Chapter X: Appendix: I

_Recent Cases_

The most effective weapon presently available for combatting the influence of monopoly and cartel-minded international groups is vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws. Congress has recognized that the natural effect of competition is to increase commerce--to extinguish or prevent the free play of competition is to hinder commerce. As was stated by Mr. Chief Justice Stone in the _Trenton Potteries_ case:

“Whatever difference of opinion there may be among economists as to the social and economic desirability of an unrestrained competitive system, it cannot be doubted that the Sherman Law and the judicial decisions interpreting it are based upon the assumption that the public interest is best protected from the evils of monopoly and price control by the maintenance of competition.”

By passage of the antitrust laws, Congress has expressed the American policy of free competition not only in interstate trade and commerce but also in our foreign trade and commerce. The provisions of Section 73 of the Wilson Tariff Act further exemplify this doctrine with specific reference to imports to this country. Section 11 of the Panama Canal Act prohibits passage through the Panama Canal of ships owned or operated by persons doing business in violation of the antitrust laws. Thus, the practices of foreign cartels, involving elimination of competition and collectivization of industry, are inconsonant with the basic concepts of our antitrust laws and national economic policy. The type of arrangements which are the cornerstone of European cartelization, such as agreements dividing markets, allocating customers, controlling production and prices, and apportioning business have all been long declared to be in violation of our antitrust statutes by the courts.

By and large, the antitrust laws can be effectively applied to combat restraints upon the domestic and foreign commerce of the United States whether the practices, agreements or conspiracies complained of have their inception in this country or elsewhere.

It has become an accepted principle of law that acts done or agreements entered into in a foreign jurisdiction, even though lawful there, may be prosecuted or enjoined in this country where the effect or result of such acts or agreements is a violation of our laws. This principle has been applied in antitrust cases, and agreements which restrain our trade with foreign nations have been uniformly declared illegal. Our courts may control foreign citizens or corporations operating wholly in foreign territory, where their operations extend into the domestic and foreign commerce of this country, just as we may undoubtedly control the activities of our own citizens and our own corporations which impinge upon our domestic and foreign trade and commerce.

The mere fact that a combination is formed in a foreign country does not prevent the application of our laws where it affects the foreign commerce of this country and is put into operation here. Conversely, combinations or agreements entered into in the United States and adversely affecting the foreign trade of this country are subject to the antitrust laws even though the acts done to effectuate the restraints are performed outside this country. It is recognized that some cartel arrangements are instigated by or under cover of foreign governmental authority, but unless the cartel arrangements complained of are solely participated in by the foreign government, the situation is not altered.

While a foreign sovereign may have immunity from suit, such immunity does not apply to private individuals or organizations even though they may be acting pursuant to the laws of their own country, or as agents for their government or though a foreign government may have a substantial financial interest in the challenged organization and activities.

The practical difficulty of acquiring personal jurisdiction over some of the foreign individual or corporate participants in a cartel which affects our foreign or domestic commerce is often confused with the question of whether or not a violation of our antitrust laws is involved. This, however, is a technical problem depending upon an aggregation of facts rather than a question of substantive law involved in restraints upon commerce.

The following is a list of antitrust cartel cases instituted by the Department of Justice since 1937:

_Aircraft Accessories_: Bendix Aviation Corporation, et al.; complaint filed November 19, 1942; postponement of trial requested by War and Navy Departments.

_Alkali_: United States Alkali Export Assn., Inc., et al.; complaint filed March 16, 1944; argument had May 10, 1944 on motions to dismiss.

_Aluminum_: Aluminum Company of America, et al.; petition filed April 23, 1937; judgment denying Government relief filed July 23, 1942; on appeal.

_Chemicals_: Imperial Chemical Industries, Ltd., et al.; complaint filed January 6, 1944.

_Chemicals and Petroleum (Including Synthetic Rubber)_: Standard Oil Company (N. J.), et al.; complaint filed March 25, 1942; consent decree entered March 25, 1942; supplemental judgment filed April 7, 1943. Information filed and pleas of nolo contendere on March 25, 1942; fines levied totaled $50,000.

_Dyestuffs_: Allied Chemical & Dye Corp., et al.; indictment returned May 14, 1942; Attorney General acquiesced to postponement of trial until it will not interfere with defendant’s war production. General Dyestuff Corp., et al.; indictment returned December 19, 1941; pending on preliminary motions.

_Fertilizer_: American Potash & Chemical Corp., et al.; complaint filed May 15, 1940; consent decree entered May 21, 1940. Chilean Nitrate Sales Corp., et al.; indictment returned September 1, 1939; dismissed as to 18 defendants June 3, 1941 to August 28, 1942; pleas of nolo contendere by 6 defendants August 28, 1942; fines levied totalling $35,000. Allied Chemical & Dye Corp., et al.; complaint and consent decree entered May 29, 1941. Imperial Chemical Industries (N. Y.), Ltd., et al.; complaint and consent decree February 17 and 18, 1942. Mutual Chemical Company of America, et al.; indictment returned June 26, 1942; Attorney General acquiesced to requests by War and Navy Departments for postponement of trial. Synthetic Nitrogen Products Corp., et al.; complaint and consent decree, September 5, 1941.

