 of the act defines a corporation
as "any company or association, incorporated or unincorporated," which either (a) is
organized to carry on business for profit and has shares of capital or capital stock, or
(b) is "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." The Harness
Manufacturers' Association is a voluntary unincorporated association, and thus without
capital stock. It is not itself engaged in business. Petitioner contends that it therefore
is not within the act. But this contention overlooks the fact that the association Is not
the only one proceeded against; but that its officers and the members of its executive
committee, as well as its membership generally, are included in the proceedings as
parties and made subject to the Commission's order. The language of the act affords
no support for the thought that individuals, partnerships, and corporations can escape
restraint, under the act, from combining in the use of unfair methods of competition,
merely because they employ as a medium therefor an unincorporated voluntary
association, without capital and not itself engaged in commercial business. The order
may be enforced by reaching the officers and members, personally and individually.
A voluntary association, having many members, may be brought into court by service
on its officers and such of its members as are known and can be conveniently reached,
sufficient being served to represent all the diverse interests.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
The contention that the Harness Manufacturers' Association is not engaged in
commerce is answered by the consideration, first, that many of its members are so
engaged; and, second, that interstate commerce is claimed to have been directly
affected by the alleged unfair methods of competition.
Concerning the contention that the findings of the Commission were not supported
by the evidence, the court said :
In our opinion the Commission' s findings of fact, and the existence of the
combinations, schemes, and practices directed to be discontinued, are amply sustained
either by undisputed testimony or by the great preponderance of the evidence. This
conclusion is not overcome by petitioner's criticisms addressed to specific features of
the testimony. The findings of fact being so supported, the Commission's order is, in
our opinion, fully justified by the authorities to which attention has already been
called, including especially Eastern States Lumber Co. v. United States, supra, where
a state of facts quite similar to that found here was held to amount to a violation of the
Sherman Antitrust Act.
In view of what has appeared, the criticism of lack of public inquiry is without
force. The suggestion that no damage has been shown, even if true in fact, is answered
by the consideration that the remedy afforded by the statute is preventive, not
compensatory.

The order of the Commission, so far as it relates to the Harness Manufacturers'
Association, its officers, committees, and the members of its subsidiary and affiliated
associations, is affirmed.
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 270 Fed 806 (CCA, Third
Circuit).
The complaint in this case charged the respondents with unfair methods of
competition in commerce and with violating section 3 of

LEGAL DIVISION.

29

the Clayton Act, in that it sold and distributed periodicals published by it exclusively
to dealers who would agree not to sell or distribute the publications of certain of
respondent's competitors, thereby lessening competition and tending to create a
monopoly. An order to cease and desist from the practices charged in the complaint
was issued, whereupon the respondent petitioned the Circuit Court of Appeals, Third
Circuit, to review the Commission's order. The court on March 2, 1921, filed its
opinion and directed that a decree be entered vacating and setting aside the
Commission's order. Thereafter the Commission applied to the Supreme Court of the
United States for a writ of certiorari to review the decree of the Circuit Court of
Appeals, which writ was granted on June 6, 1921.
In the petition for certiorari the following questions were presented : (a) Whether
the contracts of the respondent with its distributors are contracts of sale or contracts
of agency, and if contracts of sale, may their effect be to substantially lessen
competition or tend to create a monopoly for the respondent, when used by it to
prevent dealers from selling the magazines of competitors of respondent which they
had been selling; (b) whether it is an unfair method of competition in violation of
section 5 of the commission act for the respondent to make a practice of entering into
contracts with wholesale dealers already engaged in the sale of magazines of other
publishers, whereby such dealers were prevented from thereafter dealing in periodicals
other than those published by respondent; (c) whether the Circuit Court of Appeals
exceeded its jurisdiction in view of section 5 of the commission act, which provides
that "the findings of the Commission as to the facts, if supported by testimony, shall
be conclusive," first by making findings additional to those of the Commission, and,
second, by making findings contradictory to certain of the Commission's findings
which it accepted in its opinion as established.
The Winsted Hosiery CO v. Federal Trade Commission, 272 Fed 957 (CCA
.Second Circuit).
The complaint in this case charged that respondent had manufactured and sold
underwear made of a small amount of wool and a large amount of cotton, which it
labeled, advertised, and branded as "Merino," "Wool," or “Worsted.” To the
complaint the respondent made answer which was in effect a confession and
avoidance, and attempted to justify the practice upon the theory that it had become
universal and was well recognized by the distributors of underwear. An order to cease
and desist from the practices charged in the complaint was issued, whereupon the
respondent petitioned the Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, for a review of
the

30

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Commission’s order. The court, on April 13, 1921, filed its opinion and reversed the
order of the Commission. Thereafter the Commission applied to the Supreme Court
of the United States for a writ of certiorari to review the decree of the Circuit Court
of Appeals, which writ was granted on June 6, 1921. The question presented in the
petition for certiorari was whether the misbranding of garments made of cotton and
wool, which misleads the consuming public into the belief that such garments are
made wholly of wool, thereby injuring competitors who correctly labeled their
products, constitutes an unfair method of competition within the purview of section
5 of the commission act.
Standard Oil Company v. Federal Trade Commission, 273 Fed. 478 (CCA, Second
Circuit).
The complaint in this case charged respondent with unfair methods of competition
in commerce in violation of section 5 of the commission act and with violating of
section 3 of the Clayton Act, in that it had loaned or leased gasoline distributing
devices to retail dealers, for nominal consideration, upon the condition that such
retailers would not distribute through such devices the gasoline of competitors of
respondent. An order to cease and desist from the practices charged in the complaint
was issued, whereupon the respondent petitioned the Circuit Court of Appeals, Second
Circuit, to review such order. The court on May 11, 1921, filed its opinion and
reversed the Commission’s order. This case was argued and submitted along with a
similar case involving the same practices by the Texas Co., against which company a
similar order had been issued by the Commission. Complaints had also been issued
against numerous other companies charging the same practices, and as a result orders
to cease and desist from the practices charged in the complaints had been issued in a
number of instances, and a number of parties proceeded against petitioned the Circuit
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to review the Commission's orders. An opinion
was filed in these cases on June 29, 1921, which followed the opinion of the court in
the Second Circuit, and the orders of the Commission were reversed.
Fruit Grower’s Express v. Federal Trade Commission. Opinion filed June 10,
1921 (CCA, Second. District).
The complaint issued in this case charged that the respondent was violating section
3 of the Clayton Act in that it leased refrigerator cars to railroad companies under
contracts which provided that the railroad would use respondent's cars exclusively in
the movement of fruits and vegetables under refrigeration in carload lots.

LEGAL DIVISION.

31

An order to cease and desist from the practice charged in the complaint was issued by
the Commission, whereupon respondent petitioned the Circuit Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit, to review such order. The opinion of the court was filed June 29,
1921, and the order of the Commission was annulled and set aside upon the ground
that the practices charged in the complaint involved common carriers and tended to
very greatly affect their business, and that authority to enforce section 3 of the Clayton
Act, where applicable to common carriers, was vested in the Interstate Commerce
Commission, and that the Federal Trade Commission was therefore without
jurisdiction. A writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States will be
applied for to review the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals in this case.
The following additional cases were argued and submitted to the court within the
year, which cases were pending and undetermined on June 30, 1921:
Western Sugar Refinery v. Federal Trade Commission (CCA, Ninth Circuit).
The complaint issued in this case charged that the Western Sugar Refinery and 27
other persons, partnerships, and corporations had combined and conspired together to
prevent the Los Angeles Grocery Co. from obtaining groceries and food products with
which to carry on the business of a wholesale grocery, and, as a means of carrying into
effect the purpose of such conspiracy, had induced or attempted to induce
manufacturers of grocery products and their agents to refuse to sell their products to
said company, by boycott or threats to boycott any products sold to said Los Angeles
Grocery Co. The order to cease and desist issued by the Commission commanded each
of the 28 respondents and all of them to cease and desist from the practices charged
in the complaint. Petitions to review the order of the Commission were filed by only
10 of the 28 parties proceeded against.
Mishawaka Woolen Manufacturing Co. v. Federal Trade Commission (CCA,
Seventh Circuit).
The complaint in the above case charged the Mishawaka Co., a manufacturer, with
the practice of adopting and carrying out in the course of its business a policy of
requiring the dealers through whom its products were distributed to observe in the
resale of such products to the public the prices charged by respondent. After hearing
an order to cease and desist from such practices was issued by the Commission,
whereupon the respondent petitioned the Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit,
to set aside the Commission's order. A similar case involving the practices of the
Beech-Nut Packing Co. before the Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in which

32

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

an opinion was filed February 26, 1920, reversing the order of the Commission, and
a writ of certiorari was thereafter granted by the Supreme Court of the United States
to review the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals, which case is still pending.
Winslow & Co. v. Federal Trade Commission (CCA, Fourth Circuit).
The complaint in the above case charged that Winslow & Co., a partnership, was
engaged in the business of selling chandlery supplies to ships reaching the port of
Norfolk, Va., while engaged in interstate and foreign commerce, such supplies being
for use and consumption on such ships in and beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the
United States, and that in the course of such business respondents had given to
captains and other officers and employees in charge of such ships cash commissions
and gratuities to induce such officers and employees to purchase from respondent
provisions and supplies for use and consumption upon the ships operated by them for
the owners thereof. An order to cease and desist from the practices charged in the
complaint was issued by the Commission, whereupon respondents petitioned the
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, to reverse the order of the Commission.
Similar proceedings were had upon a complaint charging the Norden Shipping Supply
Co. (Inc.) with like practices, and the two cases were argued together and presented
to the court and are still pending and undetermined.
Kinney Rome Co. v. Federal Trade Commission (CCA, Seventh Circuit).
The complaint in this case charged that the respondent, a manufacturer, had
practiced unfair methods of competition in violation of section 5 of the commission
act, in that it had given premiums to salesmen employed by dealers through whom
respondent distributed its products to induce such salesmen to enhance the sale of respondent's products to the exclusion of competing products. An order to cease and
desist from the practices charged in the complaint was issued by the Commission,
whereupon the respondent petitioned the Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse such
order.
TRADE PRACTICE SUBMITTALS.

Two trade practice submittals, both in the oil industry, were successfully concluded
during the fiscal year. The first of these was held on June 22, 1920, at Chicago, and
the second, on August 19, 1920, at Denver.
The Chicago conference was called at the instance of the Independent Oil Men's
Association and the American Independent Petroleum Association, the membership
of which is composed, pri-

LEGAL DIVISION.

33

marily, of oil refiners and jobbers, and was the result of a number of complaints from
the trade, which have been investigated by both associations and which were
considered of sufficient serious import by these organizations to be made the subject
of a trade practice submittal. A member of the Commission was present and presided
at both conferences.
A number of rules were adopted at both conferences condemning certain practices
and recommending affirmative action as to others. Among the practices condemned
were : (1) False representation as to the actual value of a competitor's products; (2)
attacking a competitor as to his financial standing, personal integrity, or ability to serve
the trade; (3) condemning a competitor because of the size of his business, either large
or small; (4) advertising so as to imply that competitors are not selling good products;
(5) misrepresenting or misbranding of any petroleum products; (6) all forms of secret
rebates or settlements whereby books and accounts can be so manipulated as to cover
up the actual conditions; (7) commercial bribery; (8) making of contracts with ultimate
consumers or users of oils, gas, etc., at a fixed price guaranteeing against an advance
and protecting against a decline; (9) tank-wagon or service-station sales on a credit
basis. Regulations were also prescribed with reference to sales on a quality basis,
service and filling stations, commission agency agreements, the leasing and selling of
curb pumps, tanks and barrels to retailers, and cash discounts.
More than a third of the States were represented at these conferences; the one at
Chicago embraced representatives from the States of Indiana, Illinois, Michigan,
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, northern
Oklahoma, and Kansas, while the one at Denver covered the States of Colorado,
Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, and New Mexico.
PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE COMMISSION ACT.

The first formal complaint was issued by the Commission February 18, 1916. It
charged the use of an unfair method of competition within the meaning of section 5 of
the Federal Trade Commission act. Since that date violations of this section have been
charged in 572 formal complaints. Of these, 255 have resulted in the issuance of orders
to cease and desist from the use of various methods of competition found by the
Commission to violate the act.
PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE CLAYTON ACT.

Thirty-three complaints issued by the Commission have charged violations of
section 2 of the Clayton Act, and in four of these

71882--21--3

34

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

cases final orders to cease and desist have been issued. Seventy-nine complaints have
charged violations of section 3 of the act, and in 29 of these cases final orders to cease
and desist have been issued. in only one case under section 3 has appeal to the court
been taken from the Commission's order. Twenty-one complaints have charged
violations of section 7 of the Clayton Act, and two complaints have charged violations
of section 8. No final orders to cease and desist have thus far been made under either
of the last two mentioned sections.
PROCEEDINGS PENDING AND DISPOSED OF.

Proceedings pending and disposed of during the fiscal year 1920 will be found in
Exhibit 8.
CHIEF EXAMINER

The duty of the second branch of the Legal Division--that is, the staff under the
chief examiner--is to do all investigating work in connection with applications for the
issuance of complaints and the gathering of evidence in preparation of formal cases
for trial. It also furnishes the examiners who sit at the trial of formal cases. The staff
includes one assistant chief examiner, three attorneys and examiners in charge of
branch offices, and a small force of investigators, most of whom are attorneys, besides
the necessary complement of clerical and stenographic help. In addition to the
supervision of the work of these investigators, the chief examiner is charged with the
duty of conducting a large preliminary correspondence with applicants for the issuance
of complaints.
From the beginning the Commission has interpreted its organic act as requiring such
a procedure as to make it easy for those having grievances to secure their
consideration. With that end in view, the rules of practice were made quite simple, the
chief essential being merely the submission of a written statement of the facts. Applicants may come in freely, either at headquarters or at one of the branches, present their
applications in person, and discuss them with the Commission’s representatives.
These informal preliminary applications are carefully studied in the light of the
precedents and of the Commission' s powers. If the statement shows upon its face that
the practice complained of is not unlawful, or is something over which the
Commission has no corrective jurisdiction, the applicant is so informed and the file is
closed. If, however, it appears that something unlawful, over which the Commission
has corrective jurisdiction, is involved, such further correspondence as may be
necessary to put the application in proper form is conducted. The chief examiner
then causes the file to be docketed as an “application for the issuance of complaint,”
and

LEGAL DIVISION.

35

it is assigned to an investigator for attention. Upon completion of the investigation the
attorney in charge prepares a report, recommending either dismissal or the issuance of
a complaint. The file is then reviewed by the chief or assistant chief examiner to make
sure, first, that the investigation is complete, and, second, that a correct conclusion,
both as to the law and the facts, has been reached. It then goes to the board of review,
and from that body, with their recommendation, to the Commissioner in charge of the
case, who makes a report and recommendation, and the full Commission passes finally
upon the question of dismissal or issuance of a complaint.
The purpose of the Commission in carrying out this important part of its work is to
be at all times helpful and fair. Preliminary inquiries are given prompt attention and
careful study. Investigators are instructed and expected to be at all times considerate
and courteous in their dealings with business men. Parties under investigation are
freely informed of the nature of the charges against them and given every opportunity
to state their side of the controversy before any final action is taken; but, for obvious
reasons, the identity of applicants is not unnecessarily disclosed. In deciding the
question of docketing informal applications for investigation the condition and
circumstances of the party by or against whom it is presented are not controlling
circumstances, and the Commission never refuses to consider an application if it
appears probable that the law has been violated.
The Commission has three branch offices, established in June, 1918, for the
purpose of saving time and expense in travel and also to afford business men a better
opportunity of presenting the matters they wish considered. Convenient and wellequipped quarters are maintained at No.105 West Fortieth Street, New York City;
No.14 West Washington Street, Chicago; and at room 65, Appraisers' Stores Building,
San Francisco. These branches have accomplished the objects in view, besides
providing convenient hearing rooms and quarters for the Commission 's work in the
cities named and their vicinity.
From the very beginning of the Commission's work many applications were
presented involving matters outside its jurisdiction. This was to be expected at the
start, but that it should still continue is a matter for surprise. The fact that the
Commission has no means other than the distribution of its annual report arid the publication in the press and in collected volumes of its decisions of informing the public
regarding such matters, may in part account for this. The publication of its decisions
in collected volumes is expected to go far toward removing misunderstandings and
bringing to the attention of business men the fact that the Commission is rapidly
building up a body of business law which will afford them that

36

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

“advice, definite guidance, and information” which the President suggested that such
a commission could and would supply.
It is probably not an exaggeration to state that fully half the preliminary
applications received by the Commission since its organization have had to be rejected
on account. of some obvious lack of jurisdiction which even a superficial knowledge
of the acts which the Commission administers would have disclosed. The requirement
most frequently overlooked is the jurisdictional one that the matters alleged must
either involve or directly and substantially affect interstate commerce. Next in
frequency, perhaps, come cases of underselling not associated with discrimination or
other similar unlawful features.
Appeals are frequently made to the Commission for the enforcement of the terms
of contracts, or for redress where there has been fraud or failure to carry out their
terms; and it has been frequently necessary to point out to such applicants that the
Commission is not a court and therefore can not award damages, costs, or reparation.
The best remedy in such cases is usually to be found in the courts, and it is usually
considered that there is little or no public interest in a proceeding by the Commission
where the injured party already has an adequate remedy at law or in equity. A useful
point for applicants to bear in mind is that the Commission acts primarily on behalf of
the public and only secondarily, if at all, for the righting of private wrongs; and,
therefore, when the contest appears to be a quarrel between two competitors and one
in which the public. is not particularly concerned, the Commission will ordinarily
decline to interfere.
Another prolific source of misunderstanding is the impression, apparently widely
prevalent, that the Commission exercises the function of a detective bureau, and that
all that is necessary to set its machinery in motion is to write a letter suggesting that
a certain concern or industry could profitably be investigated. Often such communications take the form of anonymous letters. While, as before stated, the
Commission's doors are wide open to legitimate. complaints, yet the line is drawn at
anonymous communications and complaints by parties obviously animated by malice.
The Commission insists upon having a definite applicant in each case, and it does not
proceed by secret methods, but its investigators walk openly into the offices of
concerns under investigation and inform the officers what they have come for. The
investigation files are considered confidential, but after the issuance of formal
complaints all proceedings are open to the public.
The force of investigators is, and always has been, quite small. At the end of the
fiscal year covered by this report it consisted of 32 men, and the greatest number ever
employed was 40. It is

LEGAL DIVISION.

37

obvious that a force of this size can not handle many large investigations concurrently
and at the same time take care of its current work.
An interesting feature of this work is the unusual number of applications for the
issuance of complaints on account of alleged passing off of name and goods, especially
the former, filed in the past 60 days.
In addition to the foregoing work by this division, it was engaged during the year in
two large general investigations. The first was an investigation of conditions in the
wholesale lumber industry, begun at the request of the Attorney General in November,
1919. This investigation was one of the most extensive and important ever undertaken,
and the work was very thoroughly done. The field work was completed and summaries
of the activities of the more important associations made. As a result, a suit was begun
by the Department of Justice, in the Federal Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
alleging violation of the Sherman law by the Southern Pine Association and its
members. Reports on the activities of a few other lumber associations were submitted
to the department for its consideration, while others remain to be prepared.
The other general investigation made by the division was made in accordance with
H. R. 533, Sixty-sixth Congress, second session, which covered certain phases of the
tobacco industry. Prices paid growers for the various types of leaf tobacco were
secured from all of the important dealers and manufacturers throughout the country
together with costs and selling prices of manufactured tobaccos. Special attention was
given the question whether the antitrust acts had been violated by those purchasing leaf
tobacco. Investigation was not begun until August, 1920, and report was made to
Congress, with recommendations, on December 11, 1920.
BOARD OF REVIEW.

The Board of Review consists of three lawyers, one of whom has had a wide
experience in directing investigations involving general and special economic
problems in trade. After the chief examiner has gathered the facts relating to the
allegations made in an application for the issuance of a formal complaint he submits
them to the Board of Review. The board digests and analyzes the evidence in the
record submitted to it, prepares an opinion applying the law to the facts found, and
submits a report to the Commission with recommendations as to what action, in its
opinion, should be taken in a particular case.
During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1921, the Board of Review disposed of 570
applications.

ECONOMIC DIVISION.
INTRODUCTION.

The work of the Economic Division during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1921,
while extensive, did not show as much variety as in the years immediately preceding.
This was due, in part, to the conclusion of nearly all work connected with cost findings
for various governmental agencies growing out of the war, although some assistance
was given, especially to the War Department, during the year in connection with
outstanding claims of various packers of canned goods and also to the discontinuance,
shortly after this be-ginning of the fiscal year, of the monthly coal and steel reports and
the indefinite suspension of all other plans for current reports on the basic industries.
As was related in the last annual report the Commission, in the spring of 1920, was
enjoined by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia from requiring periodic
reports from companies in the coal and steel industries regarding production costs,
prices, etc. It seemed useless to make any further attempts in this direction for other
industries until the powers of the Commission are finally determined in these cases.
To reiterate what was said in the last annual report, “It is of vital concern to the
Government and also to industry, to labor, and to the consumer that comprehensive
and accurate data should be currently available concerning the economic situation of
the basic industries of the country. * * * as a practical business matter it is plain that
there can be but one opinion about the necessity for information comprehensive
enough to assure a substantial knowledge of the current economic conditions in those
industries that affect the national welfare." It may be also added that in the opinion of
thus Commission, the attempt to gather such information on a voluntary basis by a
Government agency lacking the power to require the rendering of reports and to verify
the accuracy of reports when made seems likely to head to unsatisfactory results both
to the industry and to the general public.
At the request of the President, under (late of October 12, 1920, the Commission
undertook an emergency investigation into the causes of the rapid and extreme decline
in the price of wheat in the latter half of 1920. The emergency nature of the situation
called for an immediate report, which after a brief but comprehensive investigation
was submitted to the President on December 13.
In response to a second letter from the President, under date of March 21, 1921,
inquiring whether the decline in consumers' prices

ECONOMIC DIVISION.

39

had been as great as that of wholesale prices in various basic industries, the
Commission stated that in general the movement toward a reduction of price to the
consumer for most industries appeared to be retarded chiefly at the retail stage.
Furthermore, it was pointed out that there was a lack of adequate and reliable
information with regard to the proper adjustment of manufacturers', wholesalers', and
retailers' prices, and that a Federal agency in possession of such information could
furnish Congress and the public with data which would enable a legislative or public
opinion to be intelligently formed.
The major part of the work of the Economic Division consisted in the preparation
of comprehensive economic reports among which may be especially mentioned their
three volumes on the Grain Trade, which are expected to be followed soon by
additional volumes. Reports on Sugar Supplies and Prices, on the Pacific Coast Petroleum Industry, on Shoe and Leather Costs and Prices, on Combed Cotton Yarns, on
Milk and Milk Products, and on Commercial Feeds are among the other more
important reports which' were made during the fiscal year. All of the above-mentioned
reports except those on the Grain Trade were made in response to resolution of the
Senate or of the House of Representatives.
In addition to the assistance rendered the War Department with reference to price
adjustments on war-time purchases, the Commission made two examinations into the
cost of stamped envelopes and wrappers for the Post Office Department, in accordance
with the agreement between the department and the manufacturer that costs should be
determined by the Federal Trade Commission. The second examination, requested by
Postmaster General Hays, was made at the direction of the President.
On its own initiative the Commission, acting under the authority of section 6,
paragraph (d) of the Federal Trade Commission act, made an analysis of the first plan
of dissolution filed by the five large meat packers following the consent decree of the
Supreme Court of the District of Columbia in United States v. Swift & Co. et al., and
filed objections thereto, as respects stock yards, with Attorney General Palmer. On the
request of the Attorney General it made a similar analysis of the second plan of
dissolution as respect stockyards and submitted it with its objection to the Department
of Justice. Attorney General Palmer in his request for the Commission 's opinion had
stated that the President had directed that the Department of Justice should not approve
any plan unless it first had the unanimous approval of the Federal Trade Commission.
Consequently, in this report the Commission suggested the principles that it would
regard as satisfactory for a plan. The Attorney General filed with the court objections
to both the first and second plans substantially in

40

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

the form made by the Commission, and also submitted to the court the Commission’s
views as to the correct principles for a plan.
The court on January 4, 1921, gave its decision rejecting the plan of the packers and
stating the requirements of the court for an acceptable plan. The decision, which
supported, in effect, the position taken by the Commission, gave the packers until
February 8 to submit new plans.
These new plans Attorney General Palmer transmitted to the Commission February
12 for consideration. While the Commission was preparing its report, one tentative
proposal of their plan--the sale of the Armour one-fifth interests in the Chicago
Stockyards to F. H. Prince--was submitted to the court in final form by Armour & Co.
on February 24 and approved by the court on the same day without objection by the
Department of Justice, though the Commissioner's two previous reports had vigorously
opposed the recognition of Prince in any plan. The Commission was not aware of the
final submission or approval of this part of the plan till it read of it in the newspapers.
It immediately protested to the Attorney General, who, while disagreeing, nevertheless
suggested that the Commission appear before the court on February 28, 1921, to
present its objection to the order entered. Counsel for Armour & Co. objected to the
appearance of the Commission in the case. The court, on the statement of the
representative of the Department of Justice that the department still did not object to
the sale, forthwith refused to hear the objections of the Commission.
GRAIN TRADE.

During the fiscal year Volumes I, II, and V of the Report on the Grain Trade were
published.
Country grain marketing.-- Volume I is a comprehensive study of country grain
elevators and country marketing. While eight types of elevators are distinguishable,
only five of them were found to be of major importance--namely, cooperative, in
dependent, individual mill, mill line, and commercial line elevators. Commercial line
elevators are relatively most important in Nebraska and the four northwestern States;
independent elevators in Iowa, Kansas, and the States east of the Mississippi, and the
cooperative type in the northwestern States and Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska. Mill line
elevators are most important in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri, and individual mill
elevators in the hatter State and in the States east of the Mississippi. An outstanding
development of the marketing of grain has been the entry of the farmer into the
elevator business, as shown by the growth of individual cooperative elevators.
The average country elevator has a capacity of 25,000 to 26,000 bushels, and about
one-half of them are equipped with cleaning ma-

ECONOMIC DIVISION.

41

chinery. Slightly less than 80 per cent handle other commodities than grain. In the five
years from 1912-13 to 1916-17 the average country elevator bought slightly less than
100,000 bushels of grain annually, but the average individual cooperative elevator
bought during this period about 153,000 bushels, as compared with less than 80,000
purchased by commercial or mill line houses. About 70 per cent of the grain shipped
by country elevators goes to the terminal markets and around 7 per cent to smaller
local markets. Local mills absorb about 13 ½ per cent of the shipments, and interior
brokers procure about 6 per cent. Two per cent more goes to feeders and
approximately another 2 per cent to miscellaneous purchasers. Of the grain shipped
to terminal markets about 71 per cent is sold on consignment and the balance "on
track" or "to arrive." Only about 40 per cent of the elevators and warehouses generally
hedge their grain, and another 10 per cent hedge to a limited extent.
The report shows that typical line elevator companies and presumably other types
lose through overgrading in the country, which is partly compensated for by gains
dockage and weights. Country elevators obtain most of their funds from local banks,
but in the four Northwestern States a large proportion of the financing of country grain
business is done through the commission houses. Competition in country grain buying
affects all phases of the business. Not only grain prices, but also grades, dockages, side
lines, etc., are subject to keen competition. While agreements and understandings
between or among competitors are frequently entered into they are not peculiar to any
one type of elevator. The line elevators, however, are apparently most often the
initiators of and participants in such arrangements, and the cooperatives apparently
enter into them less frequently than the other types.
Terminal markets and grain exchanges.--Volume II, which deals with terminal
markets and grain exchanges, is chiefly descriptive and analytical. The report covers
17 markets, 10 of which, known as primary markets, receive a large proportion of the
grain shipped from local points in producing territory. The development of the grain
trade and the history of the local exchanges at each market has been influenced by
grain production areas and especially by freight rates. A digest and analysis of the
rules and regulations enforced by the various grain exchanges is presented and there
is also included a description of the functions of grain exchanges such as inspection,
grading, weighing, quotation services, and the like. Inspection and weighing services
are by no means wholly controlled by the exchange associations, but are subject to
regulation by State commissions and the Federal Government as well. This gives rise
to considerable duplication, especially at such points as St. Louis and Kansas City.
Perhaps the most important function assumed by the

42

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

exchanges, aside from providing a regulated market procedure and trading places for
their members, is that of collecting, recording, and distributing quotations and market
information. For these services the trade at large is almost wholly dependent on
exchange organizations.
Future trading operations in grain.--Volume V is the first volume of the report
which deals with the subject of future trading. It comprises a survey of future trading
practices and facilities and of the legal status of future trading, the description of the
incidents and results of such operations being reserved for subsequent volumes. The
quantity of future trading in grain varies considerably from year to
year, but it was found that for certain years it has been above 20,000.000,000 of
bushels. About five-sixths of this trading is done on the Chicago Board of Trade.
Quotations of futures are regarded by the trade as a facility of the utmost importance.
Methods of recording and distributing them insure a prompt and wide dissemination
for such quotations With regard to news rumors affecting prices, the situation suggests
the need of improvements. The most important physical facility for future trading
consists of the great private-wire systems. These systems are very expensive and are
a heavy charge on the grain trade and other interests that use them. Primarily the systems are designed for the use of future traders, though of late they have been employed
also for cash grain business. Such facilities tend to encourage speculation, but not
more on grain than on other exchanges. It is impracticable to separate the stock
exchange from the grain trade services of these systems.
Other grain trade reports.--Volume III, dealing with terminal cash operations, and
Volume IV, dealing with the costs and profits of grain marketing, including results of
crop year 1919-20, were nearly completed at the end of the fiscal year. On June 13,
1921, the Commission issued a preliminary report on costs and profits of country and
terminal elevators, which was printed as a public document (Sen. Doc. No.40, 67th
Congress, 1st session). This preliminary report was issued in the belief that it might
be of some value in connection with the discussion of pending legislation on future
trading. The analysis of future prices and the study of the incidents and results of
future trading, which are reserved for later publication, involve a vast amount of
clerical and statistical work, but are expected to permit the drawing of some definite
and important conclusions regarding this subject, based not on mere opinions but on
the actual results shown by the price movements.
PACKER DECREE AND THE STOCKYARDS.

On February 27, 1920, a consent decree was entered in this Supreme Court of the
District of Columbia, in the case of the United States v.

ECONOMIC DIVISION

43

Swift and Co., Armour & Co., Morris & Co., Cudahy Packing Co., Wilson & Co.
(Inc.), and certain subsidiary or affiliated corporations and certain individuals
connected with the corporate defendants. The decree, among other things, enjoined
and restrained the defendants from owning, either directly or indirectly, individually,
or by themselves, or through their officers, directors, agents, or servants, any capital
stock or other interest whatsoever in any public stockyard market company and
required the defendants having interests in public stockyard market companies to file
in the court, for the court's approval, a plan for divest ing themselves of all such
interests.
The defendants on August 31, 1920, filed with the court a plan by which they
proposed to divest themselves of their stockyard holdings, which plan as outlined
provided for the sale of their holdings in 15 important stockyards to F. H. Prince &
Co., of Boston, and the formation of a holding company for all these yards.
Following the filing of thus plan by the defendants, the Commission proceeding
under its statutory powers, resolved to make immediate investigation of the manner in
which this decree was being carried out by the defendants with respect to divesting
themselves of ownership or interest in stockyards. Such investigation was made,
including an analysis of the plan of this defendants for disposition of their stockyards
interests.
After studying the defendants' plan, the Commission transmitted, on September 13,
1920, a report to Attorney General Palmer in which it objected to the said plan, stating
the conclusion of the Commission to be that the plan presented by the packers would
not secure the objects sought in thus litigation. The two principal grounds given for
this conclusion were : (l) That the long-time stockyards relations of F. H. Prince with
the packers had been such that the plan as outlined would not result in an divorcement
of the stockyards from packer interests, and (2) that the plan as outlined would result
in an infraction of the monopoly law greater and more serious than the existing
infraction.
The Commission in its letter to the Attorney General reviewed the history of the
Prince-Packer stockyards relations, beginning in 1890 and continuing to the formation,
in 1911, of a second holding company, the Chicago Stockyards Co. of Maine, by
which the Prince and Armour interests, by the investment of $1,000,000, secured control of the largely undisclosed surpluses of the previously formed underlying
companies aggregating upward of $13,500,000, and in the meantime concealed their
connection with the transaction through the use of “bearer warrants” and of dummy
officers and directors, with the result that the producers of live stock and the public
authorities for years did not know that there were any packer interests in the Chicago
stockyards, nor did the stockholders of the first hold-

44

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

ing company, the New Jersey Co., know that Mr. Prince, contrary to the provisions of
the plan by which he had secured their assent, was himself a beneficiary of the
surpluses they had signed away.
After presenting its objections in detail the Commission said : "For the foregoing
reasons the Commission respectfully recommends that this plan be not approved."
Shortly after the transmission of the Commission’s objections to the plan of the
packers, the Department of Justice presented its objections to the aforesaid plan to the
court, which objections were in substance and effect the same as those presented to the
Attorney General by the Commission. The packers thereupon withdrew the plan.
The packers in the latter part of October, 1920, filed with the court a second plan,
which again provided for the utilization of F. U. Prince & Co. as the agents through
which to bring about a severance of the defendants from the ownership and operation
of the stockyards. It furthermore proposed to organize a new holding company, to be
known as United Stockyards (Inc.), which holding company it was proposed should
combine and operate seven of the principal stockyards and place them under a 20-year
operating lease to the Chicago Stockyards Co. with power in the United Stockyards
(Inc.) to acquire other stockyards and lease them also to the Chicago Stockyards Co.
On November 4, 1920, Attorney General Palmer addressed a letter to the Federal
Trade Commission in which, at the direction of the President, he referred this second
plan of the packers to the Commission for its approval. In this letter the Attorney
General stated that "the President has requested that the Department of Justice should
not approve any plan for the disposition of these interests unless such a plan should
first receive the unanimous approval of the Federal Trade Commission."
Pursuant to Attorney General Palmer's letter of November 4, the Commission on
November 13, 1920, transmitted to the Department of Justice a second report, in which
it set forth its objections to the second plan proposed by the defendants. The
Commission disapproved of the plan on these grounds:
1. Inadequate assurance of final severance of defendants' interest.
2. Creation of monopoly which would otherwise be illegal.
3. Failure of provision for sale of all yards separately to separate interests.
4. Subjection of combined yards to management of Chicago Stockyards Co.
5. Expansion of stock values in favor of an underwriting syndicate, including
defendants.
6. Vague and uncertain provisions relating to matters of finance.
After presenting all of its objections and the reasons therefor the Commission
suggested to Attorney General Palmer the principles upon which it was prepared to
approve a plan for carrying out the

ECONOMIC DIVISION.

