Brief for the United States (1914)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

I VMM Mil. 293 shiill not sell in siidi iii.iniicr tlint .-i loc'il retail dcalci* may rci^ai'd siidi >al(' as an in frin.ii^einciit ot* his exclusive v\v^\\\ to trade, ujxm pain of heinii; re|)oi'te<l as an unfair dealer t(> a lar^c munbcr of otliei* retail dealers ass(M'iated with the offended dealer, tlie ])ur|)ose heini; to keep the wholesaler from dealin<ยป; not only with the ])articular dealer who reports him hut with all others of the chiss who may he informed of his delinquency. Section 1 of the act, * * * is not contined to voluntary restraints, as where pca'sons eng'aged in interstate trade or conmierce agree to suppress competition among themselves, but includes as well involnntary restraints, as where persons not so engaged conspire to compel action by others, or to create artificial conditions, which necessarily mipede or burden the due course of such trade or commerce or restrict the common liberty to engage therein." (United States v. Patten^ supra, p. 541.) This record abounds in instances where the offending dealer was thns reported, the hoped for effect, nnless he discontinued the offending practice, realized, and his trade directly and appreciably impaired. * ^ -x * * (612) The circulation of these reports not only tends to directly restrain the freedom of commerce by preventing the listed dealers from entering into competition with retailers, as was held by the "District Court, but it directly tends to prevent other retailers who have no personal grievance against him and