The Saint Paul globe., 1899-04-28
TEST OF THE TRUSTS
NOW BEING MADE IN THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT AT
WASHINGTON
PARTNERSHIP Is THE DEFENSE
Steel Company Maintafns That
the People He Represents Have
Entered Into an Ordinary Copart-
nership and Cannot Control
Prices.

WASHINGTON, April 27.-SoIicitor
General Richards today made an argu-
ment in the United States supreme court
in the case of the Addiston Pipe and
Steel company and other pipe companies,
constituting combination. which the
government charges sin violation Of the
antitrust law. Mr.. Richards contended
that the antitrust law was passed for
the purpose Of protecting the public
against persons or corporations who
might seek to establish monopolies or
suppress competition. Unquestionably
congress had gone to the full extent, in
vesting full power in the courts, but Mr..
Richards said that the present was the
first case in which there had been an OPP
portunity to test the power Of corpora
tions to combine for the express purpose
of regulating trade and controlling prices.
He contends that "the combination
operates in the unreasonable, uncon-
scionable and the iniquitious restraint of
trade. defrauding the public where the
law provides for open competition" He
also attempted to show that it worked
restraint Of trade among the several
states in violation of the right of con-
gress to regulate interstate commerce.
He quoted from the answer of the pipe
company to show that the combination
had been formed to prevent ''ruinous
competition which, he argued, was
violation Of the express terms of the
law He then showed that the territory
of the United States was now divided
into "pay territory and free territory"
there being thirty-six states in the pay
territory in which a bonus was charged
on all sales. the remainder being free to
competition There was also an under
standing that certain cities should be re-
served to each company, In which there
should be no competition. All these cir
cumstances indicated, he argued, that
there was an unmistakable trust. and
that it was clearly in violation of the
federal statutes.
Mr.. J. w. Warrington closed the argu-
ment for the pipe companies. He claimed
that the agreement between them was
nothing more than ordinary partnership,
and that 1t was protected under the law
protecting all legitimate contracts. His
clients had, he contended, as much
right to make contracts among them
selves as other citizens had. so long as
they did not interfere with the rights Of
others, which contract did not. The or
ganiZa ton was not sufficient to suppress
| competition, for the reason that 1t con-
trolled only about one-third Of the pipe
made in the country. In bidding on jobs
supplying pipe to cities or others there
was still abundant opportunity for com
petition, for ths Eessen that any other
at liberty to put in bids in competition
with theirs. ~--e.-@1 80. -
Replying to the contentious of the gov
zernment that the combination was in
violation of the interstate commerce
| clause of the constitution, Mr.. Warning
| ton argued that clause was intended
only to apply to restraints on commerce
between the states by the various states
themselvss or by municipalities or COM
I mon Carriers between the states. Hence
a union of interests like that Of his
clients did not fall within the lines of the
| constitution, and the laws under 1t
|, could not be invoked legitlimately to dis
furb the relationship.