Bibliographical References

2 Anderson et al., v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U. S. 680 (1946). Bay Ridge Operating Co., Inc. v. Jas. Aaron, et al., 334 U. S. 446 (1948). 3 Address before Section of Judicial Administration of American Bar Association, Seattle, September 8, 1948. 480 Congressional Record 9419, June 15, 1936. 5 Paul v. Virginia, 75 U. S. (8 Wall.) 168, (1869). 6 U. S. v. Southeastern Underwriters Association, 322 U. S. (1944). 7 Kirschbaum v. Walling. June 1, 1942. 8 Anderson et al. v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U. S. 680 (1946). 9 Bay Ridge Operating Co., Inc. v. James Aaron, et al., 334 U. S. 446 (1948). 10 In 1949 the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of Harold Christoffel for perjury before a Congressional committee, because there was some evidence that. only eleven Congressmen, two short of a quorum, heard the lie that he was not a Communist. The Court dis regarded prior decisions and the custom and, practice of Congress for over 150 years that a quorum is presumed to continue unless a point of "no quorum" is raised.

11 U. S. v. Hutcheson et al., 312 U. S. 219, page 245, Justice Hughes joining. 12 Nye et al. v. U. S. et al., 313 U. S. 33, page 57; Justices Hughes and Roberts joining. 13 U. S. v. Classic, 313 U. S. 299, page 341; Justices Black and Murphy joining. 14 Cloverleaf v. Patterson, 315 U. S. 149, page 179; Justices Murphy and Byrnes joining. 15 U. S. v. Pink, 315 U. S. 203, page 256; Justice Roberts joining. 16 National Broadcasting Company, Inc., et al. v. U. S., 319 U. S. 190, page 238; Justice Roberts joining. 17 Addison v. Holly Hill Co., 322 U. S. 607, page 640; Justices Black and Murphy joining. 18 Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U. S. 304, pages 338, 343; Justice Frankfurter concurring. 197 198 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES 19 F.T.C. v. Gratz, 253 U. S. 421 (1920). 20 60 Stat. 243, 5 U.S.C.A. 1009 (Supp. 1947). 21 F.P.C. v. Hope Natural Gas Company, 320 U. S. 591 (1944). 22 S.E.C. v. Chenery Corp., 332 U. S. 194 (1947).

23 F.T.C. v. Morton Salt Co., 334 U. S. 37 (1948). 24 Lowell B. Mason, press conference, Chicago, reported in the New York Times, June 29, 1948. 25 F.T.C. v. Cement Institute, 333 U. S. (1948). 26 Aetna Portland Cement Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 157 F. (2nd). Chapter 2: EVERYBODY OUT OF STEP BUT THE GOVERNMENT LAWYERS 1 Sugar Institute v. U. S., 297 U. S. 533 (1936). 2 F.T.C. v. Cement Institute, 333 U. S. 683 (1948). 3 Lowell B.Mason, Statement as prepared for delivery before the Trade Policies SubCommittee of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the Senate, Friday, June 4, 1948. 4 Civil Service Committee, February 13, 1947. Chapter 3: THE ARGUMENT OVER WHETHER THERE IS AN ARGUMENT 1333 U. S. (1948). 2 Address before Boston Conference on Distribution, October 26, 1948. 3 Address before the Section of Judicial Administration of the American Bar Association; quoted in Antitrust Law Symposium of the Section on Antitrust Law of the New York State Bar Association, January 26, 1949, page 30. C.C.H.

4 Reported in the N. Y. Journal of Commerce, November 9, 1948. 5 Reported in the N. Y. Journal of Com11zerce,November 20, 1948. 6 Speech before City Club of Denver, December 28, 1948. 7 U. S. News &- World Report, Interview, copyrighted November 25, 1949. (This and other interviews, so indicated, are quoted from copyrighted material in U. S. News &- World Report, an independent weekly magazine on national and international affairs, published at Washington.) 8 Proceedings of Symposium, Section on Antitrust Law, New York State Bar Association, January 25, 1950, page 37, C.C.H. (Commerce Clearing House, Inc.). 9 Friedrick Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, Chapter 6. London: George Rutledge & Sons, Ltd., 1946. 10 Dickinson, "Legal Rules: Their Function in the Process of De cision," 79 University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 833, 846-847 (1930). See also Pound, "The Theory of Judicial· Decision," 36 Harvard Law Review 940,957 (1923).

