The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-11-07

channels of interstate commerce, II 1t
acts directly upon the commerce. Is
doctrine has been applied by the SUI
preme Court under varying conditions
as follows:
In United States vs.. Trans Missouri
railroads west Of the Missouri River
entered into an agreement whereby
they appointed committee that was
to have power to fix all rates for
railroad bound itself to abide by the
heavy penalties. The United State $
applied under the antitrust net to
have the agreement declared void, and
for an injunction against the parties
to it acting under 1t upon the ground
th2t tho agreement prevented that free
competition between the different rail-
road corporations that the public was
entitled to. and, therefore, that It OPP
state commerce. The injunction was
granted and susta ined by the Supreme
Court The modern doctrine In re-
gard to contracts in restraint of trade
is that there may be reasonable re-
straints upon trade. and that the law
only forhids restraints upon trade that
are unreasonable. The railroads urged
upon the court that Congress had used
in the sense that the settled law at
taches to it, and that as their agree
ment imposed only Reasonable" re-
straint upon trade the court should
the Supreme Court upheld that the act
straint Of trade. and that it had no
power to read the word reasonable"
into the act, and that as 1t found the
agreement in this case one that re-
strained trade by making 1t possible
to end all competition between rail-
roads that were natural competitors,
1T was bound to treat 1t as one OF those
denounced by the act whether the re-
straint was reasonable or unreasonable
Then came the case of United States
VS.. Joint Traffic Association, III U. s.
r.. sos. In which an agreement be-
stance. the same as that between the
railroads west of the Missouri River,
was likewise declared void as an
agreement in restraint Of trade, and
Congress.
curties Company vs.. United states.
1913 U. S. r., 1877. In that case the
stockholders in two competing rail :.
road eompa .hies had formed ao. third
each exchaneing their stock for the
stock Of the third company. The Su-
preme Court held that this action
HiiiivhHtt. " Siii eStllcli Utl"tCH LIZ
stockholders of each of tho competing
companies to restrain trade by ending
CONNIE titlon between them, and was a
violation OF the antitrust act. and it
di solved tie third corporation.
Then camc Swift VS.. United States
1876 U. S. r., 375.-what is known as
the beef trust case. That case was
heard upon demurrer to bill pray
ing for. an Injunction against an al
legged Illegal combination. and the
averments of the bill were taken to be
the facts Of the case. The bill, charged
IN brief that there was combination
of dominant proportion of the deal
ers In fresh meats throughout the
other in the live stock markets of the
different states, to bid up prices for
few days IN order to induce the
cattl. men to send their stock to the
would cell. and, to that end to restrict
shipments to meat when necessary;
to establish uniform rule OF credit
to dealers, and to keep blacklist; to
for carriage, and finally to get less than
lawful rates from the railroads to the
exclusion OF competitors. There was
a further allegation that all of this
distribution IF fresh meat throughout
the United States. The Supreme Court
held that this was an agreement in
restrain of interstate commerce, and
was col demncd by the antitrust act.
There We're also cases Of INJUNCTION
against unlawful agreements. But
there have also been cases OF actions
for the treble damages and an attor-
ney's fee provided, for by the seventh
sss1Sn q vs. .n foW aa 81 09s'fae
there was combination between al
| the manufacturers of tiles, all of whom
dwelt in tho East, and the wholesale
dealers in tiles in San Francisco
| a
the manufacturers or Of the San Fran
cisco dealers should sell tiles to any
| person who was not member Of tht
association. except at the list prices
| higher than the prices at which mem
| hers Of the association could buy tiles
| The conditions for becoming a memhe,
Of the association were such tina
could not comply with them. Thu
| plaintiffs had established a profitable
business, and were competing with al
the defendants who We're dealers ant
j and selling tiles in San Francisco prio
to the FORMATION of this association
i They had also prior to that time Sbeel
accustomed to purchase all their TIL
states. and all of those manufacturer
4 had become members of the associa
ton. Tire plaintiff being unable t
buy the tiles necessary to their bust
: iieSS sSSept Hl Tue teSloVtlpntlNE rTltt'
fixed by tho associations, sued It's mem
bers for damages under the sevent
section OF the anti-trust act of Con
gress. The Jury awarded $500 dam
ages, and the court entered judgmen
/ for three times that amount and TO
an attorneys fee of s75o. The Suprem
I Court affirmed the judgment upon tn
{ GROUND that the agreement betwee
i the manufacturers and jobbers was a
$ agreement II restraint Of trade be
1 tween the States, and was therefor
| condemned by the nnt!-trust act
, The latest utterance upon the sub
3 ject by the Supreme Court is in Chat
, tnnooga Pipe Company VS.. City c
t Atlanta, advance sheets S. G.. r.. i
Go. That was a suit by the city c
, Atlanta against members of the assc
e citation condemned In the case of Ad
dyston Pipe Company VS.. United State
? already set out above, for treble dan
ages under the seventh section OF tn
9 antitrust act. The. verdict OF tn
] jury was for the plaintiff, and for til
= difference between the price paid fc
7 the pspe. by the city OF Atlanta an
: the market or fair price that II,
Q city would have had to pay under ma,