The Fairmont West Virginian. (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1904-1914, 1906-11-21
COURT
DEALS BLOW 10
Combinations
Big Coal and Coke
Pool Shattered

CHARLESTON, W. Va, Nov. 21.--
One of the most important decisions
ever handed down by the State Su'
preme Court was handed down yes
terday in the case Of Pocahontas Coal
Co. VS.. Powhatan Coal and Coke Co.,
from Mcdowell county. The decision
defines to a great extent the powers
Of the people OF this State to deal with
and control all trusts, monopolies.
combinations and contracts between
individuals or corporations for the pur'
pose of raising or fixing prices Of conf
modlties. The opinion is by Judge
Cox.
The decision becomes the first de-
cided law of West Virginia upon the
question of trusts like the one in
voIved in this case. Last year the
court declared illegal a contract be-
tween two gas companies Of Charles
ton, fixing a minimum price Of gas to
consumers.
The present case is farther reach'
ing in its effects as no prices were
fixed by the contract.
Twenty in Pool.
BY contract, twenty coal and coke
producing companies in the Pocahon'
tas Flat Top coal field united to form
a single agent corporation, calIel the
Pocahontas? Coke Co. Each of the
twenty companies then entered into
contract with the agent company ap'
pointing it the sole and exclusive
sales agent of all the coal and coke
produced by them, Thus competition
was ended between the several com
panIes. After few months the Paw
hatan Coal and Coke Co. and stS
other companies refused to continue
to deliver their products TO the agent
company. The agent company ap
piled for an Injunction to compel
them to continue to deliver their
products. The power to fix the sale
price of coal and coke was given IA
the agent company after the sale all
companies shared equally in profits.
The Powhatan company claimed
that the contract or combination was
illegal under the Sherman antitrust
law Of 1890, and that 1t was also
illegal under the common law. West
Virginia has no antitrust law. ManN
other States have.
In the PocahoHtRs case the court
holds that the Sherman law does moi
apply, because the contract did not
necessarily involve Interstate com
merce.
TIL Sherman law declares illcga
every contract combination. in thl
form of trust or otherwise, or con
spIracy in restraint of Interstate
commerce.
Under that Law the restraint nt
trade need not be unreasonable.
Restrainst Must Be Unreasonable,
hut it is noteworthy that under tho
decision by Judge Cox, which rests
upon the common law prevailing in
this State, the restraint complained ot
must be unreasonable.
The Pocahontas Co.'S contract was
declared illegal because it was in I'M
reasonable restraint OF trade, re
strained competition, tradedenatoieIr
strained competition, tended 70 mo
nopoly and to control prices, and wNs
therefore, contrary to public policy
This puts the ban Of the law upon any
trust or combination formed by two or
more persons to companies to control
any legitimate article of trade. Or
ganI2ations, unions contracts, trusts
to fix prices Of goods. merchandise
gas. coal, lumber or whatever ar
ticle Of trade, are Illegal and void
when in unreasonable restraint Of
trade
Nor need the extent of the control
be more than local,
Now must all persons In any town
or community, dealing In the same
article combine. Two or more butch
ers. grocers, or dealers In any other
line Of commerce, may form an Il
legal contract to fix and contfO
prices,and be against the law as an
noUnced In this case. Some of ths
points decided are given below.
careful study Of tAem will disclose
to the lawyer and layman as well The
rights Of the people to defend AMI pro
tect themselves against extortion and
unfair contract and combinations Is
a resort to the courts.
The Syllabus.
First Upon the hearing Of motion
Ito dissolve an Injunction betott
~ :. =
IeoneIpded 81 Fage Flys9 n