4§4 
News  Items  and  Personal  Xotes.    (Am. Jour.  Pharm. 
l        July,  1919. 
vard.  His  publications  and  scientific  contributions  were  of  a  high 
order  of  merit. 
The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  Sustains  the 
Legality  of  Colgate  Co.'s  Selling  Plax. — In  an  unanimous 
opinion  filed  on  June  2  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  has  af- 
firmed the  judgment  of  the  District  Court  of  Virginia  in  sustaining 
the  demurrer  of  Colgate  Co.  to  the  indictment  brought  against  this 
firm  by  the  Federal  Trade  Commission,  alleging  that  their  plan  of 
selling  was  in  violation  of  the  Sherman  Act.  and  dismissing1  the  said 
complaint. 
In  reviewing  this  case  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  opinion  states 
in  part : 
"  Xo  charge  is  made  that  any  contract  was  entered  into  by  and 
on  the  part  of  the  defendant,  and  any  of  its  retail  customers,  in 
restraint  of  interstate  trade  and  commerce,  the  averment  being,  in 
effect,  that  it  knowingly  and  unlawfully  created  and  engaged  in 
a  combination  with  certain  of  .its  wholesale  and  retail  customers,  to 
procure  adherence  on  their  part,  in  the  sale  of  its  products  sold  to 
them,  to  resale  prices  fixed  by  the  defendant ;  and  that,  in  connec- 
tion therewith,  such  wholesale  and  retail  customers  gave  assurances 
and  promises,  which  resulted  in  the  enhancement  and  maintenance 
of  such  prices,  and  in  the  suppression  of  competition  by  wholesale 
dealers  and  retail  dealers,  and  by  the  latter  to  the  consuming  public. 
"  '  The  retailer,  after  buying,  could,  if  he  chose,  give  away  his 
purchase  or  sell  it  at  any  price  he  saw  fit.  or  not  sell  it  at  all,  his 
course  in  these  respects  being  aftected  only  by  the  fact  that  he  might 
by  his  action  incur  the  displeasure  of  the  manufacturer  who  could 
refuse  to  make  further  sales  to  him.  as  he  had  undoubted  right  to 
do.'  And  we  must  conclude  that,  as  interpreted  below,  the  indict- 
ment does  not  charge  Colgate  &  Company  with  selling  its  products 
to  dealers  under  agreements  which  obligated  the  latter  not  to  resell 
except  at  prices  fixed  by  the  company. 
"  The  position  of  the  defendant  is  more  nearly  in  accord  with  the 
whole  opinion  and  must  be  accepted.  And  as  counsel  for  the  Gov- 
ernment were  careful  to  state  on  the  argument  that  this  conclusion 
would  require  affirmation  of  the  judgment  below,  an  extended  dis- 
cussion of  the  principles  involved  is  unnecessary. 
