Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/240/643/119486/
Timestamp: 2019-12-15 20:27:53
Document Index: 319312882

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 18', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 3282']

The Kansas City Star Company, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee.emil A. Sees, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee, 240 F.2d 643 (8th Cir. 1957) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Eighth Circuit › 1957 › The Kansas City Star Company, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee.emil A. Sees, Appella...
The Kansas City Star Company, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee.emil A. Sees, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee, 240 F.2d 643 (8th Cir. 1957)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - 240 F.2d 643 (8th Cir. 1957) January 23, 1957
Rehearing Denied March 13, 1957
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Elton L. Marshall, Kansas City, Mo. (Henry N. Ess, Carl E. Enggas, Colvin A. Peterson, Jr., and Watson, Ess, Marshall & Enggas, Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellant The Kansas City Star Co.
The Sherman Act aims at the evils of monopoly and monopolistic practices in interstate trade and commerce. That it can apply to the dissemination of news and advertising there can be no doubt. In a case quite similar to this one, the Supreme Court commented, Lorain Journal Co. v. United States, 1951, 342 U.S. 143, 152, 72 S. Ct. 181, 185, 96 L. Ed. 162:
"The distribution within Lorain of the news and advertisements transmitted to Lorain in interstate commerce for the sole purpose of immediate and profitable reproduction and distribution to the reading public is an inseparable part of the flow of the interstate commerce involved. See Binderup v. Pathe Exchange, 263 U.S. 291, 309, 44 S. Ct. 96, 99, 68 L. Ed. 308; Stafford v. Wallace, 258 U.S. 495, 516, 42 S. Ct. 397, 66 L. Ed. 735; Illinois Central R. Co. v. De Fuentes [Louisiana R. Comm.], 236 U.S. 157, 163, 35 S. Ct. 275, 276, 59 L. Ed. 517; Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375, 398, 25 S. Ct. 276, 280, 49 L. Ed. 518. Unless protected by law, the consuming public is at the mercy of restraints and monopolizations of interstate commerce at whatever points they occur. Without the protection of competition at the outlets of the flow of interstate commerce, the protection of its earlier stages is of little worth."
See also Associated Press v. United States, 1945, 326 U.S. 1, 14, 65 S. Ct. 1416, 89 L. Ed. 2013, holding trade in news among the several states to be interstate commerce.
From an examination of the indictment and the particularizations set forth therein, we are convinced that Rule 7(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure was satisfied in that the indictment does contain "* * * a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged". We are of the opinion that it charges offenses with sufficient clarity to enable the appellants to properly prepare their defense and with sufficient certainty and definiteness that trial thereon would be an effective bar to future prosecution for the same acts. United States v. Cruikshank, 1875, 92 U.S. 542, 566, 568, 23 L. Ed. 588; Bennett v. United States, 1913, 227 U.S. 333, 338, 33 S. Ct. 288, 57 L. Ed. 531; Berger v. United States, 1935, 295 U.S. 78, 82, 55 S. Ct. 629, 79 L. Ed. 1314; Hewitt v. United States, 8 Cir., 1940, 110 F.2d 1, 6, certiorari denied 310 U.S. 641, 60 S. Ct. 1089, 84 L. Ed. 1409; Claiborne v. United States, 8 Cir., 1935, 77 F.2d 682, 689. In prosecutions under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1-7, 15 note, it would seem particularly true that there has been no marked reliance upon rigorous common law standards. E. g., Nash v. United States, 1913, 229 U.S. 373, 33 S. Ct. 780, 57 L. Ed. 1232; Knauer v. United States, 8 Cir., 1916, 237 F. 8; United States v. American Medical Association, 1940, 72 App.D.C. 12, 110 F.2d 703, 715, 716, affirmed 317 U.S. 519, 63 S. Ct. 326, 87 L. Ed. 434; United States v. Armour & Co., 10 Cir., 1943, 137 F.2d 269, 270.
