believe that such a major departure from that long tradition as is here proposed should be lightly implied.'
In that case it appeared that a considerable number of mistakes had been made by employees, which constituted violations of the Act involved. It appeared further, however, that the defendant, which was the petitioner in the Supreme Court, introduced new methods of internal control with a view of avoiding future that this new system of control greatly improved the situation. It further appeared that the petitioner acted in good faith and with due diligence, and this Court finds as a fact that this was done by the defendant in this case. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals for this Circuit ( Brown v. Hecht Co., 78 U.S.App.D.C. 98, 137 F.2d 689) which held that the issuance of an injunction was mandatory under the circumstances, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for the purpose of determining whether the District Court, 49 F.Supp. 528, had abused its discretion in declining to grant an injunction.
The Court should be particularly cautious and circumspect in granting an injunction, if a violation in addition to being a contempt of court would also constitute a criminal offense, since by this course the defendant might be deprived of a jury trial if he transgresses the law. Necessarily, an exception must be made for violations of anti-trust laws, since in such cases the fines that may be imposed are generally not commensurate with the gains derived from disobeying the law.
The Court reaches the conclusion that in the light of all of the facts of this case there is no present need of an injunction since the defendant in good faith has taken steps of a permanent character to prevent a repetition of the violations. The Court also bears in mind the fact the ratio of violations to the entire business conducted by the defendant is very small, and the amount involved in each violation was also small.
The Court, while denying an injunction, will follow the suggestion of the Supreme Court and retain jurisdiction of the case, and in the event further violations should occur, the Interstate Commerce Commission may apply at the foot of the decree for such relief as it deems wise and proper.
The Court wishes to commend the Interstate Commerce Commission and its counsel for their well directed zeal and vigilance in trying to check such violations at their very inception, and in denying the injunction it is not reflecting on the course pursued by the Commission. On the contrary, it feels that the Commission has been so successful in checking the violations that no present need for an injunction appears.
Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed on the merits with leave to the plaintiff to apply at the foot of the decree for an appropriate order should any future violation occur.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.