Viscose Co

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

IN Tile l\IA'ITER OF VISCOSE COMPANY ET AL.

COl\Ipf.AI~T. FINDI:-!GS, AND ORDER IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 5 OF AN AC'f OF CONGRESS APl'HOVED SEPT. 26, 1914 Docket 2161, Cmuplaint, Feb. 1, 1931,-Dccision, July 3, 1937 Where t en corporations engaged in the manufacture of substantially nil the VIscose rayon yarn made in the United States, and in the sale and distribution thereof to rayon cloth knitters for manufacture into cloth, and subsequent sale, distribution, and use for making of articles of wear therefrom, and constituting sole source of supply of such rayon yarn for knitters, users of approximately forty-five percent of all such yarn used by an classes or kinds of purchasers, and also sole source of supply for Other users of such yarn, and, prior to the acts below set forth, in corn- Petition as to price with one another in the sale thereof between and For among States, Territories, and District of Columbia- .the Purpose of eliminating price competition among themselves, entered ~nto an agreement, combination, understanding, and conspiracy among heiUselYes to fix and mnintaln uniform prices to be exacted by them from their pure 11asers of rayon yarn, and thus to fix the price of said• product entering into interstate commerce, and did, during a period, thus fix nnd \\7· lllaintaln such uniform prices; . lth effect of actually hindering and preventing price competition in the sale, among the various States, the Territories, and the District of Columbia, / of such yarn, increasing prices therefor paid by users thereof, prices of cloth Illude therefrom, and prices of rayon articles of wear, and with I II ,1 dangerous tendency so to hinder and prevent such price competition: c d, Tbut such acts and practices were to the prejudice of the public and corn.petitors and constituted unfair methods of competition. ~efore Mr. John W. Addison, trial examiner. Ill'..: ~· Edward L. Smith and Air. !larry A. Babcock for the Comlss1on.

lerll/r, John G. Jackson and Mr. Stephen P. Nash, of Jackson, Ful- \\1 l,IN"ash & Brophy and Mr. John W. Davis, of Davis, Polk, Ward- C o. eM' G ar d mer· & Reed,' of New York c·1ty, f or v·1scose d r. J. Darry Covington Jllr Dean 0. Acheson and .~Jr. H. Thoma.<J inl.lstern, of Covinrrton B~rlin~ Rublee, Acheson & Shorb, of Wash- gton D o ' o . .bup ' · C., and Mr. Willian~ S. Gregg, of Wilmmgton, Del., for Jt ont Rayon Co., Inc.

\Vi {· F. Sims lllcOrath and Mr. Arthur L. Fisk, of Cadwalader, andc ersham & Taft of New York City, for Tubize Chatillon Corp. A.m. . ' Mr er1?an Enka Corp. . . fo .. I· leFslze Nlclwls of Tolles Horrsett0 & Gmn, of Cleveland, Oluo, • nd · ' ustnal Rayon Corp. Complaint 25F.T.C.

Air. Eustace Sellgman and Mr. Iinzer B. Wyatt, of Sullivan & Cromwell, of New York City, and Mr. William S. Culbertson of Culbertson & Leroy, of ·washington, D. C. for North American Rayon Corp.

Nr. Earle J. Machold and Mr. Chauncey P. Williams, Jr. of Le- Boeuf, Winston, ~Iachold & Lamb, of New York City, for Skenandoa Rayon Corp.

Mr. Louis 1lf. Denit and Mr. Thoma.<J Searing Jackwn of Brandenburg&., Bramlenburg, of 1Vashington, D. C., for Delaware Rayon Co. J(lein & Diel11n, of Cleveland, Ohio, for Acme Rayon Corp. Mr. John C. Parsons, of Robinson, Robinson & Cole, of Hartford, Conn., for The Belamose Corp.

