to the applicant for direct shipment from the mill to territory covered by local dealers is not a violation of any law which the commission is authorized to enforce. Whether a refusal to sell under other circumstances is contrary to the provisions of the Clayton Act or the Federal Trade Commission Act the commission does not now decide. Conference Ruling No. 14, Bull. No. 1.

On application for the issuance of a complaint, it appeared that several manufacturers, having appointed exclusive agents or distributors in a given place, refused to sell to another dealer at the same point. Held, That neither the Clayton Act nor the Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits manufacturers establishing exclusive agencies or assigning exclusive territory to dealers. Under such circumstances a refusal to sell to others than such agents or distributors is not unlawful under these acts. Conference Ruling No. 15, Bull. No. 1.

On inquiry: Held, That the Clayton Act does not prohibit manufacturers establishing exclusive sales agencies in certain territory and selling their product in such territory only through such agencies. A refusal to sell to others in such territory, where such agency has been established, is therefore not unlawful. Whether a mere refusal to sell under any circumstances is contrary to the provisions of the Clayton Act or the Federal Trade Commission Act the commission does not now decide. Conference Ruling No. 18, Bull. No. 1.

On application for the issuance of a complaint, it appeared that a manufacturer engaged in interstate commerce assigned exclusive territory to jobbers of his product in various States and refused to sell to the applicant, a competing jobber. Held, That the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Act do not prohibit manufacturers selling their product exclusively through one dealer in a given territory. A refusal to sell to others in such territory under such circumstances is therefore not unlawful. Whether a mere refusal to sell under any circumstances or for any reasons is contrary to the provisions of the Clayton Act or the Federal Trade Commission Act the commission does not now decide. ference Ruling No. 20, Bull. No. 1.

Con

On application for the issuance of a complaint, it appeared that a manufacturer, engaged in interstate commerce, having selected an exclusive agent or distributing dealer in certain territory, refused to sell to another dealer within this territory. Held, That neither the Federal Trade Commission Act nor the Clayton Act prohibits manufacturers establishing exclusive agencies or assigning exclusive territory to dealers. Under these circumstances a refusal to sell to others than such agents or distributors is therefore not unlawful under these acts. Conference Ruling No. 21, Bull. No. 1.

of the size of their business, and all jobbers or wholesalers thus engaged, are subject to the provisions of the Clayton Act. Conference Ruling No. 7, Bull. No. 1.

Buying out competitor. - On inquiry as to the right of one manufacturer to buy out a competitor in the same line of business: Held, That the only jurisdiction of the commission in respect of such transactions is to enforce the provisions of section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibiting the acquisition by any corporation engaged in interstate commerce of the capital stock, in whole or in part, of another corporation thus engaged, where the tendency of such acquisition may be to substantially lessen competition between such two corporations, or to restrain interstate commerce, or to create a monopoly; and also possibly to enforce section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, if such purchase either of property or of capital stock in connection with other circumstances might constitute an unfair method of competition. Held, also, That the mere purchase of the property of such competitor other than capital stock is not prohibited by the Clayton Act or the Federal Trade Commission Act.

As to the validity of such purchase of property or capital stock under the Sherman Act, the commission expresses no opinion. Conference Ruling No. 8, Bull. No. 1.

Direct selling.—On application for the issuance of a complaint, it was alleged that certain mining operators were selling their product direct to consumers at wholesale prices, and coercing retail dealers into handling their product, either by threats to sell or by temporary arrangements for selling their product direct to consumers. Upon investigation by the commission, it appeared that the operators were in fact selling their product direct to consumers, but that this method of competition was not used for purposes of coercion but was necessary in order to keep their product on the market. Held, That the sale by a mining operator of his product direct to the consumer is not of itself an unfair method of competition. Conference Ruling No. 10, Bull. No. 1.

Violation of state statutes.-On application for the issuance of a complaint, it appeared that the commissioners of a certain county had appointed an employee of a bridge company to the position of county civil engineer, and that this situation made it possible for the company to secure information respecting the letting of bridge work which was not available to competing companies. It appears that the State law prohibits such engineer from being interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract for the construction of bridges under his supervision. Held, That as the condi tion complained of may be corrected by resort to a State statute a proceeding will not be instituted in the absence of important considerations of public interest. Conference Ruling No. 12, Bull. No. 1.

Private rights only affected. - On appli

cation by a corporation for the issuance of a complaint, it was alleged that one of its stockholders, whose name had been adopted by the applicant as part of its corporate name, had formerly been a stockholder in a competing corporation and had then permitted the latter to use his name as part of its corporate name, but that after the withdrawal of said stockholder from the competing corporation it had, in violation of an alleged agreement between one of its officers and said stockholder, retained his name in its corporate name, to the injury of the applicant. Held, That as the application presents questions concerning purely private rights, in which the interest of the public is quite remote and indirect, it does not appear to the commission that a proceeding in respect thereof would be to the interest of the public. Conference Ruling No. 17, Bull. No. 1.

Manufacture and sale of repair parts for unpatented articles. - On application for the issuance of a complaint, it appeared that certain foundrymen made and sold repair parts for stoves manufactured by the applicant. It was not claimed that the stoves were patented or that the foundrymen led the public to believe that the parts were made by the applicant. Held, That under such circumstances the making and selling of repair parts for unpatented articles, by others than the original manufacturer, is not a violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Conference Ruling No. 39, Bull. No. 1.

Discontinuance of competitive method. On application for the issuance of a complaint, it appeared that a manufacturer engaged in interstate commerce issued a publication in which, under the guise of trade news, misinformation of a character unfair and detrimental to the applicant's business was circulated. Upon investigation by the commission the applicant advised that the use of the alleged unfair method had been discontinued; and the party complained of assured the commission that its policy had changed with a change of management and no such practice would in the future be engaged in, either against the applicant or any other competitor. Held, That the method of competition complained of having been permanently discontinued, it does not appear to the commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be to the interest of the public. Conference Ruling No. 2, Bull. No. 1.

