The San Francisco call., 1899-12-23
WOULD FORM A
TRUST IN TILES
AND MAN Tells
The Cause of an Inn
pOrtant Decision.
JUDGE MORROW INTERFERES
A MANUFACTURERS CoMBINA-
TION BROKEN.
JUDGE MORROW INTERFERES

Considerable attention was devoted by
lawyers to the recent decision of the Su-
preme Court of the United States against
the Addyston Pipe Company. 1t was a
decision that dealt with the antitrust
law and on that account commanded no.
uce, but II is not the only decision of its
kind. On November 13 last Judge Nor
row OF the United States Circuit Court
rendered similar decision applying TO a
local trust which, under the ruling OF the
court, bids fair TO be a thing of the past
The particular trust referred to in
Judge Morrow's decision is an organlza-
ton OF the tilemakers in several cities of
plaintin TO buy tiles without coming into
the combination and then, by the pecu-
Iarities OF its bylaws, making It impos-
sible for him TO come in.
The action was brought by the firm of
Lowry * DAILY against the Tile, Mante eli
and Crate Association and all its mem
bers: II was alleged by the plaintiff that
the defendants had banded themselves to-
gether for the purpose of Checking legit-
innate competition for the raising OF
prices and for the monopolizing OF the
trade in their particular commodities.
They would not sell TO the plaintiffs nor
would they buy from them and IL was i'm
possible for them to buy tiles anywhere
but at factories controlled by the conn
bination on account Of the freight rates
And all orders which the plaintiffs lad
placed with the defendants just prior TO
the Organization of the trust were cam
celed as 1oon as the organization had oeen
completed. The combination was formed
in January of 1898. Up to that time the
plaintiffs mad been pursuing a lucratiye
but not a large business, but as soon as
the combination was effected their busi-
ness went from them. They could not get
into the combination-first, because the
bylaws required unanimous vote and
the plaintiffs had enemies and business
rivals in the combination which always
FNs aF1fr q 4
again, because the combination took no
notice of the firms that did not carr a.
stock worth at least $1,000 and the plain
tif did not carry that amount
The object of the action was 10 secure
damages amounting to $50 900, three times
the amount of the actual damage the
plaintiffs claimed had been done them.
This is IN accordance with the antitrust
law. The defendants demurred TO The
complaint. among other things on the
ground that 1t did not state facts suifi-
cient for cause of action, thereby bring
ing the merits of the case at issue under
the demurrer, and this demurrer Judge
Morrow overruled.
In his decision Judge Morrow holds that
such an agreement as that which bound
the tilemakers was clearly illegal under
the antitrust law. both from It's nature
and from the fact that 1t impeded traf-
fic between States. He based his decision
on the decision OF the United States Court
Of Appeals for the Sixth District in the
case of the Addyston Pipe Company the
same case afterward affirmed by the
United States Supreme Court in the last
decision published. Judge Morrow also
referred 10 his own decision in the case
against the coal dealers. in which he held
that an agreement somewhat similar was
Illegal. In rendering his opinion in ihat
case. which at the time was freely COM
mented upon by the newspapers. he ont
lined what agreements were within the
antitrust statutes. Much of his reason
ing in that case appears In the Addyston
case before the higher courts.
II was contended by the defendant tile
makers thar some such agreement as thev
had entered into was necessary to secrre
to them their business. as competitton
between them was destroying their trade
altogether; but Judge Morrow held that
their combination hndered much more
than IL helped trade.
The defendants named as forming The
Tile, MaateI and Crate Association az
the Columbia Encaustic Tile Company ~
Indiana, the United States Encaustic TiIe
Works IF Indiana the Cambridge ,rile
Manufacturing Company of Kentucky
vania the Trenton Tile Works of New
Jersey, w. w. Montague & Co. OF Cal.
fornia, ;he Bush & Mallet Company Of
California the Star Encaustic Tile Cow.
of California. the American Tile Companv
OF Ohio, the Provldential Tile Works ~
New Jersey. John Stocks Sons of Cali
fornia and Burnette & Schultz and Haa
The plaintiffs. Lowry & DAILY, are To-
Gated in this city.
The course of the case will now hs
short in .he lower United States court
short hearing as to whether or NOT
damage was really done the plaintiffs
will be sufficient to sustain a Judgment.
1t is certain to be carried higher, how
ever II Il be possible, after Judge Nor
row has finished with II.