Decision of Supreme Court in Maple Flooring Case Great Help to Trade Associations

The most important decision ih rec€nt years as affecting the status and activities of trade associations, is that of the Supreme Court of the United States just rendered in the "Maple Flooring Case" as it is called-the case of the United States versus the Maple Flooring Manufacturing Association.

The Association and its members was charged with being in restraint of trade because of the securing and distributing of information concerning past sales, past sale prices, stocks on hand, volume of production, etc. The decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of the Hardwood Association, and the Linseed Oil Cbmpany, had for the past several years seemed to indicate that such association activities were looked upon with condemnation by the Government, and the late Atty. General Daugherty had openly ahd decisively condemned them on every occasion.

The Supreme Court, in the Maple Flooring Case, in a majority opinion of six against three members of the court, decided in favor of the defendants, holding that the securing and distribution of such information is not in itself illegal, unless is it used illegally, which is the way Secretary lloover is knowh to feel about such.matters, and the way all leading trade association thinkers have always felt. That part of the decision which covers this final decision, is as follows:

Viewed in this light, can it be said in the present case, that the character of the information gathered by the defendants, or the use which is being made of it, leads to any necessary inference that the defehdants either have made or will make any different or other use of it than would normally be made if like statistics were published in a trade journal, or were published by the Department of Commerce, to which all the gathered statistics are made available? The cost of production, prompt information as to the cost of transportation, are legitimate subjects of inquiry and knowledge in ahy industry. So likewise is the production of the commodity in that industry, the aggregate surplus stock and the prices at which the commodity has actually been sold in the usual course of business.

We realize that such information gathered and disseminated among the members of a trade or business may be the basis of agreement or concerted action to lesseh production arbitrarily or to raise prices beyond the levels of production and price which would prevail if no such agreement or concerted action ensued, and those engaged in commerce were left free to base individual initiative on full information of the essential elements of their business. Such concerted action constitutes a restraint of commerce and is illegal and may be enjoined as may any other combination or activity necessarily resulting in such concerted action as was the subject of consideration in American Column and Lumber Co. vs. United States, supra, and United States vs. American Linseed Oil Co., supra. But in the absence of proof of such agreement or concerted action having been actually reached or actually attempted, under the present plan of operation of defendants we can find no basis in the gathering and dissemination of such information by them or in their activities under their present organization for the inference that such concerted action will necessarily result within the rule laid down in those cases.

We decide only that the trade associations or combinations of persons or corporations rvhich openly and fairly gather and disseminate information as to the cost of their product, the volume of production, the actual price rvhich the product has brought in past transactions, stocks of merchandise on hand, approximate cost of transportation from the principal point of shipment to the points of consumption as did these defehdants and who, as they did, meet and discuss such information and statistics without, ho'ivever, reaching or attempting to reach any agreement or any concerted action with respect to prices or production or restraining competition, do not thereby engage in unlawful restraint of commerce.