It seems to me there can be no valid objection to that part of the opinion which approves the finding of the District Court that the Timken Roller Bearing Company has violated §§ 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act. It may seem *602strange to have a conspiracy for the division of territory for marketing between one corporation and another in which it has a large or even a major interest, but any other conclusion would open wide the doors for violation of the Sherman Act at home and in foreign fields. My disagreement with the opinion is based on the suggested requirement that American Timken divest itself of all interest in British Timken and French Timken as required by paragraph VIII of the decree set out below.1 My reasons for this disagreement follow.
There are no specific statutory provisions authorizing courts to employ the harsh remedy of divestiture in civil proceedings to restrain violations of the Sherman Act. Fines and imprisonment may follow criminal convictions, 15 U. S. C. § 1, and divestiture of property has been used *603in decrees, not as punishment, but to assure effective enforcement of the laws against restraint of trade.2
Since divestiture is a remedy to restore competition and not to punish those who restrain trade, it is not to be used indiscriminately, without regard to the type of violation or whether other effective methods, less harsh, are available. That judicial restraint should follow such lines is exemplified by our recent rulings in United States v. National Lead Co., 332 U. S. 319, where we approved divestiture of some properties belonging to the conspirators and denied it as to others, pp. 348-353. While the decree here does not call for confiscation, it does call for divestiture. I think that requirement is unnecessary.3
In this case the prohibited plan grew out of the effort to implement a patent monopoly. The difficulties of cultivating a foreign market for our manufactured goods obviously entered into creation of the British and French companies so as to enjoy a right of distribution into areas where otherwise restrictions, because of tariffs, quotas and exchange, might be expected. We fail to see such propensity toward restraint of trade as is evidenced in the Crescent case.
What we have is an American corporation, dominant in the field of tapered roller bearings, producing between 70 and 80 percent of the American output. In 1947 its gross sales were over $77,000,000. This is a distinctive type of bearing, competing successfully for adoption by industry with other antifriction bearings. Timken pro*604duces about 25% of all United States antifriction bearings. As there were no findings of facts tending to show violation of the Sherman Act otherwise than through formal agreements for partition of territory, we assume appellant’s conduct was otherwise lawful.
In such circumstances, there was, of course, no occasion for the lower court to order any splitting up of a consolidated entity. Cf. Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U. S. 1; United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U. S. 106. There has been no effort to create numerous smaller companies out of Timken so that there will be no dominant individual in the tapered roller bearing field. The American company had had a normal growth and development. Its relations with English and French Timken were close and American Timken had stock and contracts for further stock in both foreign companies of value in the development of its foreign business. Such business arrangements should not be destroyed unless necessary to do away with the prohibited evil.
An injunction was entered by the District Court to prohibit the continuation of the objectionable contracts. Violation of that injunction would threaten the appellant and its officers with civil and criminal contempt. United States v. Goldman, 277 U. S. 229, and Hill v. Weiner, 300 U. S. 105. The paucity of cases dealing with contempt of Sherman Act injunctions is, I think, an indication of how carefully the decrees are obeyed. The injunction is a far stronger sanction against further violation than the Sherman Act alone. Once in possession of facts showing violation, the Government would obtain a quick and summary punishment of the violator. Furthermore this case remains on the docket for the purpose of “enforcement of compliance” and “punishment of violations.” This provision should leave power in the court to enforce divestiture, if the injunction alone fails. Prompt and full compliance with the decree should be anticipated.
*605This Court is hesitant, always, to interfere with the scope of the trial court’s decree.4 However, in this case it seems appropriate to indicate my disapproval of the requirement of divestiture and to suggest a direction to the District Court that provisions leading to that result be eliminated from the decree. Such remand would also give opportunity for reconsideration of the changes necessary in the decree because of the remand and the death of Mr. Dewar.
In my view such an order should be entered.
“VIII. A. Within two years from the date of this judgment, defendant shall divest itself of all stock holdings and other financial interests, direct or indirect, in British Timken and French Timken. Within one year from the date of this judgment, defendant shall present to the Court for its approval a plan for such divestiture.
“B. Defendant is hereby enjoined and restrained, from the date of this judgment, from:
“1. Acquiring, directly or indirectly, any ownership interest in (by purchase or acquisition of assets or securities, or through the exercise of any option, or otherwise), or any control over, British Timken or French Timken, or any subsidiary, successor or assign thereof;
“2. Exercising any influence or control over the production, sales or other business policies of British Timken or French Timken, or any subsidiary, successor, assign, agent, sales representative, or distributor thereof;
“3. Causing, authorizing or knowingly permitting any officer, director, or employee of defendant or its subsidiaries to serve as an officer, director, or employee of British Timken or French Timken or of any subsidiary, successor, assign, agent, sales representative, or distributor thereof.”
United States v. Crescent Amusement Co., 323 U. S. 173, 189 ; United States v. Paramount Pictures, 334 U. S. 131, 166 (Third) ; 85 F. Supp. 881, 895, affirmed sub nom. United States v. Loew’s, Inc., 339 U. S. 974; United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 91 F. Supp. 333, 392 (Aluminum Limited) at 418-419.
Cf. Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States, 323 U. S. 386, 413 et seq.
See United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 340 U. S. 76, 89.