| OCR Text |
Show f HARD COAL I CASEIS WON SM Former Victory Over Trusts Sustained by W& Supreme Court. Mb- . Wtt ""Mngton, Dec. 1G. Tho govern- VM ent wou a P"rtal victory in Its Biui. ProBocutlon of the hard coal trust iSlP Ti. J1 P10 "romo court hold today 7iF tho so-called G5 per cent con- jjfr tracts between the railroads and hard 31! 5al 0PGratrs wero Illegal, BURlalned 6 government's former victory over Vf I :h Templo Coal and Irpn company. V' A -hut declined to sustain the charges of T a general conspiracy among the hard K coal roadB. fJuotlco Lurton, In announcing the opinion, said the 65 per cent contract were plainly In violation of the law. Sat,; The court als? held that the ra.l- y j roads had violated the law by attempt- m 'i ljJP to Bhut out of the anthracite re- 1 j glon a competitive voad through their control of the Temp Iron company jSit As to minor comb.r.ations of rail- 9 a adB and C0!l1 companies charged to jg? be violating the law, the court dis- w I missed tho action, without prejudice g to future suits, because It held It not 4 I fair to require those groups to make 31 a defense In an action primarily 3 a agaln6t general combination. 9 1 , Atton.y Goneral Wlckerskam de-II de-II clared that the annulment of the G5 M per cent contracts was a very impor-5. impor-5. tant victory and that It opened the way for possible competition In the gSIj ccal trade IjMft "This point Is also Important"' said f he, ''because the court holds that al- B J hough a contract may be innocent ;n UB itself, a bundle of them may constitute gfm a. violation of the law." 3 In an announced today by Assooi- BW ate Justice Lurton, the court holds; R "First, that the general comblnn- 9 I tlon alleged b the government to ex- j 1st between t'? defendant roads for Ngt an apportionment for total tonnage toi lj the seaboard by an agreement In the M-ff nature of a pooling arrangemont has I' tf . nr been established and therefore the m-1 relief sought by tho government upon wf assumption of such combination la ae- WSt Justices Day, PItuey and Hushes I 111 took no part In the decision. There w$ M'cr no r'ls-'-itimr o'Mn'ona. Ik .'"Second The court finds, however, PJ' that the principal defendants did com- IMro fqr the purnosc of abutting ont from the Prithracite coal field a pro-. jocted independent line of railroad.; the Nw York, Wyoreing & Western, rai rord. and to accoV'sh thnt puv-1 pdse it is fc 'd tin etocl: o? tho , Tcrnplo Ir.j c-im- anil of the j Simpron and YV-tl-'r 'c'.!leiic: wn3 ' required for the p:tr osq onO with .tho intent, not of normally and law-1 fully developing trade, but o.; re-1 straining interstate commerce and j competition in transportation which would have presumably come about j through the construction and oora- gjjf tlon of the proposed competing Hue S ' of railroad between the mines and $ tidewater. .j 65 Par Cent Contracts Vo'd. Rj "Third C-o coirt hods thct ce-- 'S'r tain contrictc mtlc with producers J! covcr'ng between 20 end 23 per cent of the total annus! supply of coal. ft . known as tho Go per cent contracts, by 5 which such independent producers I Pr' hound themselves to deliver tho out-1 Jj put of their mnas or ?ny other rnino I H which they m'gat r.coulre, to tho rall-l rall-l road companies for 65 per cent of tho "'. avorage market price at tidewater, j 1 wero also void because in violation of the anti-trust act, r.s abrormal nr.-l ' Illegal restraints upen !ntcrctr.tc com-, ! raercc I ' Fourth The co-f reiterates tho ii dqclaration in the Stas.ds:rd Oil case,! that an act c! congress doc3 ot 'for- I , bid or restrain the power to make I normal and usl corrects to farther trade by reeorting to all normal methods, meth-ods, whethc- by agreement o- otherwise, other-wise, to eccompl'sh sveh purrc-je.' Nevertheless it holds that the acts which It finds In this case to be Illegal Il-legal the Temple Iron and 65 per cent m contracts, were not within such class, ii but, on the contrary, were abnormu. I In tholr character and directly tend-i tend-i ed to and wero intended to illegally U restrain trade and csmmcrce. and II therefore came within the statute as U Illustrated by the ruling in St Louis M Termluel a?BOciatIou and bwirt fc co. II vs. United States." t f Tho government suit charged lliai f; the principal anthracite carrying rall-' rall-' roads and their affiliated coal coinpa-, coinpa-, t nlea had entered Into a se novo com-blntlon com-blntlon to end competition in the transportation and sales of anthracite. Several groups of tho defendants were further charred with smaller combinations for tho same Pnoc The so-called 05 per cent contract ' wero aoemenls whereby ihc "inroad "in-road coal companies were to bu tnc : ou?put of independent operators at J per cent of the price of coal at tldc- t water. .., , r Contracts l.lcsau ; ! in a-'ouncins the opinion. Justlco : : t Vton a"ald that these contracts were I h retrain of trade and illegal, no ttcfwLatte 'intention with which I aecSS; no opinion as to tho '-saiity t