The Birmingham age-herald., 1915-10-19
Filed in Missouri and Di- rected Against United
 Shoe Machinery Co.
ASKS TEMPORARY
 RESTRAINING ORDER
Permanent Injunction Also Prayed for Distinct From Action Against Company Filed Under the
 Sherman Act

St. Louis, October 1S..-The first impor- tant government suit under the Clayton antitrust act was begun here today by Attorney General Gregory against the United Shoe Machinery company. The charges the shoe company with unlawful practices that substantially lessen com petition and tend to monopoly. Temper ary and permanent injunctions are sought.
 United States District Judge Dyer granted a temnorary injunction against enforcement of contract clause com plained of and set October 27 as the date for a hearing
 The suit is distinct from that against the same concern under the Sherman antitrust act, begun several years ago, in which it's dissolution as an unlawful combination and monopoly in restraint of trade was sought and which now is before the United States supreme court The present act does not seek dissolu- tion, but asks the court to enjoin the company perpetuauy from further en- gazing in alleged unlawful practices. There also is the usual prayer for such other general and further relief as the court may see fit to give.
 One of the unusual feataures is that the petition contains a request for temporary order restraining the United Shoe company from resortng to the prac- tices complained of until determination of the suit.
 Charges by Government The governments suit charges That tine United Shoe Machinery com pany is a monopoly controlling 9Sia per cent of the trade in shoe machinery in the United States it's principal business being the making and leasing of these machines.
 That in certain instances it has fixed and is fixing the prices of sucn ma- chinery on the condition and with the agreement that the lessee or purchaser shall not use the machinery, supplies or other commodities of it's competitors. That it grants rebates on prices fixed in some instances in consideration of the use by lessee of other of it's machines; that other leases contain clauses whose effect is to establish prices 10 per cent less to those who agree not to use the machinery supplied by competitors than to those who do not so bind themselves
 The petition alleges that some machines are leased under what is called an 'un restricted form of lease, which allows lessees in certain cases to use other ma chimes obtained from competitors on pay ment of initial premiums These pre- miums are in addition to the usual roy | alties or charges.
 l The amounts of these initial pre- miums' says the petition, 'are so large as practically to prohibit the choice oi I the unrestricted form. Upon the ma chinery 1 na factory having an output of from 25,000 to 5000 pairs of shoes | daily the premiums would amount tt about $250000. This sum represents q discount or rebate which the defendant. grant the manufacturer if he is willing l to take his machinery from them upor the illegal condition or understanding that he will not use machinery supplied by competitors of the defendants"
 Leases Being Enforced
 These clauses and others with the same purpose and effect, according to the peti tion are being enforced by the shoe com
 pany, which has written leases with sucf clauses executed not only before the ps s. sage of the Clayton act in october. 1914 but since that time as we'll
 The petition sets forth that there are more than 1500 manufacturers of shoes ir the United States who annually produce
 more than 300,0O0.000 pairs of machine made shoes, and that with all but z very few of these the defendants have business relations
 The growth of the United States Sho, Machinery company which makes ma chimes preparing and attaching the sole. to the uppers of shoes. is declared to bt the result of 16 years of consolidation, bringing together 56 concerns at one time in this business.
 Suit was brought particularly asains the United States Machinery company o Maine, nut the United Shoe Machiner, corporation and the United Shoe Ma Lchinery company of New Jersey are mad, defendants as are also the following in dividua!s: Sidney w. Winslow. Lours 4s Coolidge. Harold c. Donham, Edward N tChase. Edward P. Hurd, Elmer P. Howe