The sun., 1900-11-24
The leo Trust Decision OF the Appel
late Division.

The leo Trust Decision OF the Appel
late Division.
The decision OF the Appellate Division OF
the Third Department on last Tuesday.
Nov. 20, In the Ice Trust case. while it
limits the force and effect Of certain reme-
dies in OWL actions against monopolies
provided In the Act Of 1899. does not in any
way tend TO uphold combinations in re-
strant Of trade or to shield monopolies
from the provisions OF the criminal law.
The decision disposes Of two questions:
First, What kind OF an action can be
brought under the Act Of 1899? and. second.
Can persons be compelled 10 testify
against themselves and to produce papers
and books concerning the alleged Illegal
contract. on a preliminary examination
before the commencement of an action?
The Legislature, on May 25. 1900, passed
Chapter 900. entitled: An act to prevent
monopolles In articles or commodities In
common use. and 10 prohibit restraints
Of trade and commerce. providing penal
ties for violations OF the provisions Of this
act, and procedure to enable the Attorney
General to secure testimony in relation
thereto" This act declared that every con-
tract. agreement or combination whereby
monopoly in the manufacture. production
or sale Of any article or commodity OF
common use Is created. or whereby COM
petition in the supply or price of any such
article or commodity IL restrained. is Illegal
and void. 1t declared that every person or
corporation or any officer or agent who shall
make or enter into any such contract or COM
bination Is guilty Of a misdemeanor. and on
conviction shall, II natural person. be
punished by fine not exceeding t5, 900. or by
imprisonment for not longer than one year.
or by both such fine and Imprisonment. and
II corporation by nne not exceeding
5000. The third section authorizes the
Attorney &c General To bring a civil action
in behalf Of the people against any person
or corporation to restrain and prevent
the doing In this State OF any act herein
declared to be illegal. or any act. for the
making or contamination OF any contract
or combination herein prohibited. The
next section provides that the Attorney
General before the commencement OF the
action. can procure from Justice Of the
Supreme Court, an order for the examl-
nation of witnesses and for the production
OF books while in section 1t is enacted
that no person shall be excused from an
swerng questions. or from producing
books or papers on this preliminary exami-
nation, on the ground that the testimony
or evidence required OF him may tend to
,ncrimnats him but that he shall not be
prosecuted or be subjected to any penalty
on account Of any transaction concerning
which he may testify or produce evidence.
On May rs last. the AttornCv-Gpuerol
presented to Mr. Justice Crbsf of the
Supreme Court a petition ,;atng that
he was about to commence an aCtion again >
the American Ioe Company and ia o'Ii, err
"to vacate. annul and set aside the c''t,f-
cate procured allowing the Amrr.can
Ice Company to do business in this state.
and asking for an order to examine CHARLES
W. MORSE. the President Of the American
lce Company, and Others Judge CHASE
granted the order and appointed MYER
NUssBAUM referee TO examine the wit
nesseS.
The Appellate Division vacates the order
of reference. Mr. Justice KELLOGG, ir
one OF the prevailing opinions. says that
II he is right In the conclusion that tire
testimony Of witnesses and inspection of
books were not necessary. it will be un.
nccc sary to consider the other feature,
Of this law which appellant urges in CON
demnation OF the law as unconstitutional.
but the Judge virtually condemns the statute
in this language:
THIS Law. In the highest degree inauisi,nrisL
and giving open door ~ the creates, abuses should
Al ieas, be confined strictly within the limits Of Oh
Jess Its wording points out"
Mr. Justice SMITH. who wrote the othc
prevailing opinion. says.
II the contract be vicious the parties thereto ar.
ctminally Liable, both under State law and upd.i
the FEDERAL law To require these witnesses n sweat
70 any facts which would establish the making OF ,rs
contract alleged In the petition connect them Win
Its making or execution. would. therefore be an In
fringemeut upon the tights assured 20 them by t,e
Constitution. The witness sought 10 be examined
is the President Of the coTporatnn. presumpyey a
parry to tAt making, ana engaged with the c,rpors.
tiou and In It's behalf In executing the contract
claimed to he criminal. can coacrvc II no pn>,D.e
inquiry material 90 the controversy which would rn
call for an answer which would tend 30 convict the
witness Of crime under the Federal statute. II
t1e,r Views be CORRECT tnls examination was not pran
er.y ordered Ana this question can, | think he
raised by tHr witness and al this time The witness
here aScrt, his privilege and demands the Cons,tu.
uonal Protection.
Judge kEILoGG bases his decision on
the ground that the action which the petition