The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-05-04
IMPORTANT ANTITRUST SUIT.
BRIEFS FILED Nv THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COCRT.

The Main Question ~ Issue II Whether
Voluntary Association which Does
No Business end Fixes No Prsee 10
In violation Of the sherman act.
WASHINGTON, May S-Briefs have been
filed In an antitrust suit, soon to be argued
In the Supreme Court, which IL OF great
interest TO the mercantile world, In that
the main question at issue IL whether
voluntary association, which does no ous'-
moss and fixes no prices or tarihs on the
goods handled by its members. IL repug-
nant to the Sherman act.
The Circuit Court OF Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit thought II was, and rendered Judg-
ment against W. W. Montague d Co. OF San
francisco, and incidentally the Tile Mantol
and Crate Association OF California. ana
In favor OF Lowry 4 Daily. for three-fold
the amount OF actual damages. $500. and
an attorneys fee Of $50. Montague and
the association sued out a writ OF error
on the ground stated, and on the ground
that the allowance for attorneys fee was
excessive.
The association ID composed Of active
and inactive members. the former nantel
and CRATE dealers within a radius OF 200
miles Of San Francisco. and the latter the
principal enoaustic tile manufacturers OF
an English Arm, and the OHIO Foundry Com
pany. The bylaws of tho association pro
vide that any acceptable" dealer Of San
Francisco or vicinity may become an active
member. and all manufacturers OF tiles
and fireplace fixtures throughout the coun.
upon payment OF nominal entrance fee
and subscribing to the rules.
These rules, among other things. prohibit
members from buying the three articles
named from ahy except members or selling
unset tiles to non-members at less than
was shown, by giving OF trade discounts,
were 50Z per cent. less than to outsiders.
After the association was formed, Lowry
DAILY, dealers and settlers OF tiles. man
tells and CRATES, teing. unable as before to
Encaustic Title Works Of Anderson, Ind,
a member OF the association. in order to
fill contracts. were compelled to purch ase
from Montague at the higher price. They
brought suit under the sherman Anti
Federal Court allie wed with costs and the
Court of Appeals affirmed.
Counsel for Mo atague AYERS that such
voluntary associations are familiar enough
in this country to those engaged in mer-
camille pursuits. and, as shown by the
1lOphlIlS anu IhuucIsOil CESeS, dIe TekuIueN
by the law He emphasizes the
point that tho association could not be in
restraint Of trade or monopoly when
any local dealer or any manufacturer
could becoIoe a member.
As between the dealer and the manu-
facturer the association made no attempt
to fix prices, nor az All association did 1t
do any business. 1t was lawful Of course,
for a man u) decline to work for another
man or Glars OF men, or to do business with
another mai or class of men. as he saw fit;
and what wa lawful for one man to do in
this regard. sc verRl men might agree to act
jointly r doit g, and might make express
and simultaneous declaration of their in
tention
As to the lawfufness OF the associations
a greement between the dealers and the
counsel cites the Supreme
Court decisions in the Hopkins, Grenhut.
Nelson, Dueber and other casee, and he
points out the d] difference between the case
at bar and the Trans Missouri and Joint
Traffic decisions.
In the last named decision the Court
held that the reatraint Of trade contem-
plated, by the Sh erman Act was direct,
immediate and substantial through an
to Ak prices or rates by an ar
bitrary convention. to the exclusion Of the
play Of the law OF competition.
Finally, in the ceAe upon which suit was
brought, It In contes,ded that the transact
ton was purely local one, and not there
fore within the scope of the law as TO in
terstate commerce, as Was held In the Addys-
ton Pipe case.