The boxing Octopus laid bare; Supreme Court affirms IBC versus suit Part II

INTERNATIONAL BOXING CLUB OF NEW YORK, INC. V. UNITED STATES 358 U.S. 242

NO. 18.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 13, 1958 - DECIDED JANUARY 12, 1959 - 150 F. SUPP.
397, AFFIRMED.

(continued from The BAWLI Papers No. 23)

THE RELIEF.

IN APPROACHING THE QUESTION OF RELIEF WE MUST REMEMBER THAT OUR FUNCTION IS
NOT TO SIT AS A TRIAL COURT.  BESSER MFG. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 343 U.S. 444,
449-450 (1952); UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL LEAD CO., 332 U.S. 319 (1947); CF.
UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO., 323 U.S. 173, 185 (1944).  AS WAS
SAID IN INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 332 U.S. 392, 400-401 (1947):

"THE FRAMING OF ANTITRUST DECREES SHOULD TAKE PLACE IN THE DISTRICT RATHER
THAN IN APPELLATE COURTS.  THEY ARE INVESTED WITH LARGE DISCRETION TO MODEL
THEIR JUDGMENTS TO FIT THE EXIGENCIES OF THE
PARTICULAR CASE."

THE YARDSTICK WHICH THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD APPLY IN MONOPOLIZATION CASES IS
WELL STATED BY THE COURT IN SCHINE THEATRES V. UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 110,
128-129 (1948).  THE DECREE SHOULD (1) PUT "AN END TO THE COMBINATION OR
CONSPIRACY WHEN THAT IS ITSELF THE VIOLATION"; (2)
DEPRIVE "THE ANTITRUST DEFENDANTS OF THE BENEFITS OF THEIR CONSPIRACY"; AND
(3) "BREAK UP OR RENDER IMPOTENT THE MONOPOLY POWER WHICH VIOLATES THE ACT."

THE RELIEF GRANTED BY A TRIAL COURT IN AN ANTITRUST CASE AND BROUGHT HERE ON
DIRECT APPEAL, THUS BY-PASSING THE USUAL APPELLATE REVIEW, HAS ALWAYS HAD THE
MOST CAREFUL SCRUTINY OF THIS COURT.  THOUGH THE RECORDS ARE USUALLY MOST
VOLUMINOUS AND THEIR REVIEW EXCEEDINGLY BURDENSOME, WE HAVE PAINSTAKINGLY
UNDERTAKEN IT TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT JUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE.  SEE, E.G., UNITED
STATES V. PARAMOUNT PICTURES, SUPRA; SCHINE THEATRES V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA;
UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL LEAD CO., SUPRA.  THAT WE HAVE DONE HERE.  WE HAVE
FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT THE RELIEF GRANTED WAS NOT BEYOND THE ALLOWABLE
DISCRETION OF THE DISTRICT COURT.

THE BOUNDS OF THE RELIEF ORDERED.

