New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-06-28

for price of any such article or commodity is or
may pc resipsined or preyenIeqb OF oT maintain
ing monopoly within this State Of the manufae-
commodity the free pursuit in this State of any
lawful business, trade occupation Is or may pc
against public policy illegal and Void.
Sec Every person or eorp9ranon or any a,Am 95
to make or enter into any such contract agree ts
in this State shall do any act pursuant thereto
in toward for the consumma tion thereof
Of a misdemeanor. and on conviction thereof shall
II natural person. be punished by a hne not eN-
than one year OF or BY boh such fine and
ceedihg $500.
The balance of the act relates generally to
procedure.
POWERS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL.
The third section authorizes the Attorney
General to bring action in the name OF the
People against any person or corporation, for
eign or domestic, to restrain the doing IN TINS
State of any act herein declared TO be Illegal
any act toward for the making or con-
summation of any contract, agreement arrange
ment or combination herein prohibited, wher-
ever the same may have been made.
Section provides that whenever the Attor-
ney-General has determined to commence an
action under this chapter he may present to any
Justice of the Supreme Court. before beginning
such action, an application in writing for an
order directing the persons mentioned in the
application to appear before the Justice or a
referee designated in the order for eXamina-
ton. The application may simply show upon
the information and belief of the Attorney
General that the testimony of such person is
material and necessary. This section also pro
vides that the provisions of the Code OF Civil
Procedure relating to the application for an
order for the examination of witnesses before
the commencement of action shall not apply
In this respect the law is different from that
of 1891, under which these provisions of the
Code were made applicable so far as practl-
cable.
Under the statute as it now stands the only
he a xr-(1a rloTa1 iS OK
qgszred to state in his application are that he
has determined and intends to bring an action
under the provisions of the law, and that he is
informed and believes that the testimony Of the
persons mentioned in the application is material
and necessary. These facts the Attorney-Gen-
eral has specifically alleged, that in both of
these respects the law has been complied with.
But it is insisted that the facts alleged reat-
ing to the contract agreement or combination
claimed to be unlawful not sufficient TO
bring the case within the provisions of the sub
stantive provisions Of the statute contained in
Sections l and =.
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST TRUST
1t is stated by the Attorney General in his ap-
plicaton, in addition to the allegations above
mentioned. in substance, that the two available
sources for the supply of ice to the inhabitants
of the city of New-York are the Hudson River
Valley and the Kennebec and Penobscot rivers,
in Maine; that prior to March II, 1899, more
than 50 per cent of the available ice and of the
ice plants along the Hudson River and in the
state OF Maine were owned or controlled by
two corporations organized under the laws of
the State of Maine, to wit: the Knickerbocker
Ice Company and the Consolidated Ice Com
panyi that the Consolidated Ice Company prior
TO March II, 1899 controlled about 80 per cent Of
the wholesale and retail ice business in the CITY of
New York, and the Knickerboeker Ice Company
about so per cent of the wholesale and retail
ice trade in the cities of Philadelphia Baltimore
and Washington; that these two corporations
acting together, thus had virtual monopoly of
the ice supply available to the inhabitants of
the City of New York, and acting together had
1T in their power to fix the price of ice arbi-
trarily; that prior to March H. 1899 the said
knickerbOcker Ice Company and Consolidated
Ice Company agreed to combine their interests
and thereby control by company and one
management the entire ice producing territory
for the purpose Of creating q monopoly in the
Ice business in various cities, particularly the
city of New-York; and pursuant to such under
standing and agreement the said American Ice
company was organized under the laws of the
state OF NeW-Jersey on March IL, 1899, with an
authorized capital Of S60000,000. divided equally
into common and preferred shares; that pur-
suant to such understanding or agreement and In
communication thereof the American Ice Com
pam Immediately thereafter acquired title to
E.otA than 80 per cent of the total capital stock
OF the said Knckerbocker Ice Company and
the Consolidated Ice Company by arrange
ment whereby. shares of the American Ice Com
sehUng no properly, were exchanged share for
share for stock of said two companies said ar
rangenent or agreement thus Vesting in
body, TO wit, the Board of Directors of the
American Ice Company, the control of the said
TWO constituent corporations. and thereby eff
F'ecling a monopoly in the supply of ice tn the
Inhabitants Of the city of New-York and de-
stroying competition in the production, supply
and sale of ice in the city of New DIRK and
that as direct result of such combination the
American Ice Company raised the price of ice
in the city of NeW-York 100 per cent over
the prices prevailing during the two preceding
years, for the sole reason of providing rneaas
FOR paying dividends upon the enormous ca pi-
talization Of the American Ice COMPANY issued
without value as aforesaid.
am of the opinion that these allegations are
sufficient 70 bring the case within the provisions
OF the statute and were adequate TO Justify the
IA avs aiF1af fCr, % %laa
Is not necessary TO assert that the alleged nm
lENIul combination or arrangement took place
in this State, because the statute prohibits anv
act within the State pursuant thereto or for the
consumption thereof and authorizes the At
loFney General to bring action 10 restrain
the alleged illegal acts here wherever the AL
legged unlawful combination or ARRANGEMENT was
made Nor is il important that the facts alleged
as constituting such arrangement or conbna-
ton are alleged to have taken place on March
II. 1899, or prior thereto, while the act of 1890
Gid not take effect until May % of that wear for
the reason that the substantive provisions of
the act Of 1899 were but a re-ena ctn1ent If aI,
actly the same provisions contained In the act
or 1891. There can arise. therefore no question
concerning the law being retroactive or ex post
faeto in character, for it has rot been changed
al all in this respect durIng any- portion If The
time covered by the transactions referred to in
1t is also asserted that under the laws Of this
state as well as those of Maine and of New
Jersey, 1t was lawful for the American lee Com
pany to exchange its capital stock for the GA pi-
tai stock Of the Consolidated and KnickerbooLfar
zee companies. 1t is true that under Section 40
OF the Stock Corporation law this is so, and it
has been held that that section authorizes one
corporation to purchase stock in another, al
though the result might be to destroy com
petition. CRanerty agt. Buffalo Gas Co 57
App. Div. 61S) ' ~
But 1t may happen that an act otherwise
legal, II done with an Illegal purpose or intent
becomes by virtue of such purpose or intent IL
legal and therefore to be condemned
DAVIES'S CONTENTION UPHELD
While the law permits one corporation to b,1v