shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of labor organizations or to forbid their members from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof, and that such organizations or their members shall not be construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, assumes that the normal objects of such organizations are legitimate, but contains nothing to exempt them or their members from accountability when they depart from objects that are normal and legitimate and engage in an actual combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade. It does not authorize any activity otherwise unlawful, or enable a normally lawful organization to cloak such an illegal combination or conspiracy." (Syllabus.) (Duplex Co. v. Deering, 254 U. S. 443.) "The fact that the ultimate object of a combination is to benefit the parties thereto in their business or property, which is in itself lawful, will not prevent such combination from being an unlawful conspiracy, where its immediate object and purpose is to injure or destroy the business of another by means of a boycott." (Syllabus.) (Loewe et al. v. Calif. State Fed. of Labor et al., 139 Fed. 71.) (See also Seattle Brewing & Malting Co. v. Hansen, 144 Fed. 1011.) CURRENT ARTICLES AND DISCUSSIONS. Boycott of nonunion materials, 27 Yale Law Journal 539, February, 1918. Competition as a justification of the secondary boycott, 27 Harvard Law Review 478-480, March, 1914. Boycotts, 74 Central Law Journal 263267, April, 1912. Secondary boycott-Clayton Act, 3 Minnesota Law Review 212, Feb., 1919. BONUSES. [See Bribery; Subsidizing business.] BREACH OF CONTRACT-INDUCING. [See Contracts.] BRIBERY. [See also Subsidizing business; Subsidizing salesmen.] I. Bribing employees. (a) Of Customers and prospective customers, 1–11, II. Bribing officers of vessels, 24. I. BRIBING EMPLOYEES. (a) OF CUSTOMERS AND PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS. 1. As inducement, to influence their employers to purchase donor's goods. Systematically giving and offering to give, on the part of a manufacturer selling approximately 90 per cent of the compressed yeast used by bakers in the United States, to employees of users of yeast, gratuities, Christmas and holiday presents, and entertainment, including meals, drinks, cigars, theater tickets and other personal property, as an inducement to influence their employers to purchase its yeast, held to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Fleischmann Co., 1 F. T. C. 119.) 2. Same. A concern engaged in the sale of life boats, life rafts, In the following cases (2 F. T. C. 112), involving substantially the William Morhmann; New York Woodfinisher's Supply Co. (Inc.): Sterling Wallace; 3. Same.-Giving, on the part of a corporation engaged in the sale 4. To influence employers to purchase donor's goods and refrain from 5. Same. Giving and offering to give, on the part of an individual 6. Same. Giving and offering to give, by a corporation engaged its competitors, held to constitute, under the circumstances set forth, unfair methods of competition. (Wall Rope Works (Inc.), 1 F. T. C. 468.) 7. Same.-Giving and offering to give, by a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of engine packings, to employees of customers, gratuities and entertainment as an inducement to influence their employers to purchase its goods or to refrain from dealing with its competitors, held, under the circumstances set forth, to constitute an unfair method of competition. (New Jersey Asbestos Co., 1 F. T. C. 472.) 8. Same. Giving, on the part of a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of dyestuffs and chemicals, to employees of customers, without the knowledge and consent of their employers, cash gratuities as an inducement for them to influence their employers to purchase its products and to refrain from dealing with its competitors, held, under the circumstances set forth, to constitute an unfair method of competition. (United States Color & Chemical Co. (Inc.), 3 F. T. C. 313.) In the following cases involving substantially the same facts, similar orders were issued by the commission: Ricco Co. (Inc.), 3 F. T. C. 418; Philadelphia Textile Chemical Works, 3 F. T. C. 421; and United Indigo & Chemical Co. (Ltd.), 3 F. T. C. 425. 9. Same. Giving and offering to give, on the part of a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of dyestuffs, chemicals, soap, and kindred products, to employees of customers and of prospective customers gratuities, consisting of liquors, cigars, meals, valuable presents, and other personal property as an inducement for them to influence their employers to purchase its goods or to refrain from dealing with its competitors, held, under the circumstances set forth, to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Federal Color & Chemical Co., 2 F. T. C. 71.) 10. Same. Giving and offering to give, on the part of a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of soap and kindred products, to employees of its customers and prospective customers, gratuities, such as cigars, meals, and entertainment, as an inducement for them to influence their employers to purchase its goods, or to refrain from dealing with its competitors, held, under the circumstances set forth, to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Woodley Soap Manufacturing Co., 2 F. T. C. 78.) In the following cases (2 F. T. C. 77 and 81) involving substantially the same facts as the foregoing cases 9 and 10, the commission made similar findings: Harry Bentley, doing business as The Standard Soap Co., Charles J. Fox et al., doing business as J. L. Quimby & Co., Enterprise Soap Works (Inc.), The Arabol Manu facturing Co., Roxbury Chemical Works (Inc.), O. P. Olsen & Co. (Inc.), Edward P. Bosson, et al., doing business as Bosson & Lane, Robert Cohn et al., doing business as Louis Cohn & Sons, 2 F. T. C. 77; Dobbins Soap Manufacturing Co., India Alkali Works, United States Oil & Supply Co., The Original Bradford Soap Works (Inc.), and the Henry Johnson Co., 2 F. T. C. 81. 