The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-03-13
LAW HAND IS ON
BIG MONOPOLIES
Continued From First Page.

vet + ! the hs. corporation: The court also
eminent offered tended to show COM
bination in restraint Of trade; that the
twenty -four defendant corporations
had tentered into combination by
which they organized the General Paper
company, which corporation managed
the sales and divided the profits among
the various defendants. They held the
testimony tended to prove this and was
therefore material.
These Must Tell Facts.
Among the witnesses summoned by
the examiner were L. M. Alexander.
secretary and treasurer; George A.
Whiting, first vice president and w. C.
Stuart, general sales manager Of the |
General Paper company, and E. Thar
ppof, president Of the Grand Rapids
fused to produce their books or to make |
reply to certain questions concerning !
the conspiracy alleged by the govern.
ment IN the proceedings against the pa
per company, claiming personal privi-
leges under the fourth and fifth amend !
ments to the constitution Of. the United
States, which they asserted relieved
them from disclosing the. facts concern
al.
They also commended that to compel
such disclosure would amount to an
unreasonable search and seizure, within
the meaning of the fourth amendment,
and to require them to give evidence
against themselves, within the mean
ing OF the fifth amendment. A similar
plea was made on behalf of the Cen
eral Paper company. The refusal Of the
witnesses to testify was reported to
the circuit court for the eastern district
OF Wisconsin and that tribunal directed
them to reply to the questions and to
produce the books of the company as
required. From that decision an appeal
was taken to the supreme court.
The Minnesota Gases.
The facts in the Minnesota cases were
similar, but the court proceedings were
different, permitting the court to take
jurisdiction in those cases while it could
not do so in the Wisconsin cases.
The names Of the parties to the Min
nesota cases were: Benjamin F. Mel
| son, president Of the Hennepin Paper
company; Anselm G. Brossard, treasurer
| and manager of the Itasca company,
and Clarence I. McNair, general man
ager Of the Northwest Paper company.
| In his opinion in these cases Justice
NC kenna took up the three various OBJ
iections to the court IS proceedings and
passed upon them as follows:
II. That the evidence, documen-
tary and oral, which the witnesses were
required to produce, was not shown to
be material to plaintiff IS case.
First-There are. three answers to
this contention. The evidence lis clearly
material. The charge of the bill is that
the defendant manufacturing corpora:
lions entered into q conspiracy and
combination in violation of the act Of
June 2, 1890, to suppress competition
between themselves, and that they ac-
| complished this purpose by organizing
4 the General Paper company and gave
it certain controlling powers over the
output Of the mills and the prices and
4 distribution Of their products. Before
the application to the court for the or
/ ders under review there were certain
! facts established
j Many Facts Are Cited.
Many Of these facts were cited, and
J the Justice then said that by the admis-
sions Of the answers The General Paper
company entered into contracts with
i other companies, became their selling
agent, and was entitled to certain
percentage Of the sales.
4 exercised its powers, made sales and re-
ceived profits. In all that It did the
1 manufacturing corporations were inter
!, ested; they owned its stock, were en-
2 titled to its dividends. Tits, we may
!, admit for argument sake, not preiudg-
s ing in any way, may be consistent with
, continued competition between COM
: panies, but it may be otherwise At
any rate, the manner in which the pa
! per company executed its functions
) may be links in the evidence adduced
l l - =,
: enough to establish the materiality of
: the evidence.
! Necessarily the books contained the
2 information. The paper company was
! thu selling agent Of the Northwest
3 Paper company and must have kept an
. account Of its sales and into what states
the paper Of the company was shipped
; and sold. Such accounts are material
: and relevant to compliments case
;, They may or may not, in connection
> with other evidence, sustain the charge
. . Of the United States, but they are e1e
. = ments in the proof, having tendency
= lsidered material.
Z Claim Cannot Avail.
= uSecond--The claim Of immaterial
g ity Of the testimony cannot avail plain
: tiffs against the orders of the circui
= court. The testimony is taken to b,
i submitted. to the court where the sui
!. is pending and all questions upon tn
!. evidence, it's materiality and suficien
q cy, are to be determined by it and afte
L it by an appellate court. ~,
u "iThird-These writs of error ar
s not prosecuted by the parties In tn
!. original suit, but by witnesses, to re
y view judgments Of contempt agains
{, them FOR disobeying orders to testify
+ Being witness merely, 1t Is not ope
f to them to make objections to that ties
e timony. The tendency or effect of tn
/ testimony on the issues between tn
n parties is no concern Of theirs. Th
h basis Of their privilege is different frol
5 that and entirely personal, as we sha
% presently see.
# I'll That the documentary evidenc
m called for was not shown to be in tn
rs possession or under the control Of th
h witnesses. This contention is untenabl
m The ground Of it is that the possessio
Of Of the witnesses was not personal, BIT
IN was that Of the respective corporation
~ of which they were officers. Grantin
e. this to be SO and that the witness.
en- could have set up whatever privilege
IT. the corporations had. nevertheless the
ne had the custody (actual possession) I
n. the books and were summoned from n
IT. cessity as REPRESENTING. the corporation