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES 11 Message to the Joint Session of Congress, January 20, 1914. 12 Economist, April 10, 1948, page 574, col. 2. 199 Cbapter 4: THE MORTON SALT CASE 1 1 F.T.C. v. Morton Salt Co., 334 U. S. (1948). 2 The heart of the Sherman Act lay in two sections in the follow ing words: "Section 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce . . . is hereby declared to be illegal • • •. "Section 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monorolize any part of the trade or commerce ... shall be deemed guilty 0 a misdemeanor, . • ." 3 Goodyear had sold about $120,000,000worth to Sears at a profit of about $7,000,000, but. had made about $20,000,000 on the sale of about the same amount to independent tire dealers. 4 Goodyear Tire and.Rubber Co. v. F.T.C., 101 F. 2nd (C.C.A.6th 1939) cert. denied, 308 U. S. 557 (1939).

5 S. Rep. No. 1502, 74th Cong., 2nd Sess. 4. 6 William J. vVarmack, Robinson-Patman Symposium, 1947, C.C.H., pages 105 et seq. Chapter 5: THE FORGOTTEN CONSUMER 1 U. S. v. Eastern States Retail Lumber Association, 234 U. S. 600 (1914) and Dr. Miles Medical Company v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 22 U. S. (1911). 2Ethyl Gasoline Corp., v. U. S., 309 U. S. (1940). 3 In the Matter of Middle Atlantic Distributors, Inc., et aI., FTC Docket No. 5634. 4 CR. 11364, Western District of Wisconsin, 1936, companion case to the so-called "Madison 'case," 310 U. S. 150. 5 Rec. 5304; 173 F. 2nd. 210, 217. 6 State of Wisconsin v. Retail Gasoline Dealers Association of Milwaukee, Inc., et al., Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, Case No. 213-601, May 11, 1949. C.C.H. Trade Regulation Service, pages 63, 284. 7 Address, Antitrust Law Symposium, 1950; C.C.H., page 26. 880 Congo Rec. 3117. 980 Congo Rec. 3599. Chapter 7: MOUSETRAP J\tf.AKER'S HAZARD 1 Apex Hosiery Co., V. Leader, 310 U. S. 469, 60 S. Ct. 982, 84 L. Ed.

1311 (1940). 2 Alva Johnston, "A Reporter at Large," The New Yorker, January 24 and 31, 1942.

200 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES 3 C.C.H. The Federal Antitrust Laws, 1949, page 173. 4 Letter of Transmittal and Memorandum for the President's Com mittee on Business and Government Relations, submitted by a special Committee of the Section on Antitrust Law of the New York State Bar Association, July 10, 1950. 5 A good part of this was quoted favorably verbatim by the Supreme Court in the Tobacco case, and all of it has "the force of a top-court finding due to legal circumstances cited above. 6 U. S. v. Aluminum Company of America, 148 F. 2nd. 416 (1945). 7 Interview, U. S. News &- World Report, November 11, 1949. Chapter 8: OPPORTUNITY FOR ABUSE 1 Testimony before House Judiciary subcommittee on the antitrust laws, reported in New York Journal of Commerce July 21, 1949. 2 Address before Public Relations Association of America, December 6, 1950. 3 U. S. v. United States Steel Corporation, 251 U. S. 417 (1920).

