The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-12-09
THE LEGALITY OF THE POOLS
The States Complaint in the Cases Just
Instituted in Pennsylvania.
Grounds on Which Attorney General Cassiday
Asks that the Railway and Coal Com
binations Be Declared Unlawful.
Special to the Indianapolis journal.

Cassiday to-day filed in the Court of Common
Pleas of Dauphin county bill in equity be-
tween the State of Pennsylvania, plaintiff. and
the Grand Trunk Railroad Company, of Canada:
the New York Central 6 Hudson River Railroad
Company; the West Shore Railroad Company;
the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad
Company; the New York, Lake Erie & Western
Railroad Company; the Baltimore g. Ohio Rail
road Company; the Lehigh Valley Railroad Com
pany; the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Com
pany; the Allegheny Valley Railroad Company;
the Buffalo, New York & Philadelphia Railr
Company; the Cincinnati, Washington e. Balti
more Railroad Company; the New York. Penn
sylvania & Ohio Railroad Company; the Penn
sylvania Company; the Philadelphia Wilmington
g. Baltimore Railroad Company; the Pittsburg,
Cincinnati g. St Louis Railway Company; the
Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railroad Com
pany; the New York, Chicago & st. Louis Railroad
Company; the Fort Wayne e. Chicago Railroad
Company, and the Pittsburg & Lake Erie Rail-
road Company, defendants Mr.. Cassiday as
serts that these corporations form what
is known as the trunk-line pool, and
further shows that the trunk-line con-
tracts ard other contracts and agreements
not only tend toward, but have actually formed
a very extended monopoly, composed of the said
companies and corporations respondent; that said
monopoly lacks publicity, legality and response
bity to law; that said contracts are in restraint
of trade and the common carrying facilities of
the Commonwealth and in derogation of the
legal right of all individuals associations and
corporations to have persons and property trans
ported over railroads; that, being combination
to fix their charges and control the business of
competing lines of railroads, they tend to pre-
elimination in charges for traffic and facilities
for transportation, and that, for these reasons,
the said contract and monopoly thereby formed
is unlawful and injurious to the community, and
against public policy and prejudicial to public
interests, and oppressive to individuals by sub
iecting their business, trade and COM
fort to the power of the par
ties forming said monopoly. and infringes
upon the equal rights of individuals and the
general well being of the State He further
contends that they violate Article II, Section 4,
of the Constitution of the Commonwealth, by
practically consolidating competing railroads
by placing parallel and competing railroads, in
part at least under the control of other parallel
and competing lines, and by making the officers
committees thereof officers of parallel and
competing lines, and in other respects violate
the provisions of said 18th article. The Attor-
ney general, on behalf of the Commonwealth,
therefore prayS:
First-That such orders may be made as may
be necessary for the service of process on the
non resident defendants.
Second-That the defendants, and each of
them, may be required to make full discovery of
all and singular In the premises, and especially
re
toned, aud all other contracts, agreements, and
arrangements whatsoever of similar nature
between them, or any of them.
Thrd-That the said trunK-line contract and
the several contracts and agreements above
mentioned, and all other contracts, and agree
ments. and combinations whatsoever, oe similar
nature, between the said defendants, or any of
them, may be declared unlawful.
Fourth-That the said defendants, and each of
them may be enjoined by the Injunction of this
court, especially until a hearing, an perpetual
ly thereafter, from carrying out or acting under
said contract and agreements, and each Of them,
and any similar contracts. agreements or under
standings, and from entering into any further
contracts or agreements of that nature, and
from forming and acting under, or il connection
with, any such combination.
Fifth-Such other further or different relief
as may be or become necessary or proper.
Appended to this are contracts and agreements
entered into by the members of the trunk-line
A bill against the coal pool was also filed with
the following defendants: The Philadelphia e
Reading Railroad Company; the Philadelphia &
Reading Coal and Iron Company; Stephen A.
Caldwell, Geo. De 3. Keim, and Austin Corbin,
receivers of said companies the Lehgh Valley
Railroad Company, the Delaware, Lackawanna
81 Western Railroad Company; the Delaware g
HUI dson Canal Company; the Pennsylvania Rail
road Company; the Pennsylvania Coal Company
the New York Lake Erie 81 Western Railroad
tho T,oh oh Vail = ha
Susquehanna Coal Company; the Mineral Rail
road and Mining Company; the Summit Branch
Railroad Company, aud the Lykens Valley Coal
Company The coal pool meetings and the allot-
ment of coal made to each corporation are de-
tailed, and thea Mr.. Cassiday says:
"By this action gross discrimination has been
and is exercised against the consumers of coal
residing in or doing business within this Com
monweath. The price of coal to consumers
within this Commonwealth has been fixed at
nearly 80 per cent above the price charged for
similar coal at the same point when purchased
for shipment beyond the limits of the State.
The market price Of coal in cities outside
the State, and much more remote
from the mines, has, by reason of
said combination. been below the market price
in cities within the State and nearer the coal
Mines and even In cases of cities far remote the
increase in price has not been at all commensu-
rate with the additional cost of transportation.
The said combination by hindering competition,
advanced prices both for coal and for transpor-
tation, artifcially, to an unjust extent; by
strcting production and by advancing prices it
has crippled vast industries and seriously in
jured the property of the State"
By ordering the suspension of mining it has
caused large numbers of workmen to remain idle
a considerable part OF the year, and the Attor-
ney-general further informs the court that the
said respondents have thus unlawfuly as we'll
as In violation Of the Constitution of the com
monwealth, as against public policy and to the
injury and prejudice of the general public Com
bined and agreed arbitrarily to fix, limit and
regulate the supply, and fix, raise and
control the price of an article of general
consumption, which has become and Is
necessary of life. and in pursuance of said
combination and agreement have, and are con-
tnuing to arbitrarily fix, limit and regulate the
supply, and fix. raise and control the price to
the general public of an article of general con-
sumption which is necessary of life Where
fore the Attorney general, on behalf OF the Com
monwealth, prays-
-