The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-06-07
A DEC. nN ON TRUSTS
INDIANA SUPREME COURT SHOWS
HOW 1T STANDS.
Collision to Destroy Competition May
Forfeit a Concerns
Franchise.

The Supreme Court in an opinion written
by Judge Jordan, held yesterday that a
corporation that enters into collision with
other corporations TO destroy competition.
and thereby increase the price at which
an article is sold 70 the people OF
Indiana. becomes liable TO forfeiture OF its
corporate franchises. This decision was
given in reversing the case of the State
against the Portland Natural Gas and Oil
Company. This company was organized
under the laws of Indiana TO do the bust
ness its name signifies. and several years
after 1t had begun operations rival COM
pany was formed-the Citizens Natural Gas
and Oil Company. Both companies charged
such high rates that suits Were brought
against them by citizens to have their fran
chises revoked. The Circuit Court decided
in favor of the corporations and the cases
were appealed TO the Supreme Court. Last
November the case against the Citizens
Company was affirmed. The new Supreme
Court reverses the decision in favor of the
Portland company and remands the case
to the Circuit Court, with the order that
the complaint be held good. The lower
court had held that the information did not
show that the companies had entered into
an unlawful combination.
The plaintiffs allege that the two COM
panies entered into an unlawful agreement.
fixing the prices of gas, and. further, that
neither company should supply a consumer
who was a patron of the other company.
There was at the time no other corpora
ton engaged in supplying fuel to the peo-
pie and the two companies named had a
cinch." In his opinion Judge Jordan says:
THAT the people of the city, who desired
to become consumers of gas We're. by the
agreement in question, deprived OF the
benefits that might result to them from
competition between the two companies.
certainly cannot be successfully denied. The
exclusion of competition. under the agree
| ment. redounded solely to the benefit of ap-
pellee and the other company. and the en-
forcement of the compact between them
could be nothing less than detrimental to
the public. BY uniting in this agreement
appellee disabled or at least professed to
have disabled itself from the performance
of its implied duties to furnish gas impair
TALLY to all. and thereby made public ac-
commodations subservient 10 its own private
interests. The agreement in controversy evil
IDENTIFY could serve, so far as the public was
concerned, no other purpose than restric-
a basis for monopoly. The law. as we have
seen, is inimical to monopolies, and recog-
nizes the right of the public to have the
benefit of fair and healthy competition.
THAT by entering into this agreement and
carrying 1t into execution, appellee violated
| the law and clearly abused the rights and
powers conferred upon il by the State, and
may be said to have offended against the
| law of its creation. there can be no ques-
| ton. Such an illegal act or agreement upon
| the part of corporation like appellee can
not be permitted to override the law. and it
was the manifest duty of the State to inter
And, If the charge made is established, a
| deserved penalty ought to be inflicted"