New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-06-02
JERSEYS TRUST DECISION.
TT VALIDATED A CONTRACT REGULAT-
ING THE SALE OF PRODUCT.
THE QUESTION OF CONTROLLING THE OUTPUT
AND THE METHOD OF PRODUCTION NOT

AND THE METHOD OF PRODUCTION NOT
TOUCHED BY THE COURT.
Tho aoc,s,on q, the Supreme Court OF New-Jer-
-, a., Kidding that a combination OF manufacturers
or nroducers can appoint an agent who alone shal
control the sale OF their output caused quite sem
sation among lawyers and laymen, because II wis
an opinion that trusts were legal The decision re-
ferred 20 was told In The Tribune yesterday III
Tho case ~ the New-York Trap Rock Company
AGAINST Brown q Flemming who entered the trust
~, ,,,oiated the agreement which entaied Tor
,s,,rre ~ gOOo by accepting directly lucrative
order when the contract which they had signed as
members of the trust required that they shou,u
seu only through the appointed agent IL was ''i''
violation of the agreement that induced the trust
70 enter s,iit for the 5000 penalty
Counsellor Fravel McGee. who filed the oernurte,
~, bebaIf of Brown & Flemming and contehdeu
thar the company trust and an mega. cor
rora,ion said last evening when seen by a Tribune
reporter: 800 o-o
'.rhe points made by the demurrer In the case are
substantially set forth In your aruc'e Oh '"iS
The gravamen OF the contract was TO give 10 inc
~ yo,k Tran Rock Company the exclusive con-
,rol NJ ALI the persons who were parties 10 the con-
trac, IN. object being keep the price OF the
net OF all the manufacturers the same' - -
statute OF New-Jersey. when demurrer Is n'eu' ,"e
Other person may demand specification VA III
ICES IN which the demurrer is founded inst as
done In this case anu d"i'"e $50
legality under the decisions relative 10 Uus''
specified. c.., .,o, this rom
s,a,,on was in no wise different in principle from
rho combinations called trusts, IN tha' eaon "a
,ho,, mas formed for the purpose OF preventing
a,na,,,Ion and was therefore 10 the injury OF the
nuhlic The Court filed formal opinion ouo
merely a memorandum OF conclusionS. A"o WV
relating 10 this subject reads as foiioWs. - 800
a contract that single person shal De e Iii
ployed as the sole agent OF manufacturers 10 SCI,
ali their output does not violate any principe "a
law and may be enforced .Lo.,xh. ~ Tho
What may have been the line OF thoush. ot ~ ~
Court is not disclosed. presume, however tnSt 80
dlstIncton taken must have been tnat lh ,ne case
OF trust not only is the price controned Du nnt
upon the market together with the metnod OF t1s
production. / am unable 10 see how OTHERWISE 'he
Court reached its conclusion. =. 49, bean
unanimous I presume that the question must pe
regarded as settled In NewJersey. unless the Court
q Errors and Appeals should reyerse me or IN
other in which the question should De presence
to that court. do not understand that the eupre
COURT by this decision intends to overrule any OF
the former deJverancer. but merely 10 distinguish
this contract from the class tof contracts whlch
have been held 20 be illegal AS to whether tne3e
will be an appeal that matter mas not Deem GULL
Nj McCiee was asked whether the decision may
not be reversed In the Federal courts uhoer the
Sherman act He said:
Not In the present condition Of the cause. A
WRIT OF to the Supreme Court or the United
affirmed in the court OF last resort. The effect OF
this decision Is merely 70 permit another plea 10
be filed. after which trial at the circuit before
new writ Of error could go to the Court OF Errors
and Appeals H. after that Federal question as
10 the construction OF the Constitution on statute
writ OF error could then go to the sn Tsme Court
OF the United States, but not Otherwise