OCR Text |
Show named which resulted l:i concerted i i.otion lor iho avowed purpose of I bringing about an abandonment of the 1 project of building a road from the coal Jidda In tho sinto of Pennsylvania Pennsyl-vania for the carriage of coal to tldo-wnter tldo-wnter In tho Mate of Now York. This avowed and conceded purpose rendered render-ed all that was done In pursuance thereof violative of the act of congress con-gress In question, however Innocent Liid legitimate it mlglu otherwise have been "I cannot ctcne the conclusion, thereof, that the decree of this court thould denounce as illegal the combination com-bination by which this result was J hiought about, if a decree for an In-I In-I t.inet.on under the prayer contained In the petition can be founded on such' denouncement. "The Injunction or restraining order rpetiflcally prayed for in the petition should be granted bo far ns It will servo 'to prefnt and restrain' tho future fu-ture of continuing violation of the r.ict." Judge Huffington restricted his opinion opin-ion to the discussion of two subjects, tlie Temple Iron company, which he declared is an Illegal combination, and the Co per cent contract transaction transac-tion which he also believed to be illegal. ille-gal. Judge Lanning came to tho conclusion conclu-sion that tho government content-tins should be dismissed on merit except that of the Temple Iron company, com-pany, which he believed should bo dismissed without prejudice. 1 Tho form of decree to be issued in the case of the Temple Iron company com-pany would be taken up later by the court. The case will now be taken to tho , supreme court of the United States. PHIUVUKLPHIA. Dec. S. Th- United Stales circuit court for the cast district of P(?nnsyl ania today (iccldod that there & no ycnortil conspiracy con-spiracy arnmiK Hie iinthrii-cltc coal c.arryiris ro.ids or roul i ou)i;iniea to restrain cortimoree to nvumpolizc the triido or t. innlnialn certain prices, lut it diil decide that the Tonrde Iron company is a coiuhinntiou ol .nithra-ito .nithra-ito coal fairyins railroads in violation viola-tion of th? ohennan anti trust law. The court granted tho prayer of the government for an injunc; .'n restrain ing , hat coriorr.tlon lioni continuing violations of the act. The s.-in and substance is that the government wins only one of several olnts, that in the T(-niple Iron company case and that the defendants will not he compelled to change the present prices of coal. The caJo was heard ly Judge Geo. Giny, .losenh nuffl.igton and William K I.annln- last February. Three fdnlons were haode 1 down late this alternoon and each differs from the others. Government Charges Dismissed, Judije t!igy dismissed all of the g.m'iiw .Kill's chaig?s excejit that re-intiag re-intiag to the Temple Iron company, whion he sustains. Judge Julfingtou dismissed all the iLarges except the one against the Temple company and one relating to the ti" per cent contract twisting between be-tween the l 1 jx corporation and the in dependent coal companies. He sustained sus-tained 'he charges of violation of law on these two points. Judge Launldg dismissed all the contentions ma le by the government. The suit was filed in June, 1907. during dur-ing President Roosevelt's administration. administra-tion. The defendants Included the Rea.'.lng company, the Philadelphia & Reading railway, the Lehigh Valley railroad, the Delaware, Lackawnna & Wes era railroad, the Central railroad rail-road of New Jersey, the Kile railroad, the new Susquehanna & Western rall-vay. rall-vay. tho Philadelphia & Reading Coal Iron company, the Lehigh Valley Coal company, the Lehi nnd Wilkes-birre Wilkes-birre Co.J company, the Pennsylvania Coal company, the Hillside Coal & Iron company, the New York, Susquehanna Sus-quehanna & Western Coal company, the Temple Iron company, and about forty so-called independent coal companies. com-panies. The three other anthracite reads were not Involved in the suit they were not competitors in carry-ii.g carry-ii.g anthracite to tidewater. They are I the Pennsylvania, the New York, On- j tario & Western and the Delaware 4L Hudson. General Conspiracy Claimed. The theory ol the government's case was that all defendants had long Leen pnttles to a geneial conspiracy, i vhich stilled com petition In anthra-l clto coal. ,' The independent coal companies were brought ii.io the case through , the so-called s.xty-five per cent contract con-tract tiansac io i The independents1 sell their pro luct to the big com-, panics for 'o per cent of the price the big companies receive ioi it at tide- I water The government contended that the j independents were foiccd into making j these contracts hi cause there was no . ether way to ;;et their coal to mar-' ket, If the big couipank' chose to j discriminate against ;hcm In the mat- j Ur of cars ami rates. No Violation of Law. The judges in taking up the matter I of the ." per rent contracts, concludes j that they are not a violation of inter s.ate commerce. j "These contracts," Judge Gray says, ' wr-re clearly intrastate, and not In- , tomato. In their character. They 1 vcre complete when Ihe coal was de-j llvtred at the mines f. o. h. to the b lyer. They did wot control or affects, af-fects, except Indirecth and incidentally, incidental-ly, interstate commerce; much less del they suppress or restrain such commerce I "Xo stipulation of the contract di-1 rectly or indirectly touched the movement move-ment or disposition of coal by the buyer after its delivery under the . contract to purchase. Such buyer! might have withheld all the coal thus: I urchased from the stream of inter-; .tate commoirce, and disposed of It in the state where It was brought." Taking up the matter of a general conspiracy among the defendants, Judge Gray said: "A careful cons. deration of tho argument ar-gument and brief of counsel for the ; government does not convince us that ! the evidence discloses any such gen- eial contract, combination of eonspira- j cy among the defendants In restraint of trade or commerce among the se-l c:-al states, or to monopolize any part ol tho trade or commerce among the rrme." Temple Iron Company. Judge Gray then takes up the matter mat-ter of tho Temple Iron company. It appears trom the? testimony In the case that when Simpson and Wat- ! kins, an Independent coal mining com- I pnny, led a movement to build an In- ' dependent coal road to New York in order to get the.r coal to market cheaper, the six coal-carrying rail-rtnds rail-rtnds named formed a combination , and purchased tho Temple Iron com-j any. which hud a blanket charter 1 ermlltiag li to mine or sell coal. 1 The presidents of a majority of the ' anthracite coal companies aie directors direc-tors of the company which purchased Ihe Intel ests of Walklns and thereby killed tho ne. railroad project. Judge Gray's D;ci6ion. Of tins ti ant-act Ion. Judge Gray soys: ' "It seems to rue dear that an agree-1 rnent was com?- to by the defendants j |