AT THE TIME OF THE FINAL DECREE THE JOE LOUIS AGREEMENTS HAD ELAPSED; THE
EXCLUSIVE-CONTRACT PRACTICE HAD BEEN AT LEAST TEMPORARILY ABANDONED; THE
LEASES ON YANKEE STADIUM, THE POLO GROUNDS AND ST. NICHOLAS ARENA IN NEW YORK
HAD BEEN GIVEN UP AND THE APPELLANTS HAD NO CONTROL OVER THE NEW HEAVYWEIGHT
CHAMPION, FLOYD PATTERSON.  NEVERTHELESS, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TAKEN BY THE
DISTRICT COURT SHOWED THAT THEY STILL POSSESSED ALL OF THE POWER OF MONOPOLY
AND RESTRAINT.  IN THIS WE AGREE.  THE APPELLANTS HAD EXERCISED A STRANGLE
HOLD ON THE INDUSTRY FOR A LONG PERIOD.  IT WAS EVIDENT AT THE TIME OF THE
DECREE THAT, STATISTICALLY, THEY STILL DOMINATED THE STAGING OF CHAMPIONSHIP
BOUTS AND COMPLETELY CONTROLLED THE FILMING AND
BROADCASTING OF THOSE CONTESTS.  THEY HAD GAINED THIS LEADERSHIP THROUGH THE
ELIMINATION BY PURCHASE OF ALL OF THEIR MAJOR COMPETITIORS IN THE FIELD; BY
THE CONTROL OF CONTENDING BOXERS THROUGH EXCLUSIVE AGREEMENTS; AND BY THE
STAGING OF EVENTS THROUGH THE OWNERSHIP OR LEASE OF KEY STADIA AND ARENAS.
THIS ILLEGAL ACTIVITY GAVE APPELLANTS AN
ODOROUS MONOPOLY BACKGROUND WHICH WAS KNOWN AND STILL FEARED IN THE BOXING
WORLD.  IN ADDITION, NORRIS AND WIRTZ STILL POSSESSED THE MAJOR TOOLS, SO WELL
USED PREVIOUSLY, NECESSARY TO CONTINUE THEIR CONTROL.  THEY OWNED OR
CONTROLLED THE KEY ARENA AND STADIUM IN NEW YORK AND
CHICAGO, THE MOST LUCRATIVE COMMUNITIES IN BOXING; THEY CONTINUED TO CONTROL
ALL OF THE CHAMPIONSHIP BOUTS STAGED THERE; THEY COMMANDED THE FILMING AND
BROADCASTING OF ALL CHAMPIONSHIP FIGHTS - THE CREAM OF THE BUSINESS - WHEREVER
STAGED; AND THOUGH ON THE SURFACE THEY OWNED NO STOCK DIRECTLY IN THE TWO
I.B.C. CORPORATIONS, EACH WAS THE WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF CORPORATIONS
WHICH NORRIS AND WIRTZ DID CONTROL AND MANAGE.

IN THIS SETTING THE DISTRICT COURT ORDERED NORRIS AND WIRTZ TO DIVEST
THEMSELVES, WITHIN A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD, OF ALL STOCK WHICH THEY OWNED "DIRECTLY
OR INDIRECTLY" IN MADISON SQUARE GARDEN.  IN ADDITION, BOTH OF THE
INTERNATIONAL BOXING CLUBS, ILLINOIS AND NEW YORK, WERE ORDERED
DISSOLVED.  THE CHICAGO STADIUM AND MADISON SQUARE GARDEN WERE EACH
ENJOINED FROM STAGING MORE THAN TWO CHAMPIONSHIP BOUTS ANNUALLY.  ALL
EXCLUSIVE AGREEMENTS FOR THE PROMOTION OF BOXING EVENTS, INCLUDING
NONCHAMPIONSHIP, WERE BANNED.  MADISON SQUARE GARDEN WAS ORDERED FOR A PERIOD
OF FIVE YEARS TO LEASE ITS PREMISES WHEN AVAILABLE AT A "FAIR AND REASONABLE"
RENTAL TO ANY DULY QUALIFIED PROMOTER APPLYING IN WRITING THEREFOR.  FAILURE
TO AGREE ON TERMS WOULD REQUIRE SUBMISSION
TO THE COURTS FOR DETERMINATION.  LIKE REQUIREMENT WAS IMPOSED ON CHICAGO
STADIUM CORPORATION, PROVIDED NORRIS-AND-WIRTZ CONTROL CONTINUED.

THE DISTRICT JUDGE CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO INCLUDE EACH OF THESE
PROVISIONS IN THE DECREE IN ORDER TO PUT AN END TO THE COMBINATION, DEPRIVE
THE APPELLANTS OF THE BENEFIT OF THEIR CONSPIRACY AND BREAK UP THEIR MONOPOLY
POWER.  AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE FINAL
HEARING ON RELIEF HE OBSERVED THAT PRIOR TO 1949 THE NORRIS-WIRTZ GROUP WAS IN
CHICAGO WHILE THE MADISON SQUARE GARDEN ENTERPRISE WAS IN NEW YORK.  THEY WERE
"TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES," ONE PROMOTING CONTESTS IN THE MID-WEST AND THE OTHER
IN NEW YORK.  HE DECLARED THAT "IN ORDER TO
DESTROY THIS MONOPOLY WE HAVE TO RETURN THE SITUATION AS NEARLY AS POSSIBLE TO
THE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AS THEY EXISTED IN 1949" AND, FURTHER, "I CAN SEE NO
WAY IN THIS CASE  ...  THAT A PROPER DECREE CAN BE FORMULATED UNLESS THAT
POWER THAT WIRTZ AND NORRIS HAVE IN MADISON SQUARE GARDEN IS CURTAILED.  THEY
HAVE TO GET OUT OF THE CONTROL."