45

decree in order that both the defendants’ and public’s interests might be conserved.
The plan suggested by the Commission provided, in detail, for the sale of the
defendants' interests through three or five trustees, to be appointed by the court from
groups of nominees to be suggested by the Interstate Commerce Commission and such
other governmental agencies and agricultural organizations as the court might elect and
by the defendants.
The Department of Justice, after receiving this second report from the Commission,
filed similar objections with the court to the second plan of the packers and submitted
to the court the substitute plan of divestment proposed by the Commission. Thereafter
the court, on January 4, 1921, rendered its decision in the ease, which decision in
effect sustained the objections set forth by the Commission to the various plans of the
packers. The court at the same time set forth such requirements for new plans as the
court would be able to approve and stated that it could not approve any plan for the
consolidation of the yards, whether by a holding company or otherwise.
The court having objected to both the first and second plans of the packers, these
defendants, on February 7 and 8, 1921, filed with the court new plans for the
disposition of their stockyards. Among the several propositions of the new plans was
a tentative proposition submitted to the court by Armour & Co. to sell its interest in
the Chicago Stockyards Company to F. H. Prince, of Boston. Copies of these plans,
by direction of the Attorney General, were forwarded to the Commission on February
12, 1921. however, while the Commission was preparing its report on the plans of
February 7 and 8, the proposal for sale of Armour's Chicago stockyards holdings to E.
H. Prince was submitted in final form to the court on February 24 and was approved
the same day, without objection on the part of the Department of Justice.
On learning through the press of the approval by the court of this sale to Prince, the
Commission on February 26, 1921, addressed a letter to Attorney General Palmer in
which it protested the sale and set forth its reasons for such protest. The Commission
in its letter requested that the Department of Justice at once petition the court to vacate
the said order approving the sale and transfer of the said Armour interest to F. H.
Prince. The Commission further requested that the Department of Justice present the
views of the Commission as outlined in its letter to the court on the following Monday,
February 28, or as soon thereafter as the matter might come first before the court.
Attorney General Palmer replied on February 28, 1921, stating that he could find
nothing in the Commission's conclusions which would make it necessary for the
Department of Justice to make such application to the court, but suggested that
counsel representing the

46

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Commission appear before the court that afternoon and present the Commission's
views.
Acting on the suggestion of the Attorney General, the Commission directed its
counsel to appear before the court at 2 o'clock p.m. on February 28, to present the
Commission's statement of objections to the sale of the Armour Chicago stockyards
interests to Prince. When counsel for the Commission appeared before Justice Stafford
and asked permission to present such statement, counsel for the packers objected to the
statement being read on the ground that the court had already approved the sale and
that the Government had been represented in the matter by the Attorney General, and
further on the ground that the Federal Trade Commission was not a party to the
proceeding. Justice Stafford thereupon turned to the representative of the Department
of Justice and asked, "Does the Department of Justice now object to the sale? " to
which its representative replied, "No, your Honor." The court thereupon stated that the
Attorney General represented the public in the matter and that it did not care to hear
the Commission's statement read.
The Attorney General, in his letter of February 28, requested that if the Commission
had any suggestions to make with respect to the main plans submitted by the packers
on February 7 and 8, that he be so advised at once. Pursuant to this request, the
Commission the same day sent to the Department of Justice a statement reaffirming
its report of November 13, 1920, and its constructive plan then submitted, and setting
forth further its specific objections to those features of the new plans of February 7 and
8 which provided for the selection of sales agent trust companies by the packers and
the fixation of selling prices for the stock. It was shown that through sales in this
manner the public might be excluded from purchase and that the stocks, though
nominally sold, might change hands without resulting in an actual severance of packer
control.
PETROLEUM.

Two reports on the petroleum industry were issued during the current fiscal year,
one relating to the industry of the Pacific Coast and the other to that of Wyoming.
Pacific Coast petroleum industry.--An inquiry into the causes of the advances in
the price of fuel oil, gasoline, and other petroleum products, more especially on the
Pacific Coast, made pursuant to a resolution of the Senate in 1919 was completed, and
Part I of the report, which deals with production, ownership, and profits, was submitted to the Senate on May 2, 1921. The second part of this report, which was not
submitted until after the close of the fiscal year, deals with prices, marketing methods,
and competitive conditions. Part I also gives important information concerning general
conditions in

ECONOMIC DIVISION. 47

the petroleum industry in the United States during the year 1919, which was obtained
in response to house Resolution 501, Sixty-sixth . Congress, second session, but too
late to be incorporated in the report made in answer thereto.
The outstanding facts regarding the Pacific Coast petroleum industry shown in Part
I of the report may be concisely stated as follows :
(l) All branches of the petroleum industry oil the Pacific Coast, i.e., crude
petroleum production, pipe-line transportation, and refining and marketing, are
dominated by a few large interests which control most of the proven oil land and
operate nearly all the pipe-line and refining equipment.
(2) There was a great increase in the costs of production of crude petroleum between
1914 and 1919 for all classes of companies; there was also a marked increase in the
cost of transportation by pipe line auld in the cost of refining.
(3) The profits of the crude petroleum industry of California were comparatively
low in 1914 and 1915, but they were unusually large in 1918 and 1919. This increase
in the average rate of earnings resulted from a great increase in crude petroleum
prices. While the average rates of earnings from the crude-petroleum business in the
later years were large, the fact that there was a scarcity of crude, resulting from a
steady growth in demand, appears to afford an adequate economic explanation of the
increase in prices and earnings.
(4) The earnings of the five large companies--namely, the Standard Oil Co.
(California), the Union Oil Co. of California, The Associated Oil Co., the Shell Co.
of California, and the General Petroleum Corporation--which are engaged In crude
petroleum production, pipe-line transportation, refining, and marketing of gasoline,
fuel oil, and other petroleum products, and which are the dominating factors In this
Industry on the Pacific Coast, were generally low in 1914 and 1915, but they all show
either very good or very high rates of earnings in 1918 and the first half of 1919.
(5) Data regarding the results of the petroleum industry for the whole country for
the entire year 1919 indicate that the situation as to profits in the California petroleum
industry was not exceptional compared with other sections of the United States in that
year.
(6) While the petroleum shortage of 1919 and the first part of 1920 seems to have
been temporarily unmet, both on the Pacific Coast and in the United States as a whole,
the problem of an adequate petroleum supply for the future does not appear to be fully
solved and the Commission reiterates certain recommendations which it made in a
report to the House of Representatives on June 1, 1920--namely, (a) that the active
support of the Government be given to those engaged in the oil industry to develop
production in foreign countries; (b) that methods of drilling for petroleum and the
utilization products and their substitutes should be a subject of special study in
technological and economic aspects with a view to conserving the supply; (c) that the
great importance of information regarding changes in industrial and commercial
conditions in the oil trade suggests the need of making provision for having such
information currently collected and reported for the use of Congress, the public, and

the industry.
Wyoming petroleum industry.--On January 3, 1921, the Commission submitted a
report to Congress on the petroleum industry of

48

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Wyoming. The attention of the Commission was drawn to the situation in that State
by a complaint alleging unsatisfactory conditions in connection with the production
and sale of crude petroleum produced in the Salt Creek Wyoming field. The report
covered all phases of the petroleum industry in Wyoming. The principal facts set forth
in the report may be concisely stated as follows :
(l) The geographic isolation of the Wyoming Oil fields with reference to the prolific
mid-continent and California fields and the absence of pipe-line transportation to the
large consuming centers makes It necessary for the Wyoming producer to sell his
crude petroleum to local refining companies.
(2) There is greater concentration in the control of the production of crude
petroleum in the Wyoming oil fields than in any other field in the United States.
(3) From 1917-1919 the Midwest Refining interests and the Ohio Oil Co. controlled
from 93 to 97 per cent of the Wyoming production.
(4) The Ohio Oil Co. is a member of the Standard Oil group, and during 1920
practical control of the Midwest Refining Co. was acquired by the Standard Oil Co.
(Indiana).
(5) In 1919 the Ohio Oil Co. and the Midwest Refining Co. owned 99 per cent of
the pipe-line mileage and transported about 98 per cent of the crude petroleum
marketed in Wyoming.
(6) The Midwest Refining Co. and subsidiaries owned and operated 90 per cent of
the refining capacity or Wyoming in 1920, and in 1919 they purchased and refined 94
per cent of all the Wyoming crude petroleum refined in the United States.
(7) In 1919 the Midwest Refining Co. sold 90 per cent of its refined products to
Standard Oil . marketing companies.
(8) As shown by its records, the Midwest Refining Co. earned 33 per cent on its
investment in the petroleum business in 1919, while the average from 1914, the first
year operated, to 1919, was almost 26 per cent.
LEATHER AND SHOES.

Under a resolution of the House of Representatives, the Commission was directed
to inquire into the increased prices of shoes, ascertaining costs and selling prices of
both manufacturers and retailers for the years 1918 and 1919. It was deemed necessary
to include the hide and tanning industries as well as the shoe industry. This inquiry,
therefore, was made practically coextensive with the report submitted in August, 1919,
and the report was submitted to the House of Representatives June 10, 1921.
The report deals with the price movements of hides and leather; the production and
movement of hides, leather, and shoes; the costs and profits of tanners and shoe
manufacturers; the margins of profit of tanners and shoe manufacturers; the margins
of profit of shoe wholesalers, jobbers, and retailers; and the general condition in the
industry.
The information on investment and earnings and on costs and profits was secured

either by means of schedules or directly from the

ECONOMIC DIVISION.

49

books of the companies by accountants of the Commission. The schedules were as
follows :
(l) A schedule calling for costs of production, financial statements, and other
general information, sent to tanners of shoe leathers.
(2) A schedule calling for statements of manufacturing costs, investment and
earnings, and general information, sent to shoe manufacturers.
(3) A schedule calling for cost and selling prices of selected shoes and for
statements of sales, expenses, and net profits, sent to shoe dealers (wholesale and
retail) .
(4) A schedule calling for statements of leather stocks on hand on given dates and
for report of monthly leather production, sent to tanners. The sections of this schedule
covering stocks on hand were sent also to leather dealers.
In addition to the information obtained through schedules mailed to various
companies, data on the details of cost of production of 259 types or grades of shoes
were taken from the books of 26 shoe manufacturers by accountants of the
Commission.
Statistics gathered by the Department of Agriculture to show the quantities of
animals slaughtered monthly and the raw stocks of hides and skins on hand on the last
day of each month were supplemented with original data gathered by the Commission
to serve the purposes of this report.
The conclusions reached in this inquiry were that the high prices of shoes in 1918
and the great increase in those prices in 1919 appeared to have been the result of
abnormal conditions of supply and . demand arising from the war, which were both
economic and psychological. Incident to these conditions were large margins of profit
taken by tanners, shoe manufacturers, wholesalers and jobbers, and retailers. The
advance in prices was finally terminated by the so-called "buyers' strike " in the spring
of 1920. The failure of leather prices and shoe prices to decline as extensively as did
hide prices after the "buyers' strike " was attributed in the report (1) to the fact that
other costs had not declined as much as had raw material costs, and (2) to an apparent
tendency to base selling prices on actual rather than replacement costs--a policy
inconsistent with that applied in 1919 while prices were advancing. In any event, even
though tanners and shoe manufacturers earned smaller profits or sustained actual
losses in 1920, due to changed conditions--which were not dealt with in this report
because the inquiry was closed with the end of 1919--the prices of hides and skins and
the conditions existent in these phases of the industry in June, 1921, were held to
justify the expectation of still further declines in the quoted prices of leather and shoes.
71822--21----4

50

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

COTTON TEXTILES.
Combed cotton yarns.--In the spring of 1920 there was undertaken in response to
House resolution 451, Sixty-sixth Congress, second session, an inquiry into the
combed-yarn industry with respect to the extent and causes of the rapid advance in
prices. The most important feature of this inquiry was the work of ascertaining the
investment, costs, profits, and prices of a group of representative combed-yarn
manufacturers for the period 1914-1919.
Briefly summarized, the facts ascertained were that during the six years examined
prices of long-staple cotton, of which combed yarns are made, advanced more rapidly
than the prices of short staple, particularly in 1919. This advance was in response to
increased demand for combed yarns and goods manufactured from them. Cotton, representing some 60 to 65 per cent of the average total cost of sales, showed a larger
advance than other items of manufacturing and selling cost. Although the average
prices realized by manufacturers were materially lower than the open-market prices
of combed yarns in the later years of the period covered, these average prices advanced
practically parallel with the market price of raw cotton, thus resulting in unusually
large profits per pound of yarn. As the volume of yarns produced also increased in
later years of the period, the larger earnings per pound resulted in unusually large rates
of return on the investment during 1917 and subsequent years. The largest earnings
both per pound and on investment occurred in 1917, . though prices per pound were
highest in 1919.
Current industrial reports.--Plans for current industrial reports for cotton textiles
were under consideration at the beginning of the fiscal year. Conferences with some
representatives of the industry were held, but the work was discontinued on that and
on similar reports concerning certain other industries pending final decision in the
Maynard Coal case and in the Steel cases, involving the question of the Commission's
power to require such reports.
MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS.

The report on milk and milk products, which was made in response to an inquiry
of the Senate with respect to conditions during the World War, was submitted on June
6, 1921.
The unusual conditions growing out of the war were found to have affected almost
every aspect of the milk and milk-products industries. Increasing European demand
caused the prices of canned milk to advance, thereby affecting costs and prices of raw
milk and of other milk products. Demand for raw milk was thus the cause of the principal competitive difficulties during this period and at the same time

ECONOMIC DIVISION.

51

a large factor in advancing prices of milk, butter, and cheese. In 1918 the average
advance over the 1914 price paid the producer of milk by market-milk distributors was
74 per cent, by canned-milk manufacturers 76 per cent, and by butter manufacturers
80 per cent. Average production costs of evaporated milk were found to have advanced
77 per cent from 1914 to 1918. In the year of the lowest rate of profit, 1918, the
canned-milk companies earned on the average, excludingreturns fromm securities, 10.6
per cent on capital, surplus, and borrowed funds, and in the year of the highest rate of
profit, 1917, 27.7 per cent on capital, surplus, and borrowed funds.
Marked concentration of control was found in the manufacture of canned milk. In
1914 three companies produced 56.5 per cent of the total output of the country, and
in 1918 four companies 54.2 per cent. The two companies ranking highest in
production in 1918-the Borden Co. and the Nestle' & Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk
Co.--were, throughout much of the war period, taking under contract immense
quantities of the output of smaller companies. Furthermore, these two largest
interests--Borden and Nestle'--have long had agreements seemingly restrictive of
competition and apparently open to question under the antitrust acts.
Creamery butter is produced in two types of plants-- “centralizers,” securing cream
from large territories, and “locals” (including cooperative companies), relying wholly
on supplies from the vicinity. It was found that the centralizers' costs increased from
27 cents per pound of butter in 1914 to 48 cents in 1918. Approximately 90 per cent
of this manufacturing cost was fur cream (butter fat) and its collection. No butter-fat
cost for cooperatives could be shown.
Questionable practices in the buying and handling of cream by butter
manufacturers were disclosed by the inquiry, many of which have since been declared
to be unfair by the trade itself. Some of the practices thus declared by the trade to be
unfair are false testing of cream, unauthorized use of competitor's equipment, false
advertising, price discrimination, the payment of more than established commissions,
and the furnishing of cans without charge to producers.
COMMERCIAL FEEDS.

By a resolution of the Senate the Commission was directed to inquire into the
manufacture and sale of commercial feeds. The Department of Agriculture was
directed to cooperate with the Commission.
The number of commodities used as commercial feeds is exceedingly large, so that
the Commission was obliged to limit its inquiry to the more representative and
important feeding stuffs.

52

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

The field work in connection with the inquiry consisted chiefly of interviews with
manufacturers, dealers, and other distributors, State feed control officials, feeders, and
representatives of farmers organizations, particularly with respect to the manufacture
and sale of feeds, general trade practices, adulteration and misbranding, and
competitive conditions in the industry. This work was supplemented by the
examination of correspondence files of associations, manufacturers, and distributors.
The costs and profits of a representative group of feed manufacturers were also
secured, but it was found impracticable to secure such information from retail dealers.
information was secured in some 70 cities and towns in the more important feed
manufacturing and consuming centers.
The report on this inquiry was submitted to the Senate on March 29, 1921. The
principal conclusions were as follows :
A study of the costs and profits of a representative group of mixed-feed
manufacturers during 1915-1919 showed that by far the largest factor causing the high
prices of ready mixed feeds in 1919 Was the great increase in the cost of raw
materials.
The rate of return on investment of these mixed-feed manufacturers was found to be
fairly high in each year, while in 1917 and 1919 the rate of return was considerably
larger.
On the whole, competition in this industry was found to be very active. This was to
be expected in an industry which includes so many different products and such a large
number of widely scattered manufacturers. Competition between the different kinds
of straight feeds and between such feeds and the ready-mixed feeds tends to keep
prices of the different kinds of feeds in line with one another on the basis of their feed
utility.
There was found to be a great lack of authoritative data in regard to many phases of
the industry and there are numerous questions which are highly controversial. This is
particularly true in respect to the feed value of certain products commonly known as
roughage or low-grade feeds.
It was recommended that a series of exhaustive tests should be undertaken in order
to determine definitely and satisfactorily the merit of these low-grade feeds.
It was found that the enactment and enforcement of feed laws has resulted in great
improvement so far as fraudulent practices are concerned, and that comparatively few
cases occur where feeding stuffs are adulterated with substances having practically no
nutritive value.
SUGAR SUPPLY AND PRICES.

During the fiscal year a report on the supplies and prices of sugar was issued. This
report was ordered by resolution of the House of Representatives, which directed that
an inquiry be made

ECONOMIC DIVISION.

53

into the prices of sugar and the conditions of production and distribution as they
existed during the summer of 1919. Conditions of supply and prices, however, became
so acute during the first half of 1920 and so charged with public interest that the
inquiry was extended to cover this period also.
During the earlier period covered by the report Government control over sugar
prevailed. Measures taken by the Government to relieve the shortage, to effect an even
distribution, and to hold prices in check were made the subject of inquiry, and also the
Government’s relaxation of control and the attendant hoarding, speculation, resales,
and increase in prices.
During the early months of 1920, the report shows, speculation appeared in two
forms : First, the refining on toll of large quantities of sugar by refiners for the account
of manufacturers and sugar jobbers; and, second, the increased handling of large
quantities of both beet and cane sugars by wholesale concerns who sell to other
wholesalers rather than to retailers or manufacturers. Both lines of activity, it was
found, tended to disrupt established channels of trade and to increase prices.
WHEAT PRICES.

This investigation was made pursuant to a request of the President addressed to the
speedy investigation and prompt report. Necessary statistical and other data were
Commission under date of October 12, 1920. The emergency nature of the situation
called for a assembled, the results of field work and interviews at the more important
grain markets were digested, and after careful consideration by the Commission the
completed report was submitted to the President on December 13.
The report involved (l) the study of statistics of wheat production, imports and
exports, and stocks on hand, in relation to price tendencies, especially the extent and
influence of the movement of Canadian grain into the United States; (2) the bearing
of the purchasing policies of foreign governments and the domestic and export demand
for wheat products; (3) the effects of transportation conditions; (4) the general
business and credit situation in relation to demand for consumption and for the
accumulation of mercantile stocks; (5) the working of the reopened wheat futures
markets with reference to hedging and speculation and prices; (6) the extent of the
holding of wheat by farmers; and, finally, (7) the legal situation as regards proposed
remedies. All these topics were discussed in the report with the aid of any available
statistics as well as of information secured directly from men in the grain trade and
other classes concerned.

54

ANNUAL REPORT OF TEE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

The conclusions arrived at were that the decline in wheat prices was due mainly to
general conditions, but certain special factors in the situation, in particular the arbitrary
buying policies of foreign governments, were regarded as important, and suggestions
looking to the prevention of unnecessary fluctuations in the price of wheat were made.
It was found that the various emergency war powers of the President were probably
not legally available for employment under the circumstances in question, even if their
employment could be considered otherwise desirable.
"BLUE-SKY" SECURITIES.

Shortly prior to the close of the fiscal year an inquiry into the Federal and State
regulations of the sales of securities was begun. These regulations include what are
commonly known as the "blue-sky" laws, which have been enacted by a large number
of the States. An analysis of these laws is being made, their administration studied, and
results secured through the laws examined.
Consideration is also being given to the activities of the Federal Government
designed to restrict blue-sky operations and the legislative measures proposed for
Federal enactment are being examined.
CANNED FOODS.

The costs of certain goods, chiefly canned goods, which were purchased by the
Government were examined into and reported to the Food Purchase Board during the
war. A summary of this work was practically completed during the fiscal year. The
report deals particularly with the costs of canned corn, peas, string beans, tomatoes,
and salmon.
With respect to canned foods certain inquiries have been received from the War
Department regarding cases where special prices were demanded by packers affecting
outstanding claims. The justification of these claims was determined by the Purchase
Department (War Department) by recourse to records of the Commission relating to
each individual case in dispute. Such figures as have been furnished by the
Commission relate to cost, the profits to be allowed depending on agreements made
by the Food Purchase Board.
COAL.

The principal work on the coal industry during the fiscal year consisted in the
continuation of the mimeographed monthly bulletins on bituminous coal.
The material contained in these bulletins was collected and tabulated from the
monthly reports made by operators on the Commis-

ECONOMIC DIVISION.

55

sion 's prescribed cost forms. Preliminary monthly bulletins had already been
issued,.beginning with January, 1920, the object being to make the unrevised
information available as soon as possible after receipt of the operator's reports.
Quarterly reports of revised costs followed the publication of these monthly bulletins,
and in most cases modified the preliminary figures but slightly. The object of the
quarterly report furnishing final statistics was to make public in authentic form the
essential facts concerning changes in cost of coal from month to month and the
average cost during the quarter.
Following the issue of the temporary injunction in the Maynard suit, which was
described in the annual report for the year ending June 30, 1920, the Commission
invited the Voluntary cooperation of the coal operators in supplying the necessary
reports and made it clear that pending the final decision compulsory process on the
collection of penalties would not be employed in the event of failure to file reports.
The Commission received reports from 1,589 operators for January, 1,431
operators for February, 1,081 operators for March, 812 operators for April, and 680
operators for May. In issuing its sixth monthly bulletin on bituminous coal costs,
covering June, 1920, the number of operators having dwindled to 555, the Commission
announced the suspension of this monthly publication rather than risk giving out
figures that, being obtained from a comparatively small number of companies, might
prove misleading.
Coal Cost Report No 7, Trans-Mississippi States (Bituminous) was completed and
published.
Special coal reports were made to other Government agencies, by request, as
follows:
Statistical data relative to bituminous coal costs, etc., were prepared for the Navy
Department.
Information was furnished to the Geological Survey in April, 1921, relative to the
inventories of anthracite coal for the years 1913 to 1918, inclusive.
STEEL.

Current statistical reports for the steel industry, together with the coke and pig-iron
industries, which were initiated during the preceding fiscal year, beginning with
January, 1920, were continued during the early part of the fiscal year here under
report. As noted in the last annual report, the temporary injunction against the
requirement of reports on the steel industry, which was procured by certain steel
companies, made it necessary to conduct this work thereafter on a voluntary basis.
The reports thus received, however, although they comprised a large proportion of the
entire industry, because of the inclusion of the United States Steel Corporation,

56

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

were not considered suitable for the publication of average results, as any average
figure would be practically controlled by the results of that company. Consequently,
the numerous companies which continued to make reports were advised in November
to discontinue them. The fact that so many of the iron and steel companies made nine
monthly reports without protest or apparent difficulty is a sufficient answer to the
objections (other than those concerning legal authority) which were made by the
companies which procured the injunction.
LUMBER.

During the year ending June 30, 1921, the work relative to lumber may be classified
under two general heads--first, that having to do with summarization for publication
of data on the cost, prices, investments and profits of the lumber industry during the
war, and second, negotiations with representatives of the lumber industry looking
toward the adoption of schedules for current reporting of production, costs stocks,
prices, profits, and other information relative to general condition of the industry.
Lumber cost and profits during the war.--Some work was done in summarizing data
already in the hands of the Commission covering investment, costs, prices, and profits
for the years 1917 and 1918, but it was not completed during the year.
Current industrial reports.--Conferences with representatives of the industry having
for their objects the adoption of a schedule for collecting current data as to production,
stocks, costs, prices, and other information regarding the industry, which were begun
prior to June 30, 1920, were continued through the summer and fall of the present
fiscal year. In view of the temporary injunction in the Maynard Coal Case
consideration was given to a plain for the voluntary submission of the data desired, but
it was finally decided to defer further work on this subject until such time as the
Commission’s power to secure and compile the data as been finally passed upon by the
courts.
PAPER.

Monthly paper reports.-The collection and compilation of statistics concerning the
paper industry, which was begun in 1917, was continued throughout the fiscal year.
The statistics obtained from the paper industry itself relate chiefly to the production,
shipment, and stocks of paper and pulp, by grades. The statistics obtained from
publishers relate chiefly to the consumption, stocks, and prices of news-print paper.
The information so collected was compiled and published in monthly and special
bulletins for the benefit of those engaged in the paper industry, the consumers, and the
public.

ECONOMIC DIVISION.

57

In addition to the data collected by the Commission there was also included in its
current bulletins data on the imports and exports of paper supplied by the Bureau of
Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Department of Commerce.
Post-office envelopes.--In accordance with requests of the Post Office Department,
examinations were made of the books of certain paper-manufacturing companies, and
reports submitted to the Post-Office Department depended on certain questions of cost
which the parts concerned had agreed should be determined by the Federal Trade
Commission. The first of these examinations and reports was for the purpose of
determining if there had been any increases or decreases in the cost of envelope paper,
stamped envelopes, and wrappers to be supplied during the last four months of 1920.
The second examination made at the request of the President just before the close of
the fiscal year, was to ascertain the cost of stamped envelopes and wrappers and the
paper from which they were made as compared with costs on October 1, 1920.

EXPORT TRADE DIVISION.
The foreign trade activities of the Commission may be divided into two groups: (1)
administration of the Export Trade Act (Webb-Pomerene law);1 (2) investigation of
trade conditions in and with foreign countries where associations, combinations, or
practices of manufacturers, merchants or traders, or other conditions may affect of the
Federal Trade Commission Act (p. 74).
PURPOSE OF THE EXPORT TRADE ACT.

The primary purpose of the Export Trade Act was to facilitate the moving of
American goods to foreign markets, to serve as an encouragement to exporters, and to
enable them to compete successfully with buying and selling combinations of other
countries.
In 1916 the Federal Trade Commission in its report to Congress on Cooperation in
American Export Trade emphasized the rapid growth of trade in foreign countries and
the encouragement by foreign Governments of buying and selling combinations with
which American exporters must deal and compete. To meet this important national
need, the Export Trade Act was passed on April 10, 1918.
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.

The act authorizes the formation of “associations” entered into for the sole purpose
of engaging in export trade, these associations to be exempt from the antitrust laws of
the United States, with the proviso that there shall be through the association no
restraint of the export trade of any domestic competitor, no enhancing or depression
of prices, or substantial lessening of competition within the United States.
Section 1 of the act defines “export trade” and “association.”
Sections 2 and 3 provide exemption from the antitrust laws under certain conditions.
Section 4 extends the jurisdiction of the Commission under the Federal Trade
Commission act 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.”
Section 5 provides for the filing of papers by associations2 with the Federal Trade
Commission, and other details of administration.
1

58

See Exhibit 5.

2

See Exhibits 6 and 7.

EXPORT TRADE DIVISION.

59

In order to meet the many inquiries concerning the act, the Commission has printed
a leaflet, entitled “Foreign Trade Series No. 1" covering a discussion of and practice
and procedure under the act. Copies of this publication may be obtained from the
Export Trade Division upon request.
ASSOCIATIONS OPERATING UNDER THE ACT.

At the close of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1921, there were 48 associations
operating under the act. These are listed as follows:
American Locomotive Sales Corporation, 30 Church Street, New York City.
American Milk Products Corporation, 302 Broadway, New York City.
American Paper Exports (Inc.), 136 Liberty Street, New York City.
American Pitch Pine Export Co., 522 Audubon Building, New Orleans, La.
American Provisions Export Co., 226 West Dams Street, Chicago, Ill.
American Soda Pulp Export Association, 200 Fifth Avenue, New York City.
American Tanning Materials Corporation, 106 Wall Street, New York City.
American Textile Machinery Corporation, 60 Federal Street, Boston, Mass.
American Webbing Manufacturers’ Export Corporation, 395 Broadway, New York City.
Associated Button Exporters of America (Inc.), 1182 Broadway, New York City.
Atlantic & Gulf Export Co., 501 West Building, Jacksonville, Fla.
Automatic Pearl Button Export Co. (Inc.), 301-315 Mulberry Avenue, Muscatine, Iowa.
Canned Foods Export Corporation, care of National Canners Association, Washington, D.C.
Carolina Wood Export Corporation, 1203 Bank of Commerce Building, Norfolk, Va.
Cement Export Co. (Inc.), 30 East Forty-second Street, New York City.
Chalmers (Harvey) & Son Export Corporation, rear 31 East Main Street, Amsterdam, N.Y.
Consolidated Steel Corporation, 165 Broadway, New York City.
Copper Export Association (Inc.), 60 Broadway, New York City.
Davenport Pearl Button Export Co., 1231 West Fifth Street, Davenport, Iowa.
Douglas Fir Exploitation & Export Co., 260 California Street, San Francisco, Calif.
Export Clothes Pin Association of America (Inc.), 90 West Broadway, New York City.
Florida Hard Rock Phosphate Export Association, 2 Rector Street, New York City.
Florida Pebble-Phosphate Export Association, Rector Street, New York City.
Foundry Equipment Export Corporation, 1021 North Delaware Avenue, Philadelphia, Pa.
General Alcohol Export corporation, 60 Wall Street, New York City.
Grand Rapids Furniture Export Association, 214 Lyon Street NW., Grand Rapids, Mich.
Gulf Pitch Pine Export Association, 1212 Whitney-Central Building, New Orleans, La.
Locomotive Export Association, 30 Church Street, New York City.

60

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Millers Export Association (Inc.), The, 17 Battery Place, New York City.
Mississippi Valley Trading & Navigation Co., 708 Equitable Building, St. Louis, Mo
Namusa Corporation, 30 Church Street, New York City.
Pan American Trading Co., 490 Broome Street, New York City.
Pennsylvania Millers’ Export Association, 524 Bourse Building, Philadelphia, Pa.
Phosphate Export Association, 2 Rector Street, New York City.
Phosphate Export Association & Florida Hard Rock Phosphate Export Association, 2 Rector Street,
New York city.
Pipe Fittings & Valve Export Association, The, care of A. E. Rowe, secretary, Branford, Conn.
Redwood Export co, 260 California Street, San Francisco, Calif.
United Paint & Varnish Export Co, The, 601 Canal Road, Cleveland, Ohio,
United States Alkali Export Association (Inc.), 25 Pine Street, New York, City.
United States Forest Products Co, care of Corporation Trust Co. Of Delaware, Dover, Del.
United Sates Handle Export Co, The, Piqua, Ohio.
United States Maize Products Export Association, 17 Battery Place, New York City.
United States Office Equipment Export Association, 350 Broadway, New York City.
United States Provision Export Corporation, 327 South La Salle Street, Chicago, Ill.
Walnut Export Sales co. (Inc.), 616 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Ill.
Walworth International Co., 800 First Street, South Boston, Mass.
Wisconsin Canners Export Association, Manitowoc, Wis.
Wood Pipe Export Co., 701 White Building, Seattle, Wash.
MEMBERSHIP OF ASSOCIATIONS.

The membership of Webb-Pomerene associations includes about a thousand plants
and factories scattered over 41 States of the Union and employing a large number of
workers. Commodities of all sorts and kinds are shipped to all corners of the globe.
Some of the associations are composed of small concerns which otherwise could not
hold their own in foreign markets. Others are formed by well-established houses,
which nevertheless are benefited by cooperation under the act. Several represent a
large percentage of the industry in which they are engaged.
EXPORTS DURING 1920 TOTAL $221,000,000.

