New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1901-10-02
AGAINST THE ICE TRUST.
COURT OF APPEALS RENDERS De
C1SION SUSTAINING THE DON
NELLY ANTI-TRTST LAW

Albany. Oct. ! (SpeciaD.-The Court Of APP
peals to-day gave decision against the Ice
trust. and sustained the DonneIly Antitrust
law in an important particular
Attorney-General Davies in 1899 resolved to
institute proceedings to prevent the American
Ice Company, believed to be a trust from con-
Quoting its affairs a trust in this State Judge
Chase. Of the Supreme Court upon his applica-
ton. appointed ex-senator Myer Nussbaum, of
this city. a referee to take testimony regard
Ing the proceedings OF the trust One of the first
witnesses called was Charles W Morse presi-
cent OF the American Ice Company. who was
directed to bring tho books of the company to
me referee and give testimony about the opera
lons of the company Mr.. Morse declined to
O" So on the ground that the antitrust law
was unconstitutional
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court
Of the IITd District. by vote of s 10 2 then re-
Nersed a decision of Judge Chester of the Su-
lreme Court, who had refused to vacate an or
der of Judge Chase. that Mr.. Morse must Dro-
once the books Of the American Ice COMPANY
AttoTneY-General Davies thereupon appealed to
the Court Of Appeals from this judgment of the
Appellate Division Of the Supreme Court Of the
IT'D District
Inc court of Appeals to-day reversed the order
Of the Appellate Division. affirmed that Of the
special Term snd said questions certified an
wrote the majority opinion of the Court of Ap-
reals. which was concurred in by Judges Parker
Martin, Lsndon and Cullen. Judges Bartlett and
e'brien dissented. Judge Bartlett writing dis
senting opinion
In allowing an appeal from its decision the
Appellate Division certified the following five
questions 70 the Court of Appeals for review:
First-Are the duties which the statute CChap-
ter $40 Of the Laws Of 1881 imposes upon the
SlnTpT1a -i,,f7ia io :,
tles, and If 50 is il for that reason unconstitu-
tional and imperative?
Second-In granting the order of Nav 2S
function?
Third-Fias the legislature constitutional
power to confer upon the referee appointed in
the matter provided by such statute the author
liN !" take testimony and punish for contempt
vidad? '''' p''
Fourth-Do the facts set forth in the petition
Of the Attorney General show that anv action
authorized by Section ; of Chapter $40 of the
Laws Of 1899 could be maintained?
flith-Ooes Chapter $50 Of the Laws OF 1890
require Charles ". Morse under the order Of
Justiac Chase Of May 2S 1900. to give evidence
"i matters which might subject him to penalties
~ criminal prosecution under any Federal
statute i'll violation Of his rights under the state
or Federal constitution?
In its opinion the Court of Appeals answers
the first question certified to in the negative
ard the second in the affirmative The court
d'es not answer thu third question, for the rea-
son that the court below had no power to GER
tify the question to the Court of Appeals be-
cause the referee had not ATTEMPTED to exer-
cise the power 10 punish for contempt. and
might never he called upon to exercise it The
court saws however. that the power existed to
authorize The appointment of a referee. and an
s~eTs the first part OF the third question in the
affirmative. As to the fourth and fifth ques
tons the court says they : vet abstract.
and IT has no power to answer them.
C J. Shearn. of the firm of Enstein. Town
send. Guiterman & Shearn counsel for The
Ne~-Tork Journal in whose action the above
decision was granted. said at his Office yester-
day:
The effect of the decision on the present action Is
10 reinstate the proceedings at precisely the point
Where we were in june 1900 when Charles w
Morse, president OF the Ice Trust was on the Wit
ness stand and about to he compelled TO
testify II then that his counsel served on
the referee. siyer Nussbaum the preliminary re-