Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1902-12-20
Their Operations Criticized by
Hon. Herbert N. Heath. =,
The SardiHe ackers= uf-Passama.
quoddyf Bay,ih Codtehfm.~
Equity Bill to Restrain Independent
Concerns, Heard in Law Court.

Thursday, III the arguments presented
in the case of The Seacoast Packing Co
against BOn NJ. Pike and others, which
really means the Lubec Sardine Co.
Several of the most distinguished law
yers in the State figured i'm the case
Hon. Hannibal l.. Hamlin of Ellsworth
and Hon. George NJ. Hanson of Calais,
represented the complainant, and Hon.
Herbert NJ. Heath of Augusta, Hon
Enoch Foster of Portland, and j. II.
defendants
The plaintiff is the Seacoast Packing
Co. the so-cailed sardine trust, and the
defendants are the Pike Brothers OF
Lubec. both of whom are members
elect of the incoming Legislature, Bion
NJ. Pike being a member of the Senate
for Washington county and his bro
Their Jacob G. Pike, representing the
class towns of Lubec and Prescott.
The complainant, the Seacoast Pack
ing CO., bought the plants of the re-
spondents, and took from them con-
tract not to engage in business within
200 miles of PASSPORT for a period of
10 years. This DILL in equity heard, yes
terday, was brought RI enjoin them
from putting up sardineS in violation
of the contract. There are really three
bills in equity, there being additional
bills against Chester l.. Pike and Rob.
ert j. Peacock, all Of Lubec. who made
similar contracts but the causes are
practically heard toge ther.
The contention of the defendants is
that the Seacoast Packing Co. is an
unlawful combination and any contract
made with them is therefore null and
void The plaintiff denied being an I'M
lawful combination and counsel quoted
from various decisions of the courts in
this country and in England to sub
stantiate that contention.
In fact. both sides in the contro-
versy cited at least 100 cases each in
support of their respective positions.
one of the leading points of the
plaintiff WIS that the respondents re-
tanned the consideration paid them for
their business, their plants and their
property, and for this reason were not
entitled 10 set up the defense that the
complainant was an unlawful combina-
ton.
The case was ably argued by the
eminent counsel on both sides. For the
complainant Mr.. Hanson argued the
facts and Mr.. Hamlin the law. For
the respondents Mr.. Gray argued some
of the facts and Mr.. Heath other facts
and the law bearing upon all the points
at issue. Ii WAS an interesting hear
ing. from the fact that it is the first
case ever heard by the supreme court
In Maine hearing upon the important
question OF trusts and their conduct
toward the people. In this case on
the one hand is raised the point that
an honest contract was entered into
between the Seacoast Packing Co. and
the Pike Brothers, for a consideration,
which transferred the latters' business
to the former. ON the other hand it is
contended ny the defendants that if
this contract was an honest contract
II was first broken by the plaintiff in
asmuCh as it failed to keep its agree
ment in the matter of putting up a
particular amount of sardines in the
town of Lubec.
Leaving out the question of contract
which. it is alleged. both sides had
broken. Mr.. Heath went into a discus
SION of the whole merits of combines
ard combinations and argued the en-
tire trust question in most elaborate
manner.
He contendcd that combinations are
legal or illegal as their purposes are
lawful or unlawful. and claimed that 4
combination amounting to an illegal
conspiracy is unlawful. a combination
between two or more persons TO con-
trol prices in any commercial product
ny attempting to create a virtual mon
opoly in its manufacture or sale, with
the purpose of practically excluding
competition. of Arbitrarily controlling
the product and the price and of there
ny attempting to compel the public to
give more than such commodity IS
reasonably worth, is an illegal conspi-
racy ut common law. If the individuals
guilty of such a conspiracy attempt
the fulfillment of their designs through
corporation created for the purpose
the courts will disregard the form
adopted and treat the corporate combi-
nation as an illegal conspiracy. This
latter contention is sustained by nu-
m"rous decisions and by the Maine SUI
premc court in State against Mayber-
~ when 1t declares that "a combina-
tion of two or more persons by con-
certcd action to accomplish some crimi-
nal or unlawful purpose or to accom-
plish some purpose not in itself crlmi'
nal or unlawful Dy criminal or uniaw'
full means
MIR. Heath then went on to analyze
the primary rule as to the unlawfu
purposes of this conspiracy. At com
mon law. he SAID. a monopoly was ex-
clusively confined 10 grants from tne
sovereign, The common law etXpands
with the evolution of society, preseerryy-
ing its fundamental privileges. Modern Modern
authority condemns as unlawful al
common law all combinations, corpor-
ate or otherwise. containing the eie-
ments stated in this primary rule. Ana
then Mr.. Heath called attention TO nu-
merous decisions to sustain the conteh-
tons raised by him. In effect, THESE
decisions sustained the following rules
l. The test of the illegality is the de-
sign of the combination.
l. There must be a purpose TO con
troll prices in some recognized article o.
commerce.
3. The purpose must contemplate d
virtual oil pOrnntete, mo-