On application for the issuance of a complaint, it appeared that a corporation engaged in the refining and sale of cane sugar, whose principal market is in the State in which its refinery is located, alleged that a larger corporation, having refineries located in other States and disposing of its product in interstate commerce in many States, refined and sold exclusively in the State of the applicant and in competition with it sacked sugar which is branded "pure cane fine granulated sugar." The applicant alleged that this sugar is not a standard fine

granulated sugar as the branding leads consumers as well as many in the trade to believe, but is what is known as "off" sugar in the manufacture of which an expensive part of the refining process which is necessary to extract the final residue of from 2 to 3 per cent of molasses is omitted; that this "off" sugar is sold to jobbers at about 10 cents per hundred pounds less than the market price for standard granulated sugar; and that by reason of the alleged false brand or label on the sacks retailers and consumers are deceived into the belief that they are buying granulated sugar equal to standard. As a result, the applicant stated, it was compelled to meet the competition of this "off" sugar in the sale of its standard fine granulated sugar, in the manufacture of which it uses the complete refining process, a part of which its competitor omits in manufacturing the "off" sugar.

Upon consideration of the above allegations, the commission, having instituted an investigation, and shortly thereafter the corporation complained of having issued a notice to the trade announcing that it had discontinued the sale of the "off" brand of sugar, and the applicant requesting to be permitted to withdraw its application, and the corporation complained of assuring the commission that it had discontinued the sale of sugar branded in the manner complained of and had no intention of resuming the sale of this package: Held, That the method of competition complained of having been permanently discontinued, it does not appear to the commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be to the interest of the public. Conference Ruling No. 1, Bull. No. 1.

On application for the issuance of a complaint, it appeared that a typewriter rebuilding company engaged in interstate commerce had circulated among dealers in various states a letter falsely stating that a competitor's factory in the Middle West had been removed to the East, and that for this reason many of its customers in Central and Western States would make new arrangements for obtaining typewriters. The party complained of subsequently advised the commission that the statement when made was believed to be true. It also sent a letter of retraction to all dealers receiving the first communication, and assured the commission of its readiness to take any further action deemed necessary. The applicant, being advised of these facts, suggested that no further action be taken. Held, That the method of competition complained of having been permanently discontinued, it does not appear to the commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be to the interest of the public. Conference Ruling No. 3, Bull. No. 1.

On application for the issuance of a complaint, it appeared that a manufacturer engaged in interstate commerce sent out a printed circular containing an alleged letter to it by a dissatisfied customer of the applicant, disparaging the quality of applicant's product, which letter the applicant

charged was fictitious. Upon investigation the commission received assurances from the concern complained of that it had discontinued the publication of the circular in question, and that in future it would not in its advertising matter refer in any way to the products of its competitors. Held, That the method of competition complained of having been permanently discontinued, it does not appear to the commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be to the interest of the public. Conference Ruling No. 4, Bull. No. 1.

On application for the issuance of a complaint, it appeared that an association of wagon peddlers, competing with a jobber, had, by threats of boycott, prevailed on a manufacturer engaged in interstate commerce to refuse to sell to such jobber. Shortly after an investigation was started the commission was advised by the jobber that the manufacturer had resumed selling to it. Assurances were also given the commission by the manufacturer that the jobber would not in future be denied the privilege of buying from it by reason of the threatened boycott. Held, That the matter having been satisfactorily adjusted as between the parties, it does not appear to the commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be to the interest of the public. Conference Ruling No. 5, Bull. No. 1. Practice. Parties. On inquiry: Held, That the fact that a party complaining to the commission has no direct interest and acts without specific authority from the parties alleged to be injured will not prevent the commission from taking action if the matter presented is one properly within its jurisdiction. It is the evident purpose of the law that action by the commission should be taken regardless of the source of its information, when it has reason to believe that there is a violation of a law which it is empowered to enforce and that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be to the interest of the public. Conference Ruling No. 11, Bull. No. 1.

Charges not sustained on investigation. On application for the issuance of a complaint, it was charged by a packer of canned clams that a competitor, in order to drive the applicant out of business, bid up the price of fresh clams to such an extent as to make the business unprofitable. The applicant, when requested, failed to submit further information, and an investigation by the commission did not substantiate the charges made. Held, That the commission, having no reason to believe that the party complained of has been or is using the alleged unfair method of competition, will not proceed further. Conference Ruling No. 16, Bull. No. 1.

Suggestion of violation of decree of federal court made. On application for the issuance of a complaint, it appeared that the practice complained of might be in violation of a decree against the party charged with these practices, which decree was entered in a Federal court. Held, That the matter should be, in this instance, referred by the commission to the Department of Justice. Each matter of this kind will be disposed of upon its own facts. Conference Ruling No. 29, Bull. No. 1.

Combinations in restraint of trade. On application for the issuance of a complaint, suggesting unlawful combinations by companies engaged in interstate commerce in restraint of such commerce, no unfair method of competition being alleged: Held, That the matter thus involved should be referred to the Department of Justice. Conference Ruling No. 36, Bull. No. 1.

Question involved in pending litigation.— On application for the issuance of a complaint, alleging a violation of section 3 of the Clayton Act, where it appeared that the party complained of is the defendant in a suit brought by the Department of Justice, involving the same questions of law and fact: Held, That a proceeding by the commission at this time would not be to the interest of the public. Conference Ruling No. 37, Bull. No. 1.

* *

*