Subsequent to the court's denial of the motion to dismiss the indictment, appellants made a motion for a bill of particulars, the denial of which is cited as error. An examination of the motion for a bill of particulars convinces us that it was aimed at obtaining in particular the details of the government's evidence. It is not the function of a bill or particulars to set forth evidentiary detail. Furthermore, the granting or denial of a motion for a bill of particulars is generally addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. The rulings of the trial court thereon will not be disturbed excepting for clear abuse of that discretion. American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 6 Cir., 1944, 147 F.2d 93, 117, affirmed 328 U.S. 781, 66 S. Ct. 1125, 90 L. Ed. 1575 (an anti-trust case):
"If the language of the indictment is so far definite and certain as to safeguard all of the rights of a defendant and to enable him properly to prepare his defense, a bill of particulars will not be required. Bedell v. United States, 8 Cir., 78 F.2d 358. The granting or the refusal of a motion for a bill of particulars is a matter that is governed by the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and unless it shall be shown affirmatively that such discretion has been abused by the trial court a refusal to require a bill of particulars will not be disturbed by an appellate court."
The appellants moved the court for an order fixing the time within which evidence would be admitted to a period of three yearsâ prior to the return of the indictment and requested that evidence of events occurring prior thereto be excluded. In denying that motion, the trial court fixed January 1, 1936, as the cut-off date. Evidence of events occurring prior thereto was not to be admitted.
Intent was a vital element of the charges against the appellants. Times-Picayune v. United States, 1953, 345 U.S. 594, 626, 73 S. Ct. 872, 97 L. Ed. 1277. Where that is true, "* * * it has always been deemed allowable, as well in criminal as in civil cases, to introduce evidence of other acts and doings of the party, of a kindred character, in order to illustrate or establish his intent or motive in the particular act directly in judgment". Wood v. United States, 16 Pet. 342, 358, 10 L. Ed. 987. In United States v. Pullman Co., D.C. E.D. Pa. 1943, 50 F. Supp. 123 at page 126, affirmed 330 U.S. 806, 67 S. Ct. 1078, 91 L. Ed. 1263, an anti-trust case, the court, in commenting on evidence prior to the indictment period, stated:
"We think they are competent evidence to show defendants' state of mind at the time. The time, of course, was a good while ago, long before the Sherman Act. But if such declarations point in the direction of a path which has been followed continuously since their adoption, it is not unfair to take them as the initiation of a consistent Pullman policy. Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States, 1911, 221 U.S. 1, 46, 47, 75, 76, 31 S. Ct. 502, 55 L. Ed. 619, 34 L.R.A., N.S., 834, Ann.Cas.1912D, 734; United States v. Reading Company, 1920, 253 U.S. 26, 43-45, 40 S. Ct. 425, 64 L. Ed. 760." In order to show intent, it was entirely proper to receive evidence of a course of conduct engaged in by the appellants over a period of years leading up to the indictment period which might assist the jury in attempting to determine whether or not the appellants possessed that necessary intent during the time covered by the indictment. It would be illogical not to admit evidence as to a course of conduct over many years which manifested an intent to monopolize. But we need not use a rationale to explain this state of the law. The federal courts in anti-trust cases have long admitted evidence of conduct prior to the statutory period. Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 1911, 221 U.S. 1, 75-76, 31 S. Ct. 502, 55 L. Ed. 619; United States v. Pullman Co., supra; American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 6 Cir., 1944, 147 F.2d 93, affirmed 328 U.S. 781, 66 S. Ct. 1125, 90 L. Ed. 1575. The evidence here of prior conduct was admitted by the trial court and the jury instructed that:
After the court's denial of appellants' motion to confine the evidence to the three-year period, the appellants objected to the 1936 cut-off date for evidence as being arbitrary and without regard to their own relevant evidence. In fixing a cut-off date, the trial court's purpose was to eliminate remote evidence and keep the trial within reasonable bounds. Apparently the trial court felt that 1936 was the most practical date for such a cut-off. The trial court is given a wide range of discretion in exercising its right and duty to control the trial and keep it within reasonable time limits. United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 1940, 310 U.S. 150, 229-231, 60 S. Ct. 811, 84 L. Ed. 1129. In considering the numerous witnesses and the mass of evidence, some conceivably going back as far as 1880, the founding date of The Star, the trial court was exercising its considered judgment in fixing the cut-off date. We see no justification in the record for disturbing the court's determination.