THE ORDER OF DIVESTITURE.

APPELLANTS CONTEND THAT SINCE THE STOCK OWNED BY NORRIS AND WIRTZ WAS NOT
ACQUIRED PURSUANT TO THE CONSPIRACY, WAS NOT THE FRUIT OF ILLEGAL ACTIVITY AND
WAS NOT PROVEN TO BE THE LEVER BY WHICH MADISON SQUARE GARDEN WAS PERSUADED TO
JOIN THE CONSPIRACY, DIVESTITURE WAS BUT PUNISHMENT RATHER THAN A NECESSARY
CORRECTIVE REMEDY.  THEY FURTHER SAY
THAT THE SALE, EVEN THOUGH MADE IN THE MANNER OUTLINED IN THE DECREE, (FN9)
WOULD RESULT IN GREAT LOSS TO NORRIS AND WIRTZ.  THEY CONTEND THAT IT WAS
ARBITRARY FOR THE DISTRICT COURT NOT TO PERMIT THEM TO EXERCISE AN OPTION, AS
PROPOSED BY THEM, OF A CHOICE BETWEEN MADISON SQUARE GARDEN AND THE CHICAGO
STADIUM, BOTH OF WHICH THEY STILL CONTROL.

IT MAY BE THAT THE STOCK IN MADISON SQUARE GARDEN WAS NOT THE FRUIT OF THE
CONSPIRACY; BUT EVEN IF LAWFULLY ACQUIRED IT MAY BE UTILIZED AS PART OF THE
CONSPIRACY TO EFFECT ITS ENDS.  SEE UNITED STATES V. PARAMOUNT PICTURES,
SUPRA, AT 152.  MOREOVER, SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE CONSPIRACY NORRIS AND
WIRTZ HAVE INCREASED THEIR HOLDINGS TO OVER 219,000 SHARES.  IT WAS THIS STOCK
OWNERSHIP AND THEIR CONTROL OF STOCK VOTING POWER THAT THE TRIAL COURT FOUND
DICTATED TO ELECTION OF THE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF MADISON SQUARE GARDEN
AND GAVE TO NORRIS AND WIRTZ THE UNQUESTIONED CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF ITS
ACTIVITIES.
ALTHOUGH RELUCTANT AT FIRST TO REQUIRE A DIVESTITURE OF THIS STOCK, THE TRIAL
JUDGE ULTIMATELY BECAME CONVINCED THAT IT WAS THE SINE QUA NON OF THE RELIEF.
DURING THE HEARING HE SAID:

"THE GREAT EVIL I FOUND WAS THE COMBINATION THAT WIRTZ AND NORRIS CAUSED AND
CREATED BY JOINING UP WITH MADISON SQUARE GARDEN.  I REGARD WIRTZ AND NORRIS
AS ONE AND MADISON SQUARE GARDEN AS ANOTHER, A SEPARATE ENTITY AND BUSINESS
INTEREST.  THE EVIL PRIMARILY SPRUNG FROM
THEIR COMBINATION, THEIR CONCERTED EFFORTS AND ACTION.  THAT HAS TO BE
BROKEN UP."

WHAT IS PREHAPS EQUALLY SIGNIFICANT IS THAT THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF THIS POWER
NORRIS AND WIRTZ ELECTED THE OFFICERS AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF I.B.C., NEW
YORK - A JOINT BOARD WITH I.B.C., ILLINOIS, WHICH THEY ALSO CONTROLLED THROUGH
THE CHICAGO STADIUM CORPORATION.  THIS JOINT
BOARD WAS THE BRIDGE OVER WHICH THE CONSPIRACY WAS MADE EFFECTIVE.  OVER IT
THE CONTROL OF THE PROMOTION OF CHAMPIONSHIP BOXING CONTESTS
WAS SECURED.  THAT THIS CONTROL REMAINED EFFECTIVE UP TO THE VERY DATE OF THE
FINAL HEARING, JUNE 24, 1957, IS SHOWN BY THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT BY THE COURT
ON THAT DATE:

"THE UNLAWFUL COMBINATION OF THE DEFENDANTS STILL POSSESSES AND
EXERCISES ITS MONOPOLISTIC CONTROL IN THE FIELD OF CHAMPIONSHIP CONTESTS.  IT
APPEARS THAT SINCE MAY 15, 1953 THERE HAVE BEEN HELD IN THE UNITED STATES 37
CHAMPIONSHIP CONTESTS, EXCLUDING ONE BANTAMWEIGHT CONTEST.  THE DEFENDANTS
ADMIT THAT THEY HAD PROMOTIONAL CONTROL OVER 24 OF THE 37 CHAMPIONSHIP
CONTESTS WHICH WERE HELD IN CITIES OTHER THAN NEW YORK AND CHICAGO.  BECAUSE
THE DEFENDANTS ARE LICENSED BY STATE
AUTHORITIES TO PROMOTE ONLY IN NEW YORK AND ILLINOIS, THEY COULD NOT BE THE
PERSONS ACTUALLY DESIGNATED AS THE PROMOTER OF THE 13 CHAMPIONSHIP CONTESTS,
BUT ALL FIVE OF THE CHAMPIONSHIP CONTESTS WHICH ORIGINATED IN CITIES OTHER
THAN CHICAGO OR NEW YORK ON FRIDAY NIGHTS WERE TELEVISED ON IBC'S-NEW YORK
FRIDAY NIGHT TELEVISION SERIES.

"WE FIND, TOO, THAT ALL OF THE 37 CHAMPIONSHIP CONTESTS IN THIS PERIOD FROM
MAY 15, 1953, SAVE ONLY THE FIVE OUTDOOR CONTESTS, WERE TELEVISED ON EITHER
THE DEFENDANTS' WEDNESDAY OR FRIDAY NIGHT
TELEVISION SERIES, AND THAT THE PROFITS OF THE SALE OF THE TELECASTING RIGHTS
INURED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE DEFENDANTS."

AS THIS WAS SOME TWO AND A HALF YEARS AFTER OUR OPINION IN THE FORMER APPEAL
ON JANUARY 31, 1955, IT APPEARS THAT APPELLANTS HAD CONTINUED EXERCISING THEIR
UNLAWFUL CONTROL LONG AFTER THEY WELL KNEW THAT THIS ACTIVITY WAS WITHIN THE
COVERAGE OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NO DENIAL WAS MADE ON
THAT APPEAL OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S COMPLAINT IT IS REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT APPELLANTS, SUBSEQUENT
TO OUR OPINION, KNEW THAT THEIR CONDUCT VIOLATED THE SHERMAN ACT, OBEDIENCE TO
WHICH IS SO IMPORTANT TO OUR FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM.  STILL THEY CONTINUED
THEIR ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.  IN FACT FROM ALL
APPEARANCES IT IS CONTINUING TO THIS DAY.  SUCH CONDUCT, IN ADDITION TO THE
INTERLOCKING NATURE OF THE OWNERSHIP AT THE TIME OF THE FINAL DECREE, FULLY
JUSTIFIED THE DISTRICT COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT THE "DISSOLUTION OF THE
COMBINATION CAN ONLY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY AN IMMEDIATE AND COMPLETE SEVERANCE OF
THE INTERLOCKING OWNERSHIP OF NORRIS AND WIRTZ IN MADISON SQUARE GARDEN  ...
.  THERE MUST BE A COMPLETE DIVESTITURE OF THE STOCKHOLDINGS OF NORRIS AND
WIRTZ IN THE
GARDEN.  THE GOVERNMENT HAS ESTABLISHED NORRIS AND WIRTZ CONTROL THE GARDEN
CORPORATION."  MOREOVER, THIS WAS THE ONLY EFFECTIVE MEANS AT HAND BY WHICH
COMPETITION IN CHAMPIONSHIP EVENTS MIGHT BE RESTORED.  IT WAS INTENDED TO
RETURN THE PARTIES AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE TO THE STATUS QUO EXISTING PRIOR TO THE
CONSPIRACY.

