Document NGex5Ypxz0p9go8Kxq2J6ye08

APPEALS JLDGELINDLEY: l or trust-busters, he puts a . > . pn-idii ili it It intend^ to concoct *' monopoly. That was his opiniOhE1' in the Na tional Lead Co case, before the l ourt ct Appeals at DarittBlfcr'S*' -ut ll's rotetf-a good bet tMrweekfHiat the . Fetietaf 1 rade Commission Mil ask the- US Supreme Court to overturn that ruin ind uphold the commis sion's imich-criticizecf*i953 Order that -t j eu . effect--broadlys-.1interpreted the FTC act to. i Pii.vent mergers by* National J ..|irl v. uh any 01 it3` conipcfitu] s. Require National Lead and others (q . stop using pi icing systems that resulted in identical prices. > rLindlev s decision--handed do ivn on the company" ippeal oL th. ITC order--affirms the 1 ittcr provision but dismisses the ci gc that N itional Lead is planning to quell competition through mei gers Opinion; `Tie order before us seeks o spank, the' child beeapse he may somewhere, soiraohtisv in the future engage in mischief, It is elementary that a court of-equity '\ill not enjoin one from doing what he is not attempting and docs not intend to do." What happens next is up to FTC, but chemical companies wondering about .merger-hunts are taking a keen interest in the outcome. Chemical Week February 11, 1856