It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the combination mentioned and described in the petition is an unlawful combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce among the States and foreign nations and an attempt to monopolize the same, that the acts set forth were contrary to equity and good conscience and that the combination and conspiracy was and is unlawful and in derogation of the common rights of the people of the United States

Judge Hough's order specifically mentioned among the illegal acts prohibited, the fixing of prices or of qualities of the materials manufactured and the maintenance of any pool or fund from individual contributions.

As a result of the admission by the members of the Fibre and Manila Association that they had violated the Sherman law, the Siegel-Cooper Company in May, 1909, brought suit in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, against the Continental Bag Company to test the right of a consumer to recover the treble damages stipulated by the act for injuries caused by the illegal combine. The defendant, a Maine corporation, was the exclusive selling agent of Manila bags and wrapping paper for the International Paper Company. The Siegel-Cooper Company in the complaint asserted that it was obliged to make an excess payment of $3,969.87 for wrapping paper because of the unlawful agreement which the defendant corporation entered into through membership in the Fibre and Manila "pooling" combine. The full amount of the damages demanded by the plaintiff company was $11,909.61.

The complaint called attention to the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States in a decision handed down on February 1, 1909, held that each and every member of an unlawful combination was liable for excessive payments which any customer may have made in consequence of the acts of the combine. It was therefore asserted that inasmuch as the unlawful character of the "wrapping paper pool" was admitted, the plaintiff company was entitled to recover the exorbitant price paid for paper purchased in the general market just as well as though it had bought directly from a member of the Fibre and Manila Association.

PRESIDENT MCKINLEY'S ADMINISTRATION

MARCH 4, 1897-SEPTEMBER 14, 1901

[Joseph McKenna, Attorney-General, March 5, 1897, to June 25, 1898; John W. Griggs, Attorney-General, June 25, 1898, to March 29, 1901; Philander C. Knox, Attorney-General, Apr. 15, 1901, to June 30, 1904.]

1.—Anderson v. United States, 82 Fed. Rep., 998; 171 U. S., 604. (Circuit Court, N. D. Missouri.) (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.) (United States Supreme Court, October 24,

1898.)

Bill in equity to restrain the operations of "The Traders' Live Stock Exchange," of Kansas City, an association formed for the purpose of buying cattle on the market. This suit was instituted June 7, 1897, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri. Decree of temporary injunction was granted and the case appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. From there it was certified to the Supreme Court of the United States for instructions upon certain questions, under the provisions of section 6 of the act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat., 828). The Supreme Court reversed the decree of the Circuit Court and remanded the case, with directions to dismiss the bill, holding that the acts complained of were not a violation of the anti-trust law.

2.-United States v. Coal Dealers' Association, 85 Fed. Rep., 252. (Circuit Court, N. D. California. January 28, 1898.)

Suit brought December 16, 1897. Bill for injunction to restrain the operations of a combination of coal dealers known as the "Coal Dealers' Association of California." A temporary injunction was granted.

3.-United States v. Chesapeake and Ohio Fuel Company et al., 105 Fed. Rep., 93; 115 Fed. Rep., 610. (Circuit Court, S. D. Ohio. Aug. 31, 1900.) (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. April 8,

1902.)

Bill filed May 8, 1899, to annul a contract and dissolve a combination of producers and shippers of coal in Ohio and West Virginia, engaged in mining coal and making coke intended for "Western shipment," under agreement to sell the same at not less than a memorandum price, to be fixed by an Executive Committee appointed by the Producers. Defendants enjoined, contract declared void and illegal, and the combination dissolved. Affirmed by Circuit Court of Appeals. No appeal taken.

PRESIDENT CLEVELAND'S SECOND ADMINISTRATION

MARCH 4, 1893-MARCH 4, 1897

[Richard Olney, Attorney-General, March 6, 1893, to June 7, 1895; Judson Harmon, Attorney-General, June 8, 1895, to March 5, 1897.]

1.-United States v. Agler, 62 Fed. Rep., 824. (Circuit Court, Indiana, July 12, 1894.)

Information charging contempt of court in disobeying an injunction restraining Agler and others from interfering with interstate commerce and obstructing the mails. Information quashed. It was charged that Agler was a member of the American Railway Union, the members of which order were on a strike and had been enjoined under the anti-trust law from interfering with the carrying of the mails and from obstructing interstate commerce. This is one of the "Debs" cases.

2.-United States v. Elliott, 62 Fed. Rep., 801; 64 Fed. Rep., 27. (Cir

cuit Court, E. D. Missouri. July 6 and October 24, 1894.)

Suit to restrain Elliott, Debs, and others, members of the American Railway Union, from carrying out their unlawful conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce and to obstruct the carrying of the mails, in violation of the anti-trust law. Preliminary injunction granted. A demurrer to this bill was overruled.

3.-United States v. Debs et al., 64 Fed. Rep., 724. (Circuit Court, N. D. Illinois. December 14, 1894.)

Proceedings in contempt to punish Debs and others for disobeying an injunction restraining them from interfering with interstate commerce and with obstructing the mails, by means of a conspiracy, in violation of the anti-trust law. Defendants found guilty and punished.

3a. In re Debs, petitioner, 158 U. S., 564. (United States Supreme Court. May 27, 1895.)