4 U. S. v. United States Steel Corporation, 251 U. S. 417 (1920). 5 u. S. v. Swift and Co., 286 U. S. 106 (1932). 6 American Tobacco Company v. U. S., 328 U. S. 781 (1946). 7 U. S. v. Columbia Steel Co., 334 U. S. 495 (1948). 8 U. S. v. L. C. Griffith, 334 U. S. 109 (1948). 9 Speech of Assistant Attorney-General Herbert A. Bergson, Janu ary 25, 1950, "Antitrust Law Symposium," C.e.H. page 86. He said, "In seeking to dissolve this company we do not predicate our case on the size of the defendant company, which measured in dollars and cents is very small, but which from the standpoint of position in the industry is so great that it possesses monopoly power." 10 U. S. v. Trenton Potteries Co., 273 U. S. (1927). 11 American Column & Lumber Co. v. U. S., 257 U. S. (1921). 12 Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers' Association v. U. S., 234 U. S. (1914). 13 U. S. v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., 175 U. S. (1899).

14 American Tobacco Company v. U. S., 328 U. S. 781 (1946). 15 U. S. v. Griffith, 334 U. S. (1948). 16 Note the words of Justice Douglas in the Griffith case, "Monopoly power . . . may itself constitute an evil and stand condemned . . even though it remains unexercised." Chapter 9: THE "VIRULENT GROWTH OF MONOPOLY POWER"· • Douglas, individual dissent, Standard Oil Co. of California, v. U. S., final paragraph. Ope cit.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES 201 1 Peter F. Drucker, "The Care and Feeding of Small Business," Harper's Magazine, August 1950. 2 Jersey and General l\10tors. 3 Rufus S. Tucker, "Concentration and Competition," Journal of Marketing, February 1940. Chapter 10: OLIGOPOLY 1 Interview, U. S. News & World Report, September 23, 1949. 2 Assistant Attorney-General Herbert A. Bergson, reported in U. S. News & World Report, September 30, 1949. 3 Concentration of Productive Facilities, 1947, in 26 Selected In dustries. 4 Statement before the Subcommittee on the Growth of Monopoly, House Judiciary Committee, July 13, 1949. 5 U. S. v. Trenton Potteries Co., 273 U. S. (1927). 6 Cement Mfgrs. Assoc. v. U. S., 268 U. S. 588 (1925). 7 W ehster's New International Dictionary, 2nd ed. Springfield, Mass., G. & C. Merriam Company, 1947. 8 Interstate Circuit v. U. S., 306 U. S. (1939). 9 Laurence I. Wood, "The Supreme Court and a Changing Anti trust Concept," University of Pennsylvania Law Review, February 1949, Vol. 97, No.3, page 330.

10 American Tobacco Company v. U. S., 328 U. S. 781 (1946). 11 Eugene V. Rostow, "The New Sherman Act," 14 University of Chicago Law Review. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1947. 12 Laurence I. Wood, ibid., page 339. Chapter 11: CONCENTRATION AND COMPETITION 1 B. Bradford Smith, "Facts About 'Concentration' and Profits in the Steel Industry." Statement Prepared for the Subcommittee ort the Study of Monopoly Power of the House Committee on the Judiciary, April 26-28, 1950. 2 I bid., page 2. 3 Peter F. Drucker, "How Big is Too Big?" Harper's Magazine, June, 1950. 4 It is perhaps noteworthy that the President, in his statement quoted in the previous chapter about concentrated industries, does not say that they do restrict production and so on but only that they can. 5 Benjamin F. Fairless, address before Baltimore Association of Commerce, April 21, 1950.

202 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES Chtlpter 12: MONOPOLISTIC COMPETITION 1 Canto XCIX, Rubaiyat, Edward Fitzgerald, translator. 2 "Memorandum for the President's Committee on Business and Government Relations," Submitted by a Special Committee of the Section on Antitrust Law of the New York State Bar Association, July 10, 1950. 3 Aetna Portland Cement Co. v. F.T.C., 157 F. (2nd) 1946). 4 Ibid., page 563. 5 Ibid., 568. 6 Pevely Dairy Co. v. U. S., 178 F. (2nd) 363 (1949). 7 Antitrust Law Symposium, New York State Bar Association, 1949, Edwin B. George,of Dun & Bradstreet; Inc., pages 55, 57. C.C.H. 8 Address, Charles Sawyer, Harvard Club of Boston, June 10, 1950. 9 Competition' in Steel, David F. Austin, Report to the House Judiciary Subcommittee, 1950. 10 Remarks, Boston Conference on Distribution, October 26, 1948. 11 Edward H. Collins, New York Times, Monday, May 8, 1950. 12H. Thomas Austern, Antitrust Law Symposium, 1949, page 42; C.C.H.

