New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-06-16
cprsADE AGAINST TRUSTS,
xc,rrNG LEGAL BATTLES LOOKED FOR
IN INDIANA.
..,,ox RENDERED BY THE STATE SUPREME
co,,RT LIKELY TO BE THE BASIS

OPINION RENDERED BY THE STATE SUPREME
oorRr LIKELY TO BE THE BASIS
FOR PROSECUTIONS.
.ous June Il (speciaD-The Indiana SUI
inS." court has opened the way for the prosecu-
re" trusts In large measure. and II is ex
%" ,hat before the year ends the Attorney
80 ~ the state will have Instituted proceed
~.inst some OF the combinations that operate
ps,.asna. The Standard OIL Company may be one
~ one of the chief contentious for the al
,roresnah ility OF trusts has been that tech
sses trl,s in the antitrust laws passed in many
i"-. nay always be found by which pernicious
s.,,a,ions may escape. 1t has long been thought
a1 -. Antitrust law of Indiana is worthless.
~.,o- Mount and Attorney General Taylor
A,s opinion. But the Supreme Court OF this
:. smashed a combination on an old common
~ ooln, Of public policy" and this opinion OF
:" .r-, will be the basis OF further prosecution
,rns,s in this state. Surrounding States may
=. advantage Of the Indiana courts opinion.
-. interest is being manifested IN II In the larger
I..s OF the Central states
-. suprene Courts opinion Is based on the point
=. = co-poration that combines with another
-no-,,on 10 eliminate competition and Ak prices
~. an injury 10 the public and is liable TO for
| ~" ~ franchise The case in which the decision
y" i've, was an action brought by the citizens of
-siarl
| r.rnany This company was organized several
-. sxo 10 supply natural gas and OIL Not long
a. -s ppes were In the streets another corpora
| - known as the Citizens Natural Gas and Oh
-,.,v was organized When both companies
- baen IN operation short time 1t was learned
-, thew had combined and fixed exorbitant rates
S.cb had agreed not TO supply citizen who was
,sron O. the other company. The citizens brought
p, I'M, the Circuit Court sustained the defend
no ntof plai
=, chow that the companies had entered into an
nal combination 20 raise prices Both cases were
| aa.siea The one against the Citizens company
| -ss affirmed hy the old Supreme Court. but the
$50 sunrene court reverses the case against the
por,land Natural Gas and OIL Company
THE COURTS OPINION.
n It's decision the court says:
:, =. an old and familiar maxim that "Competi-
" " the life os trade" and whatever act de-
9 GT reaohs to the u PS tnf P2e
- ,iss oy the law injurious 10 pubic interests
90 4 therefore. deemed 10 be unlawful on the
s Tss, ne people OF Portland who desired 10 be-
..-ns consumers OF gas were by the agreement In
ssicp deprived Of the benefits that might result
y them from competition between the two compa-
~. certainly cannot be successfully denied. The
EXCLUSION Of competition under the agreement re-
scnnded solely the benefit OF appellee and the
shsr company. and the enforcement OF the com
cs- between them could be nothing less IMAM 9et-
r-sntal 10 the public BY uniting In this agree
cent appellee abled. or at least PROGRESSED 10
ave disabled Itself from the performance OF lts
i-ped duty 10 furnish gas impartially 10 all and
hereby made public accommodations suoserVlent
n rs own private interests. The agreement In con-
syersv evidently could serve. far as the puDhc
vas concerned no other purpose than restriction
non competition and created at least basis tor
sgcnonov The law as we have seen is inimical
b nonopoes and recognizes the right OF me pup
4 to have the benefit of a fair and healthy com
that by entering into this agreement and carry
NJ n into execution appellee violated the law
"a clearly abused the rights and powers conferred
1on Il by the State and may be said 70 nave o.
,ded against the law OF its creation there can De
d question Such an Illegal act or agreement upon
he part OF a corporation like appellee cannot DC
ss Sutv Of the State 10 interfere. II has done
No SI sl deserved penalty ought to Be inflicted
aled in the discharge OF its corporate duties 10y
Ss WIN o ~ Which is detrimental or Injurious
q the public, II thereby may be sald 10 ontniu
against the law OF it's creaton. alu rs
rs decision created a sensation in Indiana. and
4 dscussion has arisen as TO how far the matter
NAV b. carried The question is asked whether
nitrate corporations cannot be reached with the
dsdaon II is said that the glass. ron ana siee
trusts that operate in Indianas gas oeIt 10 suon d
rsst extent constantly seek TO destroy coinP T
1a and fix prices by buying plant here an djs
5sssure Of the Standard OIL Companys methods
More the Industrial Commission i was SHOWN ina
he great trust bent all its energies ana ingenuity
crushing competition. go -, . ,,,h,,o
Aftorney-General Taylor VIII not make d puo'iiS
osciaration OF what ne intends TO 90 on the pasis
me late decision but Il is understood that ne y
s-snsring 10 move on combinations against when
socc be made He is only W pIar Rail- AZ
yass case and he expects that the same OPINION
viii be rendered in it. The Wabash Hailroad az;
sorhsd he Eel River Railroad. short me: anu
800, was brought against it, charging that II was
pe-nicious and unlawful combination there oeihg
10 competitor in that part OF the country; 4 ..o
Supreme Court decides this case as u did the or.
isnd case Inc Acknowledgement will then De sure
Of his ground Governor Mount declares tnat ne y
Thoroughly In sympathy with q crusade SsHI,st
trusts which can b@ proved TO be unla~luI Ine
legsi battles that will ensue when the state moEes