In spite of obstacles encountered by all exporters during the year 1920, goods to the
total amount of about $221,000,000 were exported by associations operating under the
act.
Steel, copper, and cement exported were valued at more than $127,000,000 and were
shipped to all parts of the world.
Lumber totaled about 344,500,000 feet. Pitch pine was shipped to Europe, South
America, Central America, and the West Indies;

EXPORT TRADE DIVISION.

61

walnut to Mexico, Canada, England, and the European continent. Principal shipments
of redwood were consigned to Australia; and fir was exported to the United Kingdom,
Cuba, Mexico, South America, Africa, Oceania, and the Far East.
Milk, meat, and other foodstuffs totaled in value approximately $8,000,000, and
were shipped to Great Britain, Europe, Cuba, Mexico, Central America, and China.
The value of locomotives, machinery, pipes and valves, and foundry equipment,
including wood pipe and tool handles, is estimated at more than $25,000,000. Textile
machinery was exported chiefly to France, Spain, and Italy. Large orders for
locomotives are noted from Belgium and Rumania.
Paper was shipped to Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America. Phosphate rock to
the value of over $8,000,000 was exported to the United Kingdom, Europe, and Japan.
Tanning materials were sent chiefly to the United Kingdom; alcohol to Europe, Asia,
and New Zealand; and alkali was exported to all parts of the world.
Paint and varnish were exported to the West Indies, South and Central America,
Australia, and China; and world-wide markets have been established for furniture and
office equipment, soda pulp, webbing and other materials, clothespins, and general
merchandise.
BENEFITS DERIVED UNDER THE ACT.

Out of the experience of associations operating under the act many lessons of
economy and saving have been brought to light.
The old practice by foreign purchasers of playing out American competitors one
against another is wiped out when competitors combine to sell in the foreign market
through a Webb-Pomerene association.
Collection of information concerning foreign market conditions, shipping facilities
and requirements, foreign lists and packing practices, and the exchange of constructive
ideas among members of such an association have led to more efficient placing and
filling of orders.
The economical advantages of joint advertising, joint selling offices and agents, and
the pooling of administrative expense are apparent in the substantial reduction of
overhead reported by these associations.
Distribution of orders among the several members makes it possible to complete
foreign shipments in less time and with more satisfactory results than formerly, when
each member concern took its own orders and wrestled alone with the problem of
filling them.
In most cases orders are taken and filled by the association, shipments being
prepared and inspected by agents of the association.

62

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

The efficiency of this plan is evidenced by the satisfaction of foreign purchasers and
a very noticeable decrease in claims from foreign consignees.
Out of cooperation under the act new ideas for economical manufacture have been
developed. The elimination of many unnecessary varieties and grades which may sell
to advantage in the domestic market, but for which there is no demand abroad, this
standardization and specialization of goods, and an effort to advertise the specialized
goods abroad have proved good business.
A number of associations have adopted joint, uniform brands and trade-marks. One
lumber export association states that “every piece or bundle of lumber loaded for
export” bears the brand of the association’s trade-mark, which is registered in 31
foreign countries.
The adoption of attractive, durable, and uniform packages, the staging of lectures,
demonstrations, and exhibits to familiarize foreign customers with their products, these
and other plans have been tried out by associations in the effort to develop foreign
markets.
One association calls attention to the fact that foreign buyers show more confidence
in placing orders with association than was formerly accorded to members exporting
individually. This has been corroborated in a number of instances by American
Government officials in foreign countries.
Another states that the act has been of great service “in enabling us to carry on the
export business much more efficiently than it ever has been in the past," and “only
through the solid front that our organization enables us to present are we at all able to
hold our own.”
INVESTIGATION OF TRADE CONDITIONS IN AND WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

The last report to Congress, under section 6(h) of the Federal Trade Commission
act, was issued in 1915. But the Commission has kept such investigation up to date,
with special reference to combinations in foreign countries and such practices of
merchants or traders as may affect the foreign trade of the United States.
COMBINATIONS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

As a result of concentration during the war period and the necessity for
reorganization and the rebuilding of trade since the Armistice, there is noted a welldefined tendency toward further combination and group action by trade interests in
foreign countries. This movement has been actively encouraged by foreign
Governments, in some instances even to the extent of financial backing and
participation.
The extension of industrial combines and the development of export and import
combines abroad are of vital importance to American industry and trade.

EXPORT TRADE DIVISION.

63

The plan of a combination of 62 British shoe manufacturers to control the South
African market for footwear was brought to light in a recent report by a committee on
the boot and shoe industry of the Union of South Africa. One of the objects of this
combination was stated to be “to keep out American competition, which was bound
to become prominent before long.”
The formation of the British Dyestuffs Corporation (Ltd.), in July, 1919, marks a
consolidation of dye interests with Government participation, which controls 75 per
cent of the total output of dyes in the United Kingdom. As stated in a recent report by
the British Board of Trade, “The greater financial and commercial strength of the
amalgamation enables it to compete to better advantage in the home market and in the
world markets with the greater and powerful dye-making concerns of Germany,
Switzerland, and America.”
Various export and import combines have been formed in all parts of the world.
Among these may be mentioned the British Woolen Trades Export Corporation, the
Canadian Export Paper Company, the “Ditag” and the Union of German Exporters, the
Roubaix Exportation and the Comptoir for the Exportation of Metallurgical Products
of France, the Swedish Wood Export Association, an association of Holland importers
of American goods, the Purchasing and Selling Association of Cotton Spinners in
Czechoslovakia, the Commercial Import Association of Brazil, the Chile Nitrate
Association, an Australian association to control the exportation of shoes, and the
textile syndicates of Japan.
During the past year the Commission has received frequent requests from
Government departments, trade associations, and individual business concerns, to
which has been furnished such information as is available concerning foreign
combinations.
PRACTICES OF MERCHANTS IN FOREIGN TRADE.

In the matter of investigations of foreign trade practices under section 6 (h) of the
Federal Trade Commission act, the services of the Commission have been utilized by
the Commerce Department, State Department, the Department of Justice, and other
governmental and private offices.
Some 50 complaints against American concerns (not Webb law associations) have
been investigated during the past year, involving breach of contract, fraud, and other
practices injurious to American foreign trade. Some of these complaints are found to
be without merit, and report of the Commission may serve to clear the respondent of
unjust accusation. Others are made against “fly-by-night” concerns that are difficult
and sometimes impossible to locate;

64

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

but, for the most part, the trouble is due largely to negligence or procrastination.
An American concern receives an order and payment from a firm in Europe, or
Africa, or some other foreign market. For one reason or another the goods are never
sent, and no refund is made. After a long period of waiting and unsatisfactory
correspondence the purchaser appeals to the American consul, and the case is reported
back to the States for investigation.
Or goods are shipped to a foreign consignee, and upon receipt are found to be
imperfect or unsatisfactory.
Apples of inferior grade are substituted for fruit of a kind specifically ordered and
well known by a certain trade name which has acquired a reputation of superiority for
shipping and keeping qualities.
Left-drive automobiles are sent to India or other British colonies in spite of specific
orders for right-drive machines, to conform to the rule of the road in those countries;
or second-hand machines are shipped instead of new ones ordered.
Goods are exported under brands or labels that deceive and mislead the public.
Products sold by sample are found to be below sample, cloth having defects in the
weaving, leather perforated with holes, enamel-ware utensils lacking handles, steel
wire that is in short lengths and useless to the buyer. These are but a few illustrations
of transactions of which complaint is made.
In some cases the respondent may not be willing to accept the complainant’s report
on the condition of the goods upon receipt, but after inspection by competent authority,
with report by the Government officials, the justice or injustice of the claim may be
made clear to him.
In a majority of cases the shippers are found to be willing to make satisfactory
adjustment when the facts are presented to them.
Complaints against American traders loom large in the eyes of foreign purchasers
and have an important bearing on the reputation of our country in foreign trade. A
trifling instance may be magnified in the telling, and the world’s trade is so upset at
this time that an incident of this sort, ventilated in the press abroad, may do irreparable
damage.
Such transactions are seized upon by competitors as propaganda against American
goods, serving as illustrations of the unreliability which they claim for the American
exporter, even though an overwhelming majority of such exporters are and have been
reliable in fulfilling their contracts and order.
Frequent reports are received from consuls, trade commissioners, and other officials
of our Government abroad. As stated by an official in a New Zealand port, “such
transactions have a tendency to

EXPORT TRADE DIVISION.

65

disturb American business in general”; and, as reported by an official in South
America, “an attitude of hostility toward reasonable complaints would soon wipe out
an advantage gained for American trade in this market during the war.”
The Commission is assured that the adjustment of even a small complaint goes far
toward the establishment of confidence and good will in foreign markets.
COOPERATION WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES.

A number of governmental agencies are interested directly or indirectly in the
foreign trade of the United States. It is impossible to separate exportation and
importation from commodity interests, finance, transportation and shipping, trade
promotion and regulation, and other phases of foreign trade and commerce.
In order to prevent overlapping and duplication of effort, there is a very close
cooperation through the weekly meetings of the Economic Liaison Committee, which
are attended by representatives from 15 Government bureaus, including the Federal
Trade Commission. This committee serves as a clearing house of current
governmental activities in the interest of foreign trade.
71822--21---5

ENEMY TRADE DIVISION.
PATENTS.

During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1921, the Commission continued its
supervision of the outstanding licenses issued under the act of October 6, 1917,
commonly known as the “ enemy trade act,” section 10 © of which vested in the
President power which he, by Executive order of October 12, 1917, delegated to the
Commission to issue to citizens of the United Sates and to corporations organized
within the United States licenses under enemy owned or controlled patents, trademarks, and copyrights. This legislation was designed to secure to America the
continued enjoyment of the many vital and important inventions long monopolized by
alien enemies, particularly Germany, through patents taken out in this country. Copies
of the pertinent sections of the act will be found in the exhibits appended hereto.
Of a total of 279 applications received since the passage of the act, 63 were denied
either as based on patents not enemy owned or for the reason that it did not appear to
be in the public interest that license issue, while 89 licenses issued, as follows: Paten,
72; trademark, 4; copyright, 13. In many instances a group of patents were embraced
in one license, particularly in the case of dyes, and in certain apparatus, such as
gyroscopic compasses, where a dozen or more patents combined to produce a single
commercial article, which explains the apparent discrepancy between the number of
applications disposed of and the relatively few licenses issued.
Two new applications only were received during the year just ended, on one of
which licenses issued to Paul A. Flanders, of New York City, for apparatus for the
production of bromid-of-silver post cards and similar copies, the other covering a
certain trademark registration hereinafter referred to In addition, two applications
pending at the close of the preceding fiscal year were disposed of -- the one of Coppus
Engineering Co., based on patents covering propeller, being denied as based on patents
not enemy owned, the other, a trade-mark application, being withdrawn by applicant.
The Commission’s authority to issue licenses automatically ceases with the signing
of a treaty or a proclamation of peace, which together with the fact that the Alien
Property Custodian has seized the majority, if not all, of the more important enemy
patents (carrying them beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission to license),
66

ENEMY TRADE DIVISION.

67

operated to reduce the number of applications to a minimum. Of the 89 licenses
issued, 11 have for various reasons been surrendered or canceled, the remaining 78
being still in active operation under the supervision of the Commission. In two cases
transfer of license was approved by the Commission, in each instance to an American
corporation taking over the business and good will of the original licensee.
While the licenses cover a wide range of subjects, the most important are doubtless
those embracing the dye, drug, and chemical industries, the monopoly of which
Germany had long controlled through ownership of patents secured in this country.
Other important licenses cover the Imhoff system of sewage disposal, the Rueping
process of impregnating wood, Bosch magnetos, gyroscopic compasses, and other
machinery and apparatus of various types.
The act provides that a certain royalty, the rate to be fixed in the discretion of the
Commission, but not exceeding 5 per cent of gross sales or 5 per cent of the value of
use of the licensed invention, be payable at specified semiannual periods to the Alien
Property Custodian, who shall deposit the same in a joint trust for the owner of the
patent and the licensee, such fund to be subject to the disposition of the courts in event
the owner during the year following peace avails himself of the privilege accorded him
by the act to file suit to recover his rights under his patent and to enjoin the licensee
from further use and enjoyment thereof. In each case the rate of royalty has been fixed
by the Commission after full consideration of the peculiar circumstances incident
thereto; a uniform rate being established, however, for all licensees operating under
the same classes of patents. Total royalties reported for the year just ended aggregate
$131,354.48, of which amount $124,476.51 accrued under patents, $6,739.70 under
trade-marks and $138.27 under copyrights. Reports covering the full fiscal year in
some instances are not yet in; hence the figures given are approximate only, and it is
estimated that when all licenses will aggregate almost a million dollars.
In this connection it may be stated that during the year just closed a personal audit
was mad of the reports rendered under each license, with the result that additional
payment was directed to be made the Alien Property Custodian in amount aggregating
$15,247.11, representing unreported royalty accruing under various licenses. In a few
instances it developed that overpayment had been made amounting in all to $315.40,
and in such instances licensee was instructed to take proper credit on next accounting
rendered. In addition, through personal effort in connection with the accounting
rendered. In addition, through personal effort in connection with the audit referred to,
payment to the custodian in cash or security was secured in the amount of $44,-

68

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

218.15, covering operations previously reported and on which payment in some
instances was long overdue.
Section 10 (f) recites the terms and conditions under which the “owner” may within
a year after peace apply to the courts for the recovery from licensee of all use and
enjoyment of the licensed subject matter, all of which is fully set out in appended
exhibits; but at the time this legislation was enacted no seizure of patents was
contemplated, and all seizures and sales authorized by subsequent legislation were
made with full recognition of the rights existing under previously issued Federal Trade
Commission licenses. Hence, practically all of the more important patents thus
transferred to American ownership were burdened with previously existing licenses,
which remained under the supervision and jurisdiction of the Commission. In such
cases the Commission has felt that it was without authority of law to revise the issued
licenses with respect to the recipient of the royalty accruing thereunder and has
directed that such royalty continue to be deposited in the Treasury as specifically
provided by the act under which license was granted.
TRADE-MARKS AND COPYRIGHTS.

Only one new application for trade-mark license was received during the fiscal year,
being filed by the Meadows Oil & Chemical Corporation, of New York City, for the
use of the trade-mark “Ichthyol.”
This name originated with the Ichthyol Gesellschaft Cordes, Hermanni & Co., of
Hamburg, Germany, by whom it was registered in connection with certain medicinal
preparations used in the treatment of skin diseases, such preparations being derived
from a peculiar deposit of shale known as Seefeld shale, found in the Austrian Tyrol,
and it is alleged that their particular medicinal value lies in the inherent qualities of the
shale from which they are made and of which there is no other known deposit in the
world.
The Meadows Corporation, the applicant for license, controlling a deposit of shale
in this country, alleged to be similar in therapeutic and medicinal qualities, petitioned
the Commission for license to use the trade-mark “Ichthyol” in marketing its product.
After an exhaustive hearing, following denial of the application, the Commission
affirmed its action of denial on the ground that it was not shown to be in the public
interest to grant the desired license. This denial followed the expressed policy of the
Commission to favorably consider applications for license under trade-mark
registration only where the alleged mark is the name of an article covered by a patent
simultaneously sought to be licensed or where the mark is the name of an article
manufactured under an expired patent.

ENEMY TRADE DIVISION.

69

Since the passage of the act only four trade-mark licenses have been issued, one to
Lehn & Fink, of New York City, for the use of the trade-mark “Pebeco” for tooth
paste; that to Anchor Packing Co., of Philadelphia, covering the trade-mark “Tauril”
for sheet packing; the Draeger Oxygen Apparatus Co. (Now the American Atmos
Corporation), of Pittsburgh, being licensed to use the trade-mark “Pulmotor,” covering
life-saving apparatus; and Abbott Laboratories, of Chicago, being licensed, with
certain restrictions, to use the trade-mark “Veronal” in marketing a widely used
sedative originally introduced into this country under that name, the patent covering
the manufacture of this product being simultaneously licensed to the same firm.
Subsequent to the issue of license, Lehn & Fink purchased the trade-mark “Pebeco,”
which had been seized by the Alien Property Custodian, and at licensee’s request the
issued license was thereupon canceled by the Commission. With this exception the
issued licenses are still in operation and under the supervision of the Commission.
No new application for license under enemy copyright registration was filed during
the year. The one application of Rudolph Presburg, of New York City, based on the
dramatic composition “Der Weibsteufel,” pending at the close of the preceding year,
was withdrawn by applicant and the fee refunded. Of a total of 18 applications based
on copyright registration filed since the passage of the act, 13 licenses issued, all of
which are still in full force and effect. Most important perhaps of these are the
licenses issued to the San Carlo Grand Opera Co., of New York City, authorizing the
production and presentation of the operas “The Jewels of The Madonna”; “The Secret
of Suzanne;” “Hansel & Gretel;” and “Salome,” all covered by enemy copyright
registrations. Other licenses granted cover the publication of a Greek and English
dictionary, technical works on dyestuffs and condiments, and books descriptive of
submarine warfare.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
HUSTON THOMPSON, Chairman.
NELSON B. GASKILL.
JOHN GARLAND POLLARD.
VICTOR MURDOCK.
JOHN F. NUGENT.

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
70

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

71

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 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 competi-

72

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

tion 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.
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

EXHIBITS.

73

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 any wise 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 ,hall 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 from 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
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 the
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.

74

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE 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 the 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 the 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 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

EXHIBITS.

75

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

76

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

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 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 be 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
77

78

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

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 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 the 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 the 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

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

79

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 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 ire 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

80

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

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 and
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.
Complaints, orders, and other processes of the 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 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 postoffice receipt for said complaint, order, or other process registered and mailed as
aforesaid shall be proof of the 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 its 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. m. 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, the 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 he 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 8½ 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 1½ inches wide, or they
may be printed in 10 or 12 point type on good unglazed paper 8 inches wide by 10½
inches long, with inside margins not less than 1 inch wide. Three such answers must
be furnished.
71822--22----6
81

82

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.
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 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 mailed 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 he 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 8½ 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 1½
inches wide, or they may be printed in 10 or 12 point type on good unglazed paper 8
inches wide by 10½ 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 com
miss
ion.
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

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

83

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.
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, and such
hearings may, in the discretion of the commissioner holding same, be public.
XII. HEARINGS BEFORE EXAMINERS.
When issue in the case is set for trial it shall be referred to an examiner for the taking
of testimony. It shall be the duty of the examiner to complete the taking of testimony
with all due dispatch, and lie shall set the day and hour to which the taking of
testimony may from time to time be adjourned. The taking of the testimony both for
the commission and the respondent shall be completed within 30 days after the
beginning of the same unless, for good cause shown. the commission shall extend the
time. The examiner shall, within 10 days after the receipt of the stenographic report
of the testimony, make his proposed finding as to the facts and his proposed order
thereon, and shall forthwith serve copy of the same on the parties or their attorneys,
who, within 10 days after the receipt of same, shall file in writing their exceptions, if
any, to such proposed findings and order, and said exceptions shall specify the particular part or parts of the proposed findings of fact or proposed order to which exception
is made, and said exceptions shall include any additional findings and any change in
or addition to the proposed order which either party may think proper. Citations to the
record shall be made in support of such exceptions. Where briefs are filed the same
shall contain a copy of such exceptions. Argument on the exceptions to the proposed
findings and order, if exceptions be filed, shall be had at the final argument on the

merits.
XIII. DEPOSITIONS IN CONTESTED PROCEEDINGS.
The Commission may order testimony to be taken by deposition in a contest
proceeding.
Depositions may be taken before any person designated by the Commission and
having power to. administer oaths.

84

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Any party desiring to take the deposition of a witness shall make application in
writing, setting out the reasons why such depositions 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 or 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 11/2 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 the 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.
Application for extension of time in which to file any brief shall be by petition in
writing, Stating the facts upon which the 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.

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

85

(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 flyleaves 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
10½ 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.
XVI. ADDRESS OF THE COMMISSION.
All communications to the commission must be addressed to Federal Trade
Commission, Washington, D. C., unless otherwise specifically directed.

EXHIBIT 4.
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,
86

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

87

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 sub-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 facts may appear; and if, after payment of all such
judgments and decrees, 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

88

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

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, he 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 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 per

EXHIBITS.

89

cent 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.

EXHIBIT 5.
[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 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
90

EXHIBITS.

91

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 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 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 conspiracy, 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 thereafter
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.

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
92

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

93

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) It desires to be classified as engaged in exporting the following products, viz:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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

94

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

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 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, ---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.
95

96

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.
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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number of shares.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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 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 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

EXHIBITS.

97

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.”
71822--21----7

EXHIBIT 8.
PROCEEDINGS PENDING AND DISPOSED OF.

PROCEEDINGS PENDING JUNE 30, 1921.
Complaint No. 25.--Federal Trade Commission v. J. F. Hillerich & Son Co.
Charge: Unfair methods of competition in connection with the manufacture,
marketing, and sale 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: This
proceeding is awaiting decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the
Beech-Nut Packing Co. case, now pending on a writ of certiorari to the United States
Circuit Court of Appeals, second circuit, which court reversed an order of the
Commission against the Beech-Nut Packing Co. to cease and desist the practice in
question.
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: (Ante, complaint No.25.)
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, 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: (Ante, complaint
No.25).
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: (Ante, complaint No.25).
Complaint No. 82.--Federal Trade Commission v. Photo-Engravers’ club of Chicago.
Charge: Adopting a standard scale of uniform prices 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 proceeding is pending before the commission.

98

EXHIBITS.

99

Complaint No. 87.--Federal Trade Commission v. Crescent Manufacturing Co.
Charge: 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 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:
(Ante, complaint No. 25).
Complaint No. 89.--Federal Trade Commission v. L. E. Waterman Co. Charge:
Stifling and suppressing competition in the manufacture, marketing, and sale of
fountain pens by fixing standard specified 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: (Ante, com plaint No.25).
Complaint No. 90.--Federal Trade Commission v. Cluett, Peabody & Co. (Inc.).
Charge: Stifling and suppressing competition in the manufacture, marketing, and sale
of men’s collars by fixing and maintaining resale prices, requiring the purchasers to
maintain such prices, and refusing to sell to those who refuse to maintain such prices,
in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: (Ante,
complaint No.25).
Complaint No. 91.--Federal Trade Commission v Massachusetts Chocolate Co.
Charge: 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: (Ante, complaint No.25).
Complaint No. 123.--Federal Trade Commission v. American Co. Charge: 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 now in preparation for trial.
Complaint No. 141.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Evans Dollar Pen Co.
Charge: 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: (Ante, complaint No.25).
Complaint No. 157.--Federal Trade Commission v. Saenger Amusement Co).
Charge: Stifling and suppressing competition in the purchase and sale, lease 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

100

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Commission act. Status: The final determination of this case is suspended awaiting
the outcome of cases involving the same industry now before the Commission.
Complaint No. 163.--Federal Trade Commission v. Armour & Co. Charge: Stifling
and suppressing competition in the manufacture and sale of dairy products by
concealing 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 in course of trial.
Complaint No. 167.--Federal Trade Commission v. United Electric Co. Charge:
Stifling 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 purchasers shall not use br 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: (Ante, complaint No.25).
Complaint No. 168.--Federal Trade Commission v. The National Wholesale
Druggists’ Association et al. Charge: Engaging in a combination or conspiracy among
themselves with the intent, purpose, and 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 the 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 proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the
Commission and answer of the respondent and is in preparation for trial.
Complaint No. 170.--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. Status: (Ante, complaint
No.25).
Complaint No. 171.--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

EXHIBITS.

101

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 respondent’s 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. Status:(Ante, complaint No.25).
Complaint No. 173.--Federal Trade Commission v. D. M. Ferry & Co. Charge:
Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of garden and flower seeds by filing
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. Status: (Ante, complaint No.25).
Complaint No. 182.--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. Status.: (Ante, complaint No.25).
Complaint No. 183.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Vortex Manufacturing Co.
Charge: 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 the condition, agreement, and 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. Status: (Ante, complaint No.25).
Complaint No. 184.--Federal Trade Commission v. Enders Sales Co. (Inc.). Charge:
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 lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly, in alleged violation of
section 3 of the Clayton Act. Status: (Ante, complaint No.25).
Complaint No. 189.--Federal Trade Commission v. H. L. Hildreth Co. Charge:
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. Status: (Ante, complaint no. 25).

102

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Complaint No. 196.--Federal Trade Commission v. DeMiracle Chemical Co. Charge:
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. Status: (Ante,
complaint No. 25).
Complaint No. 205.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Tobacco Products
Corporation et al. Charge: 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. Status: This
proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the Commission and answer of the
respondent and is now in preparation for trial.
Complaint No. 206.--Federal Trade Commission v. Marinello Co. et al. Charge:
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 in 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 adjust 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. Status: (Ante, complaint No.25).
Complaint No. 207.--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 products, 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

EXHIBITS.

103

the Federal Trade Commission act. Status : This proceeding is now before the
Commission for final disposition.
Complaint No. 213.--Federal Trade Commission v. American Thermos Bottle Co.
Charge: 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, 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 violation of section
2 of the Clayton Act. Status : (Ante, complaint No.25).
Complaint No. 215.--Federal Trade Commission v. Minerals Separation (Ltd). et al.
Charge: 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'
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
independent 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 an exorbitant royalty for the use of
commodities controlled by respondent, 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 purchases thereof shall not use or deal in the
goods of a competitor the effect of which is to simultaneously lessen competition or
tend to create a monopoly, in alleged violation of section 3 of the Clayton Act. Status:
This proceeding is at issue on complaint of the Commission and answer of the
respondent and is now in course of trial.
Complaint No. 217.--Federal Trade Commission v. Klaxon Co. Charge: 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

104

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

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. Status : (Ante, complaint No.25).
Complaint No. 218.-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 resale prices, refusing to sell to those who will not
maintain such resale prices, and refusing to sell mixed car-load 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. Status : (Ante,
complaint No.25).
Complaint No. 227.--Federal Trade Commission v. Helvetia Milk Condensing Co.
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in 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.
Status : Negotiations are pending for an agreed statement of facts upon which to
submit this case to the Commission for final determination.
Complaint No. 228.--Federal Trade Commission v. The De Laval Separator Co.
Charge : 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, in 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
purchasers 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. Status : (Ante, complaint No.25).
Complaint No. 237.--Federal Trade Commission v. General Chemical Co. Charge
: Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of 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 Commission act. Status : (Ante, complaint No.25).
Complaint No. 240.--Federal Trade Commission v. Buffalo Specialty Co. Charge :
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. Status: (Ante,
complaint No.25).
Complaint No. 250.--Federal Trade Commission v. Borden’s Farm Products Co.
(Inc.). Charge: Acquiring and owning the whole of the stock and share

EXHIBITS.

105

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. Status : This proceeding is now before the Commission for final
determination.
Complaint No. 259.--Federal Trade Commission v. Oldbury Electro-Chemical Co.,
J. L. & D. S. Biker (Inc.), and Central Railway Signal Co. Charge : Using unfair
methods of competition in the manufacture 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. Biker (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 the railway signal fusees,
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 in course of trial.
Complaint No. 266.--Federal Trade Commission v. Pictorial Review Co. Charge :
Using unfair 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 contract at three-fourths 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 leal 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. Status : This
proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the Commission and answer of the
respondent and is in course of trial.
Complaint No. 269.--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 asking 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 sed as wrappers or
containers for Columbia records; respondent’s American Graphophone Co. and
Columbia Graphophone Manufacturing Co. through the Columbia Graphophone Co.
require retail dealers to maintain specified resale rices fixed upon Columbia products
and refuse to sell their products to dealers will not agree to maintain such specified
resale prices, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Status : (Ante, complaint No. 25).
Complaint No. 272.--Federal Trade Commission v. Wm. Waltke & Co. Charge :
Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of soaps and toilet industries by fixing
and maintaining resale prices, requiring dealers to retain such 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. Status: (Ante, complaint No.25).
Complaint No. 293.--Federal Trade Commission v. Non-Derrick 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 pre-

106

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

dictions concerning the business, organization, assets, capital stock, financial standing,
and prospective profits of respondent, find 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.
Status : This proceeding is now before the Commission for final determination.
Complaint No. 303.--Federal Trade Commission v. Utah-Idaho Sugar Co.,
Amalgamated Sugar Co., E. R. Wooley, 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 up
supplies in territories about to be occupied by competitors; preventing manufacturers
of machinery from supplying competitors; secretly paying others to institute litigation
against competitors and furnishing money to secret agents for the purpose of acquiring
the controlling interest in the business of 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 the answer of the respondent and is shortly to be
transmitted to the Commission for its final determination.
Complaint No. 306--Federal Trade Commission v. High Rock Knitting Co. Charge:
Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of knit wholesaler by fixing and
maintaining certain specified standard prices at which the knit underwear
manufactured and sold by respondent shall be resold to the purchasers thereof;
requiring purchasers to agree to maintain or resell such knit underwear at such
standard selling prices; refusing to sell its products to dealers who will not agree to
maintain such specified standard resale prices and compelling wholesalers, jobbers,
and dealers to refuse to sell its products to other wholesalers, jobbers, and dealers who
do not maintain the resale prices fixed by respondent in alleged violation of section 5
of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status : (Ante, complaint No.25).
Complaint No. 308.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Ohio Cities Gas Co. Charge
: Using unfair methods of competition in the business of purchasing and selling refined
oil and gasoline and the leasing and loaning of oil pumps, storage tanks, or containers
and their equipments by selling, leasing, or loaning oil pumps, storage tanks, or
containers, etc., at prices which do not represent a reasonable return on the investment,
many such sales, leases, or loans being made at prices below the cost of producing and
vending the same, and many of the contracts for the lease or loan of such devices, etc.,
providing, or being entered into, with the understanding that the lessee or borrower
shall not place in such devices or use in connection therewith any refined oil or
gasoline of a competitor in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act; and leasing and making contracts for the lease of its devices, etc., on
the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessees thereof shall not use

EXHIBITS.

107

or purchase or deal in the products of a competitor or competitors of respondent 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 in course
of trial..
Complaint No. 321.--Federal Trade Commission v, The Columbus Oil Co. Charge
: (Ante, complaint No. 308). Status : This proceeding is now therefore the
Commission for final determination.
Complaint No. 324.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Factory Oil Co. Charge :
(Ante, complaint No. 308). Status : This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of
the Commission and answer of the respondent and is in course of trial.
Complaint No. 338.--Federal Trade Commission v. United States Food Products
Corporation, Liberty Yeast Corporation, the Fagin Co., and Herman Cheifetz. Charge
: Using unfair methods of competition in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of
yeast and other products by concealing from the public flue fact that the Fagin Co. and
Herman Cheifetz are. selling agents of the respondents, United States Food Products
Corporation and Liberty Yeast Corporation, and permitting them to be advertised as
wholly independent, and that the yeast manufactured by said selling agents are in fact
the yeast of the United States Food Products Corporation and the Fagin Co.;
enticement of employees of competitors by means of increased salaries and other
considerations; including employees of competitors to deliver samples of respondent’s
yeast from wagon of such competitors, obtaining valuable trade secrets, formulas, and
methods of competitors the rough enticement of their employees; circulating false,
misleading, and disparaging statements concerning the business and practices of
competitors; selling yeast at prices which are less then the cost of producing, and
selling the same in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Status : This proceeding is now before the Commission for final disposition.
Complaint No. 339.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Pictorial Review Co. and
The Oklahoma Publishing Co. Charge: Unfair methods of competition in the sale of
magazines and periodicals by the procuring by the Pictorial Review Co., through the
Oklahoma Publishing Co., a list of dealers throughout the State of Oklahoma handling
magazines of competitors and the number of copies sold by such dealers, without
disclosing to the dealers the purpose for which it was sought, in alleged violation of
section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: The determination of this case
is being suspended pending the final outcome of the Commission’s appeal to the
Supreme Court of the United States in the Curtis Publishing Co. Case, complaint No.
15.
Complaint No. 342.--Federal Trade Commission v. Curtis & Co., Manufacturing Co.
And Curtis Pneumatic Machinery Co. Charge: Stifling and suppressing competition
in the manufacture and sale of various automobile assessors, particularly compressors,
outfits, tanks, and pneumatic machinery, by fixing and maintaining certain specified
standard prices at which the various automobile accessories manufactured and sold by
respondents shall be resold to the purchasing public; requiring purchasers to agree to
maintain or resell such automobile accessories at said standard selling prices; and
refusing to sell their products to dealers who will not agree to maintain such specified
standard resale prices, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act; and by entering into contracts and giving or allowing rebates or
discounts to purchasers on the condition, agreement, or understanding that they shall
purchase all of their needs and requirements of certain commodities sold by
respondents from respondents, in alleged violation of section 3 of the Clayton Act;
and by discriminating in price between the different purchasers of the products

108

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

manufactured, handled, and sold by respondent, in alleged violation of section 2 of the
Clayton Act. Status: (Ante, complaint No.25).
Complaint No. 351.--Federal Trade Commission v. Armour & Co. Using unfair
methods of competition by acquiring the capital stock of E. II. Stanton Co.,. engaged
in a similar business to that of respondent, and prior to such acquisition directly in
competition with respondent, with the effect of substantially lessening competition
between these two companies, restraining commerce in certain sections of the United
States, and tending to create a monopoly in the purchase of live stock and sale of meat
and meat products, In alleged violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act. Status : This
proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the Commission and answer of the
respondent and is now before the Commission for final determination.
Complaint No. 353.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Domestic Engineering Co.
(Inc.), et al. Charge: Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of electric
lighting system, by adopting and maintaining a system of fixed prices at which its
products (“Delco Light”") shall be resold by its distributors; by requiring purchasers
to agree to maintain standard selling prices; by refusing and threatening to refuse to
sell its products to dealers who do not agree to maintain such standard system of
prices, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act; and by
making contracts conditional upon purchasers dealing exclusively in respondent's
products, and by refusing to sell its products unless purchasers comply with the terms
of such exclusive contracts, with the effect of lessening competition and tending to
create a monopoly, in alleged, violation of section 3 of the Clayton Act. Status: (Ante,
complaint No.25).
Complaint No. 355.--Federal Trade Commission v. Adder Machine Co. Charge:
Unfair methods of competition by giving to purchasers of its products at the end of
each calendar year, or at the end of a definite period, certain rebates or discounts based
or estimated upon the aggregate of the purchases made by such dealers during the
calendar year or fixed period, with the object of causing such purchasers to confine
their purchases to respondent's products and to hinder its competitors from making
sales to such purchasers except at a loss; and giving rebates or discounts based on the
number of machines used by a purchaser irrespective of make or manufacture, thereby
giving an undue advantage to the large purchaser and hindering the small user or
purchaser of such machines from obtaining the same discounts and rebates as a large
purchaser, 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 now before the Commission for final determination.
Complaint No. 361.--Federal Trade Commission v. Accounting Machine Co. (Inc.).
Charge: (Ante, complaint No. 355). Status : (Ante, complaint No. 355).
Complaint No. 862.--Federal Trade Commission v. Burroughs Adding Ma(Inc.).
Charge: (Ante, complaint No. 355). Status : (Ante, complaint No. 855).
Complaint No. 364.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Dalton Adding Machine Co.
Charge: (Ante, complaint No.355). Status : (Ante, complaint No. 355).
Complaint No. 365.--Federal Trade Commission v. Ellis Adding-Typewriter Co.
Charge : (Ante, complaint No.355). Status : (Ante, complaint No.355).
Complaint No. 366.--Federal Trade Commission v. International Money Machine
Co. Charge: (Ante, complaint No. 355). Status : (Ante, complaint No. 355).