FOR THESE REASONS, WE DO NOT SEE WHY IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE COURT TO GIVE
NORRIS AND WIRTZ CERTAIN OPTIONS REQUESTED AT THE TIME OF THE DECREE.  WE
SHALL MENTION ONLY TWO.  THE FIRST WAS THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE A
CHOICE OF RETAINING EITHER MADISON SQUARE GARDEN OR THE CHICAGO STADIUM.  BUT
THIS WOULD NOT BE CONDUCIVE TO THE RE
ESTABLISHMENT OF COMPETITION BETWEEN THE TWO INTERESTS, WHICH THE DISTRICT
COURT CONSIDERED A NECESSITY.  NOR WOULD IT ELIMINATE THE "GREAT EVIL" THE
TRIAL COURT FOUND IN THE NORRIS-WIRTZ-GARDEN
COMBINATION.  ANOTHER REQUESTED OPTION WAS THAT NORRIS AND WIRTZ BE PERMITTED
TO RETAIN THEIR CONTROL OF MADISON SQUARE GARDEN AND THE LATTER BE ENJOINED
FROM PROMOTING CHAMPIONSHIP BOXING EVENTS.  BUT THIS WOULD HAVE ELIMINATED THE
WORLD'S PRINCIPAL BOXING CENTER - "THE
PREMIER SPORTS ARENA IN THE WORLD," AS APPELLANTS CHARACTERIZED IT - FROM
PROMOTING SUCH EVENTS IN COMPETITION WITH NORRIS AND WIRTZ.

IN SHORT, THE GOVERNMENT IN ITS EFFORT TO FREE THE PROFESSIONAL BOXING
BUSINESS OF MONOPOLY AND UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS WOULD HAVE WON THE BATTLE BUT
LOST THE WAR UNDER EITHER OF THE PROFFERED
ALTERNATIVES.  AS THIS COURT SAID IN UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO.,
323 U.S. 173, 189-190 (1944):

"COMMON CONTROL WAS ONE OF THE INSTRUMENTS IN BRINGING ABOUT UNITY OF
PURPOSE AND UNITY OF ACTION AND IN MAKING THE CONSPIRACY EFFECTIVE.  IF THAT
AFFILIATION CONTINUES, THERE WILL BE TEMPTING OPPORTUNITY  ...  TO ACT IN
COMBINATION  ...  .  THE PROCLIVITY IN THE PAST TO USE THAT AFFILIATION FOR
ANY UNLAWFUL END WARRANTS EFFECTIVE ASSURANCE THAT NO SUCH OPPORTUNITY WILL BE
AVAILABLE IN THE FUTURE."    THE DISSOLUTION OF THE TWO INTERNATIONAL BOXING
CLUBS.

ADMITTEDLY THESE CORPORATIONS WERE FORMED PURSUANT TO AND WERE THE
MEANS USED TO EFFECTUATE THE CONSPIRACY.  AS THE TRIAL JUDGE SAID:

"THESE CORPORATIONS ARE THE PROMOTIONAL ARMS OF THE DEFENDANTS, CONCEIVED AND
USED TO ENABLE DEFENDANTS TO RESTRAIN AND MONOPOLIZE PROMOTION OF CHAMPIONSHIP
BOXING CONTESTS.  THEIR ASSETS ARE OF BUT NOMINAL VALUE EXCEPT FOR THE
GOODWILL ATTACHING TO THEIR NAMES BY VIRTUE OF THE CONSPIRACY."

THE CONDITIONS EXISTING HERE EVEN SUBSEQUENT TO OUR FORMER OPINION
CONFIRM THE NEED OF SUCH DISSOLUTION.  BOTH CORPORATIONS CONTINUED TO SHARE
EQUALLY THE PROFITS THE COMBINATION REAPED FROM THE STAGING OF CHAMPIONSHIP
BOXING CONTESTS.  THIS ALSO INCLUDED REVENUES FROM CHAMPIONSHIP CONTESTS
PROMOTED BY OTHERS BUT TELEVISED BY THE
COMBINATION.  THEY CONTINUE EVEN NOW AS THE BRIDGE BETWEEN THE CHOICE ARENAS
NORRIS AND WIRTZ OWN OR CONTROL AND THE BOXERS WITH WHOM THEY HAVE EXCLUSIVE
PROMOTION CONTRACTS.  THROUGH INTERLOCKING OFFICERS AND DIRECTORATES THE TWO
I.B.C.'S THUS EFFECTIVELY HOLD THE COMBINATION TOGETHER.  IT IS ANTITRUST
POLICY TO DECREE DISSOLUTION "WHERE THE
CREATION OF THE COMBINATION IS ITSELF THE VIOLATION."  UNITED STATES V.
CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO., SUPRA, AT 189, AND CASES THERE CITED.  THIS IS ONE OF
THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE THE INJUNCTIVE PROCESS AFFORDS TOO LITTLE RELIEF TOO
LATE.

