New-York tribune., 1903-01-27
COAL TRUST ARGUMENT,
HERRING At 4LB4NT.
Charges against Raitroads-Ihei''
Defence-Decision ReserU6d.

Albany Jan. es.-Attorney General Canneen gave
D hearing to-day on the application of William r.
Hearst that action be begun before the Supreme
Court. under the Antitrust law, against tweFe
coal carrying railroads and the Temple Iron Coi-
psny The complaint alleges that by an agreement
with the independent operators the railroad COM
rsnies have secured control of the entire output
az the anthracite coal mines. and that in March
,sM, they increased the price of coal 30 cents
ton. thereby adding TO ther revenues sSo"n.0'-
The applicant was represented by Clarence y
Ehearn. and the defendant companies oy Lewis T.
Carr for the Delaware and Hudson Company aho
the New-YoIh Ontario and Western hallroao
Company: Allan McCuloch and Frank H. PiatI
fer the T.ehieh Valley Railroad Company; James
Armstrong for the Reading Company, the Temple
IRON Company and the Philadelphia and Reading
Coal and Iron Company: Albert s. Moot, for the
Erie Railroad Company, and w W. Ross, ior 'ie
Delaware. Lackawanna and Western.
Mr.. Shearn declared that, owing TO compeuion
between the companies. coal sold in Ne~-AoIh
a5arbor early in 1886 Sc y ton; that in January
1895 the coal carrying roads made an agreement
Ppportionnc the production OF coal restr1ctlns te
output by 30OoO tons. and increasing the prlce 10
- q ton: that between 1886 and .@1 the output
OF coal was increased from zsoooo to soeoos9 tons
Hud there had been gradual increase IN price
srd that the independent mine operators tIled TO
svoid excessive freight rates by constructing
railroad from the Wyoming Valley to udeWater'
hut thwaTted by tie purchase OF the interests
az Simpson & Watkins. the largest OF the ihue-
,nendent ooerators through the Temple Iron Cons
7any. Of Reading, Penn. the railroad companies
waking the stock and guaranteeing the bonds OF
rhe Temple Iron Company. The ofhcers OF Ile
rre-aple Iron Company. he said. were the nen VINO
re presidents 81 te railroad companies interested
fn the coal fields
Mr. shearu alleged that the railroad presidents
became directors Of the Temple Iron Company, be-
r.suse II Afforded them opportunity TO meet at
stated pe-iods and fix the price which the Temple
Iron Company would charge for coal. and then re-
s,rn TO their respective railroad companies ana
Inform their rate agents what the Temple iron
s-ou,nsnv proposed 20 charge FOR coal He added
,bst after she absorption Of Simpson & Watknss
Interests by the Temple Iron Company and the de-
,est Of the New-York, Wyoming and western
Railroad q number Of other independent operators
banded themselves together and projected the
delaware Valley and Kingston Railroad Company,
(which secured the right to construct road over
she route OF the old Delaware and Hudson canal
seaching the Hudson River at Kingston Inc chlet
supporter OF this protest. he asserted, was tne
Pennsylvania Coal Company, and shortly after the
-aiIraad secured charter contract was entered
tuto with J. p Morgan & Co by which the Erle
Railroad Company purchased both the capltal OF
she Pennsylvania Coal Company and the Delaware
VALLEY Railroad Company. This defeated the IN
dependent operators second movement TO secure
sn6ependent transportation facilities to take their
coal 10 tidewater.
He declared that in March. 1901, agreement
was entered into between the railroad companies
sra the remaining independent operators whereby
she railroad conpanies were to purchase ali their
coal q; the Of So per cent Of the preTaliihs
rrice At tidewater- Since that time, MI shearh
alleges there has been absolute monopoly IN
she sale OF anthracite The strongest proof OF TINS
re asserted was the uniformity OF prices charged
for coaI since time 4 further proof was the
uniform change each month OF the rate OF discount
He further said that supplementary proceeolIss
would be instituted 10 have the Attorney Selle al
begin an action against the Erie and NeT-fork'
Ontario and Western Railroad companies to pre-
seut them from engaging in coal mining
Mr. Carr asked if it were not true that the
rTenple Iron Company contracts and agreements
-.ere made in the State of Pennsylvania and out
side of the jurisdiction OF New-York State
Nj Sbearn replied that the courts OF this state
roud act no matter where the contracts were made
81 they had been made in violation of law and II
companies operating in this State were parties to
them.
W ". Ross. attorney for the Delaware Lacka-
wanna and Western Railroad Company, denied
that his company party to any monopois'
The connection of his company with the Temple
Iron Company was this: During the business ce-
Trressions Of the period some ten years ago the
coal mining Industry was carried on at great
loss A movement started whereby the busl-
NESS which that company had heretofore obtained
from certain independent operators was To he cut
off and diverted TO another company. The Dea-
ware Iackananna and Western Railroad Com
pany took part Of the stock OF the Temple iron
Conpauy that business
after = recess Attorney General Cunneen asked
she counsel for the railroad companies TO conhne
themselves 10 these questions;
FJrst-whether the railroad companies parties TO
the, the pT1cefqhss 3n1 thie stste. ste O'
Se.on5-Whether these railroad companies have
entered into "a agreement whereby the price OF coal
ss determined from month TO monIni i.,a- ,0.a IN
Third-whether the agreement whettlef mao mace ., IN
Pennsylvania or elsewhere has an influence on the
price Of coal in this State; o.,o,, is.,ea bv the
supreme Court Of this State could prevent ne
companies from carrying out The agreement III LUIS
lewis = Carr representing the Delaware and
VItfor
80 e,-r-ieipp for the cost of production was prac
1icallv the same all and that II the chafleI ol
the Temple Iron Company were annuneo Us ele ,
ooleries would revert TO the oWlltISAila CO..,
dependent operators. and the price OF me coaI
The Efforts of the operators to put ali the Goa
.oossibe in the market since the END OF the Strlke
was restricting its production TO certain peTcel
age Of the entire output o. the anLI dCtte I @
t'Il aees etissc+ea and Attorney General Cunneer
stated that The motive would have no bearing upon
his decision; that he would decide the apphcatlon
A n Moot attorney for the Erie. masptained
that no had been presented to justifyIhe ac-
FYrst-Because the agreements made were legal
under the laws Of Pennsylvania and were made In
second-Because the Court Of Appeals of this
state in the Diamond Match Company case had
declared lawful for one corporation 10 hold
the stock OF another a. - -
lated by the Interstate Commerce act
He said that the independent operators produced
they having broken their agreements, there was
sIfticent opPortunty for competition he @ argue que
was governed by the same principle that regulated
the price Of wheat, and that if wheat sold at
certain period at uniform price il did prove
that the farmers OF the country were IN an hlega
A II Moot for the Erie. maintained that The
Reading company produced the majority OF tht
T6e coa Job5ers of New York City. and not III,
rairosd companies he held were the men men i wht
they were not brought before the Attorney General