},Jr. G. lV. Ilaight, of.Cravath, DeGersdorff, Swaine & Wood, of 1Vashington, D. C., for Price, 1Vaterhouse and Co. Complaint Pursuant to the provisions of an Act of Congress, entitled "An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes," the Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe that the Viscose Company, Dupont Rayon Com· pany, Inc., Tubize Chatillon Corporation, Industrial Rayon Corporation, American Glanzstoff Corporation, American Enka Corporation, Skenandoa Rayon Corporation, Delaware Rayon Company1 Acme Rayon Corporation, The Belamose Corporation and George Oliver May, vVilliam n. Campbell, Joseph Edmund Sterrett, Robert 0. Berger, John II. Bowman, Charles P. Carruthers, David 1. Grey, John C. Scobie, Frank C. Belser, John Medlock, "William D. Bonthron, Ismay G. Pattinson, Thomas Jackson, Donald Arthur, Geoffrey G. Rowbotham, Francis B. Byerly, Percival F. Brundage7 1V. 1V. Law, J.P. Dawson, A. L. Brockway, E. Christensen and :R· F. Starkey, copartners, trading as Price, vVaterhouse and Com· pany have been and are using unfair methods of competition in commerce as "commerce" is defined in said act and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint, stating its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGR.\rn 1. Respondent, the Viscose Company, is a corpo· ration organized, existing, and doing business under and by vir· tue of the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, with its princip:.tl office and place of business at New York City, and with branch of· fices in Providence, R. I., Charlotte, N. C., Chicago, Ill., and Phladelphia, Pa., and with factories located in Pcnnsyl\'ania, Virginllt, and 1Vest Virginia.

VISCOSE COl\IPANY ET AL. 423 421 Complaint R.respondent, Dupont Rayon Company, Inc., is a. corporation or- Tamzed, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the ~Ws o~ the State of Delaware, with its principal office and place ~ bu~mess located at New York City, N. Y., and with manu- ;cturmg plants located at Buffalo, N. Y., Old Hickory, Tenn., and II lllpthill, Va.

R.respondent, Tubi.ze Chatillon Corporation, is a corporation or- ·I faDized, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the ~w~ 0.f the. State of Delaware, with its principal office and place Q usmess m New York City, and with manufacturing plants located t H R a opewell, Va., and Rome, Ga. g .respondent, Industrial Rayon Corporation, is a corporation orl anized, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the Q~w~ 0! the State of Delaware, with its principal office and place pl usmess located in New York City, and with a manufacturing ant located in Cleveland, Ohio.

Ql' Respondent, American Glanzstoff Corporation, is a corporation la gamzed, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the Qt~ 0.£ the State of Delaware, with its principal office and place tu . USiness located in New York City, N. Y., where its manufac- ~ng plant is also located.

iz ~esp~n~ent, American Enka Corporation, is a corporation organ- Qfe ' ex1stmg, and doing business under and by virtue of the laws the State of Delaware, with its principal office and place of busi- 11 P::~ located in New York City, N. Y., and with a manufacturing R t located at Enka, N. C .

.respondent, Skenandoa Rayon Corporation, is a corporation or- ~:nlzed, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the la,~s the State of New york with its principal office, place of busi- 11 ~ess and manufacturin.,. plant' located m· U tiCa,· m· sa1· d S tate of ew York ""

Uesp 1. · · · d e . . on( ent, Dillaware Rayon Company, IS a corporation orgamze , StXIstinrr""' and doin.,.· business under and by VIrtue· of t l1e laws of tl 1e an~te of Dehnvar:, with its principal office an~ place ?f business D I manufacturing plant located at New Castle, m the said State of e aware t' . • ·. d nespo 11 d. Is ex:ist. ent, Acme Uayon Corporatwn, a corpora 1011 orgamze , St Ing, and doinrr business under and by virtue of the laws of the rn ate of Ohio, w{th its principal office and place of business and anttfa t · 1 d · 'd (,.:!t tQf Oh' c urmg plant located in the city of Cleve an, m sa1 o a e 10, nes})OJ 1d • ' ' t' . d~X:istinrr ent, T.he llehmose Corporatwn, IS~ corpora 10n orgamze , "'' and domg business under and by virtue of the laws of the 424 FEDERAL TRADE COl\IM:ISSION DECISIONS Complaint 25F. T.C. State of Connecticut, with its principal office and place of lmsiness ami manufacturing plant located at Rocky Hill, in the State of Connecticut.

