to advertising, or from doing any of said things through its weekly house-organs, known as the 'Publishers' Auxiliary' and the 'Western Publisher,' and particularly from misrepresenting through said means the business and business methods of the American Press Association, with the intent and for the purpose of taking away the customers of the said American Press Association, or otherwise injuring its business"; "from in any manner unfairly criticizing and abusing the method of the said Western Newspaper Union with reference to advertising through these defendants' circulars relating to its bureau of foreign advertising, or from doing any of said things through its weekly house-organ, known as the 'American Press,' and particularly from misrepresenting through said means the business and business methods of the Western Newspaper Union, with the intent and for the purpose of taking away the customers of the said Western Newspaper Union or otherwise injuring its business."

THREATS OF NEW COMPETITION ENJOINED

The Government looks with extreme disfavour upon threats or suggestions that new competition may be started under given conditions. Thus,

in this same decree, all of the defendants were enjoined "from threatening any customer of a competitor with starting a competing plant unless he patronizes one or the other of these defendants"; and "from threatening the competitors of either of these defendants that they must either cease competing with defendants or sell out to one or the other of the defendants herein, and from threatening that unless they do their industries will be destroyed by the establishment of nearby plants to actively compete with them, or by any other method of unfair competition."

Alleged threats to start new competition were also cited with condemnation by the Government, in 1913, in a suit against a glucose manufacturer. This suit is now pending on appeal, so that it cannot now be assumed that any of the Government's allegations have been finally established. But among the acts disapprovingly cited by the Government against the company-which the District Court has ordered to be dissolved-are alleged statements of its officers to various candy manufacturers throughout the country that "it expected them to purchase a certain large percentage of the glucose needed by them" from the company, and that "if said company did not get a

sufficient percentage of such glucose business, it would go into the candy manufacture itself in competition with such manufacturers."

Anything that looks like an attempt to shut out competitors' goods by persuading any class of professional advisers to refrain from specifying them is likely to be regarded very seriously by the Government. Thus in the Government's petition, in 1913, in a case against a stone-cutting concern, the company is accused of "inducing architects to specify for use in construction stone of such designation as can be supplied only by the defendant . . when other competitors are producing stone of the same or like character, and inducing architects to bring their influence to bear in its behalf upon contractors or those intending to have construction work done, while professing to act disinterestedly and for the sole benefit of such party."

The case against the stone company has not been brought to trial, so here again we are quoting the Government's partisan view of the matter. It clearly indicates, however, that the Department of Justice is prepared to investigate every possible factor of distribution, and that even the professional advice of an architect to his client

may sometimes be relied upon as evidence of an intent to restrain competition.

Enough has been cited to show the extreme danger of too aggressive methods of dealing with competitors. Parenthetically it may be remarked that there is almost equal danger in too harmonious relations with one's competitors-but that must be left for later discussion. The intent is the point at issue, and as I have already pointed out, the Government can ransack letter files and office records and scrap-books for the purpose of finding out what the intent really is. Therefore, the business man must avoid even the appearance of unlawful intent. Competitors' prices may be met, new brands may be produced to parallel competitors' brands—but the emphasis must be placed on selling one's own goods, and not on preventing the sale by others of their goods. Letters, bulletins, advertisements, even word-of-mouth instructions to the sales force, must be framed with that point in mind. If the Government's attitude on the question of one's relations with his competitors could be summed up in a single sentence, it might run something like this: "Safety lies in minding your own business; and the man who begins to mind his competitors' business is inviting trouble."

CHAPTER IV

PRICE-DISCRIMINATIONS AND PRICE-MANIPULATION

HONEST manufacturers who have read with some trepidation of the activities of the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are asking: "How am I going to be sure that I am not unwittingly violating the law? I have several hundred salesmen scattered over the country who cannot be at all times under my personal supervision. Competition is very keen in my field. I have read the Sherman and Clayton Acts with great care, and also the Federal Trade Commission Act, but I seem to be more perplexed than ever. I don't want to violate the law. I want to know how far I can go, and how far my competitors can go. How can I find out?"

Well, it happens that in more than one instance the courts have tried, with some diffidence, to answer that very question. For example, 1915, in the Watch-case suit the court asks:

in