the ralnor cvoinb'Da- Mors charged but dismissed the char-l char-l Les aS to them because the govori -y fnent had no right to mike the small-I? small-I? S Soups, within the alleged general ' conSlnatlon, defend tbcli : c ion n a sut which charged, fvst ol all. a eon- B i cral corab'ention. Suit Began in 1007. u- Todays decision hsd U genesis in ' tho action begun by t'-io government n 1907 in the United States circuit ' ; co-irt for eastern Pennsylvania. The act'on vaa brought against tno bJ factoW in tho hard coal trade 1 : The 1st of defendants was headed I bj m S3SS wlr"0 the"1' Philadelphia and IB 5S5.dln' Rr'l" -mpnv '0 L m T high Valley Railroad company, the Do aware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad company, the Central Railroad Rail-road company of New Jersey, the Erie Railroad company and the New lork, Susquohanna and Western Railway company. The Pennsylvania and the New York, Ontario and Western, West-ern, two other important roads in the hard coal field, were not Included Includ-ed In the suit. Other defendants were coal companies affiliated with the railroad defendants, and 12 "independent" "inde-pendent" operators who had entered Into contracts to sell their output forever for-ever to the railroads or their "affiliated" "affi-liated" coal companies. In It3 suit, the government charged first the existence of a general combination com-bination in violation or the Sherman anti-trust law, and then charged that several smaller combinations within the big one were not only In violation viola-tion of tho law, themselves, but constituted con-stituted evidence of a general combination. com-bination. The general combination was alleged alleg-ed to havo for Its object the ending of competition among the defendant railroads in the transportation and sale of anthracite coal, and of preventing pre-venting the sale of the output of Independent In-dependent operators In competition with the defendants' coal. The combination, com-bination, it was alleged, transported 77 per cent of the anthracito coal moving from the mines, and controlled controll-ed over 57 per cent of all the anthracite anthra-cite In the ground and produced GO per cent and marketed 70 per cent of the annual output. Tho lower court was unanimous In holding that there existed no general combination in violation vio-lation of law. Sixty-give Per Cent Contracts. One of the special things complained com-plained of in the suit was the system of "G3 per cent contracts," whereby the "railroad" coal companies agreed to pay the ' independents" forever G5 per cent of the price of coal at New York harbor. The lower court held these contracts did not violato the law. Control, through stock ownership, bv the Reading company of the Philadelphia Phil-adelphia and Reading Railway company com-pany and the Central Railroad company com-pany of Now Jersey, described as competitive inlervatc carriers, and also al-so of the Philadelphia and Reading 1 Coal and Iron companv and the Lehigh Le-high and Wilkosbarro Coal company, was alleged to constitute a combination combina-tion in restraint of trade and a monopolization mo-nopolization In violation of the Sher-mar Sher-mar law. The lower couit held that '" this there had been no violation of the law. Control, through stock owuorship. by the Eria Railroad companv of the New York, Suscqnehannn and Western West-ern Railroad '.company,, was alleged to constltutcnnother violation- of the Inw, the leaves co'irt held against tho government en th's point. Combination of the defendant rall-roadp rall-roadp and 'affiliated" coal companies compa-nies In the Temple Cosl conpin. with Itlip nllr-rd ptirrcco -nij offect of fo-p-rtallng the cccfruct'on of a pro'ofi-ed pro'ofi-ed competitive line and permancnMv 1 ;phutt!n? 0 it competition among the jdelcndant railroads and col cornea-1 ules, was al'egoi'1 to bo another viola-1 Itlon of the 'aw. Th" lower cort. two 1 j to one agreed that t'-c defendant j r?ilro?d nd th Rcviing conmny 1 were joined bv thi" company 'nlo a combination In restraint of trade and In violation of tho !aw. Acquisition and continued holding by tho Frl Rni'rond rnii,r,arv of ? entire capital stocl;s of the Pcnnsvl-vanln Pcnnsvl-vanln Cop' oT-nnv. the Delaware Valley and Kingston Rallroid company com-pany ?nd ITr Fr'e and Wvoming Valley Val-ley Ral'ria'l company, were al'egcd I to rrs'rsin and monopolize trade in violation rf the law. The govc-n-inent on t V. i 3 point lost also in the lower co irt. Acouisitlon and control bv the L-hig'i L-hig'i Va'.lev RMlroad crnany, dl-r?ct'v dl-r?ct'v or through Ms uldin',v ort;an- , bat ion, thn Lchteh V'3llev Coal company com-pany of tho Connell Coil companv. I the Seneca Coil com""ny, Warrior 1 Run Coal comnany, Wyo"inz Conl and L?nd compinv, all nrod"r-er and 1 shippers o ft" line: and 0' tt" rrln-ware. rrln-ware. Susermehnna and Katsl-Ul Railroad comnnnv vere al'csed to " In "i '"'ion of thn Shorm-n ontl-t-ist net '" hwer court fornd fiat there was no v 'atton of the law in this. |
