38 BULLETIN 1106, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
Tobacco Co.°° and the Standard Oil Co.*?. Some of the practices in 
question are mentioned in the following quotation from the opinion: 
The corporation, it was said, did not at any time abuse the power or 
ascendancy it possessed. It resorted to none of the brutalities or tyrannies 
that the cases illustrate of other combinations. It did not secure freight re- 
bates; it did not increase its profits by reducing the wages of its employees— 
whatever it did was not at the expense of labor; it did not increase its profits 
by lowering the quality of its products, nor create an artificial scarcity of them; 
it did not oppress or coerce its competitors—its competition, though vigorous, 
was fair; it did not undersell its competitors in some localities by reducing its 
prices there below those maintained elsewhere, or require its customers to enter 
into contracts limiting their purchases or restricting them in resale prices; it 
did not obtain customers by secret rebates or departures from its published 
prices; there was no evidence that it attempted to crush its competitors or drive 
them out of the market, nor did it take customers from its competitors by un- 
fair means, and in its competition it seemed to make no difference between large 
and small competitors. 
This decision makes clear that the legality of a large industrial 
unit depends on its acts and conduct and not on its size. Buigness 
which has come about through development along normal lnes and 
without unfair practices or wrongful acts does not constitute ille- 
gality. 
In the American Tobacco Co., in the Standard Oil Co., and in the 
United States Steel Corporation cases the legality of a large indus- 
trial unit or combination was involved. In each of these cases the 
industrial unit or combination as it existed at the time sult was 
brought was the result of the amalgamation or uniting of a number 
of smaller organizations. As already indicated in the discussion 
under this heading, there are ways in which the antitrust laws may 
be violated other than through the illegal organization and operation — 
of large combinations. In the case ?* involving the Eastern States Re- 
tail Lumber Dealers’ Association it appeared that this association 
was made up of a number of local retail dealers’ associations in 
various States. Blacklists of all wholesale lumber dealers who sold — 
direct to consumers or builders were circulated by the Eastern States 
among the local associations of lumber dealers, who in turn circu- 
lated such lists among the retail dealers. The evident purpose was to 
discourage the retail dealers from dealing with such wholesale deal- 
ers. The Supreme Court held that such conduct was unlawful as 
“Unduly suppressing competition,” and affirmed the judgment of the 
lower court enjoining the further circulation of such reports or 
blacklists. i 
A manufacturer or dealer, under the decisions of the Supreme } 
Court, can not enter into agreements with those to whom he sells, Ss 
% United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U. S. 106. q 
#1 Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U. S. 1. 
2 Bastern States Retail Lumber Dealers’ Assn. v. United States, 234 U. S. 600. 
