Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1898-02-14
AGAINST THE IRON TRUST.
important Decision by the U. 5. Circuit
Court of Appeals.

Cincinnati, Feb. 14.-The United
States circuit court of appeals for the
siNht circuit district. today decided the
caStiron pipe trust case. Mr.. Justice
Harlan and Circuit Judges Taft and
Lurton composed the court. Judge Taft
delivered the opinion.
The suit was begun in the United
Statse circuit court at Chattanooga by
a bill in equity filed by the attorney
general of the United States against
six castiron pipe companies, the Ad-
dystone company of Cincinnati: Den
mis-, Long a. Company of Louisville;
Chattanooga Pipe Works of Chat
tanooga; the South P!ttsburg Pipe
Works of South Pittsburg. Tenn; the
Annistone Pipe Works of Annistone
Ala, and the Howard Harrison com
pany of Bessemer, Ala, to entoin them
from continuing to do business under Il
contract OF association which, the bill
charges. was violation of the Federal
antitrust act of 1890. because it was
in restraint of interstate trade in cast
iron pipe and an attempted monopoly
Of the same. The circuit court dis
missed the bill and the United States
appealed.
divided the country into free" and
pay" territory. Free territory en-
braced New York. Pennsylvania and
Virginia, and all states north and east
Of them. Pay territory embraced the
rest of the United States. In free ter
ritory the association rates were per-
mitted to sell pipe at any price they
saw fit. All orders received from pay
territory hac to be submitted to a cen
trail board which fixed the price and
then assigned the job to the one of the
associations which would agree to pay
to the others the highest bonus. Ger
tain large cities were reserved to par
To- 10. H..
ceived from them the price and bonus
were both fixed by the board. Though
the agreement of tonnage capacity of
the associates was only thirty per cent
of the total tonnage capacity OF all
mill in the country, II WIS over sixty
per centof the tonnage capacity Of the
combining mills of the territory BY the
made to include delivery by the seller
at the home of the buyer.
The court of appeals he, ,irst, that
the contract of the association ever.
If the prices fixed under 1t were reason
able, and Its only purpose were to pre-
vent ruinous competition rs claimed
by defendants, was nevertheless void at
common law because In restraint OF
trade and an attempted monopoly: sec-
ond. that the prices We're not reason
able and the purpose was an attempted
monopoly; third, that the trade re-
SlrulNeu DN inc ContruCI OF association
was the negotiation and sale OF pine to
be delivered across the state lines from
the state of manufacture to the state
of sale and that this was, under all
the decisions OF the Supreme court. In
terstate commerce; and fourth, as n
conclusion from these premises, that
the contract of association was q re-
straint and burden on interstate COM
merce and n violation of the federal
antitrust law should he enjoined.
The court distinguishes this case
from the sugar trust case on the ground
that the contract sought to be enJoined
under the Federal trust act in that case
was a contract of association for the
manufacture of sugar and die not in
volve as the contract I'm this case did
the restraint OF sales of merchandise to
he delivered across state lines.
The Judgment OF the circuit court OF
appeals reversed the decree of the cir
cult court and instructed that court
to enter decree enjoining the six de-
PENDANTS from attempting to do busi-
ness under contract of association or
from in any way maintaining the same.