The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1899-03-27
OPINIONS.

Continued From Page Eighth
plaintiff, and the first receipt Of the
letters by the plaintiff will in some de-
gree subject the defendant to inconVeni-
ence. That results from the fact that
his proper name David Kennedy and
his trade name, DR.. David Kennedy, of
Rondout, N. y or DR.. D. Kennedy, Of
Rondout, n. y have points of resemb-
lance. His trade name was salable
property. Getting cases.) The defendant
sold it, and thus has been paid for this
inconv enience."
1T is not case in which an ADEQUATE
remedy at law exists, and. on the plain
est principles of equity, the plaintiff
should have relief by injunction.
The kenton county grand jury at
Covington Kentucky, has returned in
dictments against the Home Life In
surance Company of New York and AZ
other lie and fire insurance companies
Tor conspiracy, for banding together
and fixing and maintaining a higher
rate or premium than would otherwise
prevail. The indictment is found I'M
der the antitrust laws and this ac-
tlon of the grand jury may be followed
py the withdrawal of underwriters
The Girard county grand iury at Lam
against the protest Of merchants who
are fearful lest the companies with
draw and leave them without protec-
ton.
The companies have already with
Drawn from several counties where
tney nave been indicted, and the stu
alton is reaching a stage where there
IS a prospect that the entire state will
pc abandoned. If the companies are
indicted In 1pI1ic1yf1Ia
being brought to bear to have this done
there Is little doubt but that all com
panies will withdraw.
IN Judge Rightor's division of the
clNll district court at New Orleans the
SUGGESTIONS of Mrs. Pauline LangIes
ana Marie Angelic Langles were re-
tenty called for adjustment. A very
Interesting legal point is involved. Mrs
ana MISS Langles were passengers on
me nI-Iated steamship Bourgogne.
when went down in mid-ocean almost
a year ago. Both had written wills
Sne Ihother leaving her property to the
uaush tef IN the event she died first. and
siSe versa. The question now is WhAh
alu die hrst. They both met their end
m m the same disaster, but the conten
tioh is that the daughter being young
er ana stronger, must have survived
,uns ss IN the water than did the
IL Lne department of justice is upheld
by the United States supreme court
next month in the case of the Addy
ston Pipe and Steel company, Solicit
Tor General John K. Richards. who has
charge or all prosecutions under the
sherman antitrust law, states that the
department. viii begin active proceed
!nss against many other industrial
G1tN ~
the department to inaugurate prosecu~
tions at the present time the solicitor
general explained that many points
We're involved in the Addyson Pine case
Whlch, II interpreted by the supreme
court as being against the provisions
OF the antitrust law, would enable the
department to institute its suits with
out fear of ultimate reversal
Richards stated that the Addyston
case would be heard during the April
term of the court and that every pos
sible effort would be made to have the
supreme court sustain the lower court.
inc case was originally tried on an
appeal from the circuit court of the
United States for the eastern district
of Tennessee.
Judge Taft rendered decision re-
NerSlng the circuit court and ordered
that a decree for the United States
NC SIISLCd pGiptludIlN eIJOIUlHR the
defendants from maintaining the COM
bination in cast-iron pipe described in
the bill and admitted in the original
answer and from doing any business
under the agreement. The department
of justice is relying greatly on the de-
cision OF the United States supreme
court in this case. The defendants in
the case were the Addyston Pipe and
Steel company of Cincinnati Denis
@ Ne I 49, I
Harrison Iron company of Bessemer,
Ala; the Admission Pipe and Foundry
company of Admission, Ala; the South
Pittsburg Pipe works of South Pitts
burg, Tenn, and the Chattanooga
Foundry and Pipe works of Chatta-
nooga, Tenn.
The attorney general charged that
these six firms had entered into COM
bination and conspiracy in unlawful re-
straint Of interstate commerce in such
pipe in violation of the Sherman anti
trust law. The attorney general asked
that the court decree that all pipe sold
and transported from one state to an
other under the combination be for
feited and conf1scated according to the
provisions of the law.
The department of justice, through
Solicitor General Richards, asserts that
it is hindered in its prosecutions of
trusts by the operations of the decisions
of the United States supreme court VS..
e. c. Knight company, 1856 U. S. l. In
that case the bill filed under the anti
trust law sought to enjoin the defend
ants from continuing a union Of sub
stantially all the sugar refineries of the
country for the refining of raw sugars.
The supreme court held that the
monopoly thus effected was not within
the law, because the contract or agree
ment of union related only to the manu-
facture of refined sugar, and not to its
sale throughout the country; that man
ufacture preceded commerce, and al
though the manufacture under mon
opoly might, and doubtless would, in
directly affect both internal and inter
state commerce, it was not within the
power Of congress to regulate manufac-
lures within a state on that ground.