Prior to trial, Sees filed a motion for severance which he claimed was improperly and erroneously denied. Separate trials are not necessarily a matter of right. See Rule 8(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. In Mellor v. United States, 8 Cir., 1947, 160 F.2d 757, at page 761, certiorari denied 331 U.S. 848, 67 S. Ct. 1734, 91 L. Ed. 1858, this court, speaking through Judge Woodrough, stated:
In dealing with a similar contention, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Hall v. United States, 1948, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 166, 168 F.2d 161, 163, 4 A.L.R.2d 1193, certiorari denied 334 U.S. 853, 68 S. Ct. 1509, 92 L. Ed. 1775, stated:
"Since the defendants were alleged `to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses', they might, under Rule 8(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. have been joined as defendants in a single indictment. Under these circumstances the district court was authorized by Rule 13 to order the indictments to be tried together. Each defendant moved for a separate trial on the general ground (no details being specified) that standing trial with the other defendant would be prejudicial. These motions for severance were denied. In this there was no error. The matter lay in the discretion of the trial judge, and no extraordinary facts appear from which it could be said that denial of the motions was an abuse of discretion. See Stilson v. United States, 1919, 250 U.S. 583, 40 S. Ct. 28, 63 L. Ed. 1154. Throughout the trial, whenever evidence was introduced which was competent against one defendant and incompetent against the other, the judge duly admonished the jury that the evidence was received only as against the one defendant and must be disregarded by them in their consideration of the case of the other defendant. See United States v. Ball, 1896, 163 U.S. 662, 672, 16 S. Ct. 1192, 41 L. Ed. 300."
The Supreme Court has lent finality to the rule of discretion on the part of the trial court in determining a motion for severance in the recent case of Opper v. United States, 1954, 348 U.S. 84, 95, 75 S. Ct. 158, 165, 99 L. Ed. 101:
The metropolitan Kansas City area in which the appellants were charged with attempting to monopolize and monopolization of interstate trade and commerce in the dissemination of news and advertising is made up of four counties: Jackson and Clay in the State of Missouri and Wyandotte and Johnson in the State of Kansas. Within this area there are located four major urban communities: Kansas City, Missouri; Kansas City, Kansas; North Kansas City, Missouri; and Independence, Missouri. This metropolitan area contains a population of approximately 854,000 persons. During the indictment years The Star advertised and the evidence justified the conclusion that it possessed 95% coverage of all households in the four counties referred to. In 1952, one of the indictment years, there were seven daily newspapers published in the four-county area in addition to those published by The Star. These daily newspapers were The Kansas City Kansan, The Independence Examiner, The Excelsior Springs Standard, The Independence Daily News, The Daily Record, The Kansas City News-Press, and The Daily Drovers Telegram.â€¡ The Star's dominance in the area is evidenced by circulation figures.