EXHIBITS.

109

Complaint No. 367.--Federal Trade Commission v. Marchant Calculating Machine
Co. Charge : (Ante, complaint No.355). Status : (Ante, complaint No.355).
Complaint No 369.--Federal Trade Commission v. Rockford Milling Machine Co.
Charge : (Ante, complaint No.355). Status : (Ante, complaint No.355).
Complaint No. 370.--Federal Trade Commission v. Teetor Adding Machine Co.
Charge : (Ante, complaint No.355). Status : (Ante, complaint No.355).
Complaint No. 370.--Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Oil Co. of Kentucky.
Charge: (Ante, complaint No. 305). Status : This case is at issue upon the complaint
of the Commission and answer of the respondent and is in course of trial.
Complaint No. 395--Federal Trade Commission v. David Davis Sons. Charges :
Using unfair methods of competition by deceptively increasing and falsifying the
weight of sponges by loading them with foreign material and selling such loaded
sponges by weight, thereby creating a fictitious price for said sponges, defrauding and
misleading customers, and causing prejudice and in jury to 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 in course of trial.
Complaint No. 399.--Federal Trade Commission v. American Dental Trade
Association, The Dental Manufacturers’ Club, American Retail Dental Dealers'
Association, et al. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by combining and
conspiring with the intent of monopolizing the business of manufacturing and selling
dental goods, and with the intent of stifling and suppressing. competition by enforcing
adherence to resale prices fixed by respondents, 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 now before the Commission
for final determination.
Complaint No. 400.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Music Publishers'
Association of the United States, National Association of Sheet Music Dealers,
Thomas F. Delaney, individually and as president; E. Grant Ege, individually and as
vice president; J. M. Priaulx, individually and as secretary and treasurer of the
National Association of Sheet Music Dealers; Walter Fischer, J. Elmer Harvey,
Charles W Homeyer, William J. Kearney, Edward P. Little, Holmes T. Maddox, L. W
Miller, Harold Orth, Gustav Schirmer, S. Ernest Philpitt, Paul A. Schmitt, Clayton F.
Summy, Charles H. Willis, W. H. Witt, Harvey J. Wood, individually and as directors
of the National Association of Sheet Music Dealers, and all the members of said
association. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by conspiring with the
intent and effect of stifling competition in the business of selling musical publications,
and fixing and maintaining standard resale prices; and by agreeing upon policies of
increase in price and upon uniform rates and schedules of prices of certain classes of
musical publications, with the result that the price of such publications were increased
and enhanced, 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 in course of trial.
Complaint No. 402.--Federal Trade Commission v. S. J. Cox et al. Charge : Using
unfair methods of competition in the sale of stocks and securities by circulating false
information and false advertising and suppressing other facts relating to the Prudential

Trust & Securities Co., the Prudential Oil & Refining Co., and the General Oil Co., all
of Texas, for the purpose of misleading and deceiving the general public into buying
stock and stock subscriptions, inc alleged violation of section 5 of Federal Trade
Commission act. Status:

110

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the Commission and answer of the
respondent, and is in course of trial.
Complaint No. 404.--Federal Trade Commission v. Buffalo Steam Roller Co. Charge
: Using unfair methods of competition by giving and offering to give to public officials
and employees of both its customers and prospective customers, and its competitors’
customers and prospective customers gratuities of different kinds, including sums of
money and expenses to the respondent’s place of business for the purpose of
inspecting the respondent's products, as an inducement to influence their employers
to purchase or contract to purchase road machinery, steam rollers, and kindred
products from the respondent, or to influence such employers to refrain from dealing
or contracting to deal with competitors of respondent, 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 in course of trial.
Complaint No. 405.--Federal Trade Commission v. J. H. Haney, W. A. McKey, and
W. M. Dutton, copartners, doing business under the firm name and style of I. H.
Haney & Co. Charge : Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of automobile
tire pumps by adopting and maintaining a system of fixed prices at which its products
shall he resold, with the effect of eliminating competition among dealers, and by
refusing to sell to dealers who do mot agree to maintain such standard resale prices,
in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status : (Ante,
complaint No. 25).
Complaint No. 414.--Federal Trade Commission v. Marshall Oil Co., a corporation,
trading as Tungsten Manufacturing Co. Charge : Stifling and suppressing competition
in the sale of spark plugs by fixing and maintaining certain specified standard prices
at which the spark plugs manufactured and sold by respondent shall be resold to the
purchasers thereof; requiring purchasers to agree to maintain or resell such spark plugs
at said standard selling prices; and refusing to sell its products to dealers who will not
agree to maintain such specified standard resale prices, in alleged violation of section
5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status : (Ante, complaint No.25).
Complaint No. 424.--Federal Trade Commission v. Lautz Bros. & Co. Charge:
Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of soap and washing powders by
guaranteeing its jobbers in the wholesale grocery trade against the decline in price of
goods purchased and not resold by such customers at the time of any subsequent
decline in the respondent’s list price thereof; and in the event of decline in price of
goods giving to such jobbers rebates equal to the difference between the purchase price
of such products as were undisposed of and respondent's lower list price therefor,
subsequently made, with the effect of obtaining for respondent an unfair and undue
advantage over competitors who do not follow this practice; relieving respondent's
jobbers from risk of loss and encouraging such jobbers to hold in stock excessively
large quantities of respondent's product for the purpose of realizing a speculative profit
thereby, and deterring respondent from reducing list prices of its product in accordance
with reductions in cost of manufacturing, 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 in preparation for trial.
Complaint No. 425.--Federal Trade Commission v. Fels & Co. Charge : Using unfair
methods of competition in the sale of soap and soap powders. (Ante, complaint
No.424.) Status : (Ante, complaint No.424).
Complaint No. 426.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Globe Soap Co. Using unfair
methods of competition in the sale of soap, soap powders,

EXHIBITS.

111

and other cleansing compounds. (Ante, complaint No. 424.) Status : (Ante, complaint
No.424).
Complaint No. 427.--Federal Trade Commission v. B. T. Babbitt (Inc.). Charge :
Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of soap, soap powders, and other
cleansing compounds. (Ante, complaint No. 424.) Status : (Ante, complaint No.424).
Complaint No. 428.--Federal Trade Commission v. Curtice Brothers Co. Charge:
Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of canned food products. (Ante,
complaint No. 424.) Status: (Ante, complaint no. 424).
Complaint No. 429.--Federal Trade Commission v. Joseph Campbell Co. Charge:
Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of canned soups. (Ante, complaint
No. 424.) Status: (Ante, complaint No. 424).
Complaint No. 430.--Federal Trade Commission v. Russell Grader Manufacturing
Co. Charge: (Ante, complaint No. 404). Status : (Ante, complaint No.404).
Complaint No. 431.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Barber Asphalt Paving Co.
Charge: (Ante, complaint No. 404). Status : (Ante, complaint No. 404).
Complaint No. 432.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Dyar Supply Co. Charge
: (Ante, complaint No.404). Status : (Ante, complaint No.404).
Complaint No. 433.--Federal Trade Commission v. Chas. Hvass & Co. (Inc.) -Charge
: (Ante, complaint No.404). Status : (Ante, complaint No.404).
Complaint No. 434.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Austin-Western Road
Machinery Co. Charge: (Ante, complaint No.404). Status : (Ante, complaint
No.404).
Complaint No. 435.--Federal Trade Commission v. Stockland Road Machinery Co.
Charge: (Ante, complaint No.404). Status : (Ante, complaint No.404).
Complaint No. 436.--Federal Trade Commission v. Gallon Iron Works & Manufacturing Co. Charge : (Ante, complaint No. 404). Status : (Ante, complaint No.404).
Complaint No, 437.--Federal Trade Commission v. J. D. Adams, R. E. Adams, et al.,
copartners doing business under the name and style of J. D. Adams & Co. Charge :
(Ante, complaint No.404). Status : (Ante, complaint No.404).
Complaint No. 438.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Barr Sales Co. Charge :
(Ante, complaint No.404). Status : (Ante, complaint No 404).
Complaint No. 439.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Good Roads Machinery Co.
Charge: (Ante, complaint No.404). Status : (Ante, complaint No.404).
Complaint No. 440.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Chamberlain Road Machine
Co. Charge: (Ante, Complaint No.404). Status : (Ante, complaint No. 404).
Complaint No. 441.--Federal Trade Commission v. Acme Road Machinery Co.
Charge : Ante, complaint No.404). Status: (Ante complaint No.404).
Complaint No. 444.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Gates Rubber Co. and J. R.
Hunt and William H. Klinefelter, copartners, doing business under the firm name and
style of J. R. Hunt & Co. Charge : Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of
fan belts, tires, brake linings, tire patches, and other automobile accessories by fixing
and maintaining certain specified standard prices at which such products shall be
resold to the purchasers thereof; requiring purchasers to agree to maintain or resell the
above-mentioned commodities at said standard selling prices; refusing to sell said
commodities to jobbers or dealers who will not agree to maintain or resell the said
commodities at standard resale prices fixed by respondents, or who do not resell such
products at such fixed prices; inducing and requiring jobbers or dealers to spy upon
others dealing in the said commodities who have not maintained said standard prices

112

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

or who have resold to jobbers or dealers to whom respondents have directed that the
said products should not be resold; refusing to sell to jobbers or dealers engaged in the
mail-order business; and employing divers other means, in alleged violation of section
5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: (Ante, complaint No.25).
Complaint No. 446.--Federal Trade Commission v. Van Camp Packing Co. and Van
Camp Products Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of canned
food products. (Ante, complaint No.424.) Status : This proceeding has been
consolidated with complaint No.227 (ante).
Complaint No. 449.--Federal Trade Commission v. Wilson & Co. (Inc.). Charge :
That the respondent purchased all the property of the Morton Gregson Co., a Nebraska
corporation, theretofore engaged in the same line of business as respondent and in
active competition with it, and thereafter organized under the laws of the State of
Delaware a subsidiary corporation called the “Morton Gregson Company,” which
proceeded to take over the property thus purchased and to operate the business of the
said Nebraska corporation, with the effect of eliminating competition previously
existing between Morton Gregson Co., the Nebraska corporation, and the respondent,
in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act and section 7 of
the Clayton Act. Status : This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the
Commission and answer of the respondent and is in preparation for trial.
Complaint No. 450.--Federal Trade Commission v. Wilson & Co. (Inc.), Charge :
That the respondent acquired the whole of the common or voting stock of the Paul O.
Reyman Co., a corporation, the effect of such acquisition being to enable respondent
to completely dominate the business and policy of said Paul O. Reyman Co., to restrain
competition between said respondent and said Paul O. Reyman Co., and to tend to
create a monopoly in the sale of meats and like products, in alleged violation of section
5 of the Federal Trade Commission act and section 7 of the Clayton Act. Status : This
proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the Commission and answer of the
respondent and is in preparation for trial.
Complaint No. 451.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Cudahy Packing Co. Charge
: That respondent acquired 55 per cent of the shares of capital stock of the Nagle
Packing Co., a competitor; 95 per cent of the capital stock of the D. E. Wood Butter
Co., a competitor; and that a subsidiary corporation, the Dow Cheese Co., purchased
the business and good will of a competitor, the A. C. Dow Co., with the effect that
respondent has dominated the business of the Nagle Packing Co. and the D. E. Wood
Butter Co. and has eliminated competition theretofore existing between the three
above-mentioned companies and the respondent, In alleged violation of section 5 of
the Federal Trade Commission act and section 7 of the Clayton Act. Status: This
proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the Commission and answer of the
respondent and is in preparation for trial.
Complaint No. 452.--Federal Trade Commission v. Morris & Co. Charge: That the
respondent acquired approximately 75 per cent of the capital stock of the Crescent City
Stock Yard & Slaughter House Co., a competitor; that it acquired stock in the
Bluefleld Produce & Provision Co.; that it acquired the whole of the capital stock of
the Holland Butterine Co. and held the same out to the public as wholly independent
and without connection with respondent; that it acquired 66 per cent of the common
stock of the Providence Churning Co., a competitor, and organized a corporation to
take over and succeed to the business and property of said Providence Churning Co.;
that it acquired one-half of the entire capital stock of the Eskerson Co., a competitor;
that it

EXHIBITS.

113

acquired one-half of the capital stock of the Jacob Marty Co., a competitor; that it
acquired one-half of the capital stock of the C. A. Straubel Co., a competitor; and
acquired $64,300 of the capital stock of the Sherman, White Co., whose entire stock
was $123,700; and that the result of such acquisition is the domination by respondent
of some of the above-mentioned companies, the elimination of competition theretofore
existing between the above-mentioned companies and the respondent, and the creation
of conditions which tend to create a monopoly, in alleged violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act and section 7 of the Clayton Act. Status : This
proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the Commission and answer of the
respondent and is in preparation for trial.
Complaint No. 453.--Federal Trade Commission v. Swift & Co. Charge : That
respondent purchased 956 shares of the total 966 shares of the capital stock of the
Moultrie Packing Co., a competitor, causing the same to be transferred on the books
of the company to officers and employees of the respondent, who at a stockholders'
meeting of said company elected as directors and stockholders for the transfer of
property of the said company to respondent; that it purchased all the capital stock of
the Andalusia Packing Co., a competitor, and acquired the business of the company by
a procedure similar to that employed in acquiring the Moultrie Packing Co.; and
acquired one-half of the capital stock of the England, Walton Co. (Inc.), a competitor,
securing control of the remaining stock of said company by receiving said stock as
security for money loaned to Mulford & Bryan to purchase it, and that the result of
such acquisitions is the elimination of competition theretofore existing between the
above-mentioned companies and the respondent and the creation of conditions which
tend to create a monopoly, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act and section 7 of the Clayton Act. Status: This proceeding is at issue
upon the complaint of the Commission and answer of the respondent and is in course
of trial.
Complaint No. 454.--Federal Trade Commission v. Swift & Co. and United Dressed
Beef Co. Charge: That the respondent caused its subsidiary, United Dressed Beef Co.,
to acquire all of the capital stock of J. J. Harrington & Co.(Inc.), which acquisition
resulted in the control by Swift & Co. of the business theretofore conducted and
controlled by said J. J. Harrington & Co. (Inc.), elimination of competition between
respondents, Swift & Co and United Dressed Beef Co. and J. J. Harrington & Co.
(Inc.), and a tendency to create for respondent, Swift & Co., a monopoly, in alleged
violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act and section 7 of the
Clayton Act. Status : This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the
Commission and answer of the respondent and is in preparation for trial.
Complaint No. 455.--Federal Trade Commission v. Armour & Co. Charge : That
respondent acquired three-fifths of the capital stock of Harold L. Brown Co. (Inc.), a
competitor, which company had previously acquired the capital stock and business of
Beyer Bros. Commission Co.; and also the capital stock and business of Beyer Bros.
Co.; that it acquired, as vendee and pledgee, a controlling amount of the capital stock
of the Eau Claire Creamery Co.; that it acquired through its agents 503 of the 1,000
shares of stock of the Louden Packing Co., an Ohio corporation, which corporation
transferred all its business and property to the Louden Packing Co., a Delaware
corporation, in consideration of all the stock of the Delaware corporation, consisting
of 1,000 shares, 503 of which are held by agents of respondent in trust for respondent;
that it acquired one-half of the capital stock of the A. S. Kinimmonth Produce Co.; that
it acquired the entire capital stock of the Pacific Creamery, which

71822--21----8

114

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

company the respondent held out and advertised as wholly independent without
connection with respondent; and acquired 501 shares of the capital stock of Smith,
Richardson & Conroy, a Florida corporation, and that the result of such acquisitions
by respondent is the domination by respondent of the business of some of the abovementioned companies, the elimination of competition between respondent and abovementioned companies, and the creation of conditions which tend to create a monopoly,
in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act and section 7 of
the Clayton Act Status: This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the
Commission and answer of the respondent and is now in course of trial.
Complaint No. 456.--Federal Trade Commission v. Western Meat Co. Charge: That
the respondent acquired all of the capital stock of the Nevada Packing Co., which
acquisition resulted in the elimination of competition theretofore existing between
respondent and said Nevada Packing Co., and the creation of a monopoly in meat and
its by-products in communities adjacent to Reno, Nev., in violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act and section 7 of the Clayton Act. Status : This
proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the Commission and answer of the
respondent and is soon to be presented to the Commission for its final determination.
Complaint No. 457.--Federal Trade Commission v. Western Meat Co. and Nevada
Packing Co. Charge : That respondents have violated section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act and section 8 of the Clayton Act by having F. L. Washburn, a director
of both the Western Meat Co. and the Nevada Packing Co. (between which companies
competition existed), and illegally acquiring by the Western Meat Co. of the capital
stock of the Nevada Packing Co., which acquisition suspended between respondents
competition which theretofore existed between them and tended to create a monopoly.
Status : Ante, complaint No.456).
Complaint No. 459.--Federal Trade Commission v. United Typothetae of America,
Benjamin P. Moulton, Arthur E. Southworth, Charles L. Kinsley, George H. Gardner,
E. H. James, Fred W. Gage, and Joseph A. Borden. Charge : Using unfair methods of
competition by inaugurating a campaign known as the "three-year plan," for the
purpose of collecting assessments from manufacturers and merchants who sell paper,
printing presses, type, ink, and other supplies to employing printers and other
associations allied to the printing industry, the money to be used mainly for the
purpose of inducing employing printers to use a uniform system of cost accounting and
a standard price list compiled by the respondent; using coercive methods to obtain
subscriptions to the “three-year plan” fund; adopting, through its “trade matter
committee,” a practice of attempting to control the matter of terms on which
manufacturers of printing presses, etc., sell their output to printing establishments, and
attempting to have such manufacturers refuse to place any of their presses, etc., in any
printing establishment until a cash payment equal to 25 per cent of the amount of the
total purchase price be paid; urging printers to adopt a “standard cost system” and
“standard price list,” for the purpose of establishing a uniform scale of prices
throughout the printing industry, 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 in course of trial.
Complaint No. 461.--Federal Trade Commission v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by giving gratuities of different kinds to
employees of competitors' customers to influence them to refuse to use the product of
competitors of respondent, to inaugurate strikes

EXHIBITS.

115

in case such competitors' products were used, and the actually inauguration of a strike
for a period of 16 days when their employer used the product of a competitor, and by
reason of such strike succeeded in intimidating others to discontinue the use of any
product which competed with that of respondent, in alleged violation of section 5 of
the Federal Trade Commission act, and by entering into an agreement with various
producers of coal whereby respondent was to furnish blasting powder at a fixed price
on the condition that said producers would not use the product of any competitor, and
that the effect of such agreement has been to substantially lessen competition, in
alleged violation of section 3 of the Clayton Act. Status : This proceeding is now
before the Commission for final determination.
Complaint No. 468--Federal Trade Commission v. H. A. Metz & Co. (Inc.). Charge
: Using unfair methods of competition In the sale of dyestuffs and chemicals by giving
and offering to give to employees of both its customers and prospective customers and
its competitors' customers and prospective customers sums of money as an inducement
to influence their employers to purchase or contract to purchase from the respondent,
or to influence such employers to refrain from dealing or contracting to deal with
competitors of respondent, 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 in preparation for trial.
Complaint No. 472.-- Federal Trade Commission v. Pioneer Paper Co. Charge :
Using unfair methods of competition by falsely advertising its products as “ rubber”
and using the terms “ one ply,” “ two ply,” and “ three ply to designate and describe
the different degrees of thickness of its product when the different degrees of
thickness consists of but one layer or ply, with the effect of misleading and deceiving
the public and giving respondent's products an undue preference over products of
competitors who do not use such methods, in alleged violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act. Status : This proceeding is awaiting the decision of
the Supreme Court of the United States in the Winsted Hosiery case now pending on
a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit,
which court reversed an order of the Commission against the Winsted Hosiery Co. to
cease and desist the practices in question.
Complaint No. 473-.-Federal Trade Commission v. Western Elaterite Roofing Co.
Charge : (Ante, complaint No.472). Status : (Ante, complaint No.472).
Complaint No. 474.--Federal Trade Commission v. Sifo Products Co. Charge:
(Ante, complaint No.472). Status : (Ante, complaint No.472).
Complaint No. 475.--Federal Trade Commission v. Oertell Roofing Manufacturing
Co. Charge : (Ante, complaint No.472). Status : (Ante, complaint No. 472).
Complaint No. 476.--Federal Trade Commission v. Stowell Manufacturing Co.
(Charge: (Ante, complaint No.472). Status : (Ante, complaint No.472).
Complaint No. 477.--Federal Trade Commission v. Beckman-Dawson Co. Charge
: (Ante, complaint No.472). Status : (Ante, complaint No.472).
Complaint No. 478.--Federal Trade Commission v. Durable Roofing Manufacturing
Co. Charge: (Ante, complaint No. 472). Status : (Ante, complaint No.472).
Complaint No. 479.--Federal Trade Commission v. McHenry-Millhouse
Manufacturing Co. Charge: (Ante, complaint No. 472). Status : (Ante, complaint
No.472).
Complaint No. 480.--Federal Trade Commission v. International Roofing
Manufacturing Co. Charge: (Ante, complaint No. 472). Status : (Ante. complaint No.
472).

116

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Complaint No. 481.--Federal Trade Commission v. Amalgamated Roofing Co.
Charge : (Ante, complaint No.472). Status : (Ante, complaint No.472).
Complaint No. 482.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Chatfield Manufacturing Co.
Charge: (Ante, complaint No.472). Status : (Ante, complaint No. 472).
Complaint No. 483.--Federal Trade Commission v. H. W. Johns-Mansville Co.
Charge : (Ante, complaint No.472). Status : (Ante, complaint No.472).
Complaint No. 484.--Federal Trade Commission v. Keystone Roofing Manufacturing
Co. Charge : (Ante, complaint No.472). Status : (Ante, complaint .No.472).
Complaint No. 485.-Federal Trade Commission v. The Barrett Co. Charge : (Ante,
complaint No.472). Status : (Ante, complaint No.472).
Complaint No. 486.--Federal Trade Commission v. Patent Vulcanite Roofing Co.
Charge : (Ante, complaint No.472). Status : (Ante, complaint No.472).
Complaint No. 487.--Federal Trade Commission v. Philip Carey Manufacturing Co.
Charge: (Ante, complaint No.472). Status : (Ante, complaint No. 472).
Complaint No. 488.-Federal Trade Commission v. H. F. Watson Co. Charge : (Ante,
complaint No.472).. Status : (Ante, complaint No.472).
Complaint No. 489.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Paraffine Co. (Inc.). Charge
: (Ante, complaint No.472). Status : (Ante, complaint No.472).
Complaint No. 490.--Federal Trade Commission v. Sylvester L. Weaver, trading as
the Weaver Roof Co. Charge : (Ante, complaint No.472). Status :(Ante, complaint
No.472).
Complaint No. 496.--Federal Trade Commission v. Universal Road Machinery Co.
Charge: (Ante, complaint No.404). Status : This proceeding is at issue upon the
complaint of the Commission and the answer of the respondent and is In preparation
for trial.
Complaint No. 497.--Federal Trade Commission v. New England Road Machinery
Co. Charge: (Ante, complaint No.404). Status : This proceeding is at issue upon the
complaint of the Commission and the answer of the respondent and is In preparation
for trial.
Complaint No. 499.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Bayer Co. (Inc.) Charge :
Using unfair methods of competition by publishing in newspapers advertisements
containing statements and implications to the effect that the word “aspirin” is only
properly used to designate the product of respondent; that respondent's said product
is the only genuine, unadulterated, and safe drug product manufactured and sold as
aspirin; that the products manufactured and sold by competitors as and for aspirin are
spurious and adulterated and composed of other materials, such as talcum powder and
the like, all of which statements and implications are false and misleading to the
purchasing public, 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.
Complaint No. 500.--Federal Trade Commission v. Pennsylvania Salt Manufacturing
Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of salt by entering into
certain understandings with dealers that they shall maintain specified standard resale
prices prescribed and determined by respondent, and refusing to sell to dealers who do
not maintain said specified standard resale prices, with the effect of stifling and
suppressing competition, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act. Status: (Ante, complaint No.25).
Complaint No. 503.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Upjohn Co. Charge : Using
unfair methods of competition in the sale of pharmaceutical supplies by

EXHIBITS.

117

entering into agreements with dealers to maintain prices specified by respondent
refusing to sell to dealers who will not maintain such prices, and by maintaining in its
business a system of giving cumulative discounts, or discounts based upon
accumulations of purchases during a year, in alleged violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act. Status : (Ante, complaint No.25).
Complaint No. 504.--Federal Trade Commission v. F. Hecht, Louis Friedhelm, and
T. I. Glynn, partners styling themselves F. Hecht & Co. and T. I. Glynn Leather Co.
(Inc.). Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by selling to customers in foreign
countries leather which does not conform in value to the samples sent to said
customers, the leather sold by samples and billed as “calf” being of the inferior grade
known to the trade as “kips,” and leather sold by samples and billed as “cabretta”
being an inferior grade of sheepskin, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission act. Status: Awaiting argument.
Complaint No. 512.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Ronald Press Co. Charge :
Using unfair methods of competition by entering into agreements and understandings
with wholesalers, jobbers, and dealers throughout the United States for the sale to
them of periodicals of respondent upon the condition that such wholesalers, jobbers,
and dealers resell at prices fixed by respondent, refusing to sell to those who do not
observe the prices fixed, inducing others to refuse to sell respondent's publications to
dealers who do not maintain such prices, with the effect of injuring competitors who
do not practice the aforesaid policy, eliminating competition in prices between dealers
in periodicals and enhancing the prices of said periodicals, in alleged violation of
section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status : (Ante, complaint No.25).
Complaint No. 515.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Helier & Merz Co. Charge
: (Ante, complaint No.506). Status : This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of
the Commission and the answer of the respondent and is now ready for trial.
Complaint No. 516.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Mountain City Mill Co., a
Corporation, styling itself the Chattanooga Bakery. Charge : Using un fair methods of
competition by adopting the scheme of offering to pay to traveling salesmen employed
by the wholesale grocers through whom respondent markets its products, certain prices
or bonuses, with the effect of inducing the salesmen employed by the said wholesale
grocers through whom respondent markets its products to flood the market with
respondent’s goods and to exclude from such channels of distribution the bakery
products of respondent’s competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission act. Status: This proceeding is awaiting the decision of the United
States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit in the Kinney-Rome case now pending
on a competition for review of the order of the Commission filed in that case against
the Kinney-Rome Co.
Complaint No. 517.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Franklin Import & Export
Co. (Inc.). Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by giving and offering to give
to employees of both its customers and prospective customers, and its competitors’
customers and prospective customers, sums of money as an inducement to influence
their employers to purchase or contract to purchase from the respondent, or to
influence such employers to refrain from dealing or contracting to deal with
competitors of respondent, 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 in preparation for trial.

118

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Complaint No. 519.--Federal Trade Commission v. Colgate & Co. Charge : Using
unfair methods of competition by pursuing the policy of fixing and maintaining resale
prices at which each of its products shall be sold by its customers, circulating among
its customers a list of such resale prices, urging customers to adhere to such resale
prices, refusing to sell to those who fail to observe such resale prices, and guaranteeing
its customers against the decline in price of goods purchased and not resold by such
customers at the time of any subsequent decline in the respondent's list price therefor,
and paying rebates equal in amount to the difference between the price paid to
respondent for such products. actually on hand and unsold and the reduced price
therefor subsequently put into effect by respondent, in alleged violation of section 5
of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status : (Ante, complaint No.25).
Complaint No. 520.--Federal Trade Commission v. Procter & Gamble Distributing
Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of soap. (Ante, complaint
No.424.) Status: This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the Commission
and the answer of the respondent and is in preparation for trial.
Complaint No. 522.--Federal Trade Commission v. Rub-No-More Co. Charge:
Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of soaps. (Ante, complaint No. 424.)
Status : This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the Commission and the
answer of the respondent and is in preparation for trial.
Complaint No. 524.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Sheets Elevator Co. Charge
: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of poultry feed and similar products
by adopting a policy of resale price maintenance, inducing and coercing dealers to
observe such resale prices, and refusing to sell to those dealers who fall to observe
such resale prices, and urging others not to sell respondent’s products to dealers who
fail to observe such resale prices, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act. Status: (Ante, complaint No.25).
Complaint No. 525.--Federal Trade Commission v. New York Color & Chemical
Co. Charge: (Ante, complaint No.506). Status : This proceeding is at issue upon the
complaint of the Commission and the answer of the respondent and is now ready for
trial.
Complaint No. 526.--Federal Trade Commission v. Louis Rosenthal, doing business
under the name and style of the United Chemical & Color Co. Charge : (Ante,
complaint NO.506). Status: This proceeding Is at issue upon the complaint of the
Commission and the answer of the respondent and is now ready for trial.
Complaint No. 528.--Federal Trade Commission v. Arkansas Distributing Co.
Charge : (Ante, complaint No.506). Status : This proceeding is at issue upon the
complaint of the Commission and the answer of the respondent and is now ready for
trial.
Complaint No. 529.--Federal Trade Commission v. Max B. Kaesche, doing business
under the name and style of F. Bredt & Co. Charge : (Ante, complaint No.517). Status
: This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the Commission and the answer of
the respondent and is now ready for trial.
Complaint No. 531.--Federal Trade Commission v. Armour & Co. Charge:
Organizing apparently Independent companies for the purpose of taking over the
business and property of the Lookout Refining Co. and the Chattanooga Oxygen Gas
Co. and the Harris Tannery Co.; competitors of respondent, the capital stock of the
independent companies being held by officers and employees or agents of respondents
with the purpose or effect of restraining and eliminating competition and tending to
create a monopoly in alleged violation

EXHIBITS.