Chapter 13: ADMINISTERED PRICES 1 Statement of John D. Clark before Subcommittee on the Growth of Monopoly, House Judiciary Committee, July 13., 1949. 2 Walter F. Crowder, Chief of Special Research and Analysis Sec tion, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, United States De partment of Commerce; TNEC Monograph No. 27, The Structure of Industry, Part V, Chapter V, "The Concentration of Production in Manufacturing ." 3 Ibid., page 395. 4 Dr. Alfred C~ Neal, vice-president, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Industrial Concentration and Price Inflexibility, page 140, pub lished by the American Council on Public Affairs in cooperation with Brown University. 5 Dr. Gardiner C. Means, "Industrial Prices and Their Relative In flexibility," Senate Document No. 13, 74th Congress, First Session, January, 1935. 6 Ibid., page 9. 7 Dr. Rufus S. Tucker, American Economic Review, Volume XXVIII, No.1, March, 1938, page 42.

8 Judge Major, in Aetna Portland Cement Co. v. F.T.C., 157. F. (2nd) 565 (1946). 9 W. Jablonski, "Petroleum Comments." New York Journal of Commerce, September 15, 1949. 10 Sidney A. Swensrud, now president of Gulf Oil, quoted in TNEC Monograph No. 39-A, page 49.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES 203 11 Charles Sawyer, Secretary of Commerce, Address, Harvard Club of Boston, June 10, 1950. 12 Dr. Peter Drucker, Harper's Magazine, June 1950, page 75. 13 Wall Street Journal, August 23,1949. Chapter 14: INTEGRATION 1 U. S. v. Northern Securities Co., 193 U. S. 197 (l904). 2 Dr. Walter Adams, testimony before the Monopoly Subcommittee of the House ]udiciary, July, 1949. 3 Eugene V. Rostow, "The New Sherman Act," 14 University of Chicago Law Review. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1947. 4 In fact most of them have gotten out of most of their retail marketing. 5 Schine Chain Theatres, Inc., et a!., v. U. S., 334, U. S. 116 (1948). 6 U. S. v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U. S. 131, 144 (1948). 7 Standard Oil Company of California v. U. S., 279 U. S. 1104, footnote (1948). Chapter 15: INTEGRATED WE STAND 1 Edwin S. Hall, former General Counsel, Standard Oil Company (N. J.). From a speech given before the Tennessee Oil Men's Asso ciation, Chattanooga, June 14, 1949.

2 W. S. Farish, testimony before TNEC, Part 17, pages 9748-9749. 3 J. Howard Pew, TNEC hearings, Pt. 14, pages 7188-7191. 4 Dr. Robert S. Wilson, president Pan American Petroleum & Transport Company, TNEC hearings, Part 15, page 8373. 5 Interview, U. S. News & World Report, November 11, 1949. . 6 Simons, Henry C,. "A Positive Program for Laissez Faire," 33 University of Chicago Press, 1934. 7 TNEC Monograph 39-A, pages 12-13. 8 "U. S. Court Refuses to Break Up Alcoa," New York Times, June 3, 1950. Chapter 16: THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY 1 1173 F. 2nd. 79. 2 Fashion Originators' Guild v. F.T.C., 312 U. S. 457 (1941). 3 Schine Chain Theatres v. United States, 334 U. S. 110 (1948). 4 Interview, U. S. News & World Report, November 25, 1949. 5 Quoted in the New York ,Times, December 10, 1949. 6 Morris A. Adelman,. Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1949, page 252.