"19511  19521 Average Average Daily Per Cent Daily Per Cent Circulation of Total Circulation of Total 1. Kansas City Star Company Kansas City Times (M) .............. 351,1262  46.58 350,2062 46.74 Kansas City Star (E) ............... 360,1432 47.78 358,2312 47.81 _____________ _______ _____________ ______ Total Times and Star ............ 711,2692 94.36 708,4372 94.56 2. Kansas City Kansan (E) ............. 29,0842 3.86 27,8732 3.69 3. Independence Examiner (E) .......... 7,7543  1.03 7,8623 1.05 4. Excelsior Springs Standard (E* ) 3,1893 .42 3,2833 .44 5. Independence Daily News (E ex. Sat.) ..................... 1,4483 .19 5503 .07 6. Daily Record (D) ................... 1,0153 .14 1,0043 .13 7. Daily News Press (D) ............... Not published 445** 3 .06 _____________ _______ ______________ ______ Total Kansas City ............... 753,759 100.00 749,454 100.00
We think a question of fact was raised and that it was properly left for the determination of the jury. In contending that the unit advertising plan was legal, appellants place substantial reliance upon Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States, supra, 1953, 345 U.S. 594, 73 S. Ct. 872, wherein the United States Supreme Court reversed the trial court and held that the unit advertising rate therein involved was not a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The Times-Picayune case was, in the last analysis, determined on the basis of a failure of proof. Tying arrangements in advertising may be in violation of the Sherman Act, but the Supreme Court found in the Times-Picayune case that the record there did not justify that conclusion. The Supreme Court has said that tying or unit arrangements are not of themselves unlawful, but also makes it manifest that neither are they of themselves lawful. As with most cases, tying arrangements must be judged amidst the circumstances and surroundings in which they operate. The Supreme Court thus concludes, 345 U.S. 594, 627, 73 S. Ct. 872, 890: "* * * this record does not establish the charged violations of § 1 and § 2 of the Sherman Act. We do not determine that unit advertising arrangements are lawful in other circumstances or in other proceedings. Our decision adjudicates solely that this record cannot substantiate the Government's view of this case." (Emphasis supplied.)
Unlike Times-Picayune, but comparable to the situation presented in the Lorain Journal Co. v. United States, supra, 1951, 342 U.S. 143, 72 S. Ct. 181, we think the record here could justify the jurors' conclusion that the morning Times and evening Star were two separate newspapers with distinct and separate uses for advertisers; that each was dominant in its own field; that together they dominated the market both morning and evening; and that the unit advertising method was used, notwithstanding the protests of advertisers, with the intent and effect of excluding competition. As to the forced combination rate, we think the jurors could properly conclude that the effect upon the average subscriber who must take thirteen papers a week is to foreclose the likelihood he will purchase other competing papers. The result on circulation of smaller papers in the area is self-evident. We find no error in the court's submission of these issues to the jury.
The Star argues that the court prejudicially erred in overruling its motion for judgment of acquittal for the reason that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish that it possessed a monopoly of the dissemination of news and advertising in Kansas City and in the surrounding territory. The Star claims that it did not have a monopoly of the dissemination of news and advertising and that effective competition existed in the dissemination of each. Size in itself does not create an unlawful monopoly within the meaning of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, nor does that Act place a premium upon successful business operation "The purpose of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act is the preservation of a system of free competitive economic enterprise and the protection of the public against the evils incident to monopolies * * * tending directly toward unreasonable suppression or restraints of interstate trade or commerce." 58 C.J.S., Monopolies § 18, p. 972. The Act aims to secure equality of opportunity and the protection of the public against the evils incident to monopolistic practices. If The Star here enjoyed a substantial monopoly in the dissemination of news and advertising, and used power therefrom to effectively harm or destroy free competition and did so with the intent to achieve that end, the statute has been violated. There need be no showing of absolutism. If the dominance of The Star in the news and advertising fields gave it the power to thereby effectively destroy competition and it acted with that intent, then monopolization within the meaning of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act has been established. As pointed out by Judge Learned Hand in United States v. Associated Press, D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1943, 52 F. Supp. 362, 371, and quoted approvingly by the Supreme Court in affirming that decision, Associated Press v. United States, supra, 1945, 326 U.S. 1, 17, 65 S. Ct. 1416, 1423:
The indictment makes it clear that the appellants were charged with attempting to monopolize and monopolizing the dissemination of news and advertising in newspapers and on radio and television broadcasting stations in the four-county area referred to. In other words, the appellants were charged with attempting to monopolize and monopolizing trade in the media in which they did business. The Star refers to the other daily newspapers in the area and to the fact that in 1952 there were 78 weekly newspapers and suburban papers published in the four-county area which it claims disseminated news and advertising in competition with the appellant. The Star also claims that it received competition from radio and television stations, magazines, both monthly and weekly, newsreels, topical books, etc., from which it argues that the evidence was wholly insufficient to sustain the verdict that it had monopolized in the dissemination of news and advertising. What was The Star's market control and who were its competitors? In searching for the answer to that question the appellants rely strongly on the case of United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 1956, 351 U.S. 377, 76 S. Ct. 994. In that case it was shown that du Pont produced approximately 75% of the cellophane sold in the United States, but that cellophane constituted less than 20% of all flexible packaging materials sold in the United States. The trial court found that the relevant market for determining the extent of du Pont's market control was the market for flexible packaging materials and that competition from other materials in that market provented du Pont from possessing monopoly powers in its sales of cellophane. The Supreme Court sustained. In so doing, it stated in 351 U.S. at page 394, 76 S. Ct. at page 1006:
"When a product is controlled by one interest, without substitutes available in the market, there is monopoly power. Because most products have possible substitutes, we cannot, as we said in Times-Picayune Pub. Co. v. United States, 345 U.S. 594, 612, 73 S. Ct. 872, 882, give `that infinite range' to the definition of substitutes. * * *
"But where there are market alternatives that buyers may readily use for their purposes, illegal monopoly does not exist merely because the product said to be monopolized differs from others. * * * In considering what is the relevant market for determining the control of price and competition, no more definite rule can be declared than that commodities reasonably interchangeable by consumers for the same purposes make up that `part of the trade or commerce', monopolization of which may be illegal." (Emphasis supplied.) 76 S. Ct. 1007.
In this case we do not think that radio stations and television stations located outside the metropolitan area herein described, magazines, newsreels, topical books, specialty publications, etc., are "market alternatives" or effective substitutes such as was meant by the Supreme Court in the du Pont case. In that case, the Supreme Court also made clear that the market which must be examined to determine the existence of monopoly power will vary with the part of commerce under study. The considerations that go to determine The Star's relevant market must be with due regard to the realities of newspaper advertising. That is what is meant when the Supreme Court speaks about narrowing the infinite range that market substitutes could encompass. Times-Picayune v. United States, supra, 345 U.S. at page 612, 73 S. Ct. at page 882. In footnote 31, at page 612 of 345 U.S., at page 882 of 73 S. Ct. of the Times-Picayune case, the Supreme Court makes specific reference to the kind of market with which we are here concerned:
As to The Star's claim that its position was legally acquired and was the result of superior skill, foresight and industry, we have already stated that size alone does not spell out an unlawful monopoly within the meaning of the Sherman Act. See United States v. International Harvester Co., 1927, 274 U.S. 693, 708, 47 S. Ct. 748, 71 L. Ed. 1302. It has, however, been noted that size often affords an opportunity for abuse. United States v. Swift & Co., 1932, 286 U.S. 106, 116, 52 S. Ct. 460, 76 L. Ed. 999. There are instances innumerable where skill, foresight and industry as well as happenstance created dominance and no charge of an illegal monopoly could be predicated thereon. If the evidence here disclosed nothing more than that The Star held a position of dominance as the result of the undoubted ability, ingenuity, intelligence and industry of those who directed its activities, this case should fall. It is with the power created by that monopolistic or dominant position, the exercise of that power and the intent with which it is exercised to destroy competition with which we are here concerned. Whether there existed monopolistic power, the intent to destroy competition and the exercise of the power so to do were questions of fact for the jurors, whose province and prerogative to so determine are too often lost sight of in prosecutions of appeals from their judgments. In the last analysis, it was for the jurors to say whether The Star possessed an unlawful monopoly and whether it exercised monopolistic power with the intent and for the purpose of destroying competition. The role of the trial judge was to see that all competent evidence that was offered came before the jury, that incompetent evidence was excluded, and that the jurors were fully instructed on the applicable law. The role that this as an appellate court has is to determine whether the trial judge committed prejudicial error in his rulings or charge and whether there was substantial evidence from which the jury might have concluded that the appellants were guilty.