_Fluorescent Lamps_: General Electric Company, et al.; complaint filed December 9, 1942; Attorney General acquiesced to postponement of trial requested by War and Navy Departments.

_Fuel Injection Equipment_: American Bosch Corp. and Donald P. Hess; complaint and consent decree, December 29, 1942.

_Glass Bulbs_: Corning Glass Works, et al.; indictment returned August 28, 1940; pleas of nolo contendere and fines totalling $47,000 September 9, 1941.

_Gyroscopic Instruments_: The Sperry Corporation, et al.; complaint and consent decree entered September 1, 1942.

_Hormones_: Ciba Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., et al.; information filed and pleas of nolo contendere, December 17, 1941; fines of $18,000. Roche-Organon, Inc., and Elmer H. Bobst; information filed and pleas of nolo contendere, December 17, 1941; fines of $6,000. Schering Corporation, et al.; information filed and pleas of nolo contendere, December 17, 1941; fines of $24,000; complaint and consent decree entered same day. Swiss Bank Corporation; complaint and consent decree, December 17, 1941. Julius Weltzien and Schering Corporation; information filed and pleas of nolo contendere, December 17, 1941; fines of $6,000.

_Incandescent Lamps_: General Electric Company, et al.; complaint filed January 27, 1941; Attorney General acquiesced to postponement of trial requested by War and Navy Departments.

_Magnesite Brick_: Harbison-Walker Refractories Company, et al.; indictment returned January 20, 1941; pleas of nolo contendere and fines of $76,500, July 22, 1941; pending as to Veitscher Magnesitwerke Aktiengesellschaft and Magnesit Co., Ltd., whose motion to vacate services of summons has been referred to a special master, also as to Magnesit Industrie Aktiengesellschaft.

_Magnesium_: Aluminum Company of America, et al.; complaint filed; consent decree entered April 15, 1942; indictment returned January 30, 1941; pleas of nolo contendere, April 15, 1942, and fines of $104,993. To be set for trial as to I. G. Farben and Dietrich Schmitz. American Magnesium Corporation, et al.; indictment returned January 30, 1941; pleas of nolo contendere and fines of $15,003, April 15, 1942; case to be set for trial as to I. G. Farben and Gustav Pistor. Dow Chemical Company, et al.; indictment returned January 30, 1941; pleas of nolo contendere and fines of $20,004, April 15, 1942; to be set for trial as to I. G. Farben.

_Matches_: Diamond Match Company, et al.; complaint filed May 1, 1944.

_Military Optical Instruments_: Bausch & Lomb Optical Company, et al.; indictment returned March 26, 1940; pleas of nolo contendere and fines of $41,000, May 27, 1940 and March 5, 1941; pending as to Carl Zeiss (a German firm). Complaint filed July 9, 1940, and consent decree entered same day as to all defendants except Carl Zeiss.

_Molybdenum_: Climax Molybdenum Company, et al.; complaint filed August 19, 1942 and consent decree entered August 21, 1942.

_News Reporting_: The Associated Press, et al.; complaint filed August 28, 1942; Decree for Government January 13, 1944; appeal of defendants docketed in Supreme Court, April 13, 1944.

_Newsprint Paper_: Crown Zellerbach Corporation, et al.; indictment returned July 12, 1939; 6 defendants pleaded nolo contendere and were fined $30,000, May 2, 1941; remaining defendants dismissed.

_Pharmaceutical Products_: Alba Pharmaceutical Company, Inc., et al.; information filed, pleas of nolo contendere, and fines of $26,000, September 5, 1941; complaint filed and consent decree entered same day. The Bayer Company, Inc., et al.; complaint filed and consent decree entered, September 5, 1941. Merck & Company, Inc., et al.; complaint filed October 28, 1943; Government moved to join the Alien Property Custodian as party plaintiff, May 8, 1944.

_Photographic Materials_: General Aniline & Film Corporation, et al.; indictment returned December 19, 1941; pending on preliminary motions. Dietrich A. Schmitz, et al.; indictment returned December 19, 1941; pending on preliminary motions.

_Plastics_: E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, et al.; indictment returned August 10, 1942; Attorney General acquiesced to postponement of trial requested by War and Navy Departments.

_Quebracho_: The Forestal Land, Timber and Railways, Ltd., et al.; complaint filed December 20, 1943; pending on preliminary motions. The Tannin Corporation, et al.; indictment returned November 24, 1942; pleas of nolo contendere and fines of $59,003, January 12, 1943 and April 19, 1943; dismissed as to the remaining defendants, August 24, 1943.

_Titanium Compounds_: National Lead Company, et al.; indictment returned June 28, 1943; case set for trial on October 3, 1944; complaint filed July 1, 1944.

_Tungsten Carbide_: General Electric Company, et al.; indictment returned August 30, 1940; superceding indictment returned October 21, 1941; Attorney General acquiesced to postponement of trial requested by War and Navy Departments.