The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1895-10-12

panies, and monopoly most prejudi-
cial.''
But the answers deny that either the
Philadelphia and Reading Company or
the Central Company own any coal
lands or. produce or deal in coal. That
mitted that the Philadelphia and Read
ing Company owns majority of the
capital stock of the Reading Coal and
Iron Company. and that the Central
ital stock of the Lehigh and Wilkes
barre Coal Company. and that these two
coal companies own or possess the coal
land referred to as belonging to their
owners. What is this but disguise and
evasion? Whatever may be nominal
ownership or the legal title, for the sub
hended and the Attorney Generals COM
paint. the railroad companies stand as
the owners of the coal lands in this
Court That the fiction which excuses
the deniais of the answers is mere form,
is emphasized by the larsTuage of the
president of the Philadelphia and Read
ing Company, when in one of his re.
ports to its stockholders, he speaks o.
competitors and adds. ''who with your
selves are engaged in producing com.
modify far in excess of the demand OF
ness allotted to this company in years
past, when its financial straits and lack
of facilities did not permit it to mine
and distribute its proportion of the in
fers to the Port Reading Railway as
supplying the means of putting the pro-
duct of ''your mines" upon the market,
and when he reports to the same stock
holders in this language will not
do to expect immediate returns for your
large holdings of unproductive coal land.
These. in good time, will reach value
equal to the entire capital debt of your
company. But what is needed now IS
the practical development of so much
of these lands as are needed to supply
the demand for anthracite coal" And
also by the report of the president of
the Central Railroad Company to its
stockholders, to which I have already
referred, in which he says:-.1t is fair
to expect as the further results of this
alliance. with the cooperation of other
large coal producing companies, greater
uniformity in the. price Of coal" &c;
So also the testimony of the president
of the Philadelphia and Reading Com
pany abounds in admissions of railroad
ownership of the coal lands.
The answers are literally true but
their denials in this respect. without ex-
planations and in the face of the facts
adverted to. SAVIOR of an evasion which
disentitles them to that force which is
sponsive answers upon such prelimin-
CAPTTALIsTIC WHINE.
Here, then, We have great coal dealers
complaining that they are not sufficiently
paid for the produce of their mines, COM
bining so that already they control more
which this State depend for fuel, and
looking to the cooperation of the re-
naming anthracite coal producers to eff
feet change in the price of their out
put so that they may have more salts
factory returns for their investment To
say that these conditions do not tend to
an insult to intelligence. 1t is possible
that such a monopoly may be used. as
the defendants suggest, to introduce
economies and cheaper coal, but it does
oil tn n1rr. rlnflcr of
ture to expect such result. Upon such
a possibility l quote again the language of
Vice Chancellor KindersieX in the case of
the Great Northern Railway. He says:
'It is said. well, but according to the
statement of the bill and affidavits, SO
far from that being preiudicial to the
is the result, coal is made cheaper; yes,
coal is made cheaper temporarily: but are
we to suppose that this company, or any
company-for. I confess I have no faith
pany-that this company or any other
Company especially this company,
vice to conceal its proceedings, viii
merely consider the interests of the pub
lie and supply the. public with cheap
coal; What is the object of a joint stock
company? To make as much money as
possible to divide among shareholders.
The result. if this proceeding goes on.
with this company and other companies.
ment of the public
POLICY OF THE LAW.
Treating this same suggestion, in State
Judge Marshall says: "It may be true
that this has improved the quality and
cheeapened the cost of petroleum and its
product to the consumer. But such is
not one of the usual or general results
IF monopoly: and it is the policy of the
law to regard not what may, but what
it is not wise to trust human cupidity
where it has the opportunity to aggran-
die itself at the expense of others. The
claim of having cheapened the price to
the consumer is the usual pretext on
which monopolies of this kind are de-
fended. ard IS well answered in Richards
V. Buhl, n Mich. 692 After commenting
known as the Diamond Match Com
pany.' to prevent fair competition and to
e control pr ces champion J,, said: TT
has in. fact reduced the price
of friction matches. That policy
may have been necessary to crush
competition. The fact exists that it
rests in the discretion of this company
at any time to raise the price to an ex-
orbitant degree
The commodity in which these com
panies deal is necessary of life IN this
State. 1t is the principal fuel of its
homes and factories. The slightest in
crease in its price is felt by a population
the r necessity comDels them to pay that
increase. If once complete monopoly
be established by the destruction of com
petition. whether that be throSg lease
or by cooperation, the promoters Of ii
and sharers in it may have Whatever
price their cupiditv suggests The dis
aster which VIII follow cannot be meas
ured it will permeate the entire com
munfty. furnaces. FORCES. factories and
homes, leaving in its trail murmurs of
discomfort with government which will
tolerate it. and all the other evil eff
fects of oppression.
PORTFNDSN DANGER
Enough has been $aid to exhibit that
the ultra wires act complained of por-
tends the greatest danger to the public
welfare and that the case is clearly one
in which the Attorney General may and
should ask the assistance of this Court
My conclusions upon the points stated
preclude the necessity of my passing
upon many other matters that were dis
cussed at the argument. Among them
IS the question whether the Central
Company has power tc Iease it's forty
and more auxiliary roads, many of
of the majority of stock. and also the
very important question as to the pow
er of the Central Company under its
charter and subsequent legislation, to
invest its capital in coal lands or in the
stock of a coal company; also questions
presented in a wider discussion of the
subjects of nonopolies, competition aid
restraint of trade than it has been nee
essary for me to venture upon. Perhaps
motion for injunction thereon would
now Justly an entrance upon the dis
cussion of these latter topics. but as I
conceive that the relief I have conclud-
ed to afford at this time, is al that the
nublic necessity will demand until all