PAR. 2. Respondents, George Oliver May, William B. Campbell, Joseph Edmund Sterrett, Robert 0. Berger, John H. Bowman, Charles P. Carruthers, David I... Grey, John C. Scobie, Frank C. Belser, John Medlock, ·william D. Bonthron, Ismay G. Pattinson, Thomas Jackson, Donald Arthur, Geoffrey G. Rowbotham, Francis 13. Byerly, Percival F. Brundage, "\V. W. Law, J. P. Dawson, A. L. Brockway, E. Christensen, and R. F. Starkey, are and have been since January 1931, a copartnership doing business as Price, "\Vater· house and Company, with their office and principal place of business in the city of New York, State of New York, and with branch offices located in various other cities of the United States. As such copartnership they are, and since their organization (which was prior to 1931) have been, engaged in the practice of public accounting and of auditing the books and accounts of various individuals, partnerships, and corporations in various cities of the United States. PAn. 3. The respondents named in paragraph 1 hereof are now, and since their organizations, have been engaged in the manufac· ture at their respective manufacturing plants, of Viscose rayon yarn nnd in the sale thereof throughout the various States of the United States, the Territories thereof, and the District of Columbia. In the course and conduct of their businesses all of the said respondents 11named in paragraph 1 hereof, for more than five years last pnst, l1ave caused, and still cause, such Viscose rayon yarn when sold by them, to be transported in interstate commerce from their respective places of business to, into and through various States of the United States other than the States in which they respectively have their factories and places of business, to the purchasers in such other States to whom such Viscose rayon yarn is and has been sold. Such viscose rayon yarn is knitted by the purchasers thereof located in various States of the United States into rayon cloth, which is sold by such purchasers to manufacturers of garments and of other articles of wear, located in various cities in the United States, and f:nch purchasers cause such rayon cloth, when sold by them, to be transported in interstate commerce from their respective places of business to, into, and through States of the United States other tha.n Uw States in which they respectively have their factories and places of business to the purchasers thereof in such other States to whom such rayon cloth is sold. Manufacturers of such rayon garments and of other rayon articles of wear made from cloth sold to them, by purchasers of viscose rayon yarn made by the respondents named in VISCOSE CO.MPANY ET AL. 425 421 Complaint paragraph 1 hereof, cause such rayon garments and other rayon articles of wear when sold, to be transported, in interstate commerce, from their respective places of business into and through States of the United States other than the States in which snell manufacturers of rayon garments and of sqch other rayon articles of Wear have their factories aml places of business, to their purchasers in such other States to whom such rayon garments and other rayon articles of wear are and have been sold. And the sale by respondents of viscose rayon yarn in interstate commerce, is thus followed by interstate commerce in rayon cloth knitted from such yarn and subsequent thereto by interstate commerce in rayon garments nnd other articles of wear made from such cloth. PAR. 4. The amount of viscose rayon yarn manufactured and sold by the respondents named in paragraph 1 hereof constitutes, and 8,t a~l times since October 1931, lias constituted, substantially all of the VIscose rayon yarn manufactured in the United States. The amount of yiscose rayon yarn used by rayon cloth knitters constitutes apl)roximately 45% of all the viscose rayon yarn solu in the United States and is greater than the amount of viscose rayon yarn used by any other class or kind of purchasers of such viscose rayon yarn. As 11· consequence the price paid by knitters of viscose rayon yarn influences and controls the price of viscose rayon yarn purchased by Users :other than knitter.s. Knitters of viscose rayon yarn and 0.ther users of viscose rayon yarn have no source of supply and, 811lcc October 19:31, have had no source of supply for viscose rayon yam exce-pting from the said respondents. The said responde~ts were, prior to October 1931, in competition as to price 'Vlth one another in the sale of viscose rayon yarn between and among the various States of the United States, the Territories thereof and the District of Columbia and but for the combination, agreement, understanding, and conspiracy hereinafter described, said respondents would have been at all times since October 1931, and would now be, in such competition with one another. Knitters and other ~tsers of viscose rayon yarn were, prior to October 1931, respectively ln Price competition with one another in the sale of rayon cloth and ~ither articles made from viscose rayon yarn, between and amongt l.e Various States of the United States, the Territories and the Dis- ~Ict of Columbia and but for the combination, agreement, under- IS t~nding, and conspiracy hereinafter described, said knitters and ~ ler users would have been at all times since October 1931, and ou}d still be, respectively in competition as to price with ono another, 426 FEDERAL TRADE COMr.USSION DECISIONS Complaint 25F.T.C.

