New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-12-05
AN ANTITRUST DECISION.
THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
PASSES ON THE ADDYsToN CASE.


Washington. Dec, Ain the United States su-
prcme Court to-day the Addyston pipe case was
decided This involved the constitutfonalty OF
the combination Of pipe manufacturers. which II
was charged was trust. The decisioh' "hich
was handed down by Justice Peckham was al
verse 10 the combination, and was therefore IN
opposition to the trust The opinion OF the Court
of Appeals for the With Circuit was afhrmeo
In reviewing the case Justice Peckham said that
II had been brought under the Antitrust ac' VI
1890 and that injunction was asked 10 ehJoin
che sly corporatons engaged in the manufacture OF
water and gas pipe which composed the comDiha
ton from continuing 70 do business unuei ''D
agreement by which they had divided the TERRITORY
of the United States among themselves ana ~
which they had arranged 10 fix prices Unoer 'iiiS
agreement members Of the combination ProN'ue'
for auctionng off the right 10 make bids for sup
plynC with pipe cities not in allotted territory inc
successful bidder to meet no opposition from otheT
members Of the trust or II other bids were naue
none Of them should be higher than that Oh ',ie
company 70 which the award had been naue uy 'i''
combination. In cases in which bids Were a9Ne -,
territory allotted 10 members OF the compihauoh '"e
ocraer,en, was that no bids should be made except
under the supervision OF the company IN ch"ibo
OF that territory under the agreement Inc chaIee
was that such a combination was VIOLATION oi uie
clause Of the Constitution regulating interstate
commerce. The district court In whlch the CiSo
WAS first heard refused to take this view OF 1t, put
# was reversed by the Court Of Appeals Tor inc
With Circuit. which held the combination 10 DO
antagonistic to the Constitution ordering the issu-
ance Of the Injunction prayed for This latter oe"
cis,on was affirmed by the action to-day or the
sunreme Court with modification that the de-
c,sion should be construed applying TO interstate
business only.
There were two questions before the court IN con-
necton with the case. The first was whether the
constitutional clause for the regulation OF inter-
state commerce applied to individuals and corpora
lions and the second whether. II the clause be
found so 10 apply the combination is in violation
Of the Interstate Commerce law. The Court heIo
that the constitutional clause did apply TO indlvid-
uals and corporations and that the agreement does
by its provisions restrict and restrain commerce
between the States. Hence the agreement was de-
cided be void applying TO interstate business
and the Injunction was sustained
The six companies composing the combination af-
fected we're the Addyston Pipe and Steel Company.
Of Cincinnat; Dennis Long Co.. Of Louisville;
the Howard Harrison Iron Company. OF Bessemer
Ala; the Admission Pipe and Foundry Company, or
Admission, Ala; the South Pittsburg Pipe Works, OF
South Pittsburg, Tenn, and the Chattanooga Foun-
dry and Pipe Works. OF Chattanooga Tenn. Their
agreement provided that there should be no compe-
tton among the companies in thrty-six States
which were mentioned In the manufacture and sale
of cast iron pipe. The case brought and first
tried in the Circuit Court for the Eastern Dis
trict of Tennessee.
Passing on tho objection that the constitutional
provision could not be held applicable TO individuals,
Justice Peckham said:
We conclude that the plain language OF the grant
10 Congress OF power to regulate commerce among
the several States includes power to legisate upon
the subject OF these in respect TO inter-
state or foreign commerce which directly affect and
sonabie ground asserting that the constitutional
provision as TO the liberty Of the individual limits
iants We therefore think the appellants have
failed in their contention upon this branch Of the
subject.
Further on in the opinion Justice Peckham said:
The direct and immediate result Of the comb!na,
Commerce com in respect OF articles manufactured by
any Of the parties 10 II 10 be transported beyond
the State in which they were made. The defend
ants. by reason OF this combination and agreement.
could only send their goods out of the State upon
Combination Was not this a direct restraint upon
interstate commerce in those goods? II dealers in
any commodity agreed among themselves that any
particular territory bounded by State lines should
bs Gny of Te combnSo Sn3 e oher Woud
abstain from business in that territory. would not
interstate trade? If the price Of the eommodity
was thereby enhanced (as It necessarily would be-
clearly in restraint Of trade:
agreement among themselves the parties choose one
Of their number to make bid FOR the supply Of the
ali the other BIDS shall be for a larger sum thus
practically restricting all but the member agreed
e pipe 0 To enter INTO &c one for the bus
ness? II IS useless for the defendant TO say they
did not intend TO regulate affect interstate
merce. They intended to make the very ,combna-
and they must be held to have intended the neces-
sary and direct result OF their agreement
On the general aspect of the case Justice Peck
ham said:
We have no doubt that where the direct and i'm
particular dealers in commodity is to DESTROY com5
petition between them and others. that the par
creased prices for themselves such contract or com
comm eTen ho 90 Gf by 3e Such In }me
modify at the enhanced price are continually being
modify Is necessary in order to render the com
blnation one In restraint OF trade. Il Is the effect
right Of each OF the members 10 transact BUSINESS s
IN he ordinary way as well as its effect upon the
that is regarded u ''o oeA''S J." the commonly
The opinion then odds;
1t is almost needless to add that We do not hold
chiefly or in part by means of interstate ship
ments is therefore. TO be regarded reiegated to
regulating power Of Congress sacS g ENTERPRISES es
Of refined sugar That is the as p sf ay b9
gagged as manufacturers OF commodity which
possibly sell in another sa bun such S s sale a W
have already held 10 an incident TO and not the
regulation Of Illegal Interference with inter
state commerce The principle is not affected by
anything herein decided.
The decision draws a clear distinction between
combinations affecting interstate commerce and
those applying 10 one State only. The opinion at
tracted general attention. because II is the first
opinion on the subject OF trusts which has been
handed down since that subject has come into
great prominence
II was the general opinion in Wall Street yes
terday that the decision OF the Supreme Court in
the Addyston had relation to the indus
trial combinations OF the last year two. In the
latter there has been all actual taking and
merger Of several corporations by corpora
ton. The Addyston Pipe and Steel Company.
the other hand was a combination of six iron pipe
manufacturing companies In four States These
companies entered into agreement for a division
Of territory, for the fixing " prices for the sale
Of pipe in thrty-sX States. and for non-cOmpeti-
ton betMeen the members Of the combination The