119

of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act and section 7 of the Clayton Act.
Status: This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the Commission and the
answer of the respondent and is now ready for trial.
Complaint No. 532.--Federal Trade Commission v. L. Richardson, H. Smith
Richardson, and L. Richardson, Jr., copartners, doing business under the name and
style of The Vick Chemical Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by
adopting the practice of fixing prices at which its product shall be resold, refusing to
sell and threatening to refuse to sell to dealers who failed to maintain such resale
prices, with the purpose and effect of eliminating competition in price among dealers
handling the product of respondent, depriving said dealers of the opportunity to resell
such products at prices which they may deem adequate, and unduly securing the trade
of dealers in such products and obtaining their aid and cooperating in enlarging the
sale thereof, to the prejudice of competitors who do not follow this practice, in alleged
violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status : (Ante, complaint
No.25).
Complaint No. 535.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Silvex Co. and Aircraft &
Motor Products Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by publishing in
periodicals, magazines, etc., advertisements containing misleading statements as to
Government approval of the spark plugs manufactured by respondents, and denying
similar claims of competitors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act. Status : This proceeding is now before the Commission for final
determination.
Complaint No. 540.--Federal Trade Commission v. Royal Baking Powder Co.
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by unfairly representing and charging
that its competitors' products contain alum, to wit, sodium aluminum sulphate (SaS)
and are harmful, unhealthful, deleterious, and dangerous to users and consumers of
such baking powders, 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 in preparation for trial.
Complaint No. 541.--Federal Trade Commission v. Story & Clark Piano Co. Charge
: Using unfair methods of competition by circulating and causing to be circulated
advertisements so worded as to deceive the purchasing public into the belief that its
pianos and player pianos are newly manufactured and unused musical instruments,
when in fact they are not; advertising unused pianos and player pianos of its own
manufacture upon which were stenciled resale prices which were calculated to deceive
the purchasing public into the belief that such stenciled prices were prices representing
the manufacturers' bona fide resale prices, when in fact such prices were not the
manufacturers' bona fide resale prices, but were abnormally and unreasonably high and
fictitious prices from which respondent could and did offer and make radical
reductions and abnormal discounts, which left the net resale price far below such
stenciled prices, but equal to reasonable and full resale values usually received by
respondent's competitors for pianos and player pianos of similar grade and quality, 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 now ready for trial.
Complaint No. 544.--Federal Trade Commission v. Valvoline Oil Co. Charge :
Using unfair methods of competition in the business of purchasing and selling refined
oil and gasoline and the leasing and loaning of oil pumps, storage tanks, or containers
and their equipments by selling, leasing, or loaning oil pumps, storage tanks, or
containers, etc., at prices which do not represent a reasonable

120

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

return on the investment, many such sales, leases, or loans being made at prices below
the cost of producing and vending the same, and many of the contracts for the lease or
loan of such devices, etc., providing, or being entered into, with the understanding that
the lessee or borrower shall not place in such devices or use in connection therewith
any refined oil or gasoline of a competitor in alleged violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act; and leasing and making contracts for the lease of its
devices, etc., on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessees thereof
shall not use or purchase or deal in the products of a competitor or competitors of
respondent in alleged violation of section 3 of the Clayton Act. Status : This
proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the Commission and the answer of the
respondent.
Complaint No. 545.--Federal Trade Commission v. Irving Abraham, doing business
under the name and style of Abraham Bros. Charge : (Ante, complaint No. 517). Status
: This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the Commission and the answer of
the respondent and is now ready for trial.
Complaint No. 549.--Federal Trade Commission v. Cement Securities Co. Charge
: Using unfair methods of competition by purchasing the whole of the stock and share
capital of the Oklahoma Portland Cement Co., a competitor; purchasing and acquiring
$392,300 of preferred stock of a total of $400,000, and $195,750 of the common stock
of a total of $199,750 of the United States Portland Cement Co.; and purchasing and
acquiring all of the preferred stock of the Nebraska Cement Co., in alleged violation
of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act and section 7 of the Clayton Act.
Status : This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the Commission and the
answer of the respondent.
Complaint No. 550.--Federal Trade Commission v. B. S. Pearsall Butter Co. Charge
: Using unfair methods of competition by adopting and maintaining a practice of
offering, giving, and allowing certain benefits and advantages to purchasers in the way
of free advertising, services of specialty salesmen, and payment of dealers’ license
fees, on the condition that such purchasers agree to purchase all or a large percentage
of their supplies of butterine and oleomargarine from the respondent, in alleged
violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act; and entering into contracts
with a large number of purchasers of its said products at prices, in quantities, and for
periods therein specified upon the condition, agreement, or understanding in the case
of each contract that the purchaser named therein shall purchase all or a large percentage of the oleomargarine and butterine needed by said purchaser of the respondent,
in alleged violation of section 3 of the Clayton Act. Status : This proceeding is before
the Commission for final determination.
Complaint No. 551.--Federal Trade Commission v. Armour & Co. Charge : (Ante,
complaint No.550). Status: This proceeding is at issue upon the com plaint of the
Commission and the answer of the respondent.
Complaint No. 552.--Federal Trade Commission v. Swift & Co. Charge : (Ante,
complaint No. 550). Status: This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the
Commission and the answer of the respondent.
Complaint No. 553.--Federal Trade Commission v. Downey-Farrell Co. Charge :
(Ante, complaint No.550) Status : This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of
the Commission and the answer of the respondent.
Complaint No. 554.--Federal Trade Commission v. Wm. J. Moxley (Inc.).. Charge
: (Ante, complaint No.550). Status : This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of
the Commission and the answer of the respondent.
Complaint No. 555.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Ed. S. Vail Butterine Co.

Charge : (Ante, complaint No.550). Status : This proceeding is at issue upon the
complaint of the Commission and the answer of the respondent.

EXHIBITS.

121

Complaint No. 556.--Federal Trade Commission v. The G. H. Hammond Co. Charge
: (Ante, complaint No.550). Status : This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint
of the Commission and the answer of the respondent.
Complaint No 557.--Federal Trade Commission v. Morris & Co. Charge : (Ante,
complaint No.550). Status : This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the
Commission and the answer of the respondent.
Com plaint No 558.--Federal Trade Commission v. Wilson & Co. Charge:(Ante,
complaint No.550). Status: This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the
Commission and the answer of the respondent.
Complaint No. 559.--Federal Trade Commission v. Troco Nut Butter Co. Charge :
(Ante, complaint No.550). Status : This proceeding is at Issue upon the complaint of
the Commission and the answer of the respondent.
Complaint No. 560.--Federal Trade Commission v. Friedman Manufacturing Co.
Charge : (Ante, complaint No.550). Status : This proceeding is at issue . upon the
complaint of the Commission and the answer of the respondent.
Complaint No. 568.--Federal Trade Commission v. Rueckheim Bros. & Eckstein.
Charge : (Ante, complaint No.562). Status : This proceeding is awaiting the decision
of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in the Kinney-Rome
case now pending on a petition for review of the order of the Commission filed in that
case against the Kinney-Rome Co.
Complaint No. 566.--Federal Trade Commission v. The F. J. O'Neill Medicine Co.
Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by simulating in the marketing of its
products, the trade-mark, advertising matter, form of contracts for special agency, the
containers, and the product itself of the A. H. Lewis Medicine Co., with the design of
deceiving and misleading the purchasing public and causing purchasers to believe that
respondent's product is one and the same as that manufactured and sold by A. H. Lewis
Medicine Co., and by printing on its advertising matter respondent’s trade name or
mark and the words “Registered U. S. Pat. Office,” when said trade name or mark has
not been registered in the United States Patent Office, 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.
Complaint No. 568.--Federal Trade Commission v. Darling & Co. Charge : Using
unfair methods of competition by causing through its agents, servants, and employees,
its competitor's trucks to be followed and their business spied upon for the purpose of
ascertaining and acquiring a list of the dealers from whom respondent’s competitors
obtain their raw material and offering and purchasing said raw material from said
dealers at and for prices greatly in excess of those paid by its competitors and at prices
unwarranted by trade conditions and so high as to be prohibitive to its competitors, in
alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status : This
proceeding is before the Commission for final determination.
Complaint No. 578.--Federal Trade Commission v. Owens-Bottle~Machine Co. and
L. S. Stoehr. Charge: That respondents have violated section 3 of the Clayton Act by

entering into licensing agreements for the use of its glass-blowing machines with the
principal manufacturers in the United States of glass bottles, jars, and other glass
products, upon the express condition, agreement, and understanding in each licensing
agreement that the licensee named therein shall not use respondent's machine in
connection with the machines or devices of competitors, with the effect of excluding
and debarring competitors of respondent from securing sales of their machines or
devices in commerce and lessening competition therein; that respondent has violated
section 7 of the Clayton Act by acquiring 4,836 shares of the capital stock of the
Whitney Glass Works, a competitor, the whole of the capital stock of the American
Bottle Co.,

122

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

a competitor, and the whole of the capital stock of the Graham Glass Co., with the
effect of eliminating competition in sections and communities theretofore served by
said companies; and that respondents have violated section 8 of said Clayton Act by
having L. S. Stoehr a director of both the American Bottle Co. and the Graham Glass
Co., since respondent acquired the capital stock of said companies. Status : This
proceeding is now before the Commission for final determination.
Complaint No. 576.--Federal Trade Commission v. P. A. Starck Piano Co. Charge
: Using unfair methods of competition in falsely advertising reduced prices, special
sales, and economical shipping methods, and falsely advertising that the fictitious
prices stenciled on its pianos are the manufacturers' bona fide resale prices when such
is not the fact, but are abnormally and unreasonably high fictitious values so that
radical reductions may be made therefrom, in alleged violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act. Status: This proceeding is now before the Commission
for final determination.
Complaint No. 578.--Federal Trade Commission v. Swift & Co., Libby, McNeill &
Libby (of Illinois), and Libby, McNeill & Libby (Ltd.) (of Honolulu). Charge : That
the respondent, Libby, McNeill & Libby, a subsidiary of the respondent, Thomas
Pineapple Co., acquired all of the share capital of the Thomas Pineapple Co., the share
capital, property, and business of Honolulu Pineapple Co., Kahaluu Pineapple &
Range Co. (Ltd.), and Koolau Fruit Co. (Ltd.), with the effect of substantially
lessening competition in the sale of pineapples in the Territory of Hawaii and creating
a condition which tended to create for respondents a monopoly in the growing and sale
of pineapples, in alleged violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act and 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 now ready for trial.
Complaint No. 579.-- Federal Trade Commission v. The Atlanta Wholesale Grocery,
City Salesmen’s Association, J. J. Barnes-Fain Co., Kelley Bros. Co., McCord Stewart
Co., Marett-Streeter Co., Oglesby Grocery Co., H. L. Singer Co., Walker Bros. Co.,
A. McD. Wilson Co., Conley & Ennis, Johnson-Fluker & Co., McDaniel & Co.,
Paradies & Rich, R. W. Davis & Co., Charles I. Brennan, J. N. Hirsch, O. T. Camp,
and R. O. Estes. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by conspiring and
confederating together to prevent the Unity Grocery Co. and the Merchants’ Wholesale
Grocery Co. from obtaining commodities dealt in by them from manufacturers and
other usual sources from which a wholesale dealer in groceries must obtain supplies,
and inducing manufacturers of grocery products and brokers representing such
manufacturers, by boycott and threats of boycott and other unlawful means, to refuse
to sell their products to the above-named grocery companies, and informing such
manufacturers and brokers that they would refuse to buy from them if they sold to the
above-named grocery companies, 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.
Complaint No. 580.--Federal Trade Commission v. D. Fairfax Bush, William Dette,
George A. Crocker, Jr., and Leah R. Crocker, copartners doing business under the firm
name and style of Crocker Bros.; W. A.. Rogers, D. B. Meacham, A. D. Fowler, J. K.
Pollock, W. T. Shepard, and W. S. Rogers, copartners doing business under the firm
name and style of Rogers, Brown & Co.; Frank Samuel, S. M. Tomlinson, and S. A.

Cochran, copartners doing business under the firm name and style of Frank Samuel;
W. F. B. Leavitt and Charles D. Robb, copartners doing business under the firm name
and style of C. W. Leavitt & Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by
selling ferromenganese imported from respondents’ British principals at prices
substantially less than the

EXHIBITS.

123

actual market value at the time of exportation from England plus freight and expenses
incident to importation and sale in the United States, with the intent of stifling the
industry which had developed in the United States by persons other than respondent
during the late war owing to the British embargo on the exportation thereof, 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 in the course of trial.
Complaint No. 581.--Federal Trade Commission v. L. B. Silver Co. Charge: Using
unfair methods of competition by false and misleading circulars, advertisements, etc.,
setting forth that it is a breeder of hogs, whereas it is not a breeder, but buys its hogs
from farmers; representing that the Ohio Improved Chester breed of hogs are superior
to the Chester White breed and offering to sell the latter at 25 per cent less, but when
requested to deliver the Chester Whites fails to do so upon one pretext or another; false
statements that the Ohio Improved Chester hogs are not susceptible to cholera and
other diseases, that it has bred these hogs for 53 years, and other false and misleading
statements, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Status: This proceeding is before the Commission for final determination.
Complaint No. 583.--Federal Trade Commission v. G. Slocum, doing business under
the name and style of Ginso Chemical Co. and Ginso Chemical Co., a Missouri
corporation. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by marketing germicide,
one of its products, under the name of "B-D Bacili Destroy," thus simulating the trademark "B-K Bacili-Kil," a germicide manufactured by the General Laboratories, which
has built up a valuable good will for its products; simulating the copyrighted circular
and labels of the said General Laboratories, with the effect of misleading and
deceiving the purchasing public into believing that the product of respondents is the
product of said General Laboratories; false and misleading advertising that
respondent’s product is a powerful and useful disinfectant and germicide, although in
fact it has little or no antiseptic or germicidal value, in alleged violation of section 5
of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: This proceeding is before the
Commission for final determination.
Complaint No. 584.--Federal Trade Commission v. John Bene & Sons (Inc.).
Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by circulating false and misleading
statements regarding an analysis made by it of samples of one of its competitor’s
goods to the effect that such products were harmful, dangerous, and of no benefit, 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 now ready for trial.
Complaint No. 585.--Federal Trade Commission v. Larabee Flour Mills Corporation.
Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by offering to give and giving to any
grocer, dealer, or merchant who purchased 25 barrels of respondent’s flour known as
Larabee’s Best Flour a 10-year guaranteed gold-filled watch; and offering to give and
giving for each 25 barrels of flour thereafter ordered or sold to such grocer, dealer, or
merchant a similar watch to any one of his clerks or the cashier, to be designated by
him, until everyone in the store of such grocer, dealer, or merchant had received one
of such watches, which practice operates to the detriment and disadvantage of
competitors selling and dealing in flour and not engaged in such practice, in alleged

violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: This proceeding
is awaiting the decision of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit,
in the Kinney-Rome case now pending on a petition for review of the order of the
Commission filed in that case against the Kinney-Rome Company.

124

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Complaint No. 586.--Federal Trade Commission v. Southern Macaroni
Manufacturing. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by offering and giving
to jobbers and salesmen of jobbers handling respondent’s products bonuses and cash
prizes based on the increase in the sales of one or more of respondent’s products, and
graduated according to the percentage of such increase; and conducting, in pursuance
of said offers of bonuses and cash prizes, correspondence encouraging and setting
forth the advantages of those who made special efforts to sell respondent’s goods by
reason of said offers, with the effect of tending to cause and create extra and abnormal
financial interest to said jobbers and said salesmen of jobbers in the sale of
respondent’s products and thereby tending to induce said jobbers and said salesmen
of jobbers to give special attention and efforts to selling respondent’s products, in
alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: This
proceeding is awaiting the decision of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit, in the Kinney-Rome case now pending on a petition for review of the
order of the Commission filed in that case against the Kinney-Rome Co.
Complaint No. 587.--Federal Trade Commission v. Tide-Water Oil Co., Tide Water
Oil Sales Corporation, and Tide Water Oil Co. of Massachusetts. Charge: (Ante,
complaint No. 305). Status: This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the
Commission and the answer of the respondent.
Complaint No. 588.--Federal Trade Commission v. Esco Hosiery Co. (Inc.). Charge:
Using unfair methods of competition by labeling, advertising, stamping, and branding
on packages containing hosiery bought and sold by it representations that the hose
contained in said packages are silk, when in truth and in fact the material in said hose
is not all silk, but only a portion of such material in such hose is silk, the remaining
portion being composed of material of inferior quality and of less value than silk, with
the effect of misleading and deceiving the trade and general public, in alleged violation
of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: This proceeding is awaiting
the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Winsted Hosiery case,
now pending on a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit, which court reversed the decision of the Commission to cease and
desist the practices in question.
Complaint No. 589.--Federal Trade Commission v. Ex-Zact Food Products Co.
Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by offering to give a bonus or cash
commission of 10 per cent on all sales of products manufactured by respondent and
other premiums to salesmen, wholesalers, and jobbers handling the products of the
respondent and those of its competitors, with the effect of creating a direct and
personal interest in the sale of respondent’s products and inducement to push
respondent’s products in preference to products of 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 the answer of the respondent and is now
ready for trial.
Complaint No. 591.--The Federal Trade Commission v. One-piece Bifocal Lens Co.,
a corporation. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by adopting an elaborate
system of licensing and price fixing by which respondent’s product is manufactured
in part by certain licensee manufacturers to a specified degree of utility, and thereupon
sold by such manufacturing licensee to other finishing or retailing licensees who

complete the product and sell and distribute the same, the price or prices thereof being
at all stages in the progress of the article prescribed and rigidly maintained by the
express terms and conditions of its licensing agreements and by the refusal of
respondent to sell to those who do not maintain such resale prices, in alleged violation
of section 5 of the Federal

EXHIBITS.

125

Trade Commission act; and by agreements with certain of its so-called licensees, upon
the agreement or understanding that such licensees shall not use or deal in the product
of a competitor or competitors of respondent, with the effect of substantially lessening
competition or tending to create a monopoly, in alleged violation of section 3 of the
Clayton Act. Status: (Ante, complaint No. 25).
Complaint No. 594.--Federal Trade Commission v. Butterick Co., Federal Publishing
Co., Standard Fashion Co., Butterick Publishing Co., New Idea Pattern Co., and
Designer Publishing Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by entering
into contracts with approximately 20,000 retail dry goods dealers whereby its paper
dress patterns are to be resold at certain prices fixed and established by respondents,
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 entering into contracts
whereby its dealers are prohibited from dealing in patterns manufactured by
competitors of respondents, and enforcing such contracts by refusal to sell to such
dealers who do not maintain such agreements and by threats of suits and institution of
suits for damages, in alleged violation of section 3 of the Clayton Act. Status: This
proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the Commission and the answer of the
respondent.
Complaint No. 595.--Federal Trade Commission v. Dove Oil Co. Using unfair
methods of competition in the sale of stock and securities by circulation of false
statements as to the location and proven production of its property, with the effect of
deceiving the purchasing public as to the true value of the stock of respondent, in
alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status: This
proceeding is before the Commission for final determination.
Complaint No. 599.--Federal Trade Commission v. International Fur Exchange
(Inc.), Funsten Bros. & Co., F. C. Taylor Fur Co., and Mallory, Mitchell & Faust.
Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by refusing to advertise in newspapers
except upon condition that the advertising matter from competitors setting forth the
prices said competitors are willing to pay for furs purchased from trappers and hunters,
be declined; and that by reason of the position of respondents in the fur purchasing
business, newspapers have been so coerced, with the effect of depriving the owners
of furs of the means of knowing the prices competitors of said respondents are willing
to pay therefor, 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 in course of trial.
Complaint No. 601.--Federal Trade Commission v. Sealwood Co. Charge: Using
unfair methods of competition by giving and offering to give to employees, who in the
regular course of their employment use shellac, or who direct its use by others, or who
are required to purchase shellac or recommend the purchase of shellac to their
respective employers, gratuities, such as money, liquor, cigars, meals, and other
personal property, as inducements to said employees to influence their respective
employers to purchase from respondent its said substitute for shellac (sealwood) and
the reducer used in connection therewith, with the effect of excluding the products of
its competitors unfairly, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act. Status: This proceeding is before the Commission for final
determination.

Complaint No. 602.--Federal Trade Commission v. Check Writer Manufacturers
(Inc.), and William Hutter. Charge: Using unfair methods of com-

126

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

petition by falsely and fraudulently representing themselves to be distributors and sales
agents for the Todd Protectograph Co., of Rochester, N. Y., which corporation was and
is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling in interstate commerce various
types of check-protecting machines; selling secondhand and rebuilt check-protecting
machines, representing them to be new machines; mutilating trade-marks and patient
notices on check-protecting machines and substituting therefor fictitious numbers;
falsely and fraudulently advertising in newspapers, circulars, letters, and other forms
of advertising; that they carried in stock new machines manufactured by the salol Todd
Protectograph Co.; advertising and offering to sell new machines manufactured by the
said Todd Protectograph Co., and when they have received orders for such machines
have filled them in many instances with secondhand machines, in alleged violation of
section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status : This proceeding is before the
Commission for final determination.
Complaint No. 603.--Federal Trade Commission v. Southern Hardware Jobbers’
Association, Beck & Gregg Hardware Co., Dinkins-Davidson Hardware Co.,
Crumley-Sharp Hardware Co., King Hardware Co., George E. King and. J o h n
Donnan. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by conspiring and
confederating together to prevent the Merchants’ Cooperative Association and
American Purchasing Co. from purchasing supplies for certain retail hard ware dealers
in the States of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, either directly from the manufacturers
or through the W. A. Ray Hardware Co., by boycott or threats of boycott of the
products of any manufacturer who might sell is products to such purchasing agencies.
Status: This proceeding is now before the Commission for final determination.
Complaint No. 604.--Federal Trade Commission v. David Kahn and Benjamin
Shatkum, doing business under the firm name and style of Shatkum & Kahn. Charge
: Using unfair methods of competition by manufacturing and selling fountain pens in
which are inserted gold-plated pen points upon which are stamped “ 14k. gold plate,”
the words of this stamp being so arranged that the word " plate “ occurs near the heel
of the pen point and is obscured by the barrel or holder of the pen into which it is
inserted, while the words “14k. gold” remain visible; and manufacturing and selling
fountain pens in which are inserted gold-plated pen points upon which are stamped
“ Tribunal 14 Special,” the words of this stamp being so arranged that the figure “ 14
occurs in a prominent place in the center of the pen point with the word “Special”
below it and the word “Tribunal,” above it, the effect of which is to lead the public
into the belief that the pen points are 14 karat gold, 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.
Complaint No. 606.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Mennen Co. Charge: That
the respondent in the sale of talcum powder, tooth paste, shaving soap and other toilet
articles has adopted a plan of grouping its actual and prospective customers according
to an arbitrary classification, and allowing customers in one of such classifications
discounts on quantity purchases and refusing discounts of any kind to customers in the
other classifications, which practice has a tendency to lessen competition and to create
a monopoly, in alleged violation of section 2 of the Clayton Act and 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 in course of trial.

Complaint No. 607.--Federal Trade Commission v. Iowa-Nebraska-Minnesota
Wholesale Grocers’ Association, its officers and members. Charge: Using

EXHIBITS.

127

unfair methods of competition by adopting a plan of boycott and withdrawal of
patronage from manufacturers and jobbers as a means of coercing such manufacturers
and jobbers to refrain from selling to nonmember competitors of the respondent, with
the effect that nonmember competitors have been and are being hampered and
obstructed in obtaining necessary supplies of the commodities dealt in by them, and
have in many instances been entirely deprived of such supplies, and have in other
instances been compelled to pay therefor prices far in excess of those required to be
paid by their competitors, who are members of respondent association, 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 now ready for trial.
Complaint No. 608.--Federal Trade Commission v. Amico Oil Co. of Kansas. Charge
: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of stocks and securities by false and
misleading statements as to the location, productivity, value, and earning power of
respondent’s leased oil properties, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission act. Status : This proceeding is now before the Commission for
final determination.
Complaint No. 609.--Federal Trade Commission v. Philadelphia Wholesale Drug
Co., Frank R. Rohrman, Russell T. Blackwood, A. T. Pollard, Harry Z. Krupp, H. C.
Clapham, G. U. Fohr, A. R. Hossko, J. N. G. Long, O. W. Osterlund, H. J. Soigfriod,
F. P. Strooper. Charge : Using unfair methods of com-petition by conspiring,
confederating, and agreeing together to discriminate against and restrict the purchase
of the products of the Mennen Co. by themselves and the resale by them to customers
of their retail stores, by means of a publication called the Druco News, a monthly
edition, in which certain statements were made suggesting a boycott on the Mennen
Co. products on the ground that the Mennen Co. had refused to allow the respondent
the same discount on quantity purchases as were allowed to other purchasers of like
quantities, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Status: This proceeding is now before the Commission for final determination.
Complaint No. 616.--Federal Trade Commission v. Quaker Oil Products
Corporation. Charge: (Ante, complaint No.506). Status : This proceeding is at issue
upon the complaint of the Commission and the answer of the respondent and is in
course of trial.
Complaint No. 617.--Federal Trade Commission v. Southern Manufacturing Co.
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by giving to salesmen of grocery
jobbers profit-sharing coupons as a means of inducing such salesmen to favor
respondent’s product over that of competing producers, the number of such coupons
given away depending on the amount of sales made by such salesmen, in alleged
violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status : This proceeding
is awaiting the decision of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit,
in the Kinney-Rome case now pending on a petition for review of the order of the
Commission filed in that case against the Kinney-Rome Co.
Complaint No. 618.--Federal Trade Commission v. Eastern Road Machinery Co.
Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by paying money to employees of
customers and public officials, purchasing liquor, cigars, theater tickets, etc., for
employees and public officials, and paying hotel and railway expenses of public

officials for the purpose of inspecting respondent’s machinery, and as an inducement
to influence such public officials and employees to favor, recommend, purchase, or
contract to purchase road-making machinery from the respondent, in alleged violation
of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commis-

128

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

sion act. Status : This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the Commission
and the answer of the respondent, and the answer of the respondent, and is now ready
for trial.
Complaint No. 619.--Federal Trade Commission v. Fawn Creek Oil & Gas Co.
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by false and misleading advertising in
connection with the sale of stock In regard to its holdings in proven oil fields, the
disposition of money received from the sale of its stock, and references to issuance of
promotion stock and stock bonuses, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission act. Status : This proceeding is before the Commission for final
determination.
Complaint No. 662.--Federal Trade Commission v. Deep Wells Oil Co., George B.
Mechem & Co., and George B. Mechem. Charge : Using unfair methods of
competition in the sale of the capital stock of the respondent oil companies issued in
exchange for oil and gas leases which were in part nonexistent and for an agreement
to drill certain test wells, which agreement was not carried out by the respondent,
Mechem, principal stockholder, which stock was sold by respondent, George B.
Mechem & Co., by means of false and misleading statements concerning its business
and property, 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.
Complaint No. 663.--Federal Trade Commission v. Marx Finstone. Charge Using
unfair methods of competition in the manufacture and sale of fountain pens by
marketing fountain pens in boxes or containers labeled with fictitious resale prices
many times greater than the fair market value of the pens, thereby enabling dealers to
defraud the purchasing public or mislead it into the belief that a high-grade pen is
being sold at a reduced price, 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.
Complaint No. 664.--Federal Trade Commission v. Benjamin Shatkum & David
Kahn, partners, styling themselves Shatkun & Kahn. Charge : Using unfair methods
of competition in the manufacture and sale of fountain pens by marketing fountain
pens in boxes or containers labeled with fictitious resale prices many times greater
than the fair market value of the pens, thereby enabling dealers to defraud the
purchasing public or mislead it into the belief that a high-grade pen is being sold at a
reduced price, 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.
Complaint No. 665.--Federal Trade Commission v. Abraham Shatkum, doing
business under the trade name and style of United States Novelty Co. Charge: Using
unfair methods of competition in the manufacture and sale of fountain pens by
marketing fountain pens in boxes or containers labeled with fictitious resale prices
many times greater than the fair market value of the pens, thereby enabling dealers to
defraud the purchasing public or mislead it into the belief that a high-grade pen is
being sold at a reduced price, 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.

Complaint No. 666.--Federal Trade Commission v. Charles J. McNally, doing
business under the trade name and style of Macfountain Pen & Novelty Co. Charge :
Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of fountain pens by marketing fountain
pens in boxes or containers labeled with fictitious resale prices many times greater
than the fair market value of the pens, thereby enabling dealers to defraud the
purchasing public or mislead it into the belief that a high-grade pen is being sold at a
reduced price, in alleged violation of section

EXHIBITS.

129

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.
Complaint No. 667.--Federal Trade Commission v. N. Shure Co. Charge : Using
unfair methods of competition in the sale of fountain pens by marketing fountain pens
in boxes or containers labeled with fictitious resale prices many times greater than the
fair market value of the pens, thereby enabling dealers to defraud the purchasing public
or mislead it into the belief that a high-grade pen is being sold at a reduced price, 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.
Complaint No. 668.--Federal Trade Commission v. Meyer Levin, Morris L. Levin,
Isaac P. Levin, and Max Levin, partners, styling themselves Levin Brothers. Charge
: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of fountain pens by offering and
selling fountain pens in boxes or containers labeled with fictitious resale prices many
times greater than the fair market value of the pens and equipping certain of these
fountain pens with pen points which are stamped “14 k. gold plated,” by having said
pen points so inserted that the words “ gold plated” are hidden, thereby misleading
the purchasing public 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.
Complaint No. 670.--Federal Trade Commission v. James Kelley. Charge : Using
unfair methods of competition in the sale of fountain pens and boxes therefor by
marketing fountain pens in boxes or containers labeled with fictitious prices many
times greater than the fair market value of the pens, thereby enabling dealers to
defraud the purchasing public or mislead it into the belief that a high-grade pen is
being sold at a reduced price, 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.
Complaint No. 671.--Federal Trade Commission v. Everett Jones, trading under the
name and style of the Standard Pen Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition
by offering and selling fountain pens fitted with pen points stamped "14k. gold plated"
with said points so inserted as to make invisible the word “plated,” and also sells
circulars to accompany the pens when resold, which circulars purport to describe the
pens and includes false and misleading statements as to price and guaranty, 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.
Complaint No. 672.--Federal Trade Commission v. Karl Guggenheim (Inc.). Charge
: Using unfair methods of competition by offering and selling fountain pens in boxes
stamped with fictitious resale prices many times greater than the fair market value of
the pens and marking certain of its pen points “14k. gold,” when, in fact, no part of
said pen is gold, thereby misleading and defrauding the purchasing public, 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.
Complaint No. 673.-Federal Trade Commission v. Ed. Hahn, a copartnership, doing
business under the name of Ed. Hahn. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition
in the sale of fountain pens and boxes therefor by marketing fountain pens in boxes or
containers labeled with fictitious prices many times greater than the fair market value

of the pens, thereby enabling dealers to defraud the purchasing public or mislead it into
the belief that a high-grade pen is being sold at a reduced price, in alleged violation of
section 5

130

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status : This proceeding is at issue upon the
complaint of the Commission and the answer of the respondent.
Complaint No. 674.--Federal Trade Commission v. Davidson, Leay, Adanis Co.
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the purchase and sale of eggs,
poultry, butter, and other produce by adopting the practice, at Clarkson, Ky., of paying
prices higher than prevailing market prices, with the intent of stilling and suppressing
competition and establishing a monopoly in the purchase of produce at that point, 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.
Complaint No. 676.--Federal Trade Commission v. Harry Friedman, trading under
the name and style of Rex Hosiery Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition
in the wholesale sale of hosiery by labeling hosiery with the words “American silk,”
when such hosiery in fact contains no genuine silk, 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.
Complaint No. 677.--Federal Trade Commission v. W. A. Shoffner and L. l. Young,
partners, styling themselves the Alamance Hosiery Mills. Charge : Using unfair
methods of competition in the manufacture and sale of hosiery labeled as ”American
silk,” when such hosiery contains no genuine silk, with the effect of misleading and
deceiving the purchasing public, 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.
Complaint No. 678.--Federal Trade Commission v. Brown Durrell Co. Charge :
Using unfair methods of competition in the wholesale distribution of hosiery and
underwear by falsely labeling it “Worsted,” “Fine wool” “Merino,” “All wool,” “
Natural wool,” or “ Cashmere,” when such hosiery and under-wear is made of mixed
cotton and wool, with the effect of deceiving the purchasing public, 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.
Complaint No. 679.--Federal Trade Commission v. Nolde & Horst Co. Charge :
Using unfair methods of competition in the manufacture and sale of hosiery by
labeling hosiery made of mixed cotton and wool in approximately equal parts as “
Worsted,” “ Fine wool,” “Merino,” “All wool,” “ Natural wool,” or “Cashmere,”
with the effect of misleading and deceiving the purchasing public 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.
Complaint No. 680.--Federal Trade Commission v. Hancock Knitting Mills. Charge
: Using unfair methods of competition in the manufacture and sale of hosiery by
labeling hosiery made wholly of cotton or of cotton and wool in approximately equal
parts, as “ Silk lisle,” Best silk lisle,” or “Oriental sylk,” or " Men’s cashmere half
hose," with the effect of misleading and deceiving the purchasing public, 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.
Complaint No. 681.--Federal Trade Commission v. Fidelity Knitting Mills. Charge
: Using unfair methods of competition in the manufacture and sale of hosiery by
labeling hosiery made wholly of cotton or of cotton and wool in approximately equal

parts, as “Silk lisle” or “Cashmere,” with the effect of misleading and deceiving the
purchasing public, in alleged violation of section

EXHIBITS.

