Knauer v. United States

• Decision Date: 16 September 1916
• Docket Number: 4517.
• Citation: 237 F. 8
• Parties: KNAUER et al. v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

237 F. 8

KNAUER et al. v. UNITED STATES.

No. 4517.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

September 16, 1916

Louis C. Boyle, of Kansas City, Mo. (Clark McKercher and George H Calvert, both of Washington, D.C., on the brief), for plaintiffs in error.

Claude R. Porter, U.S. Atty., of Centerville, Iowa (G. Carroll Todd Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief), for the United States.

Before HOOK and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and REED, District Judge.

SMITH Circuit Judge.

Thirty-six persons, members of the National Association of Master Plumbers, among them Robert Knauer, Hugh B. McCarten, John P Cunningham, and George H. Wentz, were indicted by the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Iowa, charged with a conspiracy in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act which is as follows:

'Section 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.' 26 Stats. 209.

The defendants were all tried, found guilty, and Knauer, McCarten, Cunningham, and Wentz were sentenced, and sued out a writ of error in this court. It thus appears that the plaintiffs in error were defendants in the District Court, and the defendant in error was the plaintiff there, and they will be so styled here. The record contains more than 2,300 pages, and there are more than 660 pages in the printed arguments. All this has been read and carefully considered, but it is manifest that the case must be treated in this opinion in a more condensed form.

The first and second assignments of error complain of the overruling of demurrers to the indictment and the similar overruling of the motion to quash it. The indictment covers 26 pages of the printed record, and we cannot, therefore, set it out in full here. It in substance charged that from the 4th day of June, 1911, to the finding of the indictment 240 manufacturers and wholesale dealers in plumbing supplies, who are named, and the particular places where they were engaged in business are given, were engaged in interstate commerce in such plumbing supplies; that the defendants were engaged during all of said period in a conspiracy in restraint of such interstate commerce in plumbing supplies, the place of business of each of the defendants is given, and that each of them was a member of the National Association of Master Plumbers; and when he held any office therein, or in the State Association of Master Plumbers subordinate to the National Association, or in local associations so subordinate, those facts are set forth. The indictment further alleges that:

'Each of said local associations has throughout said period been affiliated: (1) With other similar associations of master plumbers in all the principal towns and cities of the United States; (2) with a certain association in each state called the State Master Plumbers' Association for that state, composed of members whose qualifications for membership have consisted in their being members in good standing of the several local associations of said state, wherever such local associations existed, and in their being willing to be subordinate to said State Associations; and (3) with still another association called the National Association of Master Plumbers of the United States, composed of all the members of all said local and state associations, and to which all said local and state associations have been subordinate. The prime object of all said local and state associations, and of said National Association of Master Plumbers of the United States, throughout said period of time, as said defendants have each well known, has been to secure to the members thereof all the business in the United States growing out of the furnishing and installing of plumbing supplies, and this to the absolute exclusion of all others engaging in or endeavoring to start or carry on such business, and thereby unlawfully to monopolize that business.

'To this end said members of said local and state associations and said National Association of Master Plumbers of the United States have, at all times during said period, concertedly conducted their business strictly upon a plan involving the purchasing of such plumbing supplies only from manufacturers and wholesale dealers who have refrained from selling or furnishing such plumbing supplies to master plumbers and retail dealers not members of such associations, and refusing to deal with manufacturers and wholesale dealers who have made or endeavored to make sales to master plumbers and retail dealers not members of said association; and as a part of, and for insuring adherence to and the success of, said plan of business, said members and associations have established and maintained a system of espionage over the business of said manufacturers and wholesale dealers and that of all persons and concerns not members of such associations; have systematically gathered and disseminated among themselves information touching acts of such manufacturers and wholesale dealers in the carrying on of their said business which were not in accord with said prime object of said associations, and particularly touching sales of such plumbing supplies to persons and concerns not members of any of said associations; in many instances have taken upon themselves to notify such manufacturers and wholesale dealers of their said 'unethical' acts in a way to imply a threat of refusal to deal with, that is to say, a boycott, and have often in fact boycotted, the manufacturers and dealers so offending; and have busied themselves in the procuring of the passage of local laws and ordinances pertaining to the licensing of plumbers and the installing of plumbing, and in the administering of such local laws and ordinances in such manner as wrongfully to favor such associations and their members as against persons not members of such associations; and those things have been done, notwithstanding the proportion of the business so carried on by said members of said associations has very greatly exceeded the proportion carried on by others, whereby said members of said associations have been in a position where, by such concerted action, they could, as they have well known, bring financial ruin to manufacturers and wholesale dealers failing to conduct their business in accord with said prime object of said associations-- all to the great humiliation of said manufacturers, wholesale dealers, and others who were not members of said association, and the serious and inexcusable oppression of many worthy persons less prosperous than themselves who have been ambitious to engage in, but who have been by said conspiracy prevented from engaging in, the business of master plumbers in competition with said members of said association, as well as to the great detriment of the general public, and to the scandal and disgrace of their own profession.

'So far as the purchasing of said plumbing supplies from manufacturers thereof and wholesale dealers therein has been concerned, each of said defendants, throughout said period of time, has, in every way in his power, and in ruthless disregard of the rights of others, conducted his business upon the unlawful and oppressive plan aforesaid, well knowing the character and effect thereof, and intending to accomplish said prime object of said associations, and so have put an undue, unwarranted, and unreasonable restraint upon the interstate trade and commerce in this indictment above described, particularly in said Central division of said Southern district of Iowa, and have prescribed and enforced a rule for governing, and one which has in fact governed, said trade and commerce, and unlawfully have engaged, as aforesaid, in a conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce among the several states contrary to said act of Congress and against the peace and dignity of the United States.'

The defendants, apparently without withdrawing the plea of not guilty theretofore entered, filed on October 29, 1914, a general demurrer to the indictment, and on November 23, 1914, filed a general and special demurrer, which we assume was a substitute for the original demurrer. It was elaborate, but in substance was upon the grounds: First, that the indictment did not state facts sufficient to constitute a crime against the United States; second, that it is duplicitous; third, the specific purposes and acts charged as constituting a conspiracy are not charged against the defendants; fourth, that the indictment is insufficient, vague, uncertain, indefinite, and informal. The ways in which the indictment is deemed insufficient, vague, uncertain, indefinite, and informal are then set forth in detail, and would cover five pages of this opinion. The defendants also filed a motion to quash the indictment substantially upon the same alleged grounds.

These demurrers and the motion to quash were overruled by the court.

It is provided by section 1025 of the Revised Statutes that:

'No indictment found and presented by a grand jury in any District or Circuit or other court of the United States shall be deemed insufficient, nor shall the trial, judgment, or other proceeding thereon be affected by reason of any defect or imperfection in matter of form only, which shall not tend to the prejudice of the defendant.'

The question in its last analysis is: Does...