said nothing about their being turned over to the statistical department, as subsequently appeared to be the case. ( pp. 679-87.) vol. Finally it was learned from the testimony of — — — selling agent at New York for the the Company of Kentucky, who had charge of (vol., pp. 709-10.) The under that the reports of this character which he received from the of Kentucky were turned over to the statistical department at Government finally found that was then in charge of this statistical department. He was called as a witness, and admitted that such reports of competitive shipments were turned over to his office, and that from them he compiled general statistics showing the volume of competitive sales in each general marketing territory of the T- Company, and also in its smaller subdivisions, and in the principal towns throughout the United States. (, vol., pp. 829-32.) The Government secured from 's office, and introduced in evidence, copies and extracts from these records showing the volume of competitive business. (Petitioner's Exhibits 387-90, vol.—.) It also procured from the various sales agents having their headquarters at —namely, —, representing the and the Company; tucky; -, representing the Company; and representing the of Iowa of Ken of Indiana; -, representing the -, representing the of New Jersey-the current reports received by them from their several companies showing individual shipments of competitors, and also summaries thereof showing the total competitive business for certain recent periods of time. Copies and extracts of some of these records were put into evidence, and constitute Petitioner's Exhibits 313, 319, 329, 341, 342, 343, 344, 353, 354, and 355 (vol. —). To illustrate the form of these reports of competitive shipments, we call attention to Petitioner's Exhibit 313 (vol. —, p. 700), which is a list of shipments of by competitors in the territory of the Company (Rocky Mountain States) during certain months of 1907. The first column (see vol. —, pp. 687, 739) shows the date of the shipment; the second, the consignor; the third, the point of origin; the fourth, the consignee; the fifth, the point of destination; and the other columns the character and amount of in the shipment. Petitioner's Exhibits 387-390, which are the summarized records produced by - show how complete is the system of keeping Com track of competitive business. They cover every marketing territory of the T Company in the United States, showing the volume of business done in such territory by the Tpany the volume done by independent concerns, and the corresponding percentages. They also give similar figures for the smaller marketing districts in which the larger territories are divided, and likewise in many cases give separately figures for the main stations and for the substations under such main stations. We have already, in discussing the relation of the extent of competition to the prices charged by the TCompany, presented these percentages of competitive business. and other sales agents who produced these papers testified that they did not know how this information regarding competitive shipments, which came to them from the head offices of the several companies, was originally procured by those offices. vol. , p. 687; vol. P. 709; vol. vol. p. 671; pp. 758, 759; —, -, vol. —, pp. 818-825.) None of them directly testified that they knew that the reports did not come originally from railroad employees, though said he had been assured they did not. (Vol. —, p. 687.) In the Missouri case in 1906, however, C. P. general manager of the Company, practically admitted that that company got such information from railroad employees, and paid for it (vol. —, pp. 1109-11.) GROUP 4 EXHIBIT I EXPLOSIVES TRADE 1 Q. I will ask you whether or not, if you know, there was any contest inaugurated against the King's Great Western Powder Co. by the associated companies, in which you took part and assisted? A. I was sent to Cincinnati by The Hazard Powder Co. by direction of R. L. Wheeler, the president, when a branch office was established, and he told me the chief part of my work would be the conducting of a fight against the King's Great Western Powder Co. Mr. Wheeler was then vice president, and not president, as I have just stated. 1 Op. cit. U. S. v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. Testimony of R. S. Waddell. Pet. Rec. Testimony, Vol. I, pp. 99 ff. The instance given here is taken from the period when the explosives trade was operating under a pooling agreement and before the consolidation into the present combination.-Ed. Q. What did you do? A. I opened an office at Cincinnati. The price of rifle powder was then held at $6.25 per keg, less a rebate, or discount, to city trade, of 5 per cent, say $5.94 net. I opened the fight by reducing the price, on Mr. Wheeler's instructions, to $5.80. I made as much trade as I could at that figure. Q. State whether, if you know, The Hazard Powder Co. had any trade in that locality at that time at all? A. It had a very small trade throughout that section of the country. Q. Who made the first cut in price, if you know? A. The Hazard Powder Co. That was on rifle powder. There had been a fight in progress on blasting powder before that time; but the King Co. had only recently commenced the manufacture of rifle powder. Q. Who took the trade, if you know, on that price? A. The Hazard Co. took the most of the trade of the city; the merchants. Q. How was that cut met, if you know, by the King people, if at all? A. It was met, within a day or two, by Mr. John King himself, who came to the city and made a lower price. The price was seesawed between us at about 10 cents per keg, every few days, until the price had gotten down to about $3.75 or $4, when I was called to New York. Q. By whom? A. By the Hazard Powder Co., or the officers of The Hazard Powder Co. for a conference. Q. With what person there did you have a conference? A. R. L. Wheeler, who was the acting head of the company, directing the business. Q. State what that conference was? A. We discussed the situation at Cincinnati. He expressed a desire to hold the trade, even though the price might go very much lower than we were then making, and asked my opinion as to the best means of doing this; and I recommended a plan that I thought would be effective. Q. What, if anything, were you instructed to do? A. I had general instructions to make a price lower than any that had been quoted in the city, to the city trade in Cincinnati. Mr. GRAHAM: Will you state what the instructions were, instead of saying "I had general instructions?" Q. State the specific instructions received. By whom were they given? A. R. L. Wheeler. By Mr GRAHAM: Q. What did he say? A. He instructed me to cut the price still, either 10 or 15 cents a keg, with a guarantee to each customer to whom I gave the cut price that this should be 10 cents per keg lower than any price the King Powder Co. would make to them; and when the King Co. quoted a price to a customer By Mr. SCARLET: Q. What, if anything, was done under that instruction? A. The price, to the greater part of the trade, went as low as $2.25 per keg on rifle, although I made some sales at $2.15 and $2.10. Q. What was the price of powder outside of the territory in which this contest was going on, if you know? A. In the New England States, the Eastern Seaboard, the extreme Western States, the full list, $6.25, was maintained on rifle powder. EXHIBIT 2 STANDARD OIL COMPANY 1 Price of water-white illuminating oil and margins, on October 15, 1904, by specified towns throughout the United States.2 (CENTS PER GALLON.) NORTH ATLANTIC STATES. Maine: Portland. New Hampshire: Nashua 1 Op. cit. Standard Oil Company v. U. S. Brief for U. S. vol. 2, pp. 432-436. 2 Prices that indicate loss are merely printed in red ink in original. In fol lowing tables minus signs are used.-Ed. |