131

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.
Complaint No. 682.--Federal Trade Commission v. Joseph Kahn, Jacob Frank, and
Jerome Frank, partners, styling themselves Kahn & Frank Charge : Using unfair
methods of competition in the wholesale distribution of hosiery by labeling hosiery
containing no genuine silk, as “Ladies’ silk boot hose,” “ Ladies’ art silk hose,” etc.,
with the effect of misleading and deceiving the purchasing public, 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.
Complaint No. 683.--Federal Trade Commission v. J. Reed Thompson, Andrew N.
Thompson, George L. Thompson, and A. Walter Thompson, partners, styling
themselves Thompson Brothers. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the
manufacture and sale of hosiery by labeling hosiery containing no genuine silk as “
Ladies’ silk boot hose,” “Ladies’ art silk hose,” etc., with the effect of misleading
and deceiving the purchasing public, 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.
Complaint No. 684.--Federal Trade Commission v. Charles Daum, Thomas J.
Rogers, and Harry Spritzer, partners, styling themselves the Daum, Rogers, Spritzer
Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the wholesale distribution of
hosiery made of Cotton and silk, cotton, and wool, or silk fiber, and wool, as “Men’s
silk half hose,” “Cashmere hose,” or “Silk and wool,” with the effect of misleading
and deceiving the purchasing public, 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.
Complaint No. 685.-Federal Trade Commission v. Aristo Hosiery Co. Charge: Using
unfair methods of competition in the manufacture and sale of hosiery by labeling
hosiery made of mixed cotton and wool as “ Worsted ribbed hose,” “Worsted
fashioned hose,” “ Wool fashioned hose," “ Women’s black cashmere hose,” “ Black
cashmere,” “ Fashioned cashmere hose,” “ Women’s black wool hose, fashioned,”
“Ladies’ high grade cashmere," with the effect of misleading and deceiving the
purchasing public, 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.
Complaint No. 686.-Federal Trade Commission v. Rockford Mitten & Hosiery Co.
Charge: Using unfair methods of competition In the manufacture and sale of hosiery
made of mixed cotton and wool by labeling it "Worsted ribbed hose,” “Worsted
fashioned hose,” “ Wool fashioned hose,” “ Women’s black cashmere hose,” “Black
cashmere,” “Fashioned cashmere hose,” “Women’s black wool hose, fashioned,” “
Ladies’ high grade cashmere,” with the effect of misleading and deceiving the
purchasing public, 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,
Complaint No. 687.--Federal Trade Commission v. John T. Moore, Clarence G.
Fisher, Edward J. Murphy, and W. K. Mathews, partners, styling themselves Moore
& Fisher. Charge: Using unfair methods of completion in the wholesale distribution
of hosiery made of mixed cotton and silk by labeling it as “World’s best pure thread

silk” or “Silk plated” and by placing on hosiery containing no genuine silk the label
“Silk isle” and by labeling hosiery made of mixed cotton and wool as “Cashmere,”
with the effect of misleading and

132

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

deceiving the purchasing public, 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.
Complaint No. 688.--Federal Trade Commission v. Reber Manufacturing Co.
Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the manufacture and sale of hosiery
made of mixed cotton and silk by labeling it “World’s best pure thread silk” or “Silk
plated,” and by labeling hosiery containing no genuine silk as “Silk lisle,” and by
labeling hosiery made of mixed cotton and wool as “Cashmere,” with the effect of
misleading and deceiving the purchasing public 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.
Complaint No. 689.--Federal Trade Commission v. Everett F. Boyden, trading under
the name and style of George E. Boyden & Son. Charge : Using unfair methods of
competition by selling hosiery made of cotton and wool in approximately equal parts
as, “Cashmere,” with the effect of misleading and deceiving the purchasing public,
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.
Com plaint No 693.--Federal Trade Commission v. Carbo Oil Co. (Ohio). Charge :
Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of oil hy attempting to Imitate the
products of the Vacuum Oil Co., known to the trade as “Mobil-Oil,” by designating
its product as “Mobile A Oil,” and falsely representing it as the product of the
Vacuum Oil Co. bought by the respondent from the United States Government and by
holding itself out as “Distributors of the U. S. A. oils,” when in fact it sells no
product which has been the property of the Federal Government, and by stenciling on
its containers the letters “U. S. A.,” with the effect of misleading and deceiving the
purchasing public, 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.
Complaint No. 694.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Chamber of Commerce of
Minneapolis; the Officers, Board of Directors, and Members of The Chamber of
Commerce of Minneapolis; Manager Publishing Co.; John H. Adams; and John F.
Fleming. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by engaging in a confederation
and conspiracy to annoy and embarrass and destroy the business of the Equity
Cooperative Exchange, a competitor of the respondent chamber of commerce and its
members, in the selling, buying, and distribution of grain, by (a) the publication of
false and misleading statements concerning the said cooperative exchange, particularly
in the publications of the respondent publishing company, (b) the instigation and
preparation for trial of certain litigation, (c) refusal to make available to said
cooperative exchange and its members the telegraphic market quotation service
supplied by the respondents, (d) the boycott of and persistent refusal to buy grain from
the said cooperative exchange, (e) the suppression of competition among members of
the respondent chamber of commerce and discrimination against nonmembers, and (f)
by the means of contracts binding country shippers to ship all or a greater part of their
grain to the respondent chamber of commerce members, 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 now in course

of trial.
Complaint No 695.-Federal Trade Commission v. Associated Oil Co. (Inc.), AdeyJohnston Co. (Inc.), E. A. Adey, jr., S.B. Coleman, and B. V. Johnston.

EXHIBITS.

133

Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of the corporate stock of the
respondent, Associated Oil Co., by the use of false and misleading statements
concerning the business and property of such oil company, with the effect of
misleading and deceiving the purchasing public, 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 now in course of trial.
Complaint No. 696.--Federal Trade Commission V. Alfred Klesner, doing business
under the trade name and style of Shade Shop, Hooper & Klesner. Charge : Using
unfair methods of competition by appropriating and simulating the trade name and
style of “The shade shop” adopted by one Sammons for the conduct of his business
in the city of Washington and by false and misleading statements made for the
purpose of deceiving the purchasing public to the erroneous belief that the shop owned
and operated by the respondents is identical with the Sammons shop, 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 now in course of trial.
Complaint No. 697.--Federal Trade Commission v. New York Hosiery Works.
Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the wholesale distribution of hosiery,
by placing on hosiery made of cotton and silk the labels “Ladies’ silk hose,” “Men’s
silk half hose,” “Silk hose,” “Silk half hose,” or “Pure silk,” with the effect of
misleading and deceiving the purchasing public, 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.
Complaint No 698.--Federal Trade Commission v. Pilling and Madeley. Charge :
Using unfair methods of competition in the wholesale distribution of hosiery by
labeling hosiery containing no genuine silk as “Gordon silk hose,” “Women’s two tone
silk hose,” or “Pure thread silk hose,” with the effect of misleading and deceiving the
purchasing public, 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.
Complaint No. 699.--Federal Trade Commission v. Oscar Schmied. Charge: Using
unfair methods of competition in the wholesale distribution of hosiery by labeling
hosiery made of cotton and silk as “Ladies’ silk hose,” “Men’s silk half hose,” “Silk
hose," or “Silk half hose,” with the effect of misleading and deceiving the purchasing
public, 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.
Complaint No. 701.--Federal Trade Commission v. Samuel E. Bernstein. Charge :
Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of cutlery, by labeling an inferior
grade of American cutlery as “Sheffield” without other marks to show the true place
of origin, with the effect of misleading and deceiving the purchasing public into the
belief that the respondent’s cutlery is of the good quality manufactured in Sheffield,
England, 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 in course of trial.
Complaint No. 702.--Federal Trade Commission v. Western Electric Co. (Inc.).
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the manufacture and sale of

telephonic appliances, equipment, and supplies while functioning as the manufacturing
department of the American Telephone & Telegraph Co. and competing with other
manufacturers and dealers for the business of independent tele-

134

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

phone companies by (a) contracting for the sale of its goods at fixed prices on
condition that purchasers will not use the telephonic equipment sold by competitors
of the respondent, (b) making false and misleading statements to the effect that
Independent companies using its equipment will thereby secure better terms from the
“Bell System” for toll service or will be unable to secure long distance or toll
connections without the use of respondent’s equipment, (c) utilizing the influence of
banks to induce independent telephone companies to purchase their appliances,
equipment, and supplies from the respondent, (d) procuring the cancellation of
contracts entered into between independent telephone companies and respondent’s
competitors by special reductions in its prices to such prospective customers, and (e)
falsely representing that certain of its competitors are going out of business or closing
branch offices and that the customers of said competitor will thereupon be unable to
secure repair parts and additional equipment, 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.
Complaint No 703.--Federal Trade Commission v. Morgan Razor Works. Charge :
Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of razor strops by adopting the trade
names established by the Torrence Co. with the effect of misleading and deceiving the
purchasing public into the belief that the razor strops sold by the respondent are the
products of J. S. Torrence Sales Co., 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 in course of trial.
Complaint No. 704.--Federal Trade Commission v. Wagner Razor Strop Co. Charge
: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of razor strops by adopting the trade
names established by the Torrence Co. with the effect of misleading and deceiving the
purchasing public into the belief that the razor strops sold by the respondent are the
products of J. S. Torrence Sales Co., 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 in course of trial.
Complaint No 705.--Federal Trade Commission v. S Davidson Co., D. R Davidson,
S. Davidson, and M. A. Davidson. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in
the sale of ship chandlery by giving expensive gifts and large sums of money in the
form of cash commissions to officers and employees of ships to induce them to
purchase ship-chandlery supplies from the respondent, 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. 706.--Federal Trade Commission v. Consolidated Oil Co.
(Manchurian Linseed Oil Co., Standard Linseed Co., Southern States Turpentine Co.,
and Standard Paint & Lead Co.). Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the
sale of oil by designating a low-quality oil product as “Glidden core oil” in simulation
of the trade name of a favorably known core oil of superior quality formerly
manufactured by the Glidden Co. and by selling a roof paint composed of 98 per cent
coal tar as “Graphite carbon roof paint” and “Carbon roof paint” to mislead the
purchasing public into the belief that the respondent’s roof paint is of good quality
with the graphite of free carbon as the chief constituent material, 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 in

course of trial.

EXHIBIT.

135

Complaint No. 707.--Federal Trade Commission v. Buffalo-Springfield Roller Co.
Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of rollers and old machinery
by offering and giving to public officials and prospective customers and competitor’s
customers, gratuities including money, liquor, cigars, meals, theater tickets, and
entertainment as an inducement to influence said public officials and employees to
purchase from respondent its rollers and other old machinery, 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.
Complaint No 709.--Federal Trade Commission v. Cigar Manufacturers’
Association of Tampa, Fla., an incorporated association, its officers, and member
cigar manufacturers. The Tampa Box Co., a corporation, D. N. Holway, J. W. Young,
and J. Van Roe, copartners under the firm name and style of D. N. Holway & Co.,
George F. Weidman, T. D. Fisher, and J. A. B. Anderson, copartners under the firm
name and style of Weidman-Fisher & Co. Charge : That the respondent cigar
manufacturers attempted to restrain competition in the sale of cigars and to create a
monopoly of the supply of an essential element in the sale of cigars by entering into
an agreement with the respondent, cigar box manufacturers, the intent and effect of
which was to vest in the respondent association control of the supply of cigar boxes
upon which the manufacture of cigars in Tampa and vicinity are dependent, the
respondent association employing its control of the supply of cigar boxes to deny and
to withhold from non-members and competing cigar makers their necessary supply of
boxes, 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 in course of trial.
Complaint No 710.--Federal Trade Commission v. Tide Water Oil Co. and Tide
Water Oil Sales Corporation. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the sale
of lubricating oils by inserting in their advertising matter a facsimile copy of a letter
from the Bethman Motor Co. to the Tide Water Oil Co. containing a statement to the
effect that Henry Ford & Son (Inc.) recommended for exclusive use in Fordson tractors
the respondents’ heavy special Veedol oil, which statement was known to the
respondents to be false and was calculated to mislead the purchasing public and
owners of Fordson tractors, 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 in course of trial.
Complaint No. 711.--Federal Trade Commission v. A. L. Bramble, trading under the
name and style of A. L. Bramble Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in
the sale of ship chandlery by giving expensive gifts and large sums of money in the
form of cash commissions to officers and employees of ships to induce them to
purchase ship chandlery supplies from the respondent, 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.
Complaint No. 712.--Federal Trade Commission v. Lee Canfield, P. E. Canfield, and
George B. Shaler, partners styling themselves the Best Oil Co., and M. E. Cornell.
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by attempting to imitate the products
of the Vacuum Oil Co. by simulating its trade names and by the employment of the
respondent, M. E. Cornell, who in the course of former employment with the Vacuum
Oil Co. came into the possession of valuable trade secrets, who states to purchasers of

the respondent’s products that such products are the Same as those of the Vacuum Oil
Co., and suggests

136

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

that they be sold from the Vacuum Oil Co.’s containers as “Genuine mobile oils,”
thereby causing customers and prospective customers to believe that the products of
the respondents are those of the Vacuum Oil Co., 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 in course of
trial.
Complaint No. 713.--Federal Trade Commission v. Hall-Marvin Co. and the
Reynolds-Thompson Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in that the
respondents, controlled by the same stockholders, carry on their business in such a
manner as to mislead the purchasing public into the belief that their business and
goods are the same as those of the long established and favorably known Herring-HallMarvin Safe Co., and to further the deception, have established their office at 393
Broadway, New York, directly opposite the principal office of said Herring-HallMarvin Safe Co., and display their advertising matter In such a manner as to create the
false impression that the respondents and the Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Co. are one
and the same, all 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.
Complaint No 715.--Federal Trade Commission v. United Allegretti Co. Charge :
Using unfair methods of competition in that the name under which the respondent was
incorporated, the names, brands, and marks of its goods, and its advertising matter
simulate those of the long established and favorably known Allegretti Chocolate
Cream Co., with the purpose of deceiving the public and leading the public to believe
that its candies are the same as those manufactured and sold by the said original
Allegretti Co., 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 in course of trial.
Complaint No 716.--Federal Trade Commission v. Simon Adelson, trading under the
name and style of United States Refining Co. Charge : Using unfair. methods of
competition in the manufacture and sale of paints and other products by using false
advertising matter and deceptive labels to lead the purchasing public into the erroneous
belief that his product is ground in pure linseed oil or is pure white lead and is
procured from or manufactured by the United States Government, 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.
Complaint No. 717.--Federal Trade Commission v. United Chemical Products
Corporation. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the manufacture and
sale of dyestuffs and chemicals by giving cash commissions to dyers and other
employees of its customers and prospective customers as an inducement to influences
such employees to recommend to their employers the purchase of the respondent’s
product 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.
Complaint No. 718.-Federal Trade Commission v. Wood & Co. (Inc.). Charge :
Using unfair methods of competition by loaning to proprietors of hotels and
restaurants sets of coffee urns without consideration other than that the customers
receiving same enter into agreements or understandings with the respondent that they

will purchase their coffee, teas, and spices from the respondent, the effect of which is
to substantially lessen competition and create a monopoly, in alleged violation of
section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.

EXHIBITS.

137

Status : This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the Commission and the
answer of the respondent.
Complaint No. 719.-Federal Trade Commission v. Commercial Importing Co. (Inc.).
Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by loaning to proprietors of hotels and
restaurants sets of coffee urns without consideration other than that the customers
receiving same enter into agreements or understandings with the respondent that they
will purchase their coffee, teas, and spices from the respondent, the effect of which is
to substantially lessen competition and create a monopoly 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.
Complaint No. 720.--Federal Trade Commission v. Richardson & Holland (Inc.).
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by loaning to proprietors of hotels and
restaurants sets of coffee urns without consideration other than that the customers
receiving same enter into agreements or understandings with the respondent that they
will purchase their coffee, teas, and spices from the respondent, the effect of which Is
to substantially lessen competition and create a monopoly, 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.
Complaint No 721.-Federal Trade Commission v. D. Davies & Co. Charge : Using
unfair methods of competition by loaning to proprietors of hotels and restaurants sets
of coffee urns without consideration other than that the customers receiving same enter
into agreements or understandings with the respondent that they will purchase their
coffee, teas, and spices from the respondent, the effect of which is to substantially
lessen competition and create a monopoly, 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.
Complaint No. 722.--Federal Trade Commission v. Matthews & Kerr (Inc.) Charge
: Using unfair methods of competition by loaning to proprietors of hotels and
restaurants sets of coffee urns without consideration other than that the customers
receiving same enter into agreements or understandings with the respondent that they
will purchase their coffee, teas, and spices from the respondent, the effect of which is
to substantially lessen competition and create a monopoly, 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.
Complaint No 723.--Federal Trade Commission v. Defiance Tea & Coffee Co. (Inc.).
Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by loaning to proprietors of hotels and
restaurants sets of coffee urns without consideration other than that the customers
receiving same enter into agreements or understandings with the respondent that they
will purchase their coffee, teas, and spices from the respondent, the effect of which Is
to substantially lessen competition and create a monopoly, 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.
Complaint No 724.--Federal Trade Commission v. Martin Marks Coffee Co. Charge
: Using unfair methods of competition by loaning to proprietors of hotels and
restaurants sets of coffee urns without consideration other than that the customers
receiving same enter into agreements or understandings with the respondent that they
will purchase their coffee, teas, and spices from the respondent, the effect of which is

to substantially lessen competition and create

138

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

a monopoly, 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.
Complaint No. 725.--Federal Trade Commission v. C. H. Korb and W. M. Dwyer,
doing business under the firm name and style of Korb & Dwyer. Charge: Using unfair
methods of competition by advertising for sale “several hundred thoroughly rebuilt
Dalton adding and listing machines,” thus falsely representing the second-hand
machines that they had for sale as rebuilt, when in fact they had only been repaired,
with the effect of misleading and deceiving the purchasing public 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.
Complaint No. 726.--Federal Trade Commission v. Constantine Calevas, Joseph
Garcia, and E. A. Piller, partners styling themselves Garcia, Piller & Co. and Calevas
Brothers. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of ship chandlery,
including stewards’ supplies, deck engine and cabin supplies, by giving to captains and
other officers of vessels valuable gifts, cash commissions, and gratuities to induce
them to purchase supplies from the respondents, 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.
Complaint No. 727.--Federal Trade Commission v. Austin Bond, doing business
under the trade name and style of Bond Brothers & Co., New York. Charge : Using
unfair methods of competition in the buying, packing, and selling of overissued,
unused newspapers by simulating and appropriating the trademark and code address
of the long established and favorably known “Bond Brothers & Co.” engaged in the
export and import of overissued and unused newspapers with the effect of misleading
and deceiving the purchasing public, 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.
Complaint No 728.--Federal Trade Commission v. American Safety Razor
Corporation. Charge; Using unfair methods of competition by the use of advertising
matter containing false and misleading statements concerning the quality of material
and workmanship entered into shaving brushes sold by it and by placing deceptive
labels on the containers of such brushes with the effect of misleading and deceiving
the purchasing public, 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.
Complaint No. 729.-Federal Trade Commission v. South Bend Bait Co. Charge :
Tending to create a monopoly in the manufacture and sale of fishing tackle and
artificial bait by making price discriminations between customers by varying its rates
of trade discount in accordance with its classification of customers and without regard
of the quantity purchased, 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.
Complaint No 730.--Federal Trade Commission v. Frank Dalby and Walter
Hardwick, doing business as a partnership under the firm name and style of Dalby &
Hardwick. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by engaging in the practice
of obtaining from their competitor, the Gordon-Van Tine Co., estimates and bids on

numerous items of building material without disclosing the fact that they were its
competitors, and using said estimates and bids in

EXHIBITS.

139

seeking customers in competition with said company and for the purpose of
underbidding it and of injuring it by putting it to the expense of making estimates and
bids from which no orders could follow, all 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.
Complaint No 731.-Federal Trade Commission v. The Excelsior Shoe Co. Charge
: Using unfair methods of competition by the unauthorized use of the words “Boy
Scouts” as a trade-mark for its shoes and in the advertisement, thereby creating the
erroneous belief that its shoes have been approved by the Boy Scouts of America and
are labeled as aforesaid by the authority of the said organization, 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.
Complaint No 732.--Federal Trade Commission v. Winthrop Chemical Co. (Inc.).
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by advertising and claiming the
exclusive right to manufacture and sell "Veronal," when in truth and in fact three
licensees of the Federal Trade Commission, under the authority contained in the
trading with the enemy act, have acquired full right and authority to make and sell said
preparation, with the effect of misleading and deceiving the purchasing public, in
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.
Complaint No. 733.--Federal Trade Commission v. E. F. Houghton & Co. Charge :
Using unfair methods of competition in the manufacture and sale of textile-mill
supplies, including soaps and greases, by offering and giving cash commissions or
gratuities to finishers and other employees in textile mills as an inducement to
recommend the purchase of respondent’s products in preference to the products of
competitors of the respondent, 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.
Complaint No. 734.--Federal Trade Commission v. International Paint and Oil Co.
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by labeling as “Tar-pen-tine” its coaltar distillate, which is capable of being used for some of the purposes for which
turpentine can be used, which labeling closely simulates the word “turpentine” that
the purchasing public is deceived and misled to believe that the respondent’s product
is turpentine or similar thereto, 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.
Complaint No. 735.--Federal Trade Commission v. Bartlett Manufacturing Co.
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by marking the dial or face of certain
of its clocks “Made in U.S. A.,” thereby conveying the impression, which is furthered
by false representations to customers, that the chocks are made in the United States,
when in truth and in fact the works or the principal parts of said clocks which are not
exposed or open to view are made in Wurtemburg, Germany, and are 50 marked and
are of a cheaper grade and of less monetary value than similar American products, with
the effect of misleading and deceiving the purchasing public, in 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.
Complaint No. 736.--Federal Trade Commission v. Sulloway Mills. Charge: Using

unfair methods of competition by the use of false and deceptive labels on hosiery made
of wool and other material in approximately equal propor-

140

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

tions, which create the belief that its hosiery was made wholly of wool, 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.
Complaint No 737.--Federal Trade Commission v. Margaret Newson and George B.
Ketchum, doing business under the name and style of The Model Market. Charges :
Using unfair methods of competition by offering and giving to captains and other
officers of vessels, cash commissions and gratuities to induce them to purchase their
meats, poultry, fish, vegetables, and other food products from the respondents, 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.
Complaint No. 738.--Federal Trade Commission v. Thatcher Manufacturing Co.
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by acquiring from the Owens Bottle
Machine Co. the exclusive right to manufacture and sell milk bottles produced by the
first automatic bottle-making machine. Subsequently another bottle-making machine
was invented and licensed by the Hartford Fairmont Co.; and that the respondent, by
taking over the control of the Hartford Fairmont Co. and its licensees, tends to
eliminate competition and create a monopoly in the manufacture and sale of milk
bottles, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act and
section 7 of the Clayton Act. Status : This proceeding is at issue upon the complaint
of the Commission and the answer of the respondent.
Complaint No. 739.--Federal Trade Commission v. F. G. McFarlane. Charge : Using
unfair methods of competition by offering and giving to officers of vessels and agents
of the owners of such vessels valuable gifts, cash commissions, and gratuities, and
lavish entertainment to induce them to purchase ship chandlery, steward’s supplies,
deck, engine, and cabin supplies from the respondent, 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.
Complaint No. 740.--Federal Trade Commission v. Prichard & Constance (Inc.) .
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the manufacture of cosmetics and
toilet articles by adopting and maintaining a system of fixing the resale price of its
products and refusing to sell until prospective customers have given written assurance
that the resale prices fixed by respondent will be maintained, 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.
Complaint No. 741.--Federal Trade Commission v. Eskay Harris Feature Film Co.
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by the adoption of the title "Black
Beauty" for a film reconstructed by it from an old film entitled "Your Obedient
Servant," with the purpose and effect of appropriating the value created by the
advertising campaign of the Vitagraph Co. for its bona fide production “Black
Beauty,” and by falsely claiming the control of the motion-picture rights and title of
“Black Beauty” and threatening to prosecute any infringement, 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.
Complaint No. 742.--Federal Trade Commission v. F. B. Dunn, R T. Harris L. G.
Wright, T. E. Lester, 5. H. Miles, George F. Barton, F. L. McCoy, and J. H. Darby.
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of the capital stock of the

Congressional Oil Co. By the use of said company as a

EXHIBITS.

141

device for the disposition of certain oil leases at exclusive and fictitious prices; by
published false and misleading statements relative to the company’s property,
earnings, and prospects, and by deceiving the purchasing public by numerous
fraudulent schemes of promotion, 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.
Complaint No. 743.-Federal Trade Commission v. Ernst Bischoff Company (Inc.).
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the manufacture and sale of textile
mill supplies, including dyestuffs, soaps, and oils, by offering and giving cash
commissions or gratuities to dyers, finishers, and other employees in textile mills as
an inducement to recommend the purchase of respondent’s product in preference to
the products of competitors of the respondent, 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.
Complaint No. 744.-Federal Trade Commission v. Wm. Robinson, doing business
under the name and style of Southern Machine Works. Charge : Using unfair methods
of competition in the business of repairing ships and furnishing repair parts by giving
to engineers and other officers and employees of vessels valuable gifts and gratuities
as an inducement to have the ships operated by them for the owners thereof repaired
by the respondent, 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.
Complaint No. 745.-Federal Trade Commission v. Austin, Nichols & Co. (Inc.)
(Virginia). Charge : That Austin, Nichols & Co. (Inc.) entered into an agreement with
Wilson & Co. (Inc.) for the acquisition of the Wilson & Co. (Whiteland, Ind.)
vegetable canning plant and control of the Fame Canning Co. and Wilson Fisheries Co.
in anticipation of a consent decree resulting from the prosecution of a suit in equity
brought by the Attorney General of the United States, by which decree Wilson & Co.
(Inc.) were perpetually enjoined from engaging in business unrelated to the meatpacking industry. The respondent, incorporated to effect the consolidation of all the
properties, now holds control thereof and is charged with the suppressing of
competition, tending to create a monopoly in the grocery and food product business,
in alleged violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act. Status : This proceeding is at issue
upon the complaint of the Commission and the answer of the respondent.
Complaint No. 746.--Federal Trade Commission v. W. J. Chapman. Charge : Using
unfair methods of competition by offering and giving to captains of vessels cash
gratuities to induce them to purchase ship chandlery, steward’s supplies, deck engine
and cabin supplies from the respondent, 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.
Complaint No. 747.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Standard Electric
Manufacturing Co. Charge : That the respondent with the purpose and effect of
lessening competition and creating a monopoly in the manufacture and sale of
electrical appliances enters into tying contracts with dealers whereby they, in
consideration of a 10 per cent rebate, agreed to refrain from dealing in the products of
competitors of the respondent, and that the respondent refuses to sell its appliances to
dealers who fail to maintain its standard resale prices, all 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.

142

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Complaint No. 750.--Federal Trade Commission v. Benjamin H. Cappe, trading
under the name and style of Asbestos Roofing Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of
competition by publishing false and deceptive statements as to the quality of
respondent’s "asbestos liquid roofing,” which falsely represents his product as made
of the same material as those which enter into a favorably known roof-coating
preparation, the product of a prominent manufacturer of asbestos products, and by
simulation of its trade name, with the effect of misleading and deceiving the
purchasing public in 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.
Complaint No 751.--Federal Trade Commission v. Crystal Ice & Storage Co. Charge
: That the respondent by acquiring control of the Mt. Hood Ice Cream Co. and
Hazelwood Ice Cream Co. and the Norman Ice Cream Co. tends to suppress
competition, restrain commerce, and create a monopoly in the manufacture and sale
of ice cream in the Oregon and Washington territory served by said companies and the
respondent, 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.
Complaint No. 752.--Federal Trade Commission v. Juvenile Shoe Co. (Inc.), Charge
: Using unfair methods of competition by simulating the name, trade-mark, labels, tags,
and stamping of the Juvenile Shoe Corporation, a previously incorporated
manufacturer of children’s shoes of superior quality selling for higher prices than the
shoes sold by the respondent, with the effect of misleading and deceiving the
purchasing public, in 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.
Complaint No. 753.--Federal Trade Commission v. De Soto Paint Manufacturing
Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the manufacture and sale of
paints, stains, varnishes, etc., by paying rebates or bonuses to certain purchasers of its
“De Soto heavy body paints,” and by giving certificates redeemable for cash to
professional or contracting painters as a means of inducing them to further the sale of
respondent’s products to the exclusion of products of competitors of the respondent,
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.
Complaint No. 754.--Federal Trade Commission v. H. Skourap and D. E. Toplon,
partners, styling themselves National Products Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of
competition by means of combination sales and false statements concerning their
groceries which mislead the public to believe that staple products are sold at prices
below current retail prices, whereas the listing of other items included in the
combination offer at prices greater than current retail prices results in a price for the
whole substantially the same or greater than prices charged by retailers for like
assortments as a whole, 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.
Complaint No. 755.--Federal Trade Commission v. Clara L. Doll, doing business
under the trade name of Burham Safety Razor Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of

competition by assembling, packing, and selling safety razors in individual boxes or
containers, which are stamped, marked, or branded with fictitious, misleading, and
excessive prices calculated to mislead and deceive the purchasing public as to the
grade or quality of the said safety razors, in alleged violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act. Status: This pro-

EXHIBITS.

143

ceeding is at issue upon the complaint of the Commission and the answer of the
respondent
Complaint No. 756.--Federal Trade Commission v. Mucklestone Oil Co. and M.
Mucklestone. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of capital
stock of the respondent company by the use of numerous false and misleading
statements with respect to the location, ownership, productivity, and value of
respondent’s oil interests, with the effect of misleading and deceiving the purchasing
public, 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.
Complaint No. 757.--Federal Trade Commission v. Burk-Rex Oil Co. and James A.
Buie. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of capital stock of the
respondent company by the use of numerous false and misleading statements with
respect to the purpose of the sale of such stock, salaries paid officers and directors,
nonassessability of the stock, value and location of oil leases, and earning power, with
the effect of misleading and deceiving the purchasing public, 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.
Complaint No. 758.--Federal Trade Commission v. Gerald D. Grosner, trading under
the name and style of Grosner’s. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by
advertising and selling at retail underwear composed but partly of wool as “Natural
wool,” “Natural Australian wool,” and “Fine natural Australian worsted,” with the
effect of misleading and deceiving the purchasing public, 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.
Complaint No. 759.--Federal Trade Commission v. Union Pencil Co. (Inc.). Charge
: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of pencils with the purchaser’s name
imprinted thereon by falsely advertising that the pencils are “engraved in gold” when
in fact gold leaf is not used, but a substance known as “autofoil,” with the effect of
misleading and deceiving the purchasing public, 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.
Complaint No. 760.--Federal Trade Commission v. United States Steel Corporation,
American Bridge Co., American Sheet & Tin Plate Co., Carnegie Steel Co., National
Tube Co., American Steel & Wire Co., Illinois Steel Co., Minnesota Steel Co.,
Clairton Steel Co., Union Steel Co., The Lorain Steel Co., and the Tennessee Coal,
Iron & Railroad Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition and discrimination
in prices, in that the United States Steel Corporation and its subsidiaries in fixing the
price of steel which is made and used in such centers as Chicago, Duluth, and
Birmingham upon the price f. o. b. mill at Pittsburgh, plus the freight rates from
Pittsburgh to such centers, operates as a discrimination in price in favor of Pittsburgh
fabricators as against fabricators in Chicago, Duluth, and Birmingham districts, in
violation of section 2 of the Clayton Act and 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.
Complaint No. 761.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Prest-O-Lite Co. (Inc.).
Charge : The respondent sells its acetylene gas in metal containers on which is etched

a notice to the effect that the device is sold and licensed for sale and use only while
filled by the respondent and when sold for not less than

144

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

the fixed price, the cylinder being exchangeable in the Prest-O-Lite system only when
filled and issued by the respondent. Unfair methods of competition and a tendency to
create a monopoly in the sale of acetylene gas are charged, in that, as the respondent
sells its metal cylinders containing acetylene gas and passes title to the purchasers
thereof, said notices are false and misleading and tend to deceive the purchasing
public; that the respondent refuses to refill cylinders not of its issue or which have
been issued by it but refilled by competitors; that the respondent maintains for its
products a fixed resale price and eliminates all competition as to price between dealers
in its products by refusing to supply dealers who resell its products at less than the
price indicated, all in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission
act and section 3 of the Clayton Act. Status : This proceeding is at issue upon the
complaint of the Commission and the answer of the respondent.
Complaint No. 762.--Federal Trade Commission v. Dixie Manufacturing Co. (Inc.),
(New York). Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the purchase and resale
of razors by printing on the containers in which its razors were sold fictitious and
excessive prices calculated to deceive the purchasing public as to the grade or quality
of said razors, and by falsely representing itself as having a large factory from which
it sells direct to the consumer and by making other numerous false and misleading
statements in advertising its razors, with the effect of misleading and deceiving the
purchasing public, 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.
Complaint No. 763.--Federal Trade Commission v. Hygrade Knitting Co. (Inc.).
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by simulating the incorporating name
and the names, brands, and marks of the goods of the Hygrade Knitting Mills, a longestablished New Jersey corporation, with the purpose and effect of deceiving and
misleading the purchasing public into the belief that the goods of the respondent are
those of Hygrade Knitting Mills, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act. Status: Answer to the Commission’s complaint in this proceeding
has not yet been received.
Complaint No. 764.--Federal Trade Commission v. Paul Balme, trading under the
name and style of B. Paul. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the
manufacture and sale of a hair dye, designated as “Henna D’Oreal,” which simulates
the trade name and wrapping of a hair dye sold by F. L. Leben (Inc.), long and
favorably known as “L’Oreal Henne,” and by falsely advertising his product as a new
French coloring providing the only harmless coloring in the world, with the effect of
misleading and deceiving the purchasing public 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.
Complaint No. 765.--Federal Trade Commission v. National Furniture Co. Charge
: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of furniture and house furnishing
goods at retail by falsely advertising “No extra charge for credit,” whereas substantial
discounts from quoted or marked prices are in fact given when goods are sold for cash,
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.
Complaint No. 766.--Federal Trade Commission v. Julius Lansburgh Furniture Co.

Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of furniture and housefurnishing goods at retail by falsely advertising “No extra charge

EXHIBITS.