Proceedings instituted July 2, 1894. Application for a writ of habeas corpus to secure a discharge from imprisonment for disobeying an injunction of the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois, restraining Debs and others from conspiring to interfere with interstate commerce, in violation of the anti-trust law.

Petition for the writ denied.

4.-United States v. Cassidy, 67 Fed. Rep., 698. (District Court, N. D. California. April 1 and 2, 1895.)

Cassidy and others were indicted under section 5440, United States Revised Statutes, for conspiring to commit offences against the United States, which acts consisted in a combining and conspiring to restrain trade and commerce between the States, in violation of the anti-trust

law, and grew out of the Pullman strike in California. The trial lasted five months and resulted in a disagreement of the jury. 5.-Moore v. United States, 85 Fed. Rep., 465. (Circuit Court of Appeals,

Eighth Circuit. February 14, 1898.)

Indictment of the members of an association of dealers in coal at Salt Lake City for entering into a conspiracy to regulate the price of coal was returned November 4, 1895. Moore was tried and convicted in the District Court of Utah. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of conviction, for the reason that upon the admission of Utah as a State it was no longer a "Territory" within the meaning of the antitrust act, and the combination was not in restraint of inter-State commerce, and the court therefore had no jurisdiction of the offence. 6.-United States v. Joint Traffic Association, 76 Fed. Rep., 895; 89 Fed.

Rep., 1020; 171 U. S., 505. (Circuit Court, S. D. New York. May 28, 1896.) (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. March 19, 1897.) (United States Supreme Court. October 28, 1898.)

Suit instituted January 8, 1896. Bill in equity to enjoin the alleged violation of the anti-trust law by a combination of railroads. The Circuit Court dismissed the bill, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the action of the Circuit Court. These judgments were reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

7.-United States v. Addyston Pipe and Steel Company, 78 Fed. Rep., 712; 85 Fed. Rep., 271; 175 U. S. 211. (Circuit Court, E. D. Tennessee. February 5, 1897.) (Circuit Court of Appeals. Sixth Circuit. February 8, 1898.) (United States Supreme Court. December 4, 1899.)

Suit instituted December 10, 1896. Bill in equity to enjoin the operations of the Cast-Iron Pipe Trust, which attempted to control the price of cast-iron pipe. The bill was dismissed by the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decree of the Circuit Court and remanded the case, with instructions to enter a decree for the Government. On appeal to the Supreme Court the action of the Circuit Court of Appeals was affirmed.

8.-United States v. Hopkins et al., 82 Fed. Rep., 529; 84 Fed. Rep., 1018; 171 U. S. 578. (Circuit Court, Kansas. September 2, 1897.) (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, December 27, 1897.) (United States Supreme Court. October 24, 1898.) Suit instituted December 31, 1896. Bill to restrain the operations of the "Kansas City Live Stock Exchange," organized to control shipments of live stock. The injunction was granted, but on appeal the Supreme Court reversed the decree of the Circuit Court and remanded the case, with instructions to dismiss the bill.

PRESIDENT HARRISON'S ADMINISTRATION

MARCH 4, 1889-TO MARCH 4, 1893

[William H. Miller, Attorney-General, March 5, 1889, to March 6, 1893.] 1.-United States v. Jellico Mountain Coal Company, 43 Fed. Rep., 898; 46 Fed. Rep., 432. (Circuit Court, M. D. Tennessee. October 13, 1890; June 4, 1891.)

Suit against the members of the "Nashville Coal Exchange," composed of various coal-mining companies operating mines in Kentucky and Tennessee, and of persons and firms dealing in coal in Nashville, formed for the purpose of fixing prices and regulating the output of coal. A preliminary injunction was denied on October 13, 1890. Upon final hearing the court, on June 4, 1891, held the combination to be in violation of the anti-trust law and enjoined the further carrying out of the agreement. 2.-United States v. Greenhut et al., 50 Fed. Rep., 469. (District Court, Massachusetts. May 16, 1892.)

A proceeding by indictment against the officers of the Distilling and Cattle Feeding Co. (Whisky Trust) for an alleged violation of the antitrust law. Indictment quashed, as allegations were held not to constitute an offence under the statute.

3.-United States v. Nelson, 52 Fed. Rep., 646. (District Court, Minnesota. October 10, 1892.)

Indictment of a number of lumber dealers for conspiring together to raise the price of lumber in violation of the anti-trust law. Demurrer to indictment sustained, the court holding that an agreement between a number of dealers to raise prices, unless they controlled nearly the entire commodity, could not operate as a restraint of trade under the act. 4.-United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 53 Fed. Rep.,

440; 58 Fed. Rep., 58; 166 U. S., 290. (Circuit Court, Kansas. November 28, 1892.) (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. October 2, 1893.) (United States Supreme Court. March 22, 1897.) Bill filed January 6, 1892, to enjoin the operations of a combination of railroads engaged in inter-State commerce, formed for the purpose of maintaining "just and reasonable rates," &c. Bill dismissed by Circuit Court; decree of dismissal affirmed by Circuit Court of Appeals, and reversed by the United States Supreme Court on March 22, 1897. 5.-United States v. Workingmen's Amalgamated Council of New Or

leans et al., 54 Fed. Rep., 994; 57 Fed. Rep., 85. (Circuit Court, E. D. Louisiana. March 25, 1893.) (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. June 13, 1893.)

Suit to restrain defendants, a combination of workmen, from interfering with inter-State and foreign commerce in violation of the anti-trust law.