Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1898-02-14
Permanently Enjoined by United
States Circuit Court Of Appeals.
DECISION At CINCINNATI TODAY
Was Restraint to Trade and At
tempted Monopoly.
DIFFERS FROM SUGAR TRUST

CINCINNATI. Ohio. February 1.-THE
United States circuit court of appeals for
the sixth circuit today decided the Cast
Iron Pipe Trust case. Mr.. Justice Harlan
and Circuit Judges; Taft and Lurton COM
posed the court. Judge Taft delivered the
opinion.
The suit was begun in the United States
Circuit Court at Chattanooga by bill in
equity filed by the Attorney General of the
United States against six cast iron pipe
companies, the Addyston Company of CIn-
cinnati, Dennis Long & Co. of Louisville,
Chattanooga Pipe Works of Chattanooga,
the South Pittsburg Pipe Works of South
PIttsburg. Tenn; the Admission Pipe Works
of Admission, Ala, and the Howard-Harri-
son Co. of Bessemer, Ala, to enjoin them
from continuing to do business under a
contract of association which the bill
Charges was a violation of the federal anti
trust act OF 1880 because it was in restraint
of interstate trade in cast iron pipe and an
attempted monopoly of the same The cir
cult court dismissed the bill and the United
States appealed.
Divided Up Territory.
BY the contract the defendants divided
the country in-o free" and pay territory
Free territory embraced New York Penn
syiVania and Virginia and all states north
and east of them. Pay territory embraced
the rest of the United States
In rree territory the associates were per-
nltted 10 sell pipe at any price they saw
ht- All orders received from pay territory
had to be submitted to a central board
Wnlcn hxed the price, and then assigned the
Joo 10 The one of the associates which
would agre to pay to the others the high
est bonus Certain large cities We're re-
served to particular members and on orders
received from them the price and bonus
were both fixed by the board. Though the
aggregate tonnage capacity of the asso-
Gates was only 30 per cent of the total
tonnage capacity of all the mills in the
country. II was over 6D per cent of the
tonnage capacity of competing mills in
pay territory. By the custom of the
trade all contracts were made to include
delivery by the seller at the home of the
buyer.
Decision of the Court.
The court of appeals held first that the
contract of association even if the prices
fixed under it Were reasonable, and its
cnly purpose was to prevent runous COM
petition as claimed by defendants. was
nevertheless void at common law because
in restraint Of trade and an attempted
monopoly.
Second, that the prices were not reason
able and the purpose was an attempted
monopoly.
Third, that the trade restrained by the
CtAtIdCl OI dSSOCidtlOn was the negotiation
and sale of pipe to be delivered across
state lines from the state of manufacture
to the state of sale and that this was un-
der all the decisions Of the Supreme Court
Interstate commerce.
Fourth, as conclusion from these prem
ises that the contract of association was a
restraint and burden on interstate COM
cree and a violation of the federal anti
trust act and should be enjoined.
Dfstin guished From Sugar Trust.
The court distinguished this case from
the sugar trust case on the ground that the
contract sought to be enjoined under the
federal antitrust act in that case was a
contract Of association for the manufacture
OF sugar, and did not involve, as the con-
tract in this case did, the restraint of sales
OF merchandise to be delivered across state
lines.
The judgment of the circuit court of ap-
peals reversed the decree of the circuit
court and instructed that court to enter
a decree enjoining the six defendants from
continuing to do business under contract of
association or from in any way maintain
ing the same.