145

for credit,” whereas substantial discounts from quoted or marked prices are in fact
given when goods are sold for cash, 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.
Complaint No. 767.--Federal Trade Commission v. Wichita-Engle Oil Co., E. U.
Engle, C. T Engle, and W. 5. Pratt. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in
the sale of the capital stock of the respondent company by the use of false and
misleading statements respecting the location, owners, productivity, and value of
respondent’s oil interests, with the effect of misleading and deceiving the purchasing
public, 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.
Complaint No 768.--Federal Trade Commission v. Keen & Collins (Inc.). Charge :
Using unfair methods of competition by falsely advertising that it features gowns of
the well and favorably known “Harry Collins” models, whereas the respondent has
never had for sale any gowns of the Harry Collins model, with the effect of misleading
and deceiving the purchasing public and injuring the business of the owner of the
Harry Collins models, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act. Status: Answer to the Commission’s complaint in this proceeding has
not yet been received.
Complaint No. 769.--Federal Trade Commission v. Beckwith-Chandler Co., C. W.
Shocum, A. F. Adams, C. H. Bull, M. D. Campbell, A. N. Merrill, John F. Young. W.
D. Ramsey, and Halsey Tolman. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the
sale of varnish by giving cash commissions and gratuities to foremen finishers and
other employees of automobile and carriage manufacturers and purchasers of varnish
in large quantities without the knowledge or consent of their employers, to induce
them to recommend the purchase of and giving preference to the respondent’s varnish
to the exclusion of the varnish of respondent’s 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 the answer of the respondent.
Complaint No. 770.--Federal Trade Commission v. Simons, Hatch & Whitten Co.
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the wholesale distribution of hosiery
by labeling and advertising hosiery made of animal or vegetable fiber product
containing no silk as “Pure silk,” by labeling a cotton product as “Silk lisle,” and by
labeling a cotton and wool product as “Cashmere” or “Wool,” with the effect of
misleading and deceiving the purchasing public, in alleged violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act. Status : Answer to the Commission’s complaint in
This proceeding is not yet due.
Complaint No. 771.--Federal Trade Commission v. Louis Philippe (Inc.) and Park
& Tilford. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the manufacture and sale
of a face cream, known as “Creme angelus,” containing no lemon juice, by falsely
labeling and advertising it as a French product made with and compounded from real
lemons, with the effect of misleading and deceiving the purchasing public and
hindering competitors from marketing similar toilet preparations which do contain the
juice of lemons, in alleged violation of section 5 of the federal Trade Commission act.
Status : Answer to the Commission’s complaint in this proceeding is not yet due.
Complaint No. 772.--Federal Trade Commission v. Geneva Cutlery Corporation

Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the manufacture and sale of razors
by printing fictitious and excessive prices on the containers in which its razors are
sold, with the effect of misleading and deceiving the purchasing public as to the
quality of its product and assisting retailers in the use

146

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

of unfair methods of competition against respondent’s competitors, who do not falsely
price mark their product, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act. Status: Answer to the Commission’s complaint in this proceeding is
not yet due.
Complaint No. 773.--Federal Trade Commission v. The J. R Torrey Razor Co.
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the manufacture and sale of razors
by printing fictitious and excessive prices on the containers in which its razors are
sold, with the effect of misleading and deceiving the purchasing public as to the
quality of its product and assisting retailers in the use of unfair methods of competition
against respondent’s competitors, who do not falsely price mark their product, in
alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status : Answer
to the Commission’s complaint in this proceeding is not yet due.
Complaint No 774.--Federal Trade Commission v. Pinene Manufacturing Co. (Inc.).
Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by falsely advertising its product
“Pinene” as equal to turpentine and a chemically correct substitute therefor, whereas
said product is in fact the petroleum distillate with a small proportion of turpentine,
with the effect of misleading and deceiving the purchasing public and by further
misleading the purchasing public by the use of the name “Pinene,” the respondent’s
product containing little, if any, pinene, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission act. Status : Answer to the Commission’s complaint in this
proceeding is not yet due.
Complaint No. 775.--Federal Trade Commission v. Swift & Co., National Leather
Co. Charge: That the respondent, Swift & Co., by reason of its acquisition of a
controlling interest in England, Walton & Co. (Inc.) and its subsidiaries and the
subsequent organization by Swift & Co. of respondent National Leather Co. and the
transfer thereto of the Swift & Co. interest in England, Walton & Co. and in numerous
other corporations engaged in tanning and the manufacture and sale of leather and byproducts, the corporate stock of which had been acquired by Swift & Co., has been for
the purpose and effect of substantially lessening competition and of creating a
combination in restraint of trade in the manufacture and sale of leather, in alleged
violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act and section 7 of the
Clayton Act. Status : Answer to the Commission’s complaint in this proceeding is not
yet due.
Complaint No. 776.--Federal Trade Commission v. Armstrong Paint & Varnish
Works, United States Roofing Paper and Paint Factories (Inc.), and Abe Hochman and
Harry Goldfish, partners, doing business under the trade name of Army & Navy Stores.
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by offering for sale paints, varnishes,
and roofing paper, labeled “U. S.,” with a reproduction of a picture of Uncle Sam,
with the purpose and effect of misleading the purchasing public into the belief that the
goods were made for the Army or Navy or according to Government specifications,
and by labeling its products in such manner as to indicate they were manufactured by
the respondent United States Roofing Paper and Paint Factories (Inc.), and by the use
of numerous false and misleading statements by the respondents, Hochman and
Goldfish, as to the value and quality of the paints, varnishes, and roofing paper offered
for sale, with the effect of misleading and deceiving the purchasing public, in alleged
violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status : Answer to the
Commission’s complaint in this proceeding is not yet due.

Complaint No 777.--Federal Trade Commission v. Phillips Brothers & Co. Charge
: Using unfair methods of competition in the manufacture and sale of pork sausage by
labeling its product so as to simulate in size, style of type,

EXHIBITS.

147

typographical arrangement, and general appearance the labeling of a similar and
favorably known product marketed since 1859 by the Jos. Phillips Co., with the effect
of misleading and deceiving the purchasing public, in alleged violation of section 5 of
the Federal Trade Commission act. Status Answer to the Commission’s complaint in
this proceeding is not yet due.
Complaint No 778.--Federal Trade Commission v. Tide Water Oil Co. and Tide
Water Oil Sales Corporation. Charge : That the respondents by maintaining a system
of rebates and discounts based and graduated on the separate purchases of their
petroleum products by dealers during a definite period and on purchases of carload lots
thereof, thereby causing the purchasers to confine their purchases to the respondents,
has indulged in the practice which tends to substantially lessen competition and create
a monopoly, in alleged violation of section 5 of Federal Trade Commission act and
section 2 of the Clayton Act. Status : Answer to the Commission’s complaint in this
proceeding is not yet due.
Complaint No 779.--Federal Trade Commission v. J. H. Dodson and F. M. Davis,
partners, styling themselves the National Manufacturing Co. Charge : Using unfair
methods of competition in the purchase and resale of razors and cutlery specialties by
making numerous false and misleading statements in their advertising matter as to the
manufacture, quality, value, and price of the razors and the hone given as a premium
therewith, with the effect of misleading and deceiving the purchasing public, in alleged
violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status : Answer to the
Commission’s complaint in this proceeding is not yet due.
Complaint No 780.--Federal Trade Commission v. Amory & Moore (Inc.). Charge
: Using unfair methods of competition by offering and giving valuable gifts, cash
commissions, and gratuities to captains, officers, and other employees of vessels
without the consent of the owners thereof to induce them to purchase ship chandlery
supplies from the respondent, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act. Status : Answer to the Commission’s complaint is not yet due.
Complaint No 781.--Federal Trade Commission v. The Salt Producers’ Association,
Michigan Salt Association, Michigan Salt Works, International Salt Co. of New York,
Worcester Salt Co., The Colonial Salt Co., Morton Salt Co., Ohio Salt Co., Mulkey
Salt Co., Inland Delray Salt Co., Diamond Crystal Salt Co., Stearns Salt & Lumber
Co., The Buckley & Douglas Lumber Co., Cutler Magner Co., Union Salt Co., Carey
Salt Co., Barton Salt Co., Anthony Salt Co., and D. B. Doremus. Charge : Using
unfair methods of competition which have a tendency to substantially lessen
competition by the respondent association fixing and maintaining their prices in
substantial conformity with the prices quoted by the respondent, Morton Salt Co., the
largest salt producer in the United States, and issued by said respondent to the
members of respondent association; and by agreement allowing discounts to those
customers only who are listed in the trade directory of wholesale dealers approved for
said purpose by the respondent association, in alleged violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act and section 2 of the Clayton Act. Status : Answer to
the Commission’s complaint in this proceeding is not yet due.
Complaint No 782.--Federal Trade Commission v. D. J. Carpenter, trading under the
name and style of U.S. Salvage Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by
publishing false and misleading statements as to the value and quality of his goods and
his source of supply and by the use of a trade name indicating salvage operations and

business relations with the Government, when in fact the respondent does not conduct
a salvage business and has no contract

148

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

with the United States, but is engaged in the main in selling goods which were never
owned by the United States or manufactured for it, with the effect of misleading and
deceiving the purchasing public, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act. Status : Answer to the Commission’s complaint this proceeding is
not yet due.
Complaint No 783--Federal Trade Commission v. A Lisner, trading under the name
and style of Palais Royal. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by
advertising and offering for sale certain toilet articles made of imitate cellulose or
some other compound as “ white ivory,” with the effect of misleading and deceiving
the purchasing public, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act. Status : Answer to the Commission’s complaint inn this proceeding
is not yet due.
Complaint No 784.--Federal Trade Commission v. M. G. Gibbs, trading under the
name me and style of People’s Drug Stores. Charge : Using unfair methods of
competition by advertising and offering for sale toilet articles made of nitrate cellulose
or some other compound as “ pyralin ivory,” with the effect of misleading and
deceiving the purchasing public, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission Act. Status : Answer to the Commission’s complaint in this proceeding
is not yet due.
Complaint No. 785--Federal Trade Commission v. J. H. Crites, John G. Dee, W. J.
Ross, M. W. McQuaid, and M. L. Chandler. Charge : Using unfair methods (of
competition in the sale of the share stock of the O-Tex Production Co. by the use of
numerous false and misleading statements as to the said company’s drilling operations
and the productivity of its properties, to tho effect of misleading and deceiving the
purchasing public, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission
act. Status : Answer to the Commission’s complaint in this proceeding is not yet due.
Complaint No 786.--Federal Trade Commission v. Kelly Dry Dock & Shipbuilding
Co. (Inc.). Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by offering and giving to
officers and other employees of vessels, without the knowledge and consent of their
employers, cash commissions and gratuities as an inducement to have their vessels
repaired and the repair parts furnished by the respondent, in alleged violation of
section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status : Answer to the Commission’s
complaint in this proceeding is not yet due.
Complaint No. 787.--Federal Trade Commission v. Baeder, Adamson & Co. Charge
: Using unfair methods of competition in the manufacture and sale of glue, sandpaper,
etc., by offering and giving cash commissions and gratuities to superintendents and
other employees of cabinet manufacturing establishments, etc., without the knowledge
or consent of their employers, as an inducement to favor and recommend the purchase
of respondent’s products in preference to those of its competitors, in alleged violation
of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Status : Answer to the
Commission’s complaint in this proceeding is not yet due.
Complaint No. 788.--Federal Trade Commission v. Diamond Holfast Rubber Co.
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in that respondent by changing its
corporate name from Diamond Holfast Patch Co. to Diamond Holfast Rubber Co., and
thereby simulating the corporate name of the Diamond Rubber Co., a well-known
subsidiary of the B. F. Goodrich Co., and by marking its products within labels which
feature the word “ Diamond” and closely resemble the labels used by the Diamond

Rubber Co., aims to mislead the purchasing public to believe the products of the
respondent are the products of the Diamond Rubber Co., in alleged violation of section
5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Status : Answer to the Commission’s
complaint in this proceeding is not yet due.

EXHIBITS.

149

PROCEEDINGS DISPOSED OF.
Complaint No .126 (May 7, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Ironite Co., Master
Builders’ Co., and United Products Co. Charge : Stifling and suppressing competition
in connection with the manufacture and sale of cement and concrete hardener
containing crushed iron particles by entering into an agreement by which a consent
decree was obtained with the intent and purpose of securing a patent monopoly by
threatening suit for alleged in 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 patents, by false and disparaging statements
regarding competitors, and by resale price fixing, in alleged violation of section 5 of
the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition : After hearing thus proceeding was
dismissed, it appearing to the Commission that the decree in Equity 16-373 made and
entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
March 20, 1920, is full and ample, affording all relief which would be afforded by an
order to cease and desist in this proceeding.
Complaint No.135 (May 13, 1918).--Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Oil Co.
of Louisiana. Charge: Unfair methods of competition in the sale or petroleum and in
the sale of automatic measuring pumps, tanks, etc., the product of the Gilbert & Barker
Manufacturing Co. (post, complaint int No. 130), by falsely representing the products
of certain of its 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 un less 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. Disposition : After hearing this proceed
was dismissed without prejudice.
Complaint No.159 (June 10, 1918).--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. Allen, Nathan Berg,
F. W. English, Christopher Offenhauser. Charge : 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. Disposition : After hearing an order was entered requiring
respondent to cease and desist from using the practice complained of under 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 patient 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

150

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

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. Disposition :
After hearing this proceeding was dismissed, relief having been granted in the courts.
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 and the Aluminum Rolling Mill Co., and
tend to create a monopoly, in alleged violation of section 7 of the Clayton act.
Disposition: After hearing an order was entered requiring respondent to divest itself
of the stock acquired in 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 sold 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. Disposition : After hearing an order was entered
dismissing this proceeding without prejudice.
Complaint No. 268 (Apr. 8, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Aeolian Co.
Charge : Stifling and suppressing competition in the sale of pipe organs, 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 prohibit dealers who sell Aeolian
instruments, parts, and accessories from selling the perforated music rolls therefor to
anyone other than the purchaser of an Aeolian pipe organ, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act except as to the
charge of refusing to permit dealers to sell its pipe-organ music rolls except to
purchasers of its pipe organs, which charge was dismissed without prejudice.
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. Disposition : After hearing this

proceeding was dismissed without prejudice.
Complaint No. 305 (July 18, 1919).-Federal Trade Commission v. Thomas K.
Brushart, doing business under the trade name of Motor Fuel & Lubricating Co
Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the business of purchasing

EXHIBITS.

151

and selling refined oil and gasoline and the leasing and loaning of oil pumps, storage
tanks, or containers and their equipments by selling, leasing, or loaning oil pumps,
storage tanks, or containers, etc., at prices which do not represent a reasonable return
on the investment, many such sales, leases, or loans being made at prices below the
cost of producing and vending the same, and many of the contracts for the lease or loan
of such devices, etc., providing, or being entered into, with the understanding that the
lessee or borrower shall not place in such devices or use in connection therewith any
refined oil or gasoline of a competitor in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission act; and leasing and making contracts for the lease of its devices,
etc., on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessees thereof shall not
use or purchase or deal in the products of a competitor or 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 this practice,
under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act and section 3 of the Clayton Act.
(NOTE -- Commission’s order was reversed by the United States Circuit Court of
Appeals, Sixth Circuit, June 29, 1921.)
Complaint No.307 (July 18, 1919) -Federal Trade Commission v. St. Louis Lightning
Rod Co., Monarch Lightning Rod Co., and Franklin Lightning Rod Co. Charge : Using
unfair methods of competition by respondents, who are engaged in the manufacture
and sale of lightning rods, fixtures, and ornaments generally, by concealment of the
true ownership of respondent companies; use of trade names employed by competitors,
spying upon competitors’ businesses, misbranding of products, disparagement of
competitors, and the payment of large sums of money to employees of its competitors
for confidential information, 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 under section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No.310 (July 18, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Oklahoma
Producing & Refining Corporation of America. Charge: (Ante, complaint No. 305).
Disposition : After hearing this proceeding was dismissed without prejudice.
Complaint No.315 (July 18, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Kentucky
Independent Oil Co. Charge: (Ante, complaint No.305). Disposition : After hearing
this proceeding was dismissed.
Complaint No.319 (July 18, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Hickok Producing
Co. Charge : (Ante, complaint No.305). Disposition : After hearing an order was
entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice complained
of under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No.322 (July 18, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Carbonless
Oil Co. Charge : (Ante, complaint No.305). Disposition : After hearing an order was
entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice complained
of under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 325. (July 18, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. The American
Oil & Supply Co. Charge : (Ante, complaint No.305). Disposition : After hearing this
proceeding was dismissed.
Complaint No. 328 (July 18, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Springfield
Oil Products Co. (Inc.). Charge: (Ante, complaint No.305). Disposition : After hearing

this proceeding was dismissed.
Complaint No. 329 (July 18, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Lubric Oil
Co. Charge: (Ante, complaint No. 305). Disposition: After hear-

152

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

ing an order was entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the
practice complained of under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 332 (July 18, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Lubric Oil
Co. Charge: (Ante, complaint No.805).
Complaint No. 341 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. W. A. Case &
Son Manufacturing Co. (Inc.). Charge : Use of unfair methods of competition in the
manufacture and sale of water-closet tanks by advertising such water-closet tanks at
“ Vitro,” and advertising, holding out, and selling such product as being composed of
vitreous material, whereas in fact it is a compound of asbestos fiber, rosin, and lime,
in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition :
After hearing this proceeding was dismissed for failure of proof.
Complaint No.343 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Guarantee
Veterinary Co. and George L. Owens. Charge Unfair methods of competition in the
distribution of advertising matter containing false and misleading statements as to the
medicinal ingredients contained in the “Sal-Tonik” blocks sold by respondents; that
the respondents operate a number of factories in various parts of the United States, the
total produce of one of which are purchased and indorsed by the Quartermaster
Department of the United States Army; and that the respondents own and operate
certain large and extensive machinery necessary for the manufacture of said product,
in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition :
After bearing an order was entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using
the practice complained of under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No.344 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Oakes Co.
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of automobile fans (pressed
steel) by employing a private detective agency to spy upon the business of one of its
competitors; attempting to induce a certain manufacturer to refrain from selling its
products to the competitor of respondent by statements that a salesman of said
manufacturer was selling supplies to the competitor at too low a price and by
intimating that there was collusion between the salesman of said competitor; by
threatening that if the manufacturer continued to sell respondent’s competitor at such
prices, respondent would engage in the same line of business as the manufacturer;
making false and misleading statements as to the cost of manufactured of the rollerbearing type fan manufactured by a competitor of respondent, causing the purchasing
public to believe that its competitors who manufacture the roller-bearing type of fan
are selling same at more than a fair price; and offering to sell and selling the rollerbearing fans at less than cost, 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 under section 5
of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 347 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Ward & Mackey
Biscuit Co. Charge: Unfair methods of competition in the sale of stock and securities
by circulating false statements concerning the identity of persons promoting the
corporation, its assets, financial standing and prospects, facilities and equipment in
connection with the sale of its stock; and assuming its corporate name because of its
similarity to “Ward-Makey Co.,” a corporation previously engaged in the same line
of business, widely advertised, and successfully operated in the same city, in alleged

violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition : After hearing
this proceeding was dismissed without prejudice.

EXHIBITS.

153

Complaint No. 350 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. H. Norwood
Ewing, doing business under the firm name and style of Liberty Paper Co. Charge :
Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of paper products by respondent
selling its paper products in commerce under the firm name and style of Liberty Paper
Co., the name of a company long established and well known and engaged in the
manufacture and sale in like territory of various paper products, with the effect of
causing embarrassment and confusion, and of securing to the respondent the benefit
of the advertising of the original corporation of the same name; and falsely
representing to the public and the paper-buying trade that respondent is a manufacturer
of paper, when in fact he is not a manufacturer of paper, but a purchaser of paper in
bulk, which is converted into the finished product, thereby gaining an advantage over
other jobbers who are not and do not hold themselves out to be manufacturers of
paper, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act.
Complaint No. 352 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. L. I. Wolper and
H. B. Wolper, copartners, trading under the name and style of Errant-Knight Co.,
Lewis Grocery Co., and Ira Lester Co. Charge : Use of unfair methods of competition
in the sale of groceries by circulating false statements regarding respondent’s business
and its ability to sell goods at prices lower than other dealers; and selling certain staple
commodities, such as sugar and flour, at a loss, and charging prices on other products
sold in combination so that the assortment as a whole yields respondent a satisfactory
profit, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act.
Complaint No. 356 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Remington
Typewriter Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by giving to purchasers
of its products at the end of each calendar year, or at the end of a definite period,
certain rebates or discounts based or estimated upon the aggregate of the purchases
made by such dealers during the calendar year or fixed period, with the object of
causing such purchasers to confine their purchases to respondent’s products, and to
hinder its competitors from making sales to such purchasers except at a loss; and
giving rebates or discounts based on the number of machines used by a purchaser
irrespective of make or manufacture, thereby giving an undue advantage to the large
purchaser and hindering the small user or purchaser of such machines from obtaining
the same discounts and rebates as a large purchaser, in alleged violation of section 5
of the Federal Trade Commission act; and by adopting and maintaining the practice
of giving rebates or discounts to purchasers on condition that they purchase all or a
large percentage of their typewriters, parts and supplies therefor, from the respondent;
and by entering upon contracts upon the express condition that purchasers named
therein would purchase all or a large percentage of their typewriting, calculating, or
adding machines from respondent, with the effect of preventing competitors of
respondent from selling their products to aforesaid purchasers, with the further effect
of substantially lessening competition and tending to create a monopoly, in alleged

violation of section 3 of the Clayton Act. Disposition : After hearing this proceeding
was dismissed.
Complaint No.357 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Royal Type-writer
Co. Charge : (Ante, complaint No. 356). Disposition : After hearing this proceeding
was dismissed.

154

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Complaint No. 358 (Sept. 2, 1919).-Federal Trade Commission v. L. C. Smith &
Bros. Typewriter Co. Charge : Unfair methods of competition by giving to purchasers
of its products at the end of each calendar year, or at the end of a definite period,
certain rebates or discounts based or estimated upon the aggregate of the purchases
made by such dealers during the calendar year or fixed period, with the object of
causing such purchasers to confine their purchases to respondent’s products and to
hinder its competitors from making sales to such purchasers except at a loss; and
giving rebates or discounts based on the number of machines used by a purchaser
irrespective of make or manufacture, thereby giving an undue advantage to the large
purchaser and hindering the small user or purchaser of such machines from obtaining
the same discounts and rebates as a large purchaser, 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 in course of trial.
Disposition : After hearing this proceeding was dismissed.
Complaint No. 359 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Underwood
Typewriter Co. Charge: (Ante, complaint No.358). Disposition: After hearing this
proceeding was dismissed.
Complaint No. 360 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Woodstock
Typewriter Co. Charge : (Ante, complaint No.358). Disposition : After hearing this
proceeding was dismissed.
Complaint No. 368 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Corona
Typewriter Co. (Inc.). Charge: (Ante, complaint No.358). Disposition: After hearing
this proceeding was dismissed.
Complaint No. 368 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Noiseless
Typewriter Co. Charge: (Ante, complaint No.358). Disposition: After hearing, this
proceeding was dismissed.
Complaint No. 374 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Lasker &
Bernstein. Charges : Using unfair methods of competition by deceptively in creasing
and falsifying the weight of sponges by loading them with foreign material and selling
such loaded sponges by weight, thereby creating a fictitious price for said sponges,
defrauding and misleading customers, and causing prejudice and injury to 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 375 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Joseph Bloch
(Inc.). Charge: (Ante, complaint No.374). Disposition : After hearing an order was
entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice complained
of under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 376 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Max Fuchs Co.
Charge : (Ante, complaint No. 374). Disposition: This proceeding was dismissed, the
respondent corporation having been dissolved.
Complaint No. 377 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. American Sponge
& Chamois Co. Charge : (Ante, complaint No. 374). Disposition : After hearing an
order was entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice
complained of under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 378 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Meyer Bros. Drug
Co. Charge : (Ante, complaint No.374). Disposition : After hearing this proceeding
was dismissed.

Complaint No. 379 (Sept.. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. H. L. Eitman
Sponge Co. Charge: (Ante, complaint No. 374). Disposition : After hearing an order
was entered requiring respondent to ceases and desist from using the practice
complained of under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.

EXHIBITS.

155

Complaint No. 380 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Greek American
Sponge Co. Charge: (Ante, complaint No. 374). Disposition: After hearing an order
was entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice
complained of under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 381 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Van Schaack &
Sons. Charge: (Ante, complaint No. 374). Disposition: After hearing an order was
entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice complained
of under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 382 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Jos. Niehause
Co. Charge : (Ante, complaint No.374). Disposition : After hearing an order was
entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice complained
of under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 383 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. National Sponge
& Chamois Co. Charge: (Ante, complaint No. 374). Disposition : After hearing an
order was entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice
complained of under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 384 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Atlantic Sponge
Co. Charge : (Ante, complaint No. 374). Disposition : After hearing an order was
entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice complained
of under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 385 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. A. Isaacs & Co.
Charge: (Ante, complaint No. 374). Disposition: After hearing an order was entered
requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice complained of under
section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 386 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Albert Bloch &
Sons. Charge: (Ante, complaint No. 374). Disposition : After hearing an order was
entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice complained
of under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 387 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Freirich &
Mansell. Charge: (Ante, complaint No. 374). Disposition: After hearing an order was
entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice complained
of under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 388 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission vs Louis Clonney
& Co. Charge : (Ante, complaint No. 374). Disposition : This proceeding was
dismissed, the respondents having sold the business.
Complaint No. 389 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Schroeder &
Tremayne. Charge : (Ante, complaint No. 374). Disposition : After hearing an order
was entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice
complained of under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 390 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. S. Perlman & Co.
Charge: (Ante, complaint) No. 374). Disposition : After hearing an order was entered
requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice complained of under
section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 391 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. F. L. Lampel.
Charge : (Ante, complaint No.374). Disposition : After hearing an order was entered
requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice complained of under

section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 392 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Emil Bloch.
Charge : (Ante, complaint No. 374). Disposition : After hearing an

156

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

order was entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice
complained of under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 393 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Florida Sponge
& Chamois Co. Charge: (Ante, complaint No.374). Disposition : After hearing an
order was entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice
complained of under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 391 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Levy Bros.
Charge : (Ante, complaint No.374). Disposition : After hearing an order was entered
requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice complained of under
section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 396 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. John K.
Chayney. Charge: (Ante, complaint No.374). Disposition: After hearing an order was
entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice complained
of under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 397 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. George M.
Emmanuel & Co. Charge: (Ante, complaint No. 374). Disposition : After hearing an
order was entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice
complained of under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 398 (Sept. 2, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. R B. Blaum.
Charge : (Ante, complaint No.374). Disposition: After hearing an order was entered
requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice complained of under
section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 401 (Sept.12, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Commonwealth
Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of groceries, by
advertising to sell groceries in combination orders at a fixed aggregate price, well
known and staple articles being sold at less than cost, while less familiar articles are
sold at increased prices sufficient to give respondent a satisfactory profit on the
aggregate sales, with the effect of deceiving and misleading the public, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 458 (Nov. 25, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. D. A. Winslow,
J. Jones, and D. H. Robishaw, a copartnership, doing business under the name and
style of D. A. Winslow & Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by giving
and offering to give to employees of both its customers and prospective customers, and
its competitors’ customers and prospective customers, gratuities of different kinds,
including large sums of money, as an inducement to influence their employers to
purchase or contract to purchase from respondent, or to influence such employers to
refrain from dealing or contracting to deal with competitors of respondent, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 460 (Oct.28, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Raymond Bros.
Clark Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by taking possession of
products intended for delivery to one of its competitors and declining to allow delivery
of the same to the competitor unless the shipper of said products paid to the respondent
the sum of $100 as and for a jobber’s profit upon the sale of said goods; attempting to
coerce and compel T. A. Snider Preserve Co. to refuse to recognize one of its
competitors as a jobber and to refuse to sell to it by representing that said competitor

was not a legitimate jobber but was engaged in the retail grocery business, and by

EXHIBITS.

157

threatening to withdraw its patronage if said company sold to or recognized said
competitor as a jobber and refused to pay the $100 aforementioned; that the purpose
and effect of the aforesaid acts is to cut off supplies of respondent’s competitors, to
suppress competition, and to interfere with the right to said competitor to obtain
supplies, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act.
Complaint No. 462 (Nov.25, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Sunbeam
Chemical Co. (Inc.). Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by falsely
advertising that it has obtained injunctions against competitors, restraining them from
manufacturing dye soaps; threatening suits against any person dealing in or advertising
the products of competitors, with the effect of intimidating customers and prospective
customers of competitors and inducing them to refuse to deal in such products of
competitors and causing publications to refuse to accept advertising from said
competitors and canceling contracts already entered into for such publication; by
purchasing from dealers such stocks of competitors as said dealers had on hand,
thereby removing such products from the market and to obtain for respondent the
exclusive trade of dealers handling dyestuffs; and by making derogatory and false
statements regarding the quality and usefulness of the soap so sold by competitors, all
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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 492 (Nov. 25, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Great
Republic Tire & Rubber Manufacturing Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of
competition in the sale of automobile tires and inner tubes by adopting and using as
its corporate title “The Great Republic Tire & Rubber Manufacturing Company,” and
by using as a brand name on automobile tires and inner tubes sold by it the words
“Great Republic,” which corporate title and brand name so closely resemble the brand
name of “Republic” and the corporate title “The Republic Rubber Company,” of a
competitor which has widely and extensively advertised its automobile and inner tubes
and created a valuable good will thereby, as to deceive and mislead the purchasing
public and cause them to believe that the respondent and the Republic Rubber Co. are
one and the same, and by holding itself out to the purchasing public that it is a
manufacturer of automobile tires and inner tubes, when in fact it is not, thereby
inducing the public to give to the respondent such preference as might be given by
them to manufacturers over dealers in the purchase of the products of the respondent
or in investing in its corporate stock, 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 under section 5
of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 494 (Nov. 25, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Super-Tread Tire
Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of automobile tires by
advertising as new, old and discarded automobile tires repaired and coated with rubber
coating, with the effect of deceiving and misleading the public. Disposition : After
hearing this proceeding was dismissed for failure of proof.

Complaint No. 501 (Nov. 25, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Wholesale
Grocers’ Association of El Paso, Tex.; The F. S. Ainsa Grocery (Inc.); M.

158

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Ainsa & Sons (Inc.) ; American Grocery Co. (Inc.) ; Bray & Co. (Inc.) ; The James A.
Dick Co.; Tie 11 Lesinsky Co.; Trueba-Zozaya-Seggerman (Inc.) ; Western Grocery
Co. (Inc.); Dan T White and John H. Grant, doing business under the name of WhiteGrant Co.; J. W. Lorentzen & Co.; W. H. Constable Co. (Inc.); H. W. Taylor and H.
C. Smith, doing business under the name of Taylor & Smith; John H. McMahon, doing
business under the name of John McMahon & Co.; W. T Bush; and The George H.
Griggs Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by combining and conspiring
to prevent the Standard Grocery Co. from obtaining commodities dealt in by it from
manufacturers and manufacturers’ agents and other usual sources of supply; hampering
and obstructing and attempting to hamper and obstruct the said Standard Grocery Co.
by inducing and compelling and attempting to induce and compel manufacturers of
grocery products and their agents to refuse to sell to said Standard Grocery Co. upon
the terms, conditions, and at the prices usually accorded to dealers who buy and sell
in wholesale quantities, and to compel said Standard Grocery Co. to pay for the
commodities purchased by it prices higher than those charged to other dealers who buy
and sell in wholesale quantities, with the effect of stifling and suppressing competition
in the sale of grocery products at wholesale, 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 the practice complained of under section
5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 505 (Dec. 24, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. The C. D. Kenny
Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of sugar by adopting the
policy of refusing to sell sugar unless a customer will at the same the purchase from
respondent the same number of pounds of coffee, thereby coercing a customer into
purchasing a quantity of coffee in excess of his needs or demands, and coercing,
during the recent shortage in sugar, customers into purchasing an inferior grade of
coffee, at prices above the fair market value of same, in order that such customers
might purchase sugar from respondent to satisfy their needs and requirements, in
alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition :
After hearing this proceeding was dismissed.
Complaint No. 506 (Dec. 30, 1919).-- Federal Trade Commission v. Sparrows Point
Store Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by giving and offering to give
to employees of both its customers and prospective customers gratuities of different
kinds, including large sums of money, as an inducement to influence their employers
to purchase or contract to purchase from the respondent, or to influence such
employers to refrain from dealing or contracting to deal with competitors of
respondent, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act.
Complaint No. 513 (Dec. 30, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Champion
Blower & Forge Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by threatening in
bad faith, with the intent, purpose, and effect of intimidating customers of competitors,
to institute suits against customers of its competitors for alleged infringements of
patents of respondent, and advertising its products as covered by letters patent of the
United States owned and controlled by the respondent, when in truth and fact said

patents have long since expired and have no legal force or effect, in alleged violation
of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition : After hearing this
proceeding was dismissed.

EXHIBITS.

