The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-04-28
Case of the Addyston Pipe and steel
fore the Federal Supreme Court.
ARGUMENT BY MR.. RICHARDS
WHO C~ONTENDED THE TRUST WAS
IN RESTRAINT ON TRADE.
Mr.. wa~rrington's Address I'm Behalf
Trust Law Declared Valid.

WASHINGTON, April 27.-Solicitor Cen
eral Richards to-day made an argument
before the United States Supreme Court
in the case of the AddystOn Pipe and Steel
Company and other pipe companies, consti-
tuting a combination which. the government
charges. is in violation of the antitrust
law. Mr.. Richards contended that the anti
trust law was passed for the purpose OF
protecting the public against persons and
corporations who might seek to establish
monopolies or suppress competition. I'm
questionably Congress has 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
opportunity to test the power of corpora
tons to combine for the express purpose
of regulating trade and controlling prices.
He commended that the combination operates
in "the unreasonable, unconscionable and
the iniquitous restraint of trade, defraud-
ing the public where the Law provides for
open competition" He also attempted to
show that 1t worked a restraint of trade
among the several States. in violation of the
right of Congress to regulate interstate
He quoted from the answer Of the pipe
company to show that the combintion had
been formed to prevent 'ruinous COMPETE
tion," which, he argued, was in violation
Of the express terms of the law. He THEN
showed that the territory of the United
States was divided into pay territory" and
free territory there being thirty-siX
States of pay territory, in which a bonus
was charged upon all sales. the remainder
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. AL
these circumstances indicated. he argued
that there was an unmistakable trust and
that IL was clearly in violation OF the fed
eral statutes.
Mr.. ]. w. Warrington closed the argu-
ment for the pipe companies. claiming that
the agreement between them was nothing
more than an ordinary partnership, and
that II was protected under the law pro-
tecting all legitimate contracts. His clients
had. he contended. as much right to make
contracts among themselves as other citi-
Zens had, so long as they did not interfere
with the rights of others. which the contract
cid not. The organization was not Suft1-
Client to suppress competition for the reason
that it controlled only about one-third Of
the pipe made in the country. In bidding
on jobs for supplying pipe to cities or 9TH
ers, there was still abundant opportunity
for competition for the reason hat any
other manufacturer not in the combination
was at liberty 10 put in bids in competition
with theirs.
Replying to the contention of the govern
ment that the combination was in violation
of the interstate 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
municipalities or common carriers between
the States. Hence a union of interests like
that of his clients did not fall within the
inhibition OF the Constitution, and the laws
under II could not be invoked legitimately
to disturb the relations.