Show ShARP CASE MAY MA NEVER BE TRIED AGAIN District Attorney Booth Discusses Discusses Discusses Dis Dis- DisI Dis- Dis I cusses Prospects Under I Appeal Decision CASE NOT PROVED SAYS HIGHER COURT COUnT Held That Evidence Does Not Show Conspiracy of Companies Whether or no not the case of the United Slates against a the tho Union Pacific Pa Coal company the tho Ore Oregon on Short Line J. J M. M Moore 30 and 1 Everett l' l Buckingham Buck Butk- ingham in which they the He charged cd with conspiracy in n restraint of trade another United will over o come como before States Stares court i is nn an uncertainty according accord accord- according jn ing to United States District Attorney II IL 11 E. E BoothA Booth A decision yesterday bj by r Jud o Walter Walter Wal Wal- ter 31 II in tho the circuit court of If appeal appeal- at St. St Paul has set lct aside tho the verdict of December 3 o of last t year inthe in tho the local ocal court in which each of tho railway companies the coal com company pan und mid J. J M. M Moore were fined and Everett Buckingham 1000 The Tho verdicts were brought brou ht by a jury jur after a lengthy trial Tho The comp companies ni s and Ind individuals wore were char charged with en en- terin into a conspiracy to drive D. D J. J Sharp Sharr a retail coal oah dealer out of busi- busi tho the price of because se he lie lowered coal roal and aud caused cm leil competition in the coal business in Salt Lal Lake e. e Mr Ir Booth t-ays t ay that Judge San San- Sanborn's horn born's borns s 's decision of yesterday j-esterday does docs not not with other recent decisions 1 on conspiracy 1 Criticises the tho Decision I If tho reports report of tho the neT newspapers regarding tho thu decision ion arc are correct I Ican can say Kay that Judge c Sanborn's decisions do 10 not harmonize To provo prove this fact it is necessary to turn to the thc case of a against tho Continental Tobacco Tobacco To- To is if found on j 1 1 bacco company which is federal reporter pa pa c e In HIn this Judge Jud e Sanborn classes ses cornand corn cornand cornand and coal as bein being primo prime necessities necessities' of life ifo while hilo tobacco is a luxury Tho The government he says saya there has a right to prevent restraint of trade trado in in cases where the commodities are arc prime primo necessities ne no- o of life In other thin things s I is not the case c sc Jn In tho the Sharp cases according to the Jle newspaper paper reports Judge o places coal on tho the list of unnecessary c of products or not prime necessities ifo which dues docs not harmonize with the he Whitwell Continental case casc Action A tion Undecided Thero There is no w way to know V conJ continued con J Mr Booth what we wc will do with the case but hut it is possible that it win will have hac to bo dropped Our only possible course would be through n a ni i ber court bv In filin filing a petition for a 11 writ of certiorari ri I 1 believe this would i ho o i by tho the supreme court the I samo same imo as 3 was as the rp recent nt Standard Oil Case a o. o In a handed down lown in I that case ease inse the tn court courts denied tho the titian petition for tho the writ of certiorari to the United States circuit court of ap- ap peals Since that action was taken in In that caso case wo we can ean scarcely hope to the tho kind in the tho Sharp hart get et a writ nit of 1 case I cannot however state slate just what be done dono in tho the matter until I read tho the decision rondo mado by the judge Of course courso the newspaper reports contain con con- of the tho de dc decision tam tain only oDly a brief syllabus 5 as handed banded down Wo Yo will wilt get geta et a a. full foU report of the decision soon oon and that will enable us to determine what is best b st to doThoro do There Thoro are arc only two means of get get- et tin Un around tho the trouble and from recent recent re re- re cent decisions it is apparent that they thc stand standa a a. good chance chance- of being turned down Decision a Hard Ilard Jolt We We believed when wo we went into the Sharp case cage that wo we had bad clear sailing and for that reason the decision de of Sanborn anborn s been rath rather r a severe se so- vere jolt olt We presented our case caso before tho the jury in in a a. clear