159

Complaint No. 523 (Dec. 30, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Louis Wolper,
Jacob Wolper, and Albert Wolper), partners, styling themselves Alben-Earley. Charge
: (Ante, complaint No. 401). Disposition: After hearing an order was entered requiring
respondent to cease and desist from using the practice complained of under section 5
of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 530 (Dec. 30, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Vacuum Cleaner
Specialty Co. (Inc.), Imperial Vacuum Cleaner Co., F. R Muenzen, W. H. Kappelle,
J. P. McGrath, A. J. Muenzen, J. M. Leddy, and J. G. Waschen. Charge : Using unfair
methods of competition by the respondent Vacuum Cleaner Specialty Co. holding
itself out by advertising and otherwise that it is a vacuum-cleaner specialist and an
impartial adviser, when, as a matter of fact, it is the agent of the respondent Imperial
Vacuum Cleaner Co. and invariably recommends the “Imperial” cleaner, the product
of the respondent Imperial Vacuum Cleaner Co.; by disparaging of competitors’
devices; and by tampering with and failing to properly adjust such competitive
cleaners as they demonstrate, while properly adjusting those in which it has an interest,
thus giving prospective customers the impression that such competitive cleaners are
less efficient than they are in fact and facilitating the sale of the cleaners in which
respondent is especially interested, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission act. Disposition: After hearing this proceeding was dismissed as
to all except the Vacuum Cleaner Specialty Co., and as to that company an order was
entered requiring it to cease and desist from using the practice contained under section
5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 533 (Jan. 7, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. American Mutual
Seed Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by making use of catalogs and
other advertising matter to carry certain false and misleading statements concerning
the grade and quality of the seeds sold by respondent, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 536 (Jan. 7, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Taiyo Trading
Co. (Inc.). Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by selling matches
manufactured in Japan in containers or boxes similar in size and style and material to
those containing matches manufactured in Sweden and with Swedish inscriptions,
which have become well known to the trade and purchasing public to be of a certain
quality and to be manufactured in Sweden; with the effect of deceiving the trade and
general public into the belief that the matches contained in the boxes or containers, so
inscribed, are in fact manufactured in Sweden, whereas they are manufactured in
Japan, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act.
Complaint No. 537 (Jan. 7, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Shibakawa & Co.
(Inc.). Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by labeling safety matches, one
of its products, in Swedish, which matches are made in Japan, and upon the boxes
containing such matches in some inconspicuous type is the statement “Made in
Nippon,” but the name of the brand printed in Swedish is an exact duplication of the

name of a brand of matches made in Sweden and imported into the United States and
resold by a competitor of respondent, with the effect of confusing the trade and
enabling respondent to compete unfairly for the trade of its competitors, and
misleading the purchasing public

160

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

into the belief that the matches sold by respondent were in fact made in Sweden, in
alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition :
After hearing this proceeding was dismissed for want of sufficient proof.
Complaint No. 539 (Feb. 4, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Royal Baking
Powder Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by misbranding and falsely
advertising its product as containing substantially the same ingredients as the product
of its predecessor, Price Baking Powder Co., which predecessor’s product had a large
trade and valuable good will for 60 years and had a standard retail price of 40 to 50
cents per can of 12 ounces and other sizes in like proportions, and that the prices
advertised by respondent, although about half the former prices of its said
predecessor’s product, were still much in excess of the current and reasonable prices
of baking powders such as respondent was in fact selling, thus injuring and restraining
the business of its competitors and deceiving and misleading purchasers and
consumers, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act.
Complaint No. 542 (Jan. 14, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Edwin S Jones,
doing business under the name and style of Philadelphia Textile Chemical Works.
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by giving and loaning to employees of
his customers, without the knowledge and consent of their employers, sums of money
as an inducement to influence their said employers to purchase or contract to purchase
from the respondent soap and wood oil, or to influence such customers to refrain from
dealing or contracting to deal with competitors of the respondent, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 543 (Jan. 21, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Ricco Co. (Inc.).
Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by giving and offering to give to
employees of both its customers and prospective customers, and its competitors’
customers and prospective customers, sums of money as an inducement to influence
their employers to purchase or contract to purchase from the respondent, or to
influence such employers to refrain from dealing or contracting to deal with
competitors of respondent, 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 under section 5
of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 547 (Feb. 4, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Big Four Grocery
Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by offering, through advertisements,
for sale to the general public, groceries and other merchandise in combination lots or
assortments at and for certain fixed prices, it being necessary for the purchaser to buy
the entire hot or assortment to obtain such prices which are advertised and held out to
be less than the average retail price charged for such merchandise by competitors of
respondent ; and advertising price lists, comparing the prices charged by it to the
average retail prices charged by its competitors, such retail prices so advertised being
false and misleading and calculated to mislead the trade and general public into the

belief that such average retail prices are higher than they are in truth and in fact, in
alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition : After
hearing an order was entered requiring respondent to cease

EXHIBITS.

161

and desist from using the practice complained of under section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act.
Complaint No. 548 (Feb. 4, 1920).-Federal Trade Commission v. Vacuum Oil Co.
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by maintaining in its business a system
of giving cumulative discounts or rebates in the sale of its products whereby
purchasers of its products obtain at the end of each calendar year, or at the end of a
definite period, certain rebates or discounts based and estimated upon the aggregate
of the separate purchases made by such dealers during the calendar year, or such fixed
period; selling lubricating oils to automotive manufacturers for use in their machines,
being sold at list prices, that is to say, prices to consumers, less 40 per cent discount,
irrespective of amount, and an additional 5 per cent on carload lots ; and giving and
offering to give an additional rebate of the cost of a half gallon of oil per machine sold
to all such manufacturers who will agree to recommend in their instruction booklets
issued to purchasers, or attach to their machines a plate recommending the use of the
respondent’s lubricating oils, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act. Disposition: After hearing this proceeding was dismissed without
prejudice.
Complaint No. 562 (Feb. 5, 1920) -Federal Trade Commission v. Shotwell
Manufacturing Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by giving and
offering to give valuable premiums and presents, consisting of watches, valuable
jewelry, and other valuable personal property to the salesmen of merchants and jobbers
handling the products of the respondent and of respondent’s competitors, as an
inducement to influence such salesmen to push the sale of respondent’s products to the
exclusion of similar products of its 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 under
section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 564 (Dec. 23, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Turner &
Harrison Pen Manufacturing Co. (Inc.).
Charge : Using unfair methods of
competition by selling and offering to sell gold-plated pen points, upon which are
stamped “14 karat gold plated,” the words of this stamp being so arranged that the
word “Plated” occurs near the heel of the pen point and is obscured by the barrel or
holder of the pen point into which it is inserted, while the words “14 karat gold”
remain visible; with the effect of misleading the trade and general public into the belief
that such pen points are 14 karat gold pens, when in truth and in fact they are only gold
plated, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Disposition: After hearing this proceeding was dismissed, the practice complained of
having been discontinued prior to the issuance of this complaint.
Complaint No. 565 (Dec. 23, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. C. Howard Hunt
Pen Co. Charge : (Ante, complaint No.564). Disposition : After hearing this
proceeding was dismissed, the practice complained of having been discontinued prior
to the issuance of this complaint.
Complaint No. 567 (Dec. 23, 1919).--Federal Trade Commission v. Acme Coal
Mining Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by organizing, with full
knowledge of the existence of the Wittenberg Coal Co. and of the wide-spread use and
meaning of its trade name “Acme” when used in connection with coal, under the
corporate name of “Acme Coal Mining Company,” for the purpose of appropriating

for the respondent the good will established by the said Wittenberg Coal Co. for its
brand name “Acme” when used in connection with coal, with its principal office in the
same city in which the Wittenberg Coal Co. also has an office for the transaction of
its business of selling coal, in
71822--21----11

162

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition: After
hearing this proceeding was dismissed, there being no evidence of unfair methods of
competition in interstate commerce.
Complaint No. 569 (Feb. 28, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Edward Perlman
and Samuel Gerber, copartners trading under the name and style of Liberty Wholesale
Grocers. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by advertising, through the
medium of catalogs and other advertising matter, for sale to thee general public
groceries in combination lots or assortments at and for certain fixed prices, it being
necessary for the purchaser to buy the entire lot or assortment to obtain such prices,
which are advertised and held out to be less than the average retail price charged for
such groceries; and representing, through advertisements, that respondents are
regularly engaged in the business of merchandising grocers at wholesale and that
purchasers from respondents save from 30 to 50 per cent on goods purchased from
them, when in truth respondents are in no sense engaged in the business of
merchandising groceries at wholesale, but sell goods direct to consuming purchasers
in comparatively small combination lots, and the prices paid by respondents for the
goods so sold in combination lots or assortments, as a whole, are substantially the
same or greater than the prices which retail grocers generally obtain for like
assortments as a whole, 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 under section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 570 (Feb. 28, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Consaco Sales
Co. (Inc.). Charge : (Ante, complaint No. 536). Disposition : After hearing an order
was entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice
complained of under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 571 (Feb. 28, 1920) --Federal Trade Commission v. Cupples Co
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by putting up in boxes bearing the brand
“The Best Black Eagle” with wording on the box or label pasted on said box bearing
distinctive Scandinavian words, matches imported by respondent from Japan, with the
effect of deceiving the purchasing public into the belief that said matches are of
Scandinavian origin and manufacture, 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 under section 5
of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 572 (Feb. 28, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. William H.
Plunkett, trading as Plunkett Chemical Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of
competition by circulating false and misleading statements in advertisements
disparaging drip cans, the products of competitors, and stating that such drip
disinfectors have been condemned by the United States Public Health Service, when
such is not the fact, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act.
Complaint No. 574 (Feb. 28, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Waverly Brown,
Mrs. Waverly Brown, T F. Conley, Illinois Storage Co., Chicago Storage Co., Chicago

Storage Sales Co., and Tyrolia Talking Machine Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of
competition by advertising to deceive the purchasing public) into the belief, that
slightly used phonographs of standard make of highest value are being offered for sale
by private owners at abnormal and

EXHIBITS.

163

unusual reductions from full standard resale values, when in fact said phonographs are
not privately owned, but are new and unused and of grade and quality much inferior
to phonographs of the standard makes which they are made to imitate, and are
manufactured by respondents and sold to purchasers for less than one-third of the
standard resale prices at which they are listed in respondent’s advertising matter; and
that phonographs so advertised have been stored for safekeeping with one or the other
of respondents, Illinois Storage Co. or Chicago Storage Co. or Chicago Storage Sales
Co., and are being offered for sale for the purpose of reimbursing one or the other of
said respondents for unpaid storage charges, when in fact such phonographs have
never been so stored, nor do said respondents now nor have they or any of them at any
time since March, 1919; conducted a storage or warehouse business of any kind, but
respondents have been and are using the titles Illinois Storage Co., Chicago Storage
Co., and Chicago Storage Sales Co. as sham trade names for the purpose and with the
effect of accomplishing said deceptions in selling phonographs of their own
manufacture, 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 using the practice complained of under section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act.
Complaint No. 575 (Feb. 28, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. P. Tyrrell Ward,
trading under the name and style of Household Storage Co. Charge : Using unfair
methods of competition by putting in catalogues and advertising matter false and
misleading statements that respondent is regularly engaged in the storage or warehouse
business, and by reason thereof comes into possession of a single phonograph, or of
single lots of phonographs, which have never been removed from the cases in which
they left the factory; these new phonographic being advertised by respondent as of
value vastly in excess of the value at which respondent is offering them for sale to the
public, such offers of sale being limited to a single phonograph, or a single lot of
phonographs, and will not be so offered again, when in fact respondent is not now, and
for more than a year last has not been engaged in the storage or warehouse business,
but is regularly engaged in the business of merchandizing phonograph of a grade and
quality which are manufactured to sell at resale and are customarily sold at resale by
respondent in the regular course of his business at less than one-third of the resale
price at which they are listed in respondent’s catalogue, respondent using said trade
name for the purpose and with the effect of accomplishing deceptions in the sale of
phonographs, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act.
Complaint No. 577 (Feb. 28, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Holland Piano
Manufacturing Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by stenciling
abnormally and unreasonably high, fictitious prices on pianos manufactured by it and
allowing radical reductions therefrom, with the effect that the purchasing public is led
to believe that the pianos are sold at reduced prices, when in truth such prices are equal
to the full resale prices received for pianos of equal quality and grade, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 582 (Mar. 31, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Universal Motor
Co. and Universal Products. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by
advertising and selling and offering for sale to the trade and general

164

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

public lighting plants for which they have adopted and assumed the trade names of
Universal Lighting Unit, Universal Unit Lighting Plants, and Universal Farm Lighting
Unit, when the trade name “Universal” had previously become well known and
established as the product of the Universal Battery Co. and its predecessor Universal
Electric Storage Battery Co., with the effect of confusing the trade and general public
and misleading dealers, customers, and prospective customers into the belief that the
lighting plants of the respondents and Universal Battery Co. are one and the same, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 290 (May 12, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Bankers
Petroleum & Refining Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of
stocks and securities by false statements concerning the location and value of its
leases, its refinery, and available source of crude oil, and soliciting subscriptions to
and sales of stock by the use of letters, circulars, and other advertising matter
containing false and misleading statements and representations concerning
respondent’s business and alleged benefits which purchasers might derive from
purchasing and investing in its said stock, in alleged violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition : After hearing this proceeding was
dismissed for failure of proof.
Complaint No. 592 (May 12, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Mebane Iron
Bed Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by manufacturing bed springs
similar in appearance to the bed springs produced by the Mebane Bedding Co., which
latter company had extensively advertised its products, so that such products had
become widely and favorably known and had built up a favorable good will for its
products and for the name “Mebane,” with the effect of deceiving and misleading the
purchasing public and causing it to believe that the respondent and the Mebane
Bedding Co. are one and the same, in alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission act. Disposition : After hearing this proceeding was dismissed
without prejudice.
Complaint No. 593 (May 12, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. A E. Lind, doing
business under the assumed name and style of United States Salvage Co. Charge:
Using unfair methods of competition by advertising a “Sale of Army and Navy paints”
without having for sale any such products for or acquired from the United States
Government, with the effect of misleading the purchasing public, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 596 (Apr. 27, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. United Indigo &
Chemical Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by giving to employees
of its customers and purchasers, and of the employees of its competitors, dinners,
theater tickets, cigars, prize-fight tickets, and lavish entertainments to such employees,
payments of cash commissions, bonuses, prizes, and gratuities to the employees of its
customers and purchasers and to the employees of its competitors, in order to induce
such employees to push and favor the sale of the products of the respondent over the
goods of its 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 under section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 597 (Apr. 27, 1920)--Federal Trade Commission v. Samuel
Weinberg, doing business under the trade name and style of the International

EXHIBITS.

165

Flaxol Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by selling a certain product
which respondent has named and advertises as “Flaxol,” thereby indicating that it is
a product or derivative of flax and the equivalent of linseed oil, the well-known
product of flax, when in fact “Flaxol” contains only a small and immaterial amount of
linseed oil, is not a product or derivative of flax or the equivalent of linseed oil, and
the natural and probable effect of such holding out of the commodity is to mislead the
public into believing that “Flaxol” is produced from flax, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 598 (Apr. 29, 1290) --Federal Trade Commission v. Everybody’s
Mercantile Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of Competition by giving and offering
to give customers and prospective customers, as an inducement to secure their trade
and patronage, certain papers, coupons, or certificates which are redeemable in various
prizes or premiums consisting of personal property of unequal values, the distribution
of which is determined by chance or lot, 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 under section 5
of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 600 (Apr. 27, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Lewis Pelstring.
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by advertising paints under the names
of “Government Supply House,” “Pelstring’s Government Supply House,” etc., with
the effect of misleading the purchasing public into the belief that such products were
formerly the property of the United States Government, when in fact said products
were bought from other dealers in the ordinary course of business and were never the
property of the United States Government, 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 under
section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 605 (May 4, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Adolph Braude
& Louis Braude, doing business as Franklin Knitting Mills. Charge : Using unfair
methods of competition by conducting its business of buying arid selling knitted goods
as wholesale merchants or jobbers under the trade name of Franklin Knitting Mills,
which assumed trade name leads the customers and public generally to believe that the
respondent firm operating under said firm name is a manufacturer of the goods sold
by it, when such is not the fact, but respondent is a merchant or jobber and buys the
goods so sold ; and by adopting the name of Franklin Knitting Mills when there was
in existence a corporation whose legal corporate name was “Franklin Knitting Mills
(Inc.),” a long established firm which was engaged in the same general business at the
time respondent adopted its name 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 under section 5
of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 610 (May 4, 1920).-Federal Trade Commission v. Montgomery Ward
& Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by advertising in printed
catalogues that a liquid roofing cement which It offers for sale contains no coal tar,

when in truth and in fact said liquid roofing cement does contain which fact is well
known to the respondent in alleged violation of

166

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

order was entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice
complained of under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 611 (May 12, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Star
Provision Co., Malone Oil Co., and B. Marx, trading under the name and style of
Liberty Oil Products Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by soliciting
trade in various lubricating-oil compounds and adulterated linseed oils by means of
circulars and circular letters mailed to prospective customers without disclosing to the
purchasing public the component ingredients of said compounds, and creating the
erroneous impression in said circulars and circular letters that such oils and
compounds are pure lard, fish, sperm, or linseed oils and falsely stating in said
circulars and circular letters that such oils and compounds will meet the requirements
of all mechanical and industrial uses, 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 under section 5
of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 612 (May 12, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Great Western
Oil Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by falsely advertising that its
product which is a mixture of benzol and gasoline and sold under the trade name
“Crystal-Pep” has been indorsed by the Automobile Association of America and the
United States Bureau of Mines, when such is not the fact, in alleged violation of
section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition : After hearing this
proceeding was dismissed, the respondent having discontinued the practice prior to the
issuance of this complaint.
Complaint No. 613 (June 29, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. T C. Hurst and
Floyd Hurst, a copartnership doing business under the name and style of T C. Hurst
& Son. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by giving sums of money and
other gratuities to officers and employees of ships as an inducement to influence their
employers or the owners of said ships to purchase goods from the respondent, 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 the
practice complained of under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 614 (June 29, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Norden Ship
Supply Co. Charge : (Ante, complaint No.613). Disposition : After hearing an order
was entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice
complained of under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 615 (June 29, 1920) -Federal Trade Commission v. Marine
Equipment Co. (Inc.). Charge: (Ante, complaint No.613.) Disposition : After hearing
an order was entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice
complained of under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 621 (July 29, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. United States
Color and Chemical Co. (Inc.). Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by
offering and giving cash gratuities and commissions to employees of its customers as
an inducement to said employees to favor the purchases of respondent’s dyestuffs and
chemicals, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act.

Complaint No. 622 (May 5, 1920)--Federal Trade Commission v. Federal Press
(Inc.), and C. W. Parker. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition by publishing
books entitled “Who’s Who in the Northwest,” “Who’s

EXHIBITS.

167

Who and Why,” etc., made up similar in size, color, binding, and general appearance
to the publication of A. N. Marquis & Co.’s “Who’s Who in America,” well known
through years of circulation and usage, and by making use of clippings from the
Marquis publication in soliciting the purchase of their books, and by false and
misleading statements as to their business connections with the effect of misleading
and deceiving the purchasing public, 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 under section 5
of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 627 (July 2, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. John W. Focke.
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of ship chandlery by giving
valuable gifts and cash commissions to captains and other officers of ships to induce
them to purchase ship chandlery and supplies from the respondent, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 628 (July 2, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. George D. Flood
and W. H. Calvert, partners, styling themselves Flood & Calvert. Charge : Using
unfair methods of competition in the sale of ship chandlery by giving valuable gifts
and cash commissions to captains and other officers of ships to induce them to
purchase ship chandlery and supplies from the respondent, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 629 (July 2, 1920).-Federal Trade Commission v. John R Adams, W.
J. Adams, and George T. Adams, partners styling themselves John R. Adams & Co.
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of ship chandlery by giving
valuable gifts and cash commissions to captains and other officers of ships to induce
them to purchase ship chandlery and supplies from the respondent, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 630 (Sept. 8, 1920) --Federal Trade Commission v. Gulf Iron &
Machine Co. (Inc.). Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the business of
repairing ships and furnishing repair parts by giving to captains and other officers and
employees of vessels valuable gifts, cash commissions, and gratuities as an inducement
to have the ships operated by them for the owners thereof repaired by the respondent,
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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 631 (Sept. 8, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. T. J. Anderson,
doing business under the trade name and style of Seaboard Transportation & Shipping
Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the business of repairing ships
and furnishing repair parts by giving to captains and other officers and employees of
vessels valuable gifts, cash commissions, and gratuities as an inducement to have the
ships operated by them for the owner thereof repaired by the respondent, in alleged

violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition : After
hearing an order was

168

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

entered requiring respondent to cease and desist from using the practice complained
of under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 632 (Sept. 8, 1920)--Federal Trade Commission v. Albert P. J.
Voight, doing business under the trade name and style of Voight Machine Shop.
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the business of repairing ships and
furnishing repair parts by giving to captains and other officers and employees of
vessels valuable gifts. cash commissions, and gratuities as an inducement to have the
ships operated by them for the owners thereof repaired by the respondent, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 633 (Sept. 8, 1920) --Federal Trade Commission v. J. Bader, doing
business under the trade name and style of Vulcan Iron Works. Charge : Using unfair
methods of competition in the business of repairing ships and furnishing repair parts
by giving to captains and other officers and employees of vessels valuable gifts, cash
commissions, and gratuities as an inducement to have the ships operated by them for
the owners thereof repaired by the respondent, 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 under
section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 634 (Sept. 8, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Gray’s
Engineering Works (Inc.). Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the
business of repairing ships and furnishing repair parts by giving to captains and other
officers and employees of vessels valuable gifts, cash commissions, and gratuities as
an inducement to have the ships operated by them for the owners thereof repaired by
the respondent, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act.
Complaint No. 635 (Sept. 8, 1920) --Federal Trade Commission v. John P.
McDonough, doing business under the trade name and style of McDonough Iron
Works. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the business of repairing
ships and furnishing repair parts by giving to captains and other officers and
employees of vessels valuable gifts, cash commissions, and gratuities as an inducement
to have the ships operated by them for the owners thereof repaired by the respondent,
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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 636 (Sept. 9, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Marine Iron
Works (Inc.). Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the business of
repairing ships and furnishing repair parts by giving to captains and other officers and
employees of vessels valuable gifts, cash commissions, and gratuities as an inducement
to have the ships operated by them for the owners thereof repaired by the respondent,
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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.

Complaint No. 637 (Sept. 8, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. A. V. McFadden
and Carl McFadden. partners styling themselves the Texas Iron Works. Charge: Using
unfair methods of competition in the business of re-

EXHIBITS.

169

pairing ships and furnishing repair parts by giving to captains and other officers and
employees of vessels valuable gifts, cash commissions, and gratuities as an inducement
to have the ships operated by them for the owners thereof repaired by the respondent,
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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 638 (Sept. 8, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. R. Kellogg, J. C.
Currie, and J. H. Giddens, partners styling themselves the Port Arthur Marine
Engineering Works. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the business of
repairing ships and furnishing repair parts by giving to captains and other officers and
employees of vessels valuable gifts, cash commissions, and gratuities as an inducement
to have the ships operated by them for the owners thereof repaired by the respondent,
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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 639 (Sept. 9, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Johnson Iron
Works (Ltd.) . Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the business of
repairing ships and furnishing repair parts by giving to captains and other officers and
employees of vessels valuable gifts, cash commissions, and gratuities as an inducement
to have the ships operated by them for the owners thereof repaired by the respondent,
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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 640 (Sept. 17, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Everett Supply
Company (Inc.). Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of ship
chandlery by giving expensive gifts, liquor, cigars, meals, theater tickets, automobile
drives, and other forms of entertainment, amusement, or diversion, totaling
approximately $850 per month, to captains and other officers of ships to induce them
to purchase ship chandlery and supplies from the respondent, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 641 (Sept. 9, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Stern Foundry &
Machinery Co. (Inc.). Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the business
of repairing ships and furnishing repair parts by giving to captains and other officers
and employees of vessels valuable gifts, cash commissions, and gratuities as an
inducement to have the ships operated by them for the owners thereof repaired by the
respondent, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act.
Complaint No. 642 (Sept. 9, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Crescent City
Machine & Manufacturing Works (Inc.). Charge : Using unfair methods of
competition in the business of repairing ships and furnishing repair parts by giving to
captains and other officers and employees of vessels valuable gifts, cash commissions,
and gratuities as an inducement to have the ships operated by them for the owners
thereof repaired by the respondent, 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 under section 5
of the Federal Trade Commission act.

170

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

Complaint No. 643 (Sept. 14, 1920)--Federal Trade Commission v. Alex. Dussel Iron
Works (Inc.). Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the business of
repairing ships and furnishing repair parts by giving to captains and other officers and
employees of vessels valuable gifts, cash commissions, and gratuities as an inducement
to have the ships operated by them for the owners thereof repaired by respondent, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 644 (Sept. 9, 1290).--Federal Trade Commission v. The Union Iron
Works, (Inc.). Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the business of
repairing ships and furnishing repair parts by giving to captains and other officers and
employees of vessels valuable gifts, cash commissions, and gratuities as an inducement
to have the ships operated by them for the owners thereof repaired by respondent, in
alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition :
After hearing an order was entered re requiring the respondent to cease and desist from
using the practice complained of under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 645 (Sept. 9, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. William J.
Tierney, doing business under the trade name and style of New Orleans Machine
Works. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the business of repairing
ships and furnishing repair parts by giving to captains and other officers and
employees of vessels valuable gifts, cash commissions, and gratuities as an inducement
to have the ships operated by them for the owners thereof repaired by respondent, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 646 (Sept. 9, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. C. A. Simpson,
doing business under the trade name and style of C. A. Simpson & Co. Charge : Using
unfair methods of competition in the sale of ship chandlery by giving valuable gifts
and cash commissions to captains and other officers of ships to induce them to
purchase ship chandlery and supplies from the respondent, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 647 (Sept. 9, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Cowles Ship
Supply Co. (Inc.). Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of ship
chandlery by giving valuable gifts, cash commissions, and expensive entertainments
to captains and other officers of ships to induce them to purchase ship chandlery
supplies from the respondent, 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 under section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 649 (Sept. 9, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Home Industry
Iron Works (Inc.). Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the business of
repairing ships and furnishing repair parts by giving to captains and other officers and
employees of vessels valuable gifts, cash commissions and gratuities as an inducement
to have the ships operated by them for the owner thereof repaired by respondent, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.

EXHIBITS.

171

Complaint No. 650 (Sept. 14,1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Henderson Ship
Building Co. (Inc.). Charge : Using unfair methods of Competition in the business of
re pairing ships and furnishing repair parts by giving to captains and her officers and
employees of vessels valuable gifts, cash commissions, and gratuities as an inducement
to have the ships operated by them for the owners thereof repaired by respondent, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 651 (Sept. 9, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. D. C. Hodges,
doing business under the trade name and style of Hodges Boiler & Machine Works.
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the business of repairing ships and
furnishing repair parts by giving to captains and her officers and employees of vessels
valuable gifts, cash commissions, and gratuities as an inducement to have the ships
operated by them for the owners thereof repaired by respondent, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 652 (Sept. 9, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. McKenzie
Oerting, doing business under the trade name and style of McKenzie Oerting Co.
Charge: Using unfair methods of coni petition in the sale of ship chandlery by giving
expensive gifts and large sums of money in the form of cash commissions to captains
and other officers and employees of ships to induce them to purchase ship chandlery
and supplies from the respondent, 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 under section 5
of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 653 (Sept.14, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Gulf Machine
Works. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the business of repairing
ships and furnishing repair parts by giving to captains and other officers and
employees of vessels valuable gifts, cash commissions, and gratuities as an inducement
to have the ships operated by them for the owners thereof repaired by respondent, in
alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition : This
proceeding was dismissed, the respondent having sold and discontinued the business.
Complaint No. 654 (Sept. 9, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Runyan Co.
Charge : Using unfair . methods of competition in the sale of ship chandlery by giving
expensive gifts and large sums of money in the form of cash commission to captains
and other officers and employees of ships to induce them to purchase ship chandlery
and supplies from the respondent, 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 under section 5
of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 655 (Sept. 9, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. J. K. A. Hussey
and L. T. Copp, partners styling themselves Hussey & Copp. Charge : Using unfair
methods of competition in the sale of ship chandlery by giving cash commissions and
gratuities to captains and other officers of ships to induce them to purchase ship
chandlery and supplies from the respondent, in alleged violation of section 5 of the

Federal Trade Commission act.

172

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

and desist from using the practice complained of under section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act.
Complaint No. 656 (Sept.17, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. W. A. Rhea,
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of ship chandlery by giving
cash commissions and gratuities to captains and other officers of ships to induce them
to purchase ship chandlery and supplies from the respondent, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 657 (Sept. 18, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Eugene
Richardson, W. R. Richardson, and J. W. Richardson, partners styling themselves
Richardson Brothers. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of ship
chandlery by giving cash commissions and gratuities to captains and other officers of
ships to induce them to purchase ship chandlery and supplies from the respondent, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 658 (Sept. 18, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Charleston Dry
Dock & Machine Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the business
of repairing ships and furnishing repair parts by giving to captains and other officers
and employees of vessels valuable gifts, cash commissions, and gratuities as an
inducement to have the ships operated by them for the owners thereof repaired by
respondent, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act.
Complaint No. 659 (Sept. 17, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Charleston Iron
Works. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the business of repairing
ships and furnishing repair parts by giving to captains and other officers and
employees of vessels valuable gifts, cash commissions, and gratuities as an inducement
to have the ships operated by them for the owners thereof repaired by respondent, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 660 (Sept. 17, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Savannah Ship
Chandlery & Supply Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of
ship chandlery by giving valuable gifts, cash commissions, and gratuities to captains
and other officers and employees of ships as an inducement for them to purchase ship
chandlery from the respondent, in 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 under section 5
of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 661 (Sept. 18, 1920,).--Federal Trade Commission v. C. G.
Wilkinson, doing business under the trade name and style of Wilkinson Machine Co.
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the business of repairing ships and
furnishing repair parts by giving to captains and other officers and employees of
vessels valuable gifts, cash commission, and gratuities as an inducement to have the

ships operated by them for the owners thereof repaired by the respondent, in alleged
violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition: After hearing
an order was entered requiring respondent to cease

EXHIBITS.

173

desist from using the practice complained of under section 5 of the Fed-I Trade
Commission act.
Complaint No. 669 (July 2, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. George C.
LeGendre and George Chadwick LeGendre, partners, styling themselves George
LeGendre & Son. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of ship
chandlery by giving valuable gifts, cash commission, and gratuities to captains and
other officers and employees of ships as an inducement for them to chase ship
chandlery from the respondent, in 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 under section 5
of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 675 (Nov. 29, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Marine Supply
Co. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of ship chandlery by
giving valuable gifts, cash commissions, and gratuities to captains and other officers
and employees of ships as an inducement for them to chase ship chandlery from the
respondent, in 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 com-Lined of under section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act.
Complaint No. 690 (Nov. 30, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Co. of
Ohio. Charge: Using unfair methods of competition in the business purchasing and
selling refined oil and gasoline by selling, leasing, and loaning oil pumps, storage
tanks, or containers and their equipments below cost with the understanding that
dealers shall not place in such devices the refined oil or gasoline of competitors and
making exclusive dealing contracts to that act, in alleged violation of section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission act and section 3 of the Clayton Act. Disposition : After
hearing an order was entered requiring respondent to cease and desist the practice
herein complained under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act and section
3 of the Clayton Act. (NOTE.--The order to cease and desist of the Commission was
versed by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, on Jan. 1921.)
Complaint No. 691 (Dec. 3, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Thomas Duggan
and W. C. Duggan, partners, styling themselves as Duggan & Son. Charge : Using
unfair methods of competition in the sale of ship chandlery by ,giving expensive gifts,
meals, theater tickets, automobile trips, and other entertainment to officers and
employees of ships to induce them to purchase ship chandlery from the respondent, 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 the
practice complained of under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 692 (December 3, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Paul
Forbriger and August Bentkamp, partners styling themselves Paul Forbriger Co.
Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of Swiss “Inventic” watches
by attempting to restrict jobbers to the American source f supply by means of
intimidation and threats of suits for damages and by preventing jobbers from
advertising the sale of such watches at less than the by price by inducing the publishers
of said journals to refuse such advertisements, 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 the practice complained of under section 5 of
the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 700 (Dec. 28, 1920).--Federal Trade Commission v. Albany Chemical
Co. Charge: That the respondent, subsequent to the cancellation of

174

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

the United States trade-mark “Aspirin” upon the expiration of the patent, the property
of the Bayer Company (Inc.) for acetyl salicylic acid, obtained State registration of the
word “Aspirin” as its trade-mark and thereupon made numerous erroneous deceptive
statements concerning aspirin and respondent’s right to the use of the word and
informed dealers in drugs and medicines that the use of the word in connection with
products other than those of the respondent would be regarded as an infringement of
its property rights in said trade-mark, 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 the practice complained of under section 5 of the
Federal Trad Commission act.
Complaint No. 708 (Jan. 8, 1921 ).--Federal Trade Commission v. Accounting
Machine Company (Inc.). Charge : Using unfair methods of competition advertising
its calculating machines under the trade name “Amco” by publishing numerous false
and misleading statements to the effect that its product ha been adopted by the United
States Government, city of New York, and numerous nationally known industrial
concerns named in such advertising matter, an that 85 per cent of the leading concerns
of the United States solved their accounting problems by the use of the Anno
machines, in alleged violation o section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Disposition : After hearing an order was entered requiring respondent to cease and
desist practice complained of under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 714 (Jan. 27, 1921).--Federal Trade Commission v. Brothers Law Co.
Charge: Using unfair methods of competition by making use of numerous false and
misleading statements in advertising its groceries, using the combination sale method
to lead the purchasing public to believe that its groceries are being sold to the
consumer at wholesale prices, at less than the value of the goods, and at less than the
goods can be bought from other grocers selling in competition with the respondent, in
alleged violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act. Disposition :
After hearing this proceeding was dismissed without prejudice.
Complaint No. 748 (Mar. 29, 1921).--Federal Trade Commission v. McCloskey
Varnish Co. Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the sale of varnish which
is not procured from the Government or manufactured for its use or made in
accordance with any Government formula or specifications as “Government Spar,”
with the effect of misleading and deceiving the purchasing public, 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 the practice complained of under
section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission act.
Complaint No. 749 (Mar. 29, 1921).--Federal Trade Commission v. Orleans Iron
Works (Inc.). Charge : Using unfair methods of competition in the business of
repairing ships and furnishing repair parts by giving to captains and other officers and
employees of vessels valuable gifts, cash commissions, arid gratuities as an
inducement to have the ships operated by them for the owners thereof repaired by
respondent, 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 under section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission act.