New-York tribune., 1903-06-11
! !COURT SEES CONTRACT.
COMMISSION COULD NOT.
Coal Roads Counsel Argue Inter
state BOdy Has Not POzcer.

Argument the right of the Interstate COM
merce Commission to examine the contracts oe-
tween the coal carrying roads and the coal mining
companies, Independent and owned oy the codi
roads themselves. heard by Justice LacomDe
yesterday in the United States Circuit Court Coun-
sci for the coal roads contended. they did when
they refused the order of the commission 10
submit the contracts to that body. that the Sher-
man act gave to the commission right TO see
them.
John G. Johnson of Philadelphia who first pre-
sented the argument for the coal roads counsel
declared in denying the power OF the commission
in the present proceedings that the Interstate
Commerce act governed the pooling OF interests
and increased freight rates and gave to the com
mission the power to inquire into such matters
but nothing in the related TO restraint of trade
or the combination of carriers to stop competition
and divide trade territories The Sherman act was
passed with particular reference TO combinations
in restraint of trade. and was construed to cover
all combinations of carriers. but it did not extend
to the Interstate Commerce Commission
He denied that any agreement among carriers not
IN interfere with each others territory prop
erlv under the definition of pooling. and even II
the Temple Iron Company agreement amounted TO
a pooling of interests the Interstate Commerce
Commission had no Jurisdiction
Walter w. Ross. representing the Delaware
rsckawanna and Western road. declared that when
once the company had bought the coal IL could do
as it pleased with it. Mr. Ross said the contract
agreement with independent mines did not supu-
that the particular cOal DOuSht SiON'N " 9'0
at tdewater and 5 per of the price paid TO the
miner 1t stipulated that the miner should receive
the percentage of the tidewater price OF coal
THAT is very material difference, Judge Id
combe said IF the railroad gets a proportion OF
the amount realized by the sale as freight 1t seems
to be matter the Interstate Commerce Commits
sion NAV investigate: but if you buy. say, nun
dred thousand tons of coal in State and say 10
the miner, We will pay you for the coal propor-
ton of what coal is selling for at udewater III Ill
other State that a different proposition
Ex-Judge Campbell. submitting briefs for Mr.
Baer and the Reading company, presented TO the
court copies of the Temple agreement. which he
refused to present to the commission. I'VE submit
them to the consideration of this court connoene
that they will prove contention lnaI tHey dls
material to any issue within the urisdletloh 9l
the Interstate Commerce commission, ne Sei4
Other counsel then followed his example ana Suo-
rntted the disputed contracts to Judge Lacomoe
Clarence J. Shearn declared that the commission
freight and other charges II II was deDrreu LIi
inquiring the market value OF the cOrnEiouIIy
The fundamental question involved was whetner
price OF coal was a competitive price; oi d
price fixed by combination of the railroads con
trolling greater part OF the product and all the
carving facilities. BY the contracts the operator
agreed TO sell for all future time the product OF
his mine, but the buyer agreed only to take the
proportior of the output ne needed. This was an
agreement to restrain the output The contract
fixed the price as Il prOpOrtOn-63 per cent-of the
price realized by the coal at tidewater only pN te
Of anthracite was controlled by three or four men.
General Burnett. in closing the complainant
side argued the fact remained that 80 per cent
Of the tidewater price was the price PAID for
transDortation and that il thus became freight
rate. and. freight rate was within the power
of the Interstate Commerce Commission TO lnvestl-
gate. ., - -.
served.