Document: 355 U.S. 373 78 S.Ct. 352 2 L.Ed.2d 340 NASHVILLE MILK COMPANY, Petitioner,v.CARNATION COMPANY. SAFEWAY STORES, Incorporated, Petitioner, v. Harry V. VANCE, Trustee in Bankruptcy for Frank Melvin Thompson, Bankrupt. Nos. 67, 69. Supreme Court of the United States January 20, 1958 Mr. Jerome F. Dixon, Chicago, Ill., petitioner. Melville C. Williams, respondent. Justice HARLAN delivered opinion Court. 1 alleging that it had been injured by respondent's sales at unreasonably low prices violation § 3 Robinson-Patman Act,1 49 Stat. 1526, 15 U.S.C. 13a, U.S.C.A. sued respondent treble damages and injunctive relief under §§ 4 16 Clayton Act, 38 730, as amended, 15, 26, 26. The District dismissed complaint on ground private remedies afforded Act cannot be based a Act. Appeals affirmed. 238 F.2d 86. We brought case here, 1023, 77 590, 595, to resolve conflict between ruling below decision Tenth Circuit holding such action does lie. Vance Safeway Stores, Inc., 239 144. Sections permit actions this kind2 only injuries resulting from practices forbidden 'antitrust laws' defined 12,3 namely: (1) Sherman (Act July 2, 1890, 1—7, note); (2) parts Wilson Tariff August 27, 1894, 8—11); (3) amending February 12, 1913, 11); (4) 12 et seq. ('this Act'). In light much other so-called antitrust legislation enacted prior subsequent Act,4 seems plain rule expressio unius exclusio alterius is applicable, definition contained exclusive. Therefore no moment here may colloquially described an 'antitrust' statute. And since one claims can regarded amendment or precise issue before us whether Congress made section part thus making whose lead causes authorized 16. For reasons stated we hold not case.5 I. consisting our sections, convincingly shows its face amend but stands own footing carries sanctions. first expressly which prohibits certain kinds price discriminations, allied activities, those engaged domestic territorial commerce. paragraph reads: 5 'That (Clayton Act) * amended read follows: *' then sets forth haec verba, within quotation marks, all provisions modified language. 13(a), 13(a). 6 Two sections are point here. Section simply applies litigation commenced former 21a, 21a; deals with cooperative associations. 13b, 13b. 7 3, concerned It three trade practices, (a) general (b) geographical (c) selling 'at purpose destroying competition eliminating competitor.' important thing note section, contrast Further, contains penal sanctions provisions; absence clear expression congressional intent contrary, these should familiar principles considered exclusive, rather than supplemented civil distinct See D. R. Wilder Mfg. Co. Corn Products Refining Co., 236 165, 174—175, 35 398, 401, 59 L.Ed. 520. 8 conclusion amendatory further borne out title whole reads (49 1526): 9 'An 10 'To (the purposes.' (Italics added.) 11 'other purposes' refer section. Because there partial overlap price-discrimination clauses (see 1, supra) Act,6 argued would anomalous allow cause discrimination deny This argument, however, over-looks fact includes provision found namely, idle conjecture possibility abuse inherent upon vague provision7 was among factors led leave enforcement solely hands public authorities, except extent any also constituted subject redress event, clearer indication present statutory their legislative history (355 380, 356), subjecting violations 'unreasonably prices' given 13 Respondent calls attention 1940 Code codifies being embraced However, reference 1926 1934 Codes codification palpable error.8 Moreover, us, set opinion, manifestly inconsistent circumstances has specifically provided underlying statute must prevail. June 30, 1926, 32(a), vol. (1952 ed.), p. LXIII, preceding 1; see Stephan States, 319 423, 426, 63 1135, 1136, 87 1490. II. 14 What appears finds full support history. fair conclusions drawn intended become carry criminal sanctions, they were common both understood carry, independent force Clayton, words, although discriminations criminally punishable (under Act), penalties Act.9 evident Conference Report bill, states: 'SECTION 'The House bill10 agreed without Senate. (I)t conference report bill itself, bill. 17 18 'Subsection (h) Senate itself. operative what originally Borah-Van Nuys (S. 4171).11 While some respects, way th 1. authorizes nothing prohibits, takes it. On where liabilities attach up special prohibitions particular offenses therein attaches them provided.' H.R.Rep. No. 2951, 74th Cong., 2d Sess., 8. 19 Further excerpts history, margin,12 bear outset opinion. 20 Finally, noteworthy, epitomizing 1950 Representative Patman (a coauthor testimony Subcommittee Committee Judiciary (Hearing H.R. 7905, 81st Serial 14, Part 5, 48): 21 '* happens not, terms act, never added list laws designated Act.' 22 foregoing reasons, lie To constitute actionable thereby Since infringement alleged properly dismissed. 23 Affirmed. provides: 'It shall unlawful person commerce, course party to, assist in, transaction sale, contract sell, discriminates his knowledge against competitors purchaser, that, discount, rebate, allowance, advertising service charge granted purchaser over above available time said respect sale goods like grade, quality, quantity; lower exacted elsewhere competition, competitor States; or, competitor. 'Any violating shall, conviction thereof, fined more $5,000 imprisoned year, both.' who business property reason anything sue therefor district court defendant resides agent, amount controversy, recover threefold him sustained, cost suit, including reasonable attorney's fee.' grants 'threatened loss damage laws.' 730. laws,' used herein, entitled protect commerce restraints monopolies,' approved second, eighteen hundred ninety; seventy-three seventy-seven, inclusive, reduce taxation, provide revenue Government, purposes,' twenty-seventh, ninety-four; seventy-six ninety-four, purposes," twelfth, nineteen thirteen; A total 71 statutes (including compliation prepared Elmer A. Lewis, Superintendent Document Room, Representatives, Antitrust Laws Amendments, 1890—1951 (1951). Of statutes, books 1914 when enacted, became law thereafter. now decided Bruce's Juices, American Can 330 743, 67 1015, 91 1219, Moore Mead's Fine Bread 348 115, 75 148, 99 145. either directly indirectly, discriminate different purchasers commodities grade quality effect substantially lessen tend create monopoly line injure, destroy, prevent knowingly receives benefit discrimination, customers *.' need decide defenses indicated vagueness might give rise constitutional difficulties, if questions faced. Cf. L. Cohen Grocery 255 81, 41 298, 65 516; Cline Frink Dairy 274 445, 47 681, 1146. Comment, 55 Mich.L.Rev. 845, 853 856. Be may, worthy Department never, so far have able determine, proceedings 3. U.S.Code, codified follows (15 12): "Antitrust chapter chapter.' correct because 1—27 Title (as amended) identical correct. error occurred codification. 1936. changed read: 13, 14—21, 22—27 title, 1—27, title.' 13a respectively. codifiers partially recognized changing figures'12 27' earlier codifications '12, 27.' But failed make corresponding change figures '1 appearing codifications. result term include 13a. 1946 1952 perpetuated error. Read context, quoted dissenting indicate that. introduced Patman. 8442, 79 Cong.Rec. 9081. Shortly thereafter Senator Robinson. S. 3154, 10129. Independently Robinson Senators Borah Van separate bills. 3670, 80 461; 3835, 1194. These bills later consolidated, 4171, 3204, ultimately consolidated Utterback, senior Manager committee conference, floor (80 9419): 'Section aside commission fine imprisonment provided. affect scope operation limitations laid down prohibited. detracts them. Most acts prohibit amendment. sphere merely addition already Miller, Borach-Van reported back amends When asked 'a same act,' Miller replied 9421): 'Of is, (Section Bill).'

Category: 7