Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1904-03-24
THURSDAY EVENING. MAR. "a. 1904.

ONE of the sections of the Sherman
antitrust law, hitherto regarded by the
legal fraternity as dead letter, became
very much alive on the recent decision
of the United States Supreme Court IN
the case of w. w. Montague & Co., a
corporation, against Edward S. Lowry.
This fact has escaped the attention its
inheritance warrants. Section Of the
act reads:
Any person who shall be injured IN
his business or property byany other per
son or corporation by reason Of anything
forbidden or declared to be unlawful by
this act NAV sue therefor in any Circuit
Court of the United States, in the district
in which the defendant resides or Is
found. without respect to the amount I'D
controversy, and shall recover threeioid
the damages by him sustained and the
costs of the suit, including reasonable
attorneys fee.
Under this provision it would seem
that any individual whose business has
been injured by the operations OF trust
may recover damages for such injuries,
and the corporation inaicting them
should it continue to operatein the same
manner, would be liable to criminal
prosecution. In the Montague case
abundant proof was presented, and the
Supreme Court upheld the decision OF
the Circuit Court, which granted damages.
The evidence showed that Montague q
Co. for many years before the beginning
of the action had been cOpartners, dong
business in San Francisco, dealing IN
tiles, mantels aud CRATES, and that
the Tile, Mantel and Crate Assocla-
ton of California, composed OF whole
sale dealers in these articles in Cali
fornia and other States, was organized,
and sold its products to various deal
ers in California. There were no manu-
facturers of tile in that State, making
necessary the purchase of tiles from
other States, In this way the manu-
facturers and dealers were engaged ID
the prosecution of business which, with
reference to the sale of tiles, amounted
TO commerce between States. Under
these circumstances the dealers in tiles
living in San Francisco or within a
radius of two hundred miles, together
with the eastern manufacturers OF tiles,
formed the association. Its object was
to unite all acceptable dealers in San
Francisco and vicinity and all American
manufacturers of tiles. Montague d
Co. had established a profitable bust
ness and were competing with Edward
S. Lowry and others prior to the for
nation of this association. Before that
time they had been accustomed to
purchase all their tile from man
ufacturers in the eastern States. They
never applied to the association for
membership, nor were they asked to join
it. The proof shows, according to the
decision of the United States Supreme
Court, that by reason of the formation OF
this association the plaintiffs were in
iured in their business because they were
unable to procure tile from the manufac-
turers at any price or from the dealers
in San Francisco at less than the asso-
cations price, which was prOhibitive.
In view of these facts verdict of $500
in favor of Montague & Co. was render
ed, aud, in accordance with the pro-
visions of section 7 of the act, judgment
for treble that sum, together with what
the trial court decided to be a reasonable
attorneys fee, was given.