The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-02-25
THE LUMBER
TRUST CASE
Saturday Yielded Some
Developments of
Moment.

Developments in the lumber trust
case Investigation before u S. Com
| missioner Hatch on Saturday were
| important.
A ruling by Judge Dole at the start
was unfavorable TO the defendants.
Next the significance of the previous
| divulgences, by it's own representative
under oath, of the conduct of the
American-Hawaiian Steamship Co.,
suggestive of discrimination in favor
of the defendants, was made apparent
by the effort of that common carrier
to avoid giving certain further evil
dence requested by the United States
attorneys.
/ Finally, definite evidence was given
by different witnesses both of the ex-
istence of combination between the
defendants and of the refusal of the
Observation-Disclosures Steamship Co. to
carry freight for small lumber
dealer.
Judge Dole handed down a ruling on
the question whether evidence of the
conduct of the three defendant corr
pora lions prior to January 1, 1901, and
subsequent to October, 1905. was ad-
between 1901 and 1906 He held that If
the government could show con-
nected line of conduct it would be rele-
want if it appeared that the same in
diyiduals were participants in that
conduct.
COUNSEL FOR WITNESS.
H. E. Cooper came in, saying he
wished to appear as counsel for c. P.
Morse, general freight agent of the
American Steamship Co.
The government objected to his ap-
pearance and the objection was sus-
tanned. Mr.. Cooper asked for time, on
behalf of Mr.. Morse, to examine the
pleadings in the case and the scope of
the testimony so as to advise that
gentleman.
c. K. All, president if the City Mill
Co., was recalled to supplement his
former evidence in some particulars.
w. T. Patty, a building contractor,
testified that these three corporations
-Aller & Robinson, Levers & Cooke
and ', ilder & Co.-did at least three
fourths of the lumber business here,
and that they issued price lists of
their merchandise, and that there
price lists were Identical in quotations.
II liC save d PiClCtcul ~ d Pal tlCu-
lar firm it was not because of any diff
ference in price but of some collateral
reason such as long acquaintance. So
far as prices We're concerned there was
no choice.
REFUSAL. OF FREIGHT.
G. B. Reynolds, recently a dealer in
building materials, was the next wit
ness. Formerly, for q years, he was
in the service of the Board of Health,
part of the time as superintendent of
the leper settlement.
These three corporations, the witness
said, controlled over three-fourths of
the lumber business here and there was
no difference in prices as among them.
In 1905 he imported certain shingles by
the ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS line and at
the commencement of his importations
had no difficulty in getting his goods
here, but after the first two or three
shipments he experienced great diff
ficulty in getting his goods here
through that line, being always told
that there was no room left in the
ship for his consignments.
Mr. Reynolds went into detailed ex-
plantations of certain technical abbre-
viations used in the lumber business
which appeared in the bills of the three
different corporations which were ex-
hibited> to him. He compared the
prices charged in these bills with the
prices published in the price lists of
the defendants. In the course of his
examination on this line it was found
that a price list was issued on April is
1908, and that the prices, in the i'm
mense number of bills presented to
him, showed differences so far as
March, 1903, was concerned, while af-
ter April IS, 1903, the prices charged
in the bills We're all the same and
agreed exactly with the prices insert |
ed in the price lists. They were bills /
presented by these three defendants to |
w. G.. Irwin & Co. and the object of |
exhibiting them was to show that |
the prices charged prior to |
A pril Is. 1903, agreed or not with the I
price lists then in existence, every t
single bill rendered by the three de- /
PENDANTS to W. G. Irwin & Co. after /
April IS. 1903, showed prices which /
were exactly the same as those shown /
in the price list of that date.
PRICES PRODUCED.
Toward the end of the days session, /
Just before adjournment, the three de-
PENDANT corporations, acting each in
obedience to a subpoena duces tecum,
produced their prices from 1900 10 1907. |
First was a price list issued by all /
three jointly. The others were price
lists issued by them individually and |
a comparison of the figures in these /
showed a fiat uniformity of prices.
District Attorney Breckons and As
sistant District Attorney Dunno take
turns in the examination of witnesses.
There are frequent objections from 5
the large array of attorneys for the |
These are noted to be
passed upon by Judge Dole when he
considers the testimony, but some OF
them require his ruling during the