Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1902-09-17

arifFf separate tuainst7 enterprises j. not NE.
sci. hat that sseFc may h combinations 90
destructive q The rights o. the public as 70 be
seid a. against patic policy, leone 10 the qses-
,ioe whethcr sbs paspess sud psrsssaFy result
81 The formation % tbis corporation. The scout
siiion o. The thirty alGsrrhs properties and sAc
ohssipiag 81 coatfasts frem the vcu,sors Of the
property sod, nui 70 eraake ia buSiaese during
thc gime and wiihip the ie7fis8ry nHusasi, was 30
create practical monopoly sa ;he business. or
wss sgea = combination tor illegal purposes as
y - asainsi public policy.
TIE aaestlon pstugaiy arises ~ TO whether Il
weai be pes#ihsc te csesta a monopoly IN the
taslnesA ~ cRgeiiaS asa packing ash. wishin
even ,ee broad meatinE with whieh tae word
y used ID lhe meGcFh eaaes ulaa she aaflest,
whsn me coast u eastern Nsiae fprnishes ia.
namcrptlq placcs where nsh packing plants
ccuA he erected. when The espllal 1t ,he whole
county, except tbsf u some twenty eve per
sons. y irJrte como there and engage IN tho
business, whsn Ne pcgson can hayuAay property
10 ne 6sh thal sre seed for this pafpase aniii
they are caught, ara when al persons must
necessarily have absolutely s4usi sighss IN TAX.
inE these ash from the sas.
Evsu II Ia this case = combination bad been
FORMED by all The persons engaged IA thts bus
lucss sious thai part Of The coast where these
Sch can be esHgas IN sufficient qaatiiiss TO carry
ca the business. and even II the purpose had
been 70 thus obsain monopoly Of shs business
80 ss 10 regulate and decrease The Pfiee ot the
produces, very seriously doa6, II such an at
tcmptsd monopoly eoahi he Of ahy injury to
Tho public. Ths moment that the price OF the
product was insreascd beyond sum that would
aSori reasonable proat. new capital would
/ rash In aud new competition w0ald prevent ihe
accomplishment Of the purpose Of such at
ssmp,ed combination.
| Bat 10 this case. the defendants have failed to
satisfy gne that such was the intention of thoss
who were PROMINENT In forRsing this corpora
sion, or that tho result Of such formsiioa and Of
tbs whole transaction has bsea 80 create even q
pfaetlcai naoaOPoiy Ia tits business.
/ Tnc persons who had she moss 10 do IN plan.
nlns aHd organizing this eoFp9sation testify In
sah.tAncc that while AZ arss The plan was 70 OBJ.
tain large proportion. at least eighty OF ninety
/ per cent Of all tho properties then used tn thu
bu slaess. this was soon found TO bs' lmpfAetic-
ahls and was ahasd0ned bong before ths lFaas.
acilnn waa eemplstod. shas aabssq asatly their
! oply desire and purpose Was 70 obssln saiii
cixas aus. bes Of Flaats that the business eosd
10 cAtricd on upon large scale, aud that there
/ vas no parposs upon their part 10 acquire sGcn
/ prvForsisA Of all the plants rs would enable
then to prvvrns eogpetit,on Of 10 eeasEo prioes.
This Important tsatlmony Il borne 0ui By the
unq9csts0nesi fact that hen these properties
were scasirr,i. thr corporation fesSaei and 5g.i
ress commenced. tss factories oEHei By the
corporation bad only PsssiBg aspleiIy OF
ah-sat one halt otishAi Of ~ tbr caabiax tscto-
rics tlss In existence 10 EsslPpgs. Luis-e and
Aiass tbc eastern coast Of Msiae and tic eorpo.
