St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-10-11
Indictments Against the Mis-
sissippi Valley Lumber
men Dismissed.
The Allegations Too Indefinite
and Uncertain, Says the
Judge.
Construction Of the Act I'm
der Which the Prosecution
Was Conducted.
The Agreement Did Not In
volve the Entire Traffic
in Lumber.

The Indictment found last spring in
the United States district court against
prominent lumbermen of the Missis-
sippi valley, charging them with con-
spiracy to force the price of lumber up
ward, in contravention of an act of con-
gresS. has been declared invalid by
judge r. r. Nelson, and the demurrer
thereto sustained. H. q. Day, of the
Albert Lea Standard, agitated the
matter and pushed the prosecution
against the Mississippi Valley Lum-
bermen'S association, and used his
most strenuous efforts to secure
the indictment of number
citation. An Indictment was found last
January against Frederick Clarke,
William H. H. Day. Benjamin F. Mel
son. Sumner L. Mcknight, all of Mime
apolis; John Paul, of La Crosse; Will
lam Irvine, of Chippewa Falls; Eugene
Shaw, of Eau Claire; Alexander Stew
art, of NASSAU, Wis.,; Philip Reilly, of
st. Paul; +. WeyerhauSer, of Rock
Island; w. Ii. Laird, of WinOna: r. l..
Mccormick, of Hayward. Wis; w. }.
Young, of Clinton. To-; G. II. Atwood,
of Saltwater, and G. s. Shaw, of Clo-
quet.
The offense charged is that the asso-
citation cOnSplred to raise the price of
lumber so cents per thousand. A de-
murrer to the indictment was filed and
argued before Judge Nelson in June.
The decision of the court is that the
allegations of the Indictment are too in
definite and uncertain. and it should not
stand. The opinion of Judge Nelson
eXhausts the subject. as will be seen by
perusal thereof as given below.
What Is COmbinatiOna
The Indictment intends to charge officers
under the act of congress entitled IAN act
to protect trade and commerce against un-
lawful Restaurants and monopolies." The
statue declares contracts, combinations i'll
the form OF trusts or otherwise and monopo-
lies to restrain trade or commerce among the
several states and foreign nations Illegal, and
makes them offenses and affiXes the punish
ment. The Indictment purpOrts to charge
the defendants with violating the law by ell
ter1ng into contract and unlawfully engag-
ing in combination in the form of trust
and confederating together in q conspiracy
In restraint of trade among the several states.
mere are twelve counts in the Indictment.
In order to administer the law the court must
determine what is an unreasonable and un-
lawful restraint OF trade or commerce by con-
tracts. trusts and conspiracies and whether
cases at common law it must be made 10 ap-
pear that the acts complained of
Threatened the Interests
of the public, and this is true whether the
remedy sought to be applied is by civil or
criminal proceedings. 1t is urged by the
district attorney that. the oHense being statu
tory, the general rule in such cases. to wit
that is is sufficient to ailege the offense in
the language of the statute, will sustain the
1rst six counts. l cannot agree to that.
This is not case where every fact necessary
to constitute the offenSe is charged, or
necessarily implied. by following the words
OF the statute. and the words themselves
fully and directly, without any uncertainty
or ambiguity. set forth all of the elements
necessary to constitute the offense, and it is
not sufficient to follow only the language of
the statute. Where an act becomes illegal
and all otfense only from the means used TO
effect 1t, as in this statute, the Indictment
must state, where 1t is practicable, SO much
as Will snow Its Illegally and charge the &C.
cused with substantial offense. The
charge must contain statement of facts
constituting the ofense and a certain de-
scription of ii, which this Indictment does
not In either of the first six counts, and they
Cannot BE Sustained.
Do the facts set forth in the last six counts
describe an offense which the statute fOrbids?
The first of these counts charges in SUBJ
stance, that the defendants were each deal
ers In lumber in the United States, and each
transacted business at numerous towns and
cities in different stafeS and on Sept. z at
Minneapolis they mutually agreed together
that they would raise the price of lumber so
cents per 900 feet in advance of. the market
price of pine lumber in the states of Wiscon-
sin Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois and Missouri
and In pursuance of such agreement they did
then and there raise the price of pine lumber
so cents per 200 feet in each of said states
in which they transacted business. How the
advance in price by these parties IN the sew
roo 10 Q INV
the price of all dealers is not setforth. 1t
appears that the idea of the plesder was that
mutual agreement between several dealers
that they would raise the price of the lumber
owned or manufactured by themselves SO
cents per 1000 feet above the market price
necessarily advanced the price of all the pine
lumber for sale in those states to that extent
and none could be purchased for less price.
While 1t may be true that some OF the deal
ers might attempt to induce purchasers to be
Governed by the Price
fixed in their locality by the parties to the
agreement and try to keep up prices. yet
com petition in the commodity would soon
bring the price down unless there were
fraudulent or coerclve means resorted to for
the purpose Of restraining other dealers and
preventing them from exercising their own
judgment as to prices. An agreement be-
tween number OF dealers and manufactur-
ers to raise prices, unless they practically
controlled the entire commodity canno.
operate as restraint upon trade, nor does it
tend 10 injuriously affect the public. Unless
the agreement involves the absorption of the
entire traffic in lumber and is entered into
for the purpose of obtaining the entire con-
troll of 1t for eXtortionate objects. it is not
Objectionable to the statute, i'll my opinion.
Competition is not stfied by such an agree
ment and other dealers would soon force
the parties to the agreement to sell at the
market price or a reasonable price at least
What has been said in regard to this count
| applies to the remaining five in which wrong
| full combinations and conspiracies in re-
| straint of trade are alleged. and a monopoly
| of the whole or part of the trade and com
| merce in lumber in the several states men
| toned. The allegations are too indefinite
| and uncertain and the demurrer to ali the
counts is sustained