New-York tribune., 1908-03-05
HOUGH GIVES OPINION.
SUIT FOR $1,000, 900.
Makes Important Ruling Under the
Sherman 4nti-IrnSt 1ct.

Judge Hough. in the United States Circuit
Court late yesterday afternoon gave his opin-
ion on the motion made by Henry w Aai''
brother of Secretary Taft. to dismiss the SUIT
broueht under the Sherman antitrust act py
the American Banana Company against the
United Fruit Company. in which damages 10
the amount of S6.OOOOOO were asked for
The American Banana Company, which III
June. 1901 bought for S4S0,0O0 a strip OF iahu
on the Changuionola River. in Central America
for a nlaptation and on 1t constructed raii-
road alleged that the United Fruit Company
instigated the Costa Rican military authorr
ties to take forcble possession of the iahd' anu
as a result of the seizure its business was de-
stroyed.
In sunnort of his motion to dismiss the suit
Mr. Taft said that at the time the Aiheli''
Banana Company forced from the Chah-
puonoIa strip that territory was in dispute
being claimed by Costa Rica anu d'i''
Later the question which country owned the
strip was decided by President Louoet Oh
France as arbitrator in favor Of Panama 1hese
facts Mr.. Taft said, absolved the Unlteo iuit
Company from liability for damages oecause
the seizure of the strip was the result Vi I"
tangle between two foreign countries
Decidine the point raised by Mr. Tart ana
also that of Horace Deming the iat'er iepi'
senting the American Banana Company Juuse
Hough among other things IN MS oplilioii' ''-'
If the act complained of was done by foS' and that
renublic were Joint tort feasors Ihefe "aS 90 uF
tort and d m one ocrne that the other be
equally suable- But neither costa aIf fsie' ii'' 10
officers could be brought into our without
1t is impossible to adjudicate this mater matter Ric n
sitting in judgment on the right OF sIice inten-
ton or profit important than % our SiI hn
ar c0psdgTagiIiS fy ~ Of the arrest be demonstrated
There as here. it is of the essence OF me and
legality of the governmental action out OF ~liC ~
the suit m apd tS {H vady or legality Of
of any sovereign independent nation &C damages
The complainant specifically dcrnands as .iseJ
nrosnective profts-p profits that would nave HOWL
from the uninterrupted enjoyment OF us I'm
8ea YEARS ater 1907 its rpened exPortmg Pn m the
sane 70 the United states and there selling pa
nanas without the monopolistlc oppression VI ~
petition OF defendant. ,.. -, tho valid
ity Of The original taking of the plantation II ctI ~
tainly cannot award damages Tor tiie ieSu'' - VIZ
BUT apart thst difficulty it app sPPe4Tsd 4Isdt thor or
never did plaintiff enjoy or possess any ao ~
onnoarno IN bananas from the plantation In queS-
ton and remembering that this Is an actlGn IT,
the Sher e Ia No rgSt Of action to who is not
deprived of his existing prohtS trace naWfu a com
bnaton monopoly but merely preRe'ibeu tbaaten
ing aspect Of already existing monopoly u ooii
bipationss .,o- s,or,r that defendant has enticed
or sought to entfce away paintins enptoyes am anu
oppressed or sought to @ Stock 9HS in 81 plaintiff
connany These proceedings, however uilLdii dlu
immoral are not in and of themselves Ioroiuuel
or declared to unlawful by the sherman
and do not think that a cause OF actloh Can 'O
bufIt uDon this procedure alone IT. $50.
The really serious question raised by tillS nv IlIo
+ion should in fairness have been lonS aSo P!.t4s
santad nv demurrer and this motion pldlhittlI
is entitled to great laxity IN lh'eipie''"s ~
Regarded as an independent cause OF aCtlo5i, I4s
greatly doubt whether it is sufncieIltly p4edueu-
Set if is true that although the plaintiL HeNGSi S
harvested nor exported bananas, II hdd puSI %
ness bv way of preparation. 1t expendeo cor
siderahle money in its Central American pam
II was engaged in foreign commerce Wneh II 5 pe
gan 10 move men, material and SupplieS 10 anu
frcn, the United States and Central american
ports, and if the pla1ntlh SO eIectS VIII '
testimony this point ~ ,.eo-o ,r.ro1,
O In order that counsel may have an opporlunltS
to consider and decide before the opening oL
courf on that dav whether. inasmuch as rullIsS
in accordance herewith Will exclude from tHe
Consideration of the jury the Substan!idi CdSt
which plaintiff has intended TO present II pe NO.
advisable to permit judgment tC go TOT lIle " "
ferGant that the correctness of the views HeI.
expressed may be tested IN the APpeIia'0 O0u-e
promptly and small expense
The United Fruit Company's lawyers say that
Judge Hough's Interpretation of the sherman
antitrust act as given in his opinion VIII nave
an important bearing and most likely lead 10
tho dismissal of the suit for S3O,ooo,oO dam
ages against the American Sugar Company 10
~, tried in the federal courts in Philadelphia.