PAR. 5. In October 1!)31, or thereabouts, the respondents named in paragraph 1 hereof, for the purpose of eliminating price competilion among themselves, entered into, have since carried out and are f'till carrying out, an agreement, combination, understanding, and <:onspiracy among themselves, to fix and maintain and by which they have fixed and maintained uniform prices to be exacted by them from their purchasers of viscose rayon yarn and thus to fix tho price of viscose rayon yarn entering into interstate commerce. Pur· suant to and for the purpose of carrying out the said agreement, combination, understanding, and conspiracy, the said respondents have, among other things, done the following: (a) By agreement among themselves have fixed and maintained and still fix and maintain uniform prices for viscose rayon yarn sold by them and by each of them;

(b) Agreed to curtail and limit, and pursuant to such agreement, have curtailed and limited and still curtail and limit the amount of viscose rayon yarn produced and sold by them and thu.3 by agree· ment they have limited and still limit the supply of viscose rayon yarn, of rayon cloth and of rayon garments and other articles of rayon wear entering into interstate commerce; ( o) In order to detect and find any variation by any of them from the prices of viscose rayon yarn so fixed by them, and in order to detect and find any violation by any of them of their said agreement to curtail and limit the sale and production by any of them of viscose rayon yarn, hired the services of the said respondents named in paragraph 2 hereof, who assisted and furthered and who still assist and further the said agreement, combination, understanding, and conspiracy by compiling and determining from the books and from the manufacturing plants of the respondents named in para· graph 1 hereof, among other things, the viscose rayon yarn pro· duction capacity of each of the said respondents named in paragraph 1 hereof, the unsold stock of viscose rayon yarn in the possession of Pach of the said respondents named in paragraph 1 hereof at certain intervals of time, the percentage of capacity at which each of the said respondents named in paragraph 1 hereof operated and oper· ates over certain periods of time, the prices charged and received by each of the said respondents named in paragraph 1 hereof for viscose rayon yarn sold by them, the nanws and addresses of the pur· chasers of viscose rayon yarn manufactured and sold by each of the said respondents named in paragraph 1 hereof. (d) Because the price of knitted rayon cloth influences the price of viscose rayon yarn and because a decrease in the price of knitted rayon cloth has a tendency to lower the price of viscose rayon yarn, VISCOSE COMPANY ET AL. 427 421 Complaint the said respondents named in paragraph 1 hereof have fixed and maintained an<l still fix and maintain uniform prices at which knitters of cloth manufactured from viscose rayon yarn purchaseJ from the said respondents, should sell such cloth and thus have fixed the price of knitted rayon cloth entering into interstate commerce. (e) Sought and secured agreements from knitters of rayon cloth manufactured from viscose rayon yarn purchased from the respondents named in paragraph 1 hereof, by which agreements said knitters obligated themselves not to sell such rayon cloth at prices less than those fixed by the said respondents named in paragraph 1 hereof.

(f) Have refused, and still refuse to continue to sell viscose rayon Yarn to knitters of rayon cloth made from viscose rayon yarn purchased from respondents named in paragraph 1 hereof, who would not agree with them not to sell such cloth at prices less than those fixed by the said respondents named in paragraph 1 hereof. (g) Have refused, and still refuse to continue to sell viscose myon Yarn to all knitters who sold or who would sell rayon cloth knitted from viscose rayon yarn purchased from the said respondents at Prices for such rayon cloth less than those so fixed by the said respondents.

(h) Respondent, Industrial Rayon Corporation, a corporation of strong financial resources and of large production capacity of viscose rayon yarn, entered into the manufacture and sale of knitted rayon cloth, so that all of the said respondents named in paragraph 1 hereof, through the said respondent, In<lustrial Rayon Corporation, lnight punish price cutters of knitted rayon cloth by umlerselling the1n to take away their customers and thus to force such knitters of rayon cloth, if they would remain in business, to sell knitted rayon cloth at the prices so fixed by the said respondents named in Paragraph 1 hereof.