In considering the question of whether or not there is substantial evidence in the record to sustain the verdicts of guilty, we bear in mind that it is not for us to weigh the evidence nor to judge the credibility of the witnesses. If there is substantial evidence in the record viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the verdicts of the jury must be sustained. Glasser v. United States, 1942, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S. Ct. 457, 86 L. Ed. 680. In Myres v. United States, 8 Cir., 1949, 174 F.2d 329, 332, certiorari denied 338 U.S. 849, 70 S. Ct. 91, 94 L. Ed. 520, this court said:
From an examination of the voluminous record, which by leave of court was printed in its entirety and submitted here, we think it perfectly clear that The Star's position in metropolitan Kansas City was of such dominance in the field in which it did business during the indictment years that it could be found by the jury that it possessed monopoly power, that it was an indispensable medium of advertising for some advertisers. See Lorain Journal Co. v. United States, supra, 1951, 342 U.S. 143, 152, 72 S. Ct. 181, that its position gave it the power to exclude competition, and that it exercised such power for the purpose and with the intent so to do, within the meaning of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The Star's motion for judgment of acquittal was properly denied.
Aside from such direct instances, monopolistic control of advertising strikes at the very heart of a competitor's dissemination of news. The Supreme Court, in the Lorain Journal case, supra, 342 U.S. at page 149, 72 S. Ct. at page 184, gave approval to the lower court's statement in United States v. Lorain Journal Co., D.C.E.D. Ohio 1950, 92 F. Supp. 794, 798, 799, as follows:
As to the claim that the court erred in defining the offense of attempting to monopolize, Sees asserts that the essential elements of an attempt to monopolize are a specific intent to monopolize coupled with overt acts which, though not successfully monopolizing, approach so near as to create a dangerous probability of successful monopolization. Reliance is had on American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 1946, 328 U.S. 781, 785, 66 S. Ct. 1125, 1127, 90 L. Ed. 1575, wherein the Supreme Court approved the trial court's definitions of the term "monopolize" and the phrase "attempt to monopolize". The approved instruction there as to "attempt to monopolize" was as follows, 328 U.S. at page 785, 66 S. Ct. at page 1127:
In the instant case, the trial court told the jury that an attempt to monopolize "* * * means the employment of methods and practices which are utilized for the specific purpose and with the specific intent to achieve or build a monopoly, and which, if successful, would be likely to accomplish such monopolization." In place of "dangerous probability" the trial court used the words "would be likely to accomplish". We do not think that the court's charge here placed a lesser burden on the government than that contained in the definition approved by the Supreme Court in the American Tobacco Co. case. The phrase "dangerous probability" carries with it no substantially different meaning to the average person than the phrase "likely to accomplish". Trial courts are not bound to use the specific language contained in requested instructions or in instructions approved by appellate courts, but may use their own language so long as it conveys to the jurors proper understanding and meaning. Attempts to commit crime have been defined by many courts in many ways. An attempt to monopolize has been defined as an attempt to gain control of an industry by means which prevent other men from engaging in fair competition. United States v. Whiting, D.C.1914, 212 F. 466, 478; United States v. Klearflax Linen Looms, Inc., D.C.Minn.1945, 63 F. Supp. 32, 41. Here the trial court's requirement of a finding of "specific intent" plus likelihood of accomplishment is certainly tantamount to the "dangerous probability" in the definition relied on by Sees. In the American Tobacco Co. case, the Supreme Court was merely approving the trial court's definition but was not saying that that exact language had to be used in all such instructions. In the American Tobacco Co. case, containing the definition relied on by Sees, the Supreme Court specifically stated in 328 U.S. at page 811, 66 S. Ct. at page 1139:
"The authorities support the view that the material consideration in determining whether a monopoly exists is not that prices are raised and that competition actually is excluded but that power exists to raise prices or to exclude competition when it is desired to do so." (Emphasis supplied.) Where the charge is that of monopolization, it is necessary only to establish the existence of an intent to monopolize coupled with monopoly power. In United States v. Griffith, 1948, 334 U.S. 100, at page 106, 68 S. Ct. 941 at page 945, 92 L. Ed. 1236, the Supreme Court stated:
"Section 2 is not restricted to conspiracies or combinations to monopolize but also makes it a crime for any person to monopolize or to attempt to monopolize any part of interstate or foreign trade or commerce. So it is that monopoly power, whether lawfully or unlawfully acquired, may itself constitute an evil and stand condemned under § 2 even though it remains unexercised. For § 2 of the Act is aimed, inter alia, at the acquisition or retention of effective market control. See United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 2 Cir., 148 F.2d 416, 428, 429. Hence the existence of power `to exclude competition when it is desired to do so' is itself a violation of § 2, provided it is coupled with the purpose or intent to exercise that power. American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U.S. 781, 809, 811, 814, 66 S. Ct. 1125, 1139, 1140, 1141, 90 L. Ed. 1575. It is indeed `unreasonable, per se, to foreclose competitors from any substantial market.' International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 392, 396, 68 S. Ct. 12, 15 [92 L. Ed. 20]. The anti-trust laws are as much violated by the prevention of competition as by its destruction. United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, supra. It follows a fortiori that the use of monopoly power, however lawfully acquired, to foreclose competition, to gain a competitive advantage, or to destroy a competitor, is unlawful." (Emphasis supplied.)
