Freeland tribune. (Freeland, Pa.) 1888-1921, 1892-09-01
AN ILLEGAL COMBINE.
CHANCELLOR M'GlLL DECIDES THE
READING DEAL TO BE so.
He Grants Preliminary Injunction and
Under Its Provisions the New Jersey
Central Road Must Resume Control of
All Its Properties and Franchises.

All It's Properties and Franchises.
TRENTON, Aug. 26.-Chancellor McGilps
decision in the case of the state against the
railroads forming the Reading coal combine
has been fled.
The states contentious that the lease of
the Central to the Port Reading is illegal !;
that the tripartite agreement is in violation
OF law, and the combine is against the policy
of the state, because it tends to the monopo-
ly of public necessity, are all upheld and
the preliminary injunction prayed for is
granted.
In the course of his decision the chancellor
says corporate bodies that engage in public
occupations are created by the state upon
the hypothesis that they will be a public
benefit. They enjoy privileges that indi-
viduals cannot have. While the state con-
fers special privileges upon the favorites, it
at the same time exacts from them duties
which also tend to the public welfare Such
corporations hold their powers in trust for
the public veal.
Disguise and Evasion.
The chancellor says the attorney general,
on behalf of the people, has the election in
a case of this kind to proceed at law to for
felt the charter or in equity for restraint
of the excess. There aM peculiar features
in the transaction that evince public dam
ger much more serious than appears in the
mere transfer of corporate duties to per-
formance by foreign corporation. The
parties interested constitute two of the six
great anthracite coal carriers of the coun-
try. Through the leasing of the Ohio Valley
three OF these are controlled by the combi-
nation. The proof shows that there are To-
calities in the state which formerly had the
advantage Of competition between these
allied roads, but now are subject to the
monopoly which this lease affords.
1t is true that the cooperation of the
other coal roads has not been secured BY
this lease only one competition is silenced,
and only little more than one-half of the
entire coal region is controlled. 1t is only
the second step in the direction of monop-
oily, the first being the lease Of the Lehigh
Valley railroad. 1t is to be remembered,
however, that the attorney general may
have his injunction when the ultra wires
act tends or is II nature to produce public
injury. 4
The answers deny that either the Phila-
delphia and Reading OF the Central owns
any coal lands or produces or deals in coal
That is true; but at the same time it is ad
mitted that the Reading owns a majority
of the capital stock of the Reading Coal and
Iron company, and that the Central owns
majority of the capital stock of the Le-
high and Wilkesbarre Coal company. What
is this but disguise and evasionl Whatever
may be the nominal ownership or the legal
title for the substantial purposes of the in
jury apprehended and the attorney gem
erals complaint, the railroad companies
stand as the owners of the coal land in this
court
Disastrous Monopoly.
The chancellor says that while the denials
Of this may be literally true, such allega-
tions without explanation and in the face
of the facts adverted to, SAVIOR of an evasion
which disentitles them to that force whichis
usually accorded to the denials of responsive
answers.
Upon preliminary hearings here, the
chancellor continues, we have great coal
dealers complaining that they are not suffi-
GENTLY paid for the product of their mines,
combining 80 that already they control
more than one-half of the coal fields upon
which this state depends for fuel, and look
ing to the cooperation of the remaining
in the price Of their output 80 that they
may have more satisfactory returns from
their investments.
To say that these conditions do not tend
to a disastrous monopoly in coal would be
an insult to intelligence. 1t is possible that
such monopoly may be used as the defend
ants suggest, to introduce economies and
cheapen coal, but it does violence to our
knowledge of human nature to expect such
q result.
In conclusion the chancellor says: "The
commodity in which these companies deal
is necessary of life in this state. 1t is the
principal fuel Of its homes and factories
The slightest increase in its price is felt by
a population of hundreds of thousands of
persons, for their necessity compels them
to pay that increase. If once complete
monopoly be established by the destruction
Of competition, whether that be through
lease or cooperation, the promoters and
Bharers in 1t may have whatever price their
cupidity suggests The disaster which will
follow cannot be measured. 1t will per-
meate the entire community-furnaces
forges, factories and homes-leaving in its
trail murmurs of discomfort with govern
ment which will tolerate it, and all the
other evil effects of oppression"
The Scope of the Injunction.
When, therefore, it appears that such
corporation is unmindful of its plain duty
and acts prejudically to the public in order
to make undue gains and profits for its
stockholders, it uses its power in manner
not contemplated by the law which con-
ters them. The lease to the Port Reading
was made not only without legal sanction,
but in defiance of an expressly prohibitory
statute. ...
The chancellor defines the bounds of the
injunction which he grants saying, 81 will
continue the present injunction to final
hearing, adding to it, however, the further
direction that the defendants, their officers
and agents do desist from further perform
ing and carrying into effect the lease and
tripartite agreement; and that the Port
Reading and the Philadelphia and Reading
companies do desist and refrain from CON
tinuing to control the property and fran
chises of the Central, and from otherwise
lntermeddling Herewith; and that the Gem
tral do refrain from permitting the Port
Reading and the Philadelphia and Reading