PAR. 6. The respondents named in paragraph 2 hereof, in perf?rming for the respondents named in paragraph 1 hereof the ser- VIces described in sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 5 hereof, had full knowledge of the agreement, combination, understanding, and conspiracy described in paragraph 5 hereof; by such services they assisted respondents named in paragraph 1 hereof to carry into effect the said agreement, understanding, combination, and conspiracy; thus became parties to the said conspiracy; and for theso reasons are made parties respondents herein. PAn. 7. 'I11e allrged acts and practices of the respondents are all to the prejudice of the public and to the prejudice of competitors of the respondents named in pnr11graph 1 hereof, have a dangerous 428 FEDERAL TRADE COl\'n.IISSION DECISIONS Findings 25F. T. C. t,euuency to and have actually hindered and preventeu price competition in the sale between and among the various States of the United States, the territories thereof and the District, of Colmnbin, of vi£case rayon yarn and of knitted rayon cloth; have increased the prices of viscose ruyon yarn paid by knitters and other users of viscose rayon yarn; have increased the prices of knitted rayon cloth paid by manufacturers of rayon garments and of other rayon articles of wear; have increased the prices paid by the purchasing public for rayon garments and for other rayon articles of wear; ha Ye cn'<tted, in the respondents named in paragraph 1 hereof, a monopoly in the sale in interstate commerce of viscose rayon yarn; lm ,.e unreasona ul,Y restrained interstate commerce in viscose rayon yarn, in knitted rayon cloth, and in rayon garments and other rayon articlrs of wear, and constitute unfair methods of competition in interstate comnwrcc within the intent and meaning of Section 5 of an Act of Con~ress, entitled, "An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes," approved Seph•mucr 26, 1914.

REPORT, FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTOR, AND OnDFR Pursuant to the provisions of an Act of Congress approved Sep· tember 26, 1914', entitled "An Act to create a Federal Trade Com· mission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes," tho Federal Trade Commission on February 1, 1934, issued and served its complaint in this proceeding upon respondents Viscose Company, Dupont Hayon Company, Inc., Tubize Chatillon Corpomtion, Indus· trial Rayon Corporation, American Glanzstoff Corporation (which since the issuance of the complaint herein changed its corporate nntne to North American Hayon Corporation and which will hereiwtfter be referred to as North American Rayon Corporation), Amt>rirttll Enka Corporation, Skenandoa Rayon Corporation, Delaware Rny· on Company, Acme Rayon Corporation, The Belumose Corporation, and the individuals named in the caption hereof, copartners trading ns Price, 'Vaterhouse and Company, charging them with the use of unfair methods of competition in commerce in violation of the provi· sions of said act.

After the issuance of said complaint and the filing of l'l'Spollllents' answers thereto, testimony and other evidence in support of the allegations of said complaint were introduced hy Edward L. Smith, Esq., and Harry A. Babcock, Esq., attorneys for the Commission, before John ,V, Addison, Esq., an examiner of the Commission there· toforo duly designated by it, ancl in opposition to the allrgati.ons of the complaint by 1\fessrs. Jackson, Fuller, Nash and Brophy (John VISCOSE COMPANY ET AL. 429 421 Fimlings G. Jackson, Esq., and Stephen P. Nash, Esq., of counsel), and Messrs. Davis, Polk, ·wardwell, Gardiner and Reed (John "\V. Davis, Esq., of counsel), attorneys for respondent Viscose Company; by Messrs. Covington, Burling, Rublee, Acheson and Shorb (J. Harry Coving- _ton, Esq., Dean G. Acheson, Esq., and H. Thomas Austern, Esq., of counsel), attorneys for respondent Dupont Uayon Company, Inc.; by Messrs. Cadwalader, Wickersham and Taft (F. Sims 1\IcGrath, Esq., and Arthur L. Fisk, Esq., of counsel), attorneys for respondents Tubize Chatillon Corporation and American Enka Corporation; by Messrs. Tolles, Hogsett and Ginn (Leslie Nichols, Esq., of counsel), attorneys for respondent Industrial Rayon Corporation; by Messrs. Sullivan and Cromwell (Eustace Seligman, Esq., and Inzer n. Wyatt, Esq., of counsel) and Messrs. Culbertson and Leroy (William S. Culbertson, Esq., of counsel), attorneys for respondent North American Rayon Corporation; by Messrs. LeBoeuf, Winston, l\Iachold and Lamb (Earle J. l\Iaehold, Esq., and Chauncey P. Williams, Jr., Esq., of counsel), attorneys for respondent Skenandoa Rayon Corporation; by l\Iessrs. Brandenburg aml Brandenburg (Louis l\f. Denit, Esq., and Thomas Searing Jackson, Esq., of coun- Rel), attorneys for respondent Delaware Rayon Company; by l\Iessrs. l~Iein and Diehm, attorneys for respondent Acme Rayon Corporation; bv Messrs. Robinson, Robinson and Cole (John C. Parsons, Bsq., of counsel), attorneys for respondent The Belamose Cor- Poration; and by Messrs. Cravath, DeGersdorff, Swaine and ·wood (G. 'V. Haight, Esq., of counsel), attorneys for respondents Price, 1V aterhouse and Company; and said testimony and other cYideuce \rere duly recorded and filed in the office of the Commission. Thereafter the proceeding rebrularly came on for final hearing before the Commission on the said complaint, the answers thereto, testilllony and other evidence, briefs in support of the complaint and in opposition then'to filed by respondents Tubize Chatillon Cor- Poration, American Enka Corporation, and Delaware Rayon Com- Pany (the other respondents not having filed briefs), and the oral arguments by Edward L. Smith, attorney for the Commission, by F. Sims McGrath of counsel for respondent Tubize Chatillon Cor- Poration and American Enka Corporation, and by Thomas Searing Jackson, Esq., of counsel for respondent Delaware Rayon Company (no oral argument being made in behalf of the other respondents); and the Commission having duly considered the said complaint, answers, testimony and evidenre, briefs and oral arguments. and being ~tow fully advised in the premises, finds that this proceeding is in the Interest of the public, and makes this its findings as to the facts and its conclusion drawn therefrom:

Findings 25F.T.O.

FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS Paragraph 1. Respondents, Viscose Company, The Belamose Corporation, and Acme Rayon Corporation are corporations organizedr E'existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of th~ States of Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Ohio, re.spectively.- Uespondents, Dupont Rayon Company, Inc., Tubize Chatillon Corporation, American Enka Corporation, Industrial Rayon Corpora·· t.iontion, North American Rayon Corporation, Skenandoa Rayon Corporation, and Delaware Rayon Company are Delaware corporations.

PAn. 2. The respondents named in paragraph 1 hereof are now, and since their organizations, have been engaged in the manufacture at their respective manufacturing plants, of viscose rayon yarn and in the sale thereof throughout the various States of the United States, t.he Territories thereof, and the District of Columbia. In the course and conduct of their businesses, all of the said respondents named in paragraph 1 hereof, for more than five years last past, have caused, and still cause, such viscose rayon yarn when sold by them, to be transported in interstate commerce from their respective places of business to, into and through various States of the Unite.'d States other than the States in which they respectively have their factories and places of business, to the purchasers in such other States to whom such viscose rayon yarn is and has been sold. Such viscose rayon yarn is manufactured by the purchasers thereof, located in various States of the United States, into rayon cloth, which is sold by such purchasers to manufacturers of rayon articles of wear, located in various cities in the United States, and such purchasers cause such rayon cloth, when sold by them, to be transported in interstate comnwrce from their respective places of business to, into and through States of the United States other than the States in which they respectively have their factories and places of business, to the purchasers thereof in such other States to whom such rayon cloth is sold. Manufacturers of such rayon articles of wear made from cloth sold to them by purchasers of viscose rayon yarn made by the respondents named in paragraph 1 hereof, cause such rayon articles of wear when sold, to Le transported, in interstate commerce, from their respective places of business into and through States of the United States other than the States in which such manufacturers of rayon articles of wear have thpir factories and placps of business, to their purchasers in such other States, to whom such rayon articles of wear are and have been sold. And the sale by said respondents of viscose rayon yarn in interstate commerce, is thus followed by interstate commerce in rayon cloth VISCOSE COMPANY ET AL. 431 421 Conclusion manufactured from such yarn and subsequent thereto by interstate commerce in rayon articles of wear made from such cloth. PAn. 3. The amount of viscose rayon yarn manufactured and sold by the respondents named in paragraph 1 hereof constitutes and at all times since October 1931 has con::;tituted substantially all of the Viscose rayon yarn manufactured in the United States. The amount of viscose rayon yarn used by rayon cloth knitters constituted during the period from October 21, 1931, to May 23, 1932, approximately 45 percent of all the viscose rayon yarn used by all classes or kinds of purchasers of such viscose rayon yarn. As a consequence, the price paid by knitters of viscose rayon yarn influenced and controlled, dur- Ing said period, the price of viscose rayon yarn purchased by users other than knitters. Knitters of viscose rayon yarn and other users of viscose rayon yarn have no source of supply and between October 21, 1931, and Jlby 23, 1932, had no source of supply for viscose rayon Yarn excepting from the said respondents. The said respondents Were prior to October, 1931, in competition as to price with one another in the sale of viscose rayon yarn between and among the various States of the United States, the Territories thereof and the District of Colun1bia, and but for the combination, agreement, understanding, , and conspiracy hereinafter described, said respondents would have been at all times between October 21, 1931, and May 23, 1932, in such competition with one another.

