The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-03-08
ELEVATOR TRUST
| SUED BY MOODY
Otis Elevator Company Accused
of Being Gigantic and
Illegal Combine.

San Francisco, March s.-The news
of the filing of suit by the United
States government against number OF
elevator companies has caused sensa-
| tion in California and the west, this be
ing the first legal proceedings OF the
kind ever instituted out here. (
! United States District Attorney Rob
ert Devlin, who brought the suit, says
in discussing his action:
''The complaint filed yesterday is
against the Otis Elevator company and
thirty other defendants, who are alleged |
to be N one concern and operating
contrary to the provisions of the, Shei
man act. The complaint was drawn
up me, but is signed by United States
Attorney General Moody, all such ac-
tions originating at Washington. st
"The action is based upon affidavits
Of men who were formerly in the com
bine and who state that, while the de-
fendapts to the action are apparently
separate concerns, they in reality are
all under control of the Otis Elevator
company. 49,. 80. III. -
Gigantic Trust.
The effect of this pooling Of interests
is to enhance prices and restrict trade
with the view to controlling all the
elevator business on the Pacific coast,
! with the probability that this is but
branch of a gigantic trust that con-
trolls the elevator output all over the
q United States. - s~~ @-.~
/ "Such combination is against the
I provisions of the Sherman law and we
believe that we have ample evidence
against the trust to make out a clear
case: when it comes to trial. The aft
davits Of the men set forth in the
I complaint, whose names I do not now
4 remember, are complete and are basel
n
tity of material of firms not in the
combine has gone to waste, there being
no sale for it. -
| "This suit has been carefully pre-
pared and will be pushed vigorously.
1 In every phase Of it the attorney gen,
eral has been consulted and L regard
4 the case as clear and strong against
\ all the long list of Defendants '..
] The Companies Sued. :. ..
l The United States Of America is
named in the suit as complainant, and
the following are named as defend
\ ants: Otis Elevator company, Elec
Electric Elevator company, !Cahill 6
Hall Elevator company. A. j. McNich
. oil Elevator company, Crane Elevate
/ company, Standard Elevator & Manu-
featuring company, Eaton & Primo
y Elevator company, Smith-Hill Elevate
Ia company. Whittier Machine company
Stokes & Parish Elevator company
Cartwright Elevator company, Grave
Elevator company, Plunger Elevate
company, Sprague Elevator company
I Bloomsbury Elevator & Machine com
| pany, Sulzer-Vogt Machine company
! Central Iron Works company, Moo
\ Elevator company, Warner Elevate
company, M. J. O'Donnell & Go
nrrh% RI
Elevator company, Geiger, Fiske
. Koop, National Electric Elevator con
pany,: Burdette g.: Rowntree Manufat
n turing company, 2 Moline Elevator con
~ pany, Samuel Burger, W. p. Baldwin
VI G. e. Comstock, John Doe, Ricbar
" Roe, Thomas Roe, William Roe, Henr
- Roe, George Roe, Charles Roe, Ada1
, Roe, Hugh Roe and Edward Roe.
]g @.- To Control Prices. 800
M 1t is charged that these com panic
Iva make and sell at least 80 per cent 4
all of the elevators used in that teri
tory, and that they have entered in
a combination among themselves
\ control and enhance the prices !
which elevators are sold; that in ord
to make the combination effective, tt
Otis Elevator. company has acquire
the whole or majority interest in tt
n businesses of all the other defendant
~ altho these defendants are still bell
~ operated as apparently separate a.
Independent concerns; that when an
uuiry is received from customer
any Of the defendants, it is immedia1
ly referred to the Otis Elevator co
pany and, if there is no outside comp
tition, that company designates t
concern which is to get the busine
fixes an excessive and exorbitant pr
od'' to be charged and directs the oil
e companies to submit bids, apparent
sure in good faith, but higher than the
of the company which has been DIES
= mated to receive the contract; if 0
Z side competition does appear, one
the subsidiary companies is directed
take the contract at a loss, in order
freeze out the competitors. T..
autv Crushing Competition.
The bill also alleges that there
only three elevator companies, not
the combination carrying on busir
west of the Rocky mountains, and t
in order to drive these companies
PC of business and secure an absolute !
~ nopoly, the Otis Elevator company
,our- instituted suits against them for
win alleged infringements of it's pate
81 so, which suits are brought solely to
e. ass and iniure them, and when one
9n these independent companies secure
d. contract. the Otis Elevator comp
SON, notifies the customer that it
,sing. brought suit against the indepent
rving company for infringement, and It
price customer allows the independent {
pany to carry out the contract, he
customer) will thereby become Ii
for damages for said infringement