342 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 



ciation member, "acting as an individual," who has been assisted by 

 association officers, likewise "acting as individuals." In several cases, 

 curtailment movements have been directed by the editors of friendly 

 lumber journals, an illustration of this being found in the curtailment 

 campaign among members of the North Carolina Pine Association 

 during the summer of 1913. 



PRICE ACTIVITIES AMONG RETAILERS 



While it is not the purpose of the writer to enter into a considera- 

 tion of the retailing of lumber, it may be appropriate to point out 

 that among retailers as well as among lumber manufacturers, there 

 have been numerous examples of illegal efforts to fix prices. In some 

 instances, these efforts have been connected with the lumbermen's 

 associations. Thus some of the charges made against the Yellow Pine 

 Manufacturers' Association, and against two other southern associa- 

 tions, in the Missouri ouster suit, were that they had divided territory 

 among retail dealers, had agreed not to sell to so-called "poachers," 

 farmers' cooperative yards, consumers, or any but "legitimate retail 

 dealers." Other less important judicial decisions describe a similar 

 state of affairs. ^*^ 



Lumbermen, manufacturers, and retailers alike have often fought 

 the irregular retail dealers by unfair and underhand methods. They 

 have tried to interfere with the business of mail order houses, by 

 writing in, and by having others write in for catalogues, estimates, 

 etc., in bad faith. They have tried to influence manufacturers to re- 

 frain from furnishing lumber to such houses by threats of loss of 

 patronage; in one case they even employed an agent to secure con- 

 fidential information regarding the business secrets of such concerns, 

 and tried to hinder and embarrass them in various other ways. In one 

 large western city, the retailers jointly fixed prices and deposited a 

 guarantee to play fair, and even hired a secretary to keep watch. 

 Any member found cutting list prices was heavily fined.^^ 



- 10 Gibbs et al. vs. McNeeley ; 107 Fed. Rep., 210: Grenada Lumber Co. vs. State 

 of Mississippi; 217 U. S., 433: Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers' Association 

 vs. U.S.; 224 U.S., 600. 



^^ Am. Lumberman, Dec. 'il'2, 1917, 32: Compton, "Organization of the Lumber 

 Industry," 51. For a discussion of the "exchange" formed by. the lumber dealers of 

 Kansas City, Missouri, see the Kansas City Star, October 27, 1916. 