204 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES 7 Yale Law Journal, Vol. 58, No.6, May 1949, page 975. sCorn Products Company v. F.T.C., 324 U. S. 726 (1945). 9 F.T.C. v. Staley Manufacturing Company, 324 U. S. 588 (1925). Chapter 17: A STRANGE NEW DEFINITION OF "MONOPOLIZE" 1 Government Brief. pages 87, 94, and 7. 2 Government Brief, pages 110, 837. 3 Government Brief, Court of Appeals, page 373. 4 Interview, United States News & World Report, December 30, 1949. 5 Cassady & Grether, "Locality Price Differentials in the Western Retail Grocery Trade," Harvard Business Review, 190 (1943), page 296. Chapter 18: THE ATTACK ON BIGNESS IN BUSINESS 1 Speech to the graduating class of Washington College at Chester ton, Maryland. 2 Dissenting opinion, U. S. v. Columbia Steel Co., 334 U. S. 495 (1948). 3 Testimony before Special Subcommittee of House Judiciary Com mittee, Nov. 30, 1949. Chapter 19: THE JOB OF BIG BUSINESS 1 Crawford H. Greenewalt, testimony before Special Subcommittee on the Study of Monopoly Power of the House Judiciary Committee, November 15, 1949.

2 Interview, U. S. News & World Report, December 30, 1949. 3 Crawford H. Greenewalt, president of E. I. duPont de Nemours & Company, interview, U. S. News & liVorid Report, September 16, 1949. 4 A highly significant question was the following, asked of du Pont's president: "Is it not true that you have two or three depart ments, and you can compensate yourself for your losses in Department A by your profits in Department Band C?" Answer: "That is quite correct, sir." Chairman: "And if an individual goes into business, and he has one department, he has to sustain his entire losses and cannot get compensation for those losses in any . . . other department. That is •.. one of the advantages of bigness, is that not true?" Answer: "Indeed, yes." Note that this is essentially the same question, of the "subsidization" of one department with the "profits" from another, raised in the case BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES 205 of vertical integration (Chapter 14) and in the case of A&P's vertical and horizontal integration. It is the obverse way of putting the di versification of risks.

Chapter 20: BIG CORPORATIONS AND PEOPLE 1 It may be said that "pure research" is the reproductive system of the big corporation and "applied research," or "production re search," is the womb in which its next generation of products is developed. 2 Eugene Holman, Address before Economic Club of Detroit, November 8, 1948. Chapter 21: "BREAK 'EM UP" 1 Paramount, Schine, Griffith, Cresent Amusement, 323 U. S. 173 (1944). 2 Schine Chain Theatres v. U. S., 334 U. S. 110. 3 U. S. v. Columbia Steel Co., 334 U. S. 495 (1948). 4 Standard Oil Co., of Calif. v. U. S., 337 U. S. 293 (1949). Chapter 22: HOW THE GOVERNMENT WINS ITS CASES 1 U. S. v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U. S. 150 (1940). 2 Thurlow M. Gordon, Antitrust Law Symposium, 1949, page 84. C.C.H. 3 John Henry Lewin,. "The Conduct of Grand Jury Proceedings in Antitrust Cases," Law and Contemporary Problems, School of Law, Duke University, Winter, 1940, Vol. VII, No.1, page 115.

4 See Chapter 16. 5 Bethuel M. Webster, Antitrust Symposium, 1949, page 82. C.C.H. 6 U. S. v. Pullman Co., 50 F. Supp. 123 (E.D. Pa. 1943). Chapter 23: ARM CHAIR ECONOMICS 1 Reprinted, Viking Press, New York, 1931. 2 B. W. Huebsch, Inc., 1921. 3 Eugene V. Rostow, A National Policy for the Oil Industry. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948. 4 J. Howard Marshall, president, Ashland Oil & Refining Company and former Chief Counsel, Petroleum Administration for War, Yale Law Journal, June 1948. 5 Address before American Steel Warehouse Association, Inc., April 27, 1950.

206 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES Chapter 25: CONCLUSION 1 Benjamin Hill, United States Senate, 1878. 2 Quoted by Professor John Jewkes in foreword to Ordeal by Planning. 3 Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1932.