APPELLANTS ARGUE THAT THIS IS PUNITIVE; THAT THE PARENT COMPANIES, UNDER THE
DECREE, ARE LEFT FREE TO ORGANIZE NEW CORPORATIONS TO HANDLE THEIR RESPECTIVE
BOXING PROMOTIONS AND, HENCE, DISSOLUTION IS A USELESS ACT.  THE TRIAL COURT
FELT, HOWEVER, AND WE AGREE, THAT CONTINUED
OPERATION UNDER THE OLD I.B.C. CHARTERS MIGHT LEAD TO A SITUATION NOMINIS
UMBRA NOT CONDUCIVE TO THE ELIMINATION OF THE OLD ILLEGAL PRACTICES.  NEW
CORPORATIONS, IF FORMED, WOULD START OFF WITH CLEAN
SLATES FREE FROM NUMEROUS WRITTEN AND ORAL AGREEMENTS AND UNDERSTANDINGS NOW
EXISTENT AND KNOWN THROUGHOUT THE INDUSTRY.  HENCE DISSOLUTION MIGHT WELL HAVE
THE STATUTORY EFFECT OF COMPLETELY CLEARING NEW HORIZONS THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE
WAS ATTEMPTING TO CREATE IN THE
BOXING WORLD, ESPECIALLY WHEN EFFECTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE STOCK
DIVESTITURE PROVISION.  MOREOVER, THERE WOULD BE LITTLE INCONVENIENCE AND
NOMINAL EXPENSE EVEN IF, AS APPELLANTS CONTEND, THEY "AS A PRACTICAL MATTER
MUST FORM NEW CORPORATIONS IF THEY ARE TO PROMOTE ANY BOXING AT ALL."  THIS WE
THINK A POOR EXCUSE FOR NOT COMPLETELY ELIMINATING, BY DISSOLUTION, THESE OLD
TRAPPINGS OF MONOPOLY AND RESTRAINT.

THE COMPULSORY LEASING PROVISIONS.

THE DISTRICT COURT, HAVING FOUND THAT ONE OF THE MEANS USED IN EFFECUTATING
THE CONSPIRACY WAS THE OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF ARENAS AND STADIA, ENTERED A
COMPULSORY LEASING PROVISION IN THE DECREE AS TO MADISON SQUARE GARDEN AND THE
CHICAGO STADIUM CORPORATION.  (FN10)

THE APPELLANTS' MAIN CONCERN WITH THIS PROVISION OF THE DECREE IS THE
REQUIREMENT THAT IN THE EVENT THE TERMS OF A LEASE CANNOT BE AGREED UPON THE
MATTER WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE DISTRICT COURT.   APPELLANTS FEAR THAT THIS IS
NOT ONLY AN UNDESIRABLE BUT AN IMPRACTICAL ACTIVITY FOR A DISTRICT COURT.  BUT
THEY HAVE SUGGESTED NO ALTERNATIVE TO
RELIEVE THE COURT OF THIS BURDEN.  OBVIOUSLY, SUCH A PROVISION MAY RESULT IN
SOME DISPUTES WHICH MUST BE SETTLED.  UNTIL EXPERIENCE IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF
THE PROVISION PROVES THE REFERENCE TO BE TOO BURDENSOME WE SEE NO REASON TO
DISTURB IT. IF EXPERIENCE PROVES IT UNWORKABLE THE PARTIES, UNDER THE DECREE,
MAY APPLY TO THE COURT FOR APPROPRIATE RELIEF.  SEE LORAIN JOURNAL CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 342 U.S. 143, 156-157
(1951); INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 401.