The Birmingham age-herald., 1907-03-05
FERTILIZER TRUST
 DECISION REVERSED Supreme Court Decides Against
 Removal of Indicted Men TO TENNESSEE FOR TRIAL
Charged That Combination Controlled 90 Per Cent of Product and $4,000,- 900 Excess Charges Paid By
 Farmers of the South.

Washington. March 4.-The fertilizers trust case, involving the right of the United States to compel the removal of the indicted officials of the fertilizers company constituted the alleged trust from Virginia to Tennessee for trial were decided today by the supreme court of the United States adversely to the gov ernment's contention, the opinion being delivered by Chief Justice Fuller, who held that the United States circuit court having erred in holding that the indict- ment was sufficient to. ure the removal of the case without gard to the evi- dence. The result ; the reversal of the decision by theS lited States circuit court for the ea'o n district of Ten nessee. ~
 Chief Justice 2 .er said that the su- preme court hes lever held that in the son was sufS : at to secure his trans fer from O jurisdiction to another, and" he au, q, i've now hold that 1t is not'
 He proceeded to say that removal could only be ordered on showing sufficient cause for such course; that this could only be done by scrutiny of the evidence and that to refuse this investigation is a denial of the right guaranteed by the constitution The court, therefore. reversed the order of the circuit court for the removal of Tlnsley and other defendants to Tennessee and ordered their discharge, but without prejudice against future proceedings m the case.
 The fertilizer trust cases. which on the point of removal was today decided by the supreme court of the United States at least temporarily favorably to the indicted officials of the fertilizer company, have attracted much attention and have been stubbornly fought ever since the beginning of nrf.seeaings last May. There were eleven cases before the court and all arose out of indict- -ments returned by the federal grand jury for the middle district of Tenncs- see, sitting at Nashville. which charged the defendant with conspiring to regulate the price of fertilizers in the states of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee in violation of the antitrust law of 1890.
 Controlled 90 Per Cent.
 It was charged in these indictments that the combination contralled 90 per cent of the fertilizer product of the coun- try and through the Colonial Develop ment company as common medium prices were fixed and the amount of sales regulated the result being a cost in the aggregate of not less than a,D0000 to the farmers on the states mentioned in eX- cess of what 1t would be under a system permitting free and unrestricted compc- tition. There were twenty y-five indct- ments against the officers of the fertill- ger companies, but only eleven of them have reached the supreme court. These were the cases against James G. Tinsley, president of the Marietta Fertilizer com pany of Georgia; William De c. Kessler, secretary and treasurer of the Goulding Fertilizer company of Great Britain; Samuel T. Morgan, presiden,; Fortescue Whitet president; Ed Frank Wilcox, agent and manager of the Virginia-Ca lima Chemical company; J. Rice Smith, president of the Georgia Chemical works; Austin B. Carpenter, and Charles II. Me Dowell, agents of the Armour company of Chicago; George Bade, president of the Federal Chemical company of Della ware and Kentucky, and Frank s. Roys- ter and Charles r. Burroughs of the Royster Guano company of Virginia.
 It was charged that the goods were shipped from various places in Ken lucky, Virginia and Illinois. The n- dicted men have been on bail pending on the supreme counts action. The pro- proceeding which terminated today was merely preliminary and did not go into the merits of the case. When taken into custody by the Virginia marshal. the de- fendants appealed to the United States circuit court for writs of habeas corpus on the ground that the Tennessee court, under the constitution, was incompetent to try them for an offense which had not been committed in that Jurisdiction. They contended that no offense had been com mitted against the laws of the United States, but urged that even if there had been such offense, 1t had not been com mitted in Tennessee, where none of them lived.