OCR Text |
Show U ill LUullUL I iUILIitIl il Offers of the 'Bi : Company Criminally Crimi-nally Liable Boston, Sept. 19. An Indictment was retnrned today against the officers offi-cers of tho United Shoo 'Machinery company and a second indictment was found against the company itself by the United States grand Jury. The defendants are charged with conduct-ins conduct-ins business in restraint of trade. The individuals Indicted are President Presi-dent Signey W. Winslow, Edward P. Hurd, George AV. Brown, James J. Storrow, William Barbour and Elmer P. Howe, directors. Both Indictments charge the defendants defend-ants with working through tho Instrumentality Instru-mentality of the United Shoe Machinery Machin-ery company In a way to make them, as Individuals, criminally liable under un-der the Sherman act. Complaints made to the department of justice against the United Shoe Machinery company the so-called Shoe Machinery trust brought ihe attontion of the government to the case. It is understood that the corporation corpora-tion was charged with being a monopoly mon-opoly In restraint of trade Infringements Infringe-ments upon the patent laws were also al-so alleged, it Is said. Prompt action on the part of the government followed the receipt of tho complaints. In April a few weks" after they had been filed William S. Gregc, spoMal assistant to Unite 1 States Attorney General Wlckersham, began Ihe government probe. Special agents George Kell-shor Kell-shor and James L Rruff assisted Mr Grecg in his search for evidence. The result of the work of these government gov-ernment officials -was that on Julv 2G, of this year. Attorney General Wlck-ersham Wlck-ersham ordered United States Attorney Attor-ney Asa P French and Mr. Gregg to present evidence obtained to the federal fed-eral grand jury that reported todav. The United Shoe -Machinery company com-pany came Into being ih 1SS0. It was founded by Sydney N Winslow, its present head, who learned shoe-making In a small factory In Salem, Mass., owned by his father, who, to Fecure advantages of combining allied al-lied Intejejits, formed, a corporation 'embracing--the 'threevleadlngvcorapaju-les 'threevleadlngvcorapaju-les then making shoe machinery Goodyear Sewing Machine company, consolidated, and McKay Lasting company com-pany and McKay Shoe Machinery companv wero consolidated The companv was rc-orcanize 1 In 1905, and subsequently auxllia'-' com. panics sprang up in Great Britain. France and Germany That samo year the manufacturing of all its machinery ma-chinery was concentrated in a largo factory at Beverly. The United Machinery Ma-chinery comnanv now employes L-000 L-000 hands, who turn out 20,000 shoe mnchlnos yearly Tho royalty system, 'by which the corporation disposes of its machines, allows a shoe manufacturer to lease machines, paying rentals in royalties on every shoe made. A manufacturer manufactur-er rna buv machinery If he gets t frnm the United company, providing ho buys his "findings" such as wire nails and eyolets from the company. It is claimed that tho royalty paid the United copipany Is about 2 2-3 cents por pair of shoes. Last year the company brmcht suit against Thomas G'. Plant, a Boston Bos-ton shoo manufacturer, charging patent pat-ent Infringements, Plant sold out his shoe machinery plant and patent rights tothe United compan after a bitter fight. A few months later an Independent company the Bresnahan Shoo Machinery Ma-chinery company of Lynn, Mass. was also purchased by the United company. com-pany. The next Important happening in tho life of the United Shoe Machinery company was the unexpected government govern-ment probe. The l'enalty provided under the statutes Is a fino of $5,000. or Impris.-onment Impris.-onment for one year, or both. The six defendants did not appear today, but probably will plead within the next ton days. According to William S. Gregg of the department of justice at Washington, Wash-ington, who has been in charge of the case, the Indictments charge that the 3ix defendants hae been working through the Instrumentality of the United Shoe Machinery company, in a way to mako them criminally liable under tho Shorman act. The second Indictment also alleges that the carrying on of the business under tho merger of three old shoe machinery manufacturing companies, which -was effected in February. 1899. was engaging In a combination in restraint re-straint of trade; that it was a con-sniracy con-sniracy in restraint of the trade of shoo manufacturers and that the whole transaction was a monopolization monopoliza-tion of interstate trade all of which, it is alleged further, has had a pernicious pernic-ious effect on the public. The United Shoe Machinery company com-pany has branches in various parts of the world. |