rAslpn hs,i naAso euHlr@cfs for a,A with the owl
srs Of eAly tFpm twun'y % swsniy.ase per
eun,ana Of Ire wylrs from sHleh fsa for this
pwtyasc vas e6,aiHea
lcAunos tvlirvc that these defendants catered
in,s sn iHcRAi coa-psraey wilh Esa owners VI
gwsu,y avg os sairty o1her pseking fiaass, and
uih Iis0se vino sore to provide the cash capital
for the corporation. with the expectation that
taxy wsru xoipx to ohtsln monopoly Of the
business stiae con petition. eaBsfol The price Of
the product. aud thH. ses tha Pablic a. thai
mercy. "a h~a thry all knew that sArfinr packiag
tactgsiss. hAst"x Substantially 40 equal capacity
10 those brlesEius TO ths e0rp1rztioa were ca
tirety ogislir u the esnh{nAli3a- IL eertzin y
can uag be said under sisess circumstances, that
lhis corporation had the ciisive, or suythisg
tisu the exclusive. control Of lhc hasiness ~
paealss aud sciiing sAnilnes. No monopoly in a
basipess sncb ss thls can he created whea only
about oas-heH u ,hoso producing ths con-
mostly AFu engaged la the combination, aBd
wAen there l. no reason Why others may Got
engage 10 the sssine.s u thsy 20 desire.
itiatrae that before the CONNIE ReuHasai of
tbs pe1l pacEias season the proportional cHpae
as ot slic fsotorlcs 10 the control Of this cor
psrasiua wa, considerably Increased by the
purchase OF tho msJnFay OF the stock OF
another corp yraltoa which swped neDber OF
gaetoties But tho lssslgy or iilekal3sy ef shis
contract a. par Of tee whnls trsHsaetion must
4 peu,i. h sccns> 10 ~. upsn he purposes and
gs-ssssi s. 20. 81 l. % ths sati0u at tie utas
the cosgs,rsiiua Ma. f.fsss'i aud thsse eoatraCt.
made. The etat-itiou Of nisre properly much
Iateg. unlrss Il 5. shsEu lhAt sseh shs orig
inAi lrtentou VI st's eorpsrators, has 40 ~ q
ap IN tbe i+xalpy % this contract But even
daring the nsxg ptcsiuE s''s-oH 'at" or p7raiiou
lti not own a suia.ient proportion VI ail If The
factories Engaged In the business 60 l.y aaY
a.eans Obtain monopoly u she ba-lHess
rh~ Defendant, therefore. have fa!lcd 10 -at
isgg nae ghas iRis contract. whlch arpars uPln
n. faro 10 10 valid AMI which, a. a matter Of
fact. 1. rrasonAhla and pr'p@r. ant. therefore
b sal contract ia partial restraint Of trade. Il
I Il rsal aud void bxcsape part Of 80 apltwtal
! conspiracy between these defendants Aad
otlsefs. Nor do th'a& taat TIT. iransaetioH
CONES xlhln tho prohibitions Of tbs tesisral
statute Known a. The sbermNn antitrust is~,
ror q any .tsinle Of this State.
Anoshsr defense relied upon Is. that after the
! saarutton by sbose defendants Of contract to
convey their property, bot before the convey
aaeo wAs made. The promoters OF this corpora
too made aa azrecmsn; VIA them ia rvgard to
The exton; II ba.iness that should be earrssd GA
bv The corporation 10 the detendants' Town OF
| Iuoec. that 81 heugh such agreement was nci
r,sluce,i 10 writing wiih the rvsi Of the con
/ tfart. T. va. = di.tlnct collateral aZreement
n,t iscua.i.tsut Niih tue written contract, and
wiiich conssiJate,l In part the eoaslitration FOR
the eanvsyaaca made hy these defendants and
/ for sheiF pgrce acct NOT 70 oootnse la the
baslae-s, aud that sac corporation has not
carried oct thls agreement made BY IL pro
uioterA. Il IA not neoessaTy 20 refer more Ia
de,ail 20 this defence e Is sufficient 90 say thas
DO not Ind that such 40 agreement was made,