Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-04-28
ARRAIGNED AS A TRUST
Case of the Addyston Pipe and Steel Com
pany.
Argument in the Supreme Court of
Solicitor General Reply of
j. w. Warrington.

An argument was made in the United
Safes Supreme Court yesterday afternoon
by Solicitor General Richards In the case
OF the Addyston Pipe and Steel Company
and other pipe companies, constituting a
combination, which the government charges
Is violation of the antitrust law. Mr..
Richards contended that the antitrust law
was passed for the purpose of protecting
the public against persons and corporations
who might seek to establish monOpOlies
suppress competition. Cnquestionabiy Con-
gress had gone to the full extent, investing
full power in the courts but Mr.. Richards
said that the present was the first case in
which there had been an opportunity to test
the power of corporations to combine for
the express purpose of regulating trade and
controlling prices.
In presenting the case he said that the
combination included the Addyston Pipe
Company Of Cincinnati Ohio; Dennis Long
& Co. of louisville, Ky; the Howard-Har-
riSon Iron Company of Bessemer, Ala; the
Admission Pipe and Foundry Company of
Admission, Ala; the South Pittsburg pipe
works. South Pittsburg, Tenn; the Chat
tanooga foundry and pipe works of Chat
tanooga, Tenn.
In Restraint of Trade.
He contended that the combination oper-
able uncomfortable and the Ubiquitous re-
straint of the trade" he said, "defrauding
the public where the law provides for
open competition" He also attempted to
show that 1t worked a restraink of trade
among the several states in violation of
the right of Congress to regulate interstate
commerce.
He quoted from the answer of the pipe
company to show that the combination had
formed ''rnlnOnS
ton" which, he argued, was a violation of
the express terms of the law. He then
showed that the territory of the United
States was divided into pay" territory and
to free territory, there being thirty-siX
states in the pay territory, in which a bo-
nus was charged upon all sales, the re-
mainder being free to competition. There
was also an understanding that certain
cities should be reserved to each of the
companies, in which there should be no
competition. All these circumstances indi-
Gated he argued, that there was un1nis-
taxable trust. and that it was clearly in
violation OF the federal statutes.
Merely a Partnership.
Mr. J. W. Warrington closed the argu-
ment for the pipe companies. He claimed
that the agreement between them was
nothing more than an ordinary partnership,
and that it was protected under the law
protecting all legitimate contracts. His
clients had, he contended, as much right to
make contracts among themselves as other
citizens had, so long they did not inter-
fere with the rights of others, which this
contract did not. The organization was not
sufficient to suppress competition, for the
reason that 1t controlled only about one
third of the pipe made in the country. In
bidding on jobs for supplying pipe to cities
or others there still abundant opportu
nifty for competition, for the reason that
any other manufacturer not in the oombi-
nation was at liberty to put in bids in COM
petition with theirs.
Replying to the contention of the govern
ment that the combination was in violation
of the interstate commerce clause of the
Constitution Mr.. Warrington argued that
that clause was intended only to apply to
restraints on commerce between the states
by the various states themselves or by mu-
inequalities or common carriers between the
states. Hence, union of interests like that
of his clients did not fall within the inhibi-
tions of the Constitution, and the laws un-
der it could not be involved legitimately to
disturb the relationship.