See also Schine Chain Theatres, Inc., v. United States, 1948, 334 U.S. 110, 130, 68 S. Ct. 947, 92 L. Ed. 1245; United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 1948, 334 U.S. 131, 174, 68 S. Ct. 915, 92 L. Ed. 1260; United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., D.C.1953, 110 F. Supp. 295, affirmed 347 U.S. 521, 74 S. Ct. 699, 98 L. Ed. 910.
Appellants claim that the Griffith case and other cases relied on by the government do not support the government's contention here in that those cases are conspiracy cases. That is but to argue that the cases cited place an individual monopolist in a much more favorable position than several who act together in a conspiracy. If the essential elements of the offense of monopoly are present, the law applies, whether the prosecution is against one or several acting in concert. We think that is made clear by the Supreme Court's language in the Griffith case. Therein the Supreme Court specifically points out that Section 2 of the Sherman Act is not restricted to conspiracies but makes it a crime for any person to monopolize or attempt to monopolize, and in the next sentence states, 334 U.S. at page 107, 68 S. Ct. at page 945:
It is claimed that the trial court made prejudicial comments in his charge to the jury. We find no justification for that assertion. A federal judge has a right to fairly comment upon the evidence and even to express his opinion thereon, provided he makes clear that the ultimate fact determinations are for the jurors. Quercia v. United States, 1933, 289 U.S. 466, 469, 53 S. Ct. 698, 77 L. Ed. 1321. In Buchanan v. United States, 8 Cir., 1926, 15 F.2d 496, 498, this court clearly set out the limitations on judicial comment in jury instructions:
Finally, it is contended that this prosecution endangers the freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment, and that "* * * A newspaper is intimidated if it is subject at any moment to prosecution under the Sherman Act whenever it opposes or antagonizes those public officials in power". The suggestion that freedom of the press requires immunity from law to which the general public is not exempt is not new. The Supreme Court, in Associated Press v. N. L. R. B., 301 U.S. 103, 132-133, 57 S. Ct. 650, 656, 81 L. Ed. 953, said:
"The business of the Associated Press is not immune from regulation because it is an agency of the press. The publisher of a newspaper has no special immunity from the application of general laws. He has no special privilege to invade the rights and liberties of others. He must answer for libel. He may be punished for contempt of court. He is subject to the anti-trust laws." Citing Indiana Farmer's Guide Publishing Co. v. Prairie Farmer Publishing Co., 1934, 293 U.S. 268, 55 S. Ct. 182, 79 L. Ed. 356. (Emphasis supplied.)
The words of Mr. Justice Black eloquently answered a similar contention in Associated Press v. United States, supra, 1944, 326 U.S. 1, 20, 65 S. Ct. 1416, 1424:
â€ 18 U.S.C.A. § 3282 provides for a three-year limitation to prosecutions such as here involved.
â€¡ A trade journal limited to livestock reports.