The sun., 1900-11-24

1ti' Hes " tU 's wrought w NHe'Ssnn snUut
AMI .et s-idc the csrtiHcat@ ~ the l"s
ootrrsny y MT Huth"-Wed and that the
only ryil remedy w tho Act ~ 1900 u one
70 RESTRAIN tno making ~ contamination
~ my prohibtNd contract or combination
and that such remedy i purely preventive
~ future M lts character and cannot be
oN'"n i'd IN ~ ,'opo 49, ~ ~ cnT"r Illegal
agreement, aircody coHspm mated such ~
that of the Amer can leo Company
IN oihrr words the Court holds that
assuming that tho american leo Company
hai unic q contract creating "A monopoly
the wrong was completed and the statute
ial- 10 provide any remedy for the ac-
clmpshol wrong For this rch1on the
proposed action would not he. and. there
tore. there can hc no need nf examining
wi'u"-se. or INSPECTING books.
civil action by the Attorney General
cnn b" naint1ined only when he Il wide
awak" enough to anticipate the making
of an Illegal agreement or combination
but tho decision does not in any way
impair the efficiency Of the existing pro-
visions Of criminal law which insure ample
protection against monopolicI The Penal
Code in Section i8S provides that If two
or more person. consplre 10 commit any
act injurious to trade or commerce. each
Of them Il guilty OF a misdeneanor and
the Revised Statutes contained a similar
provision. The People re-. sheldon de-
ciied by the Court OF Appeals In 1899.
~ one OF the leading cases on the general
question In that case the defendants.
who were retail coal dealers in the city OF
Lockport. were indicted for combining to
prevent competition In the price Of coal.
A jury in the Niagara Court of Sessions
convicted the defendants OF the crime Of
conspiracy The Genera. Term affirmed
the conviction. and on the final appeal
the conviction was again affirmed by the
Court Of Appeals in an opinion In which
all the Judges concurred. Chief Judge
ANDREWS. In rendering the opinion OF the
court. held that the question did not turn
on the point whether the agreement be-
tween the retail dealers In coal did, as mat
ter OF fact. result In injury 10 the public
or TO the community The question Is
was the agreement. in view of what might
have been done under it and the fact that
u vas All ltNllltIIl tIc cItNt vi Nh''h VdS
to prevent competition among the coal
dealers. one upon which the law afflxes
the brand Of condemnation" The validity
of the agreement did not depend upon actual
proof Of public injury. and II the purpose
OF the agreement vas to prevent competition
In the price OF coal between the retail
dealers. 1t was illegal and justified the con-
viction.
Further II should be noted that the new
Act OF 1899 aside from the question Of con-
spiracy. makes 1t misdemeanor for any
person or corporation to enter into any
agreement or combination for the creation
Of "A monopoly in the manufacture or sale
of any commodity Of common use.
The tendency of the courts to uphold all
the existing provisions OF law against mo-
nopolies Is shown in the very recent de-
cision OF the Court Of Appeals In the Union
Bluestone Company case There an agree
ment was made between fifteen persons
who produced nearly all the Hudson River
bluestone. AMI 90 per centum of the whole
amount OF such stone sold in the New York
market 10 customers east Of the Mississippi
River, the yearly sales amounting To nearly
two millions of dollars An agreement
was made between the plaintiff and the
defendants that the Union Bluestone Com
pany should act a. sales agent OF all this
stone. the producers agreeing to sell no
stone except through the company, and
TO fix the prices The defendants were
charged by the plaintiff with combining
to prevent any further delivery and sales
on his account under the contract. and
thus to deprive him OF any further profit.
The Court OF Appeals. in an opinion by
Judge LANDoN. has Just held that the
contract was void. and that the trial court
was right in 40 holding as a matter Of law.
because 1t was contract which threat
ened monopoly. with which the individual
would be practically powerless to COM
pete. and that the rule again. monopoles
is not limited in its application in civil
cases. at least. to articles OF prime neces-
ity. but includes all useful commodities.
The Ice Trust decision. therefore. does
not relax the earlier law against monop-
olies but merely holds that under the
new Act of 1899 no civil relief can be had
after the monopoly has been created, and
further that no man can be compelled to
testify against himself