. PAn. 4. On October 21, 1931, or thereabouts, the respondents named 1? paragraph 1 hereof, for the purpose of eliminating price compet~tion among themselves, entered into and until May 23, 1!)32, carlled out an agreement, combination, understanding and conspiracy among themselves to fix and maintain, and by which, during said Per·iod, they fixed and maintained uniform prices to be exacted by th~rn from their purchasers of viscose rayon yarn, and thus to fix the Price of viscose rayon yarn entering into interstate commerce. PAn. 5. During said period the said acts and practices of the respondents named in paragraph 1 hereof had a dangerous tendency ~0 and actually hindered and prevented price competition in the sale ;tween and among the various States of the United States, the Ter- ~Itories thereof and the District of Columbia, of viscose rayon yarn, ~~crea~ed the prices of viscose rayon yarn paid by the users thereof, e. Prices of cloth made from such yarn and the prices of rayon articles of wear.

CONCLUSION d The aforesaid acts and practices of said respondent rayon prollcers were to the prejudice of the public and of respondents' comtrust21"'-3!l-3o 432 FEDERAL TRADE COl\Il\IISSION DECISION"S Ord('r !:!!'iF.T.C. petitors and constitute unfair methods of competition in commerce within the intent and meaning of Section 5 of an Act of Congress, appr·oved September 26, 1914, entitled "An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes."

ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST This proceeding having been heard by the Federal Trade Commission upon the complaint of the Commission, the answers of respondents, testimony and other evidence taken before John "\V. Addison, Esq., an examiner of the Commission theretofore duly designated by it, in support of the allegations of said complaint n,nd in opposition thereto, briefs filed herein by respondents Tubize Chatillon Corporation, American Enka Corporation and Dehnvare Hayon Company (the other respondents not having filed briefs), and oral arguments by Edwanl L. Smith, Esq., counsel for the Commission,. by F. Sims. ]lfcGrath, Esq., comisel for respondents Tubize Chatillon Corporation and American Enka Corporation, and by Thomas Scaring Jack::;on, Esq., counsel for respondent Delaware Uayon Com· pany (no oral argument having been made in behalf of the other respondents), and the Commission having made its findings as to the facts and its conclusion that respondents Viscose Company, Dupont Rayon Company, Inc., Tubize Chatillon Corporation, Industrial Rayon Corporation, North American Rayon Corporation, American Enka Corporation, Skenandoa Rayon Corporation, Dela- '"are Rayon Company, Acme Hayon Corporation, and The Bela· mosc Corporation have violated the provisions of an Act o£ Congress approved September 26, 1914, entitled, "An Act to create a Fedend Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes."

It is ordered, That the respondents, Viscose Company, Dupont Rayon Company, Inc., Tubize Chatillon Corporation, American Enlm Corporation, Industrial Rayon Corporation, North American Rayon Corporation, Skenandoa Rayon Corporation, Delaware Rayon Company, Acme Rayon Corporation, and The Beloamose Corporation, and their agents, representatives, servants, and employees in connection with the sale or offering for sale of Viscose rayon yarn in interstate commerce or in the District of Columbia, do cease and desist from entering into and carrying out any agreement, combi· nation, understanding, or conspiracy among themselves or with any other corporation, person, firm, or partnership, to fix and maintain uniform prices to be exacted by them from purchasers of Viscose rayon yarn.

VISCOSE COl\IP ANY ET AL. 433 4::!1 Order It is further ordered, That the said respondents shall, within 60 days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with this order. It is furtlwr ordered, That the complaint in this proceeding as to George Oliver May, William B. Campbell, Joseph Edmund Sterlett, Robert 0. Derger, John H. Bowman, Charles P. Carruthers, David L. Grey, John C. Scobie, Frank C. Belser, John J'lfcdlock, William D. Bonthron, Ismay G. Pattinson, Thomas Jackson, Donald Arthur, Geoffrey G. Rowbotham, Fracis B. Byerly, Percival F. Brundage, \V. \V. Law, J. P. Dawson, A. L. Brookway, E. Christensen and R. F. Starkey, copartners, trading as Price, \Vaterhouse and Company, be, and the same is hereby, dismissed. Syllabus 25F. T. C.