The times., 1898-03-03
THEIR RIGHTS DEFINED
Important Decision Governing
Associated Press Contracts.
CHARTER MAY BE ANNULLED
Judse Waterman Holes That Con-
tracts ForSidding Newspapers
Having Ae~ucinted Press Ser
vice FroIh Dealing with Hostile
Computations Are in Restraint
ofs Trahe-

Chicago. March Judge Waterman. Of
the circuit court. sitting in chancery. de-
MED the application for an injunction to-
day in the case Of the Inter-ocean Pub
fishing Company versus the Associated
Press. ia this suit the complainant
sought toIcsgrain the defendant from eX-
pelling or suspendiHg ii from member
ship for violating section u of the defend
ants by-iaN No. O. which loTl,ids any
newspaper which Is furnished with the
Associated Press service To deal with any
persons. newspaper or corporation that
may he pronounced hostile 10 that cOrpO-
ration. This bylaw and the contract
holding the Iater-ocean TO it the court
declared illegal On this point Judge Wa
terman SAID:
such a contract Is clearly in restraint
of trade. and as II by its terms contem-
plates the collection and transportation
Of news within n radius of sixty miles of
Chicago il embraces Interstate commerce
No reason for the existence of such pro-
vision in restraint Of trade appears, eX-
cept that thereby competition with the
defendants iS prevented and the complain
ant is prevented from buying news by
means and from sources OF which il could
otherwise aWfuIly avail Itself
In regard 10 the question relating to the
rights Of the Associated Press under the
eminent domain clause Of its charter, the
court finds that there Is no statute at
tempting 10 declare the business Of the
Associated Press q public one or To fix
maximum or reasonable charge for its
services.
Judge Waterman SAYS on this subject:
Neither the magnitude of nor the area
over which a business extends is sufficient
10 make IL al a public 1a turs so as to en-
dow the community with rights in respect
10 IT similar those the public possesses
and exercises IN respect 80 The operations
of common carriers ami the business Of
inn-keeping.
Because Of the alleged illegalty OF the
contract, the court held that the parties
stand as if Il had never been made, and
that an injunction was not the proper
remedy.
Both sides claim a victory. the Inter
Ocean people claiming IL because their
main contention that The policy Of the
Associated Press Is in restraint of trade
was sustained. and the defense because
an injunction was refused. One OF the
parties to the case refused to allow the
use Of his name. but sid
The decision Is q perfect straddle of the
question Involved. In The first place the
court holds that the contract is Illegal
and void because il i in restraint of
trade. IN the next because il is declared
by the court 10 be the private business oi
the Associated Press That is perfectly
psrad.Xical. II ii is private business il
cannot be in restraint of trade. The de,
cision is satisfactory 10 neither party Il
the suit
II Is said that the Inter-Ocean Com
pany VIII neXt apply 10 Attorney Gen
eral Akin 10 commence quo warranto pro
ceedings 10 annui the charter Of the Ass D.
ciated Press whose business has been Of
ficsaIIy declared in restraint Of trade.