New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-02-15
cAsTIRoy PIPE COMPANIES EyJoNED.
TIE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPENs REvERsEs THE
DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT AND DE
zu,,-s -. MN. roVtpNNvN1~S Favor

TIE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPENs REVERsES THE
DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT AND DE
crpEs IN THE GOVERNMENTS Favor
Cincinnati Feb 1.-THE United States Circuit
cour, OF Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to-day de-
cded the Cast Iron Pipe Trust case. Justice Harlan
and Circuit Judges Taft and Lurton composed the
court Judge TAFT delivered the opinion The SUIT
was begun In the United States Circuit Court ut
Chattanooga By a bill In equity filed by the Attor-
nevGeneral of the United States against six cast
iron Pine comprehensive Addys'on Company OF
Cincinnati. Dennis Long & Co.. OF Louisville;
Chattanooga Pipe Works, OF Chattanooga. the
South Pittsburg Pipe Works. Of South Pittsburs.
Tenn. the Admission Pipe Works. of Admission. Aia''
and the How yard Harrison Company. OF Bessemer'
Ala-to enjon them from continuing to do ous'-
ness under a contract OF association which tho
hill charged was violation Of the Federal Anti
Trust Act OF 1850 because II wac In restraint OF
Interstate trade in cast-iron pipe and an attempted
monopoly OF the same.
The circuit Court dismissed the bill. and the
United states appealed BY the contract the de-
fendants divided the country into free and pay
territory Free territory embraced New-forh'
pennsylyania and Virginia and all States north
and east Of them Pay territory embraced the rest
of the United States
In free territory the associates were permitted W
sell pipe at any price they saw nj All orders re-
cevcd from pay territory had TO be sunmtte Yen 10
l. IA
signed the Job the one OF the as5oc!ates ,s
would agree TO pay TO the others the hisheht uoH
Certain large cities were reserved 10 pt ~ -,
Members and on orders received from tH'i, "a
price and bonus were both fixed by the boalu
Though the aggregate tonnage capacity ol wv a.
soriafes was only 80 per cent or the tOai tohhase
capacity OF all the mills In the country IL Was oN',
eb Der cent OF the tonnage capacity OF cohP,,'.ss
mills in pay territory. By the custom OF the ltiuo
All contracts were made TO Include dehNe'y ~ '"o
seller AZ the home OF the buyer. -, .-...
The Court OF Appeals held. FIRST that the conuhc!
Of association. even n the prices liked under l.
were reasonable and its only purpose was 70 ~. "
went rulnous competition as claimed ny deiehddh,s
was nevertheless. void al common Jaw bccaISr III
restraint OF trade and an attempted moHopots I,
second that the prices were not reasonable anu the
purpose was an attempted monopoly, thiid, that
The trade restrained by the contract OF asso
was the negotiation and sale of Pipe 70 be delivered
across State lines from the state OF manufacture
the decisions OF the supreme Court lnterstato
commerce. and fourth. conclusion from thesc
premises that the contract OF association was q
restraint AMI burden on interstate commerce ana
n violation of the Federal Antitrust Act, ana
should be en1oned The Court distinguished thls
case from the Sugar Trust case on the ground ina
Tho contract sought 10 be enjoined under the Fed
eral Antitrust Act in that case was contract
OF association for the manufacture OF sugar, anu
did not involve, the contract IN TINS case dld
the restraint Of sales OF merchandise to be delV-
cred across State lines.
The judgment OF the Circuit Court or Appears re-
ycrsed the decree OF the Circuit Court, and IN
structed that Court to enter decree en1oinnS thr
six defendants from continuing 10 do business un-
der contract Of association or from In any wise
maintaining the same.