11. Same. Giving and offering to give, on the part of a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of rollers for printing presses, to employees of customers and prospective customers, gratuities consisting of liquor and cigars, and making loans, which were not expected to be and were not repaid, all without the knowledge and consent of their employers, as an inducement for them to influence their employers to purchase its goods or to refrain from dealing with its competitors, held, under the circumstances set forth, to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Twin City Printers Roller Co., 2 F. T. C. 102.) ENTERTAINING EMPLOYEES OF ITS CUS- "The payment of money or the giving of valuable presents to an employee to induce him to influence his employer to make a contract of purchase is a fraud justifying the discharge of the employee within his contract term of service, and perhaps the recovery by the purchaser of the amount or value of such induce ment from the seller, upon the theory that it must have been included in the price. But even in such a case we think it would be a matter between individuals, and not one so affecting the public as to be within the jurisdiction of the commission, under our decision in the Gratz case. However, it stretches theory to the breaking point to suppose that the entertainment expenses found unfair in this case constitute fraud practiced by the respondent and by the employees on the purchasers of the respondent's goods. It is difficult to conceive that the purchaser would have a right to recover the amount of such entertainment as a part of the price paid for the goods bought, or that he would have a right to discharge the employee within the term of his service on this ground. So broad a construction of the statute would bring within the disposition of the commission a vast number of subjects and controversies which in their nature belong to the legislative and judicial departments of the Government. For instance, advertising is a method of selling goods which, without increasing their merits, increases their cost; and so does securing servants of competitors by paying them higher wages, though we suppose no one would say the act gives the commission a right to regulate these matters." (New Jersey Asbestos Co. v. F. T. C., 264 Fed. 509.) (b) OF CUSTOMERS AND COMPETITORS' CUSTOMERS. 12. As inducement to influence employers to purchase goods of donor. Giving and offering to give, on the part of a firm engaged in the manufacture and sale of boiler paints, oils, and greases, to employees of its customers and prospective customers, and of competitors' customers and prospective customers, without the knowledge and consent of their employers, sums of money to influence the sale of its products to their employers, held to constitute, under the cir cumstances set forth, an unfair method of competition. (Roy C. Downs and Geo. W. Lord, doing business under the name and style of Engineering Supply Co., 2. F. T. C. 62.). 13. An inducement to tamper with competitors' products.-Giving and offering to give, on the part of a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of varnish, to employees of customers and of competitors' customers, in some instances without the knowledge and consent of their employers, gratuities, entertainment, and money as an inducement for them to adulterate and spoil competitors' products, held to constitute, under the circumstances set forth, an unfair method of competition. (Essex Varnish Co., 1 F. T. C. 138.) 14. As inducement to influence employers to purchase donor's goods, or refrain from dealing with competitor. Giving and offering to give, by a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of dyestuffs, chemicals, soap, and kindred products to employees of its competitors' customers and prospective customers, sums of money and entertainment, consisting of amusements and diversions of various kinds. as an inducement for them to influence their employers to purchase its goods or to refrain from dealing with its competitors, held, under the circumstances set forth, to constitute an unfair method of competition. (Federal Color & Chemical Co., 2 F. T. C. 71.) For other cases involving substantially the same set of facts as the above, see 2 F. T. C. 77. 15. Same. Loaning, on the part of a corporation engaged in the sale of dyestuffs and chemicals, secretly to employees of customers and prospective customers and of competitors' customers and prospective customers, without the knowledge or consent of their employers, large sums of money as an inducement for them to influence their employers to purchase its goods and to refrain from dealing with its competitors, held, under the circumstances set forth, to constitute an unfair method of competition. (F. E. Atteaux & Co. (Inc.), 2 F. T. C. 82.) 16. Same. Systematically giving, on the part of a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of dyestuffs and chemicals, on a scale far beyond customary social entertainment and hospitality, to employees of customers and prospective customers and of competitors' customers and prospective customers, gratuities, such as liquors, cigars, meals, theater tickets, valuable presents, and entertainment, as an inducement for them to influence their employers to purchase its goods and to refrain from dealing with its competitors; and further, secretly and systematically and on a large scale, paying to employees of customers and prospective customers, without the knowledge and consent of their employers, large sums of money for the same purpose as herein before set out, held, under the circum |