The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1898-02-15
CAST IRON PIPE TRUST.
Court of Appeals Declares the As
sOciation Illegal


sociation Illegal.
Cincinnati, o., Feb. 14.-The United
States Circuit Court of Appeals for the
Sixth circuit to-day decided the cast iron
pipe trust case.
Mr.. Justice Harlan and Circuit Judges
Taft and Turton composed the court.
Judge Taft delivered the opinion.
The suit was begun in the United States
circuit court at Chattanooga by a bill in
equity filed by the Attorney General of the
United States against six cast iron pipe
companies the ADHESION Company of Gin
cinnau Dennis Long q Co., Of Louisville,
Chattanooga Pipe Works of Chattanooga,
The South Plttsburg Pipe Works of South
Pittsburg, Tenn, The Admission Pipe
Works of Admission, Ala, and The Howard
Harrison Company of Bessemer, Ala, to
enjoin them from continuing to do business
under a contract of association, which the
bill charged was violation of the Federal
antitrust act of 1890, because it was in re-
straint of interstate trade in cast iron pipe
and an attempted monopoly of the same.
The Circuit Court dismissed the bin and
the United States appealed. by the con-
tract the defendants divided the country
into free and pay territory. Free
territory embraced New York, Pennsyl-
vania and Virginia, and all states north
and east of them. Pay territory embraced
the rest of the United States. In free ter
ritory the associates were permitted to sell
pipe at any price they saw fit. All orders
received from pay territory had to be sub
mitted to a central board, which fixed the
price and then assigned the job to one of
the associates, which would agree 10 pay
to the others the highest bonus. Certain
large cities were reserved to particular
members, and on orGers received from
them the price and bonus were both fixed
by the board.
Though the aggregate tonnage capacity
of the associates was only 30 per cent. OF
the tonnage capacity of all the mills in
the country, il was over 60 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 al the home of the
buyer.
The Court of Appeals held, first, that
the contract of association even if the
price fixed under il were reasonable, and its
only purpose was to prevent ruinous COM
petition as claimed by the defendants, was
nevertheless violation of the common law,
because in restraint of trade and attempt
ed monopoly; second, prices were not rea-
sonable, and the purpose was an attempt
ed monopoly; third, that trade restrained
by the contract OF The association was the
negotiation and sale of pipe TO be delivered
across state lines from the state of manu-
facture to the state of sale. and that this
was under all the decisions of the Su-
preme Court interstate commerce: and
fourth, as a conclusion from these prem
ises that the contract of association was
a restraint and burden on interstate corn
merce and violation of the federal anti
trust act, and should be enjoined
The court distinguished this case from
the sugar trust case on the ground that
the contract sought to be enjoned under
the federal antitrust act in that case was
a contract of association for the manu-
factdre of sugar and did not involve as
the contract in this case did the restraint
of sales of merchandise to be delivered
across state lines
The judgment of the Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed the decree of the Circuit
Court and instructed that court to enter a
decree enjoinng the six defendants from
continuing TO do business under contract
Of association, or from in any way main
tanning the same.