wa way and they found nil all of or tho defendants guilty But this case caso is 15 anI only liko hiko ninny many others where conspiracy is is charged ehaT d. d There Thero aro are so many ninny Ic legal l loopholes that it is a impossible to con convict rt a person or n a corporation of oC conspiracy especially if the tho person pOlson has o mono money and takes the the- case caso through all the tho J legal al always ways leading heading up to the final finn execution of tho the law aw The press patch dispatch from St St. Paul tolling telling of Judge Sanborn's decision says s II-s N No Evidence of Conspiracy While the suit stilt T was brought in the f mo it of tho the United States proceedings re started by b a a. Salt Lake City coal coalt t dealer named Sharp who charged el the defendant railways railways rail rail- coal company and the ways wa with refusing to sell fiell and haul 1 to coal l for fOl him Sharp charged that thc the Union Pacific Coal company refused to sell him coal and anil that tho the railways r refuted l to haul b the commodity om mOil it because be lie advertised ld and sold coal at a less f figure lIro than his competitors Judge Sanborn in in his bis opinion holds hol s that them ther was no substantial evidence ciden of or any an combination between behn en any two of th the tho defendants ct cither to refuse to sell coal to Sharp or to refuse to trans transport ort it for him The ThA lower nourt Murt found th the defendant guilty of violation of the tho Sherman Pherman anti anti- trust la law and imposed a 3 fine of 1000 and costs on Buckingham und and and HOc costs on th the four other defendants Judge Sanborn's 6 Opinion The opinion of th the tho circuit Jit court of or as contained in tho syllabus l as IS follows Tho The test ter-t. of or an unlawful combination lion tion under tho the act of 2 1890 is its n necessary e effect upon irce competition tion in commerce among tho the states or with foreign nations A A combination the flue sit necessity of or which blab hi h is to stifle or directly and sub sub- to restrict such uch competition in iK unlawful ul under tinder that act hut but if tho the I necessary af of a combination i ia is but hul incidentally and and indirectly to restrict while while its chief rt is isto to fo foster tb the trade trado and anil increase increase the tho business lJ of those thos who mako and antI operate it it does not fall under tho ban ot of this lawA law A A coal oal company engaged n in mining minin and selling dlin its coal is not prohibited bybe by hy be anti trust act or by hr the tIme law liw from refusing to sell its coal from selecting its customers from fixing tho the price and terms tenus on which h it will wiH sell its product or front from selling to different persons andon and andon andon I on different terms A violation of a 3 law la by br a corporation corpora corpora- corporation tion does not render its nonparticipating non noum jug ing stockholders criminally liable there there- for Unless t there bNO is is substantial ial evidence of facts which exclude very vcr other hypothesis but that of guilt C it ii is is the thc duty of the thc trial court to instruct th tho jury jur to return a verdict or tho ac ac- ac Cu sed Defines Courts Court's Duty H And 11 1 where all ajl 11 Ibo substantial evi vi donee is as IS consistent with innocence as ms with guilt it is iM tho the dut duty dut- of tho the ap nr court ourt to reverse re c a judgment of ofIn conviction n. con In conclusion the tho court says tays There was US no substantial evidence e of any combination between nit miry any two to of the defendants either cither to refuse to sell lr coal to Sharp F or to refuse to transport it for or himA himA him A u. combination between a corporation corporation corpora corpora- tion and auml its officers or agent jn in violation violation viola viola- tion of the tho truSt anti t act cannot c be b form formed cd by tho the thoughts or tir nd nets of the officer or n agent nt alone alono without the thc conscious con coui- scions participation in in it of another an any an- other officer or agent of tho corporation The ThA of two or more union persons pe ons tho conscious of tT two O or moro morn minds is if indispensable to an Unlawful unlawful un Un- lawful combination |