The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1909-12-08
Fifteen Defendants Alleged to
Have Spent $5OO,OOO
FOUND NOT GUILTY TODAY
Notorious Boston Agreement" Case, in
Which Charge Of Conspiring to Extort
Was Brought Against Men and
Firms in the Steel Business.

Boston, Dec s--The sealed verdict Of
the jury in the Boston agreement" steel
cases, when opened before Judge Harria
in the superior criminal court this morn
Ing, brought verdict Of not guilty. The
fifteen defendant firms and individuals
arc said to have paid 100000 TO the
twenty-six members Of the defending
counsel. The cases went to the jury at
1880 yesterday forenoon, following
eleven weeks Of trial
Of the thirty.three defendants named
in the Indictment only six corporations
and nine individuals remained for the
jurys consideration, as follows G. w.
a. I. Smith Iron company Canton
Bridge company. Boston Bridge works,
incorporated; New England Structural
company, Eastern Bridge & Structural
company, Phoenix Iron company, Harry
Id. Russ A. s. Miller. ir., Harry G. Col
Inns, Charles N Pennycuick, e. F. Smith,
Frank u White John X. Britain, Ben.
jamin X. Gorham and George @ Bartram.
Judge Directed Partial Verdict.
In delivering his charge to the ilry,
Judge Harris declared that the case rest.
ed on the charge that the defendants
combined for the purpose Of extorting
money, The jury must be able to find
that combination was formed TO do
the act claimed, not 20 much on account
Of the act itself, but on account Of the
number alleged to have taken part in il,
the vast power that could be exercised
by SO many engaged in the combination.
For instance, he said, man might
malign woman by attacking her repu-
tation in telling stores about her That
Is not crime, be said The man would
be liable for civil suit, but not a
criminal prosecution.
But, he said, If 40 men get together
and decide to tell stories about a woman,
with the idea of iniuring her, that would
be criminal
III the defendants gathered together
simply to get information" said Judge
Harris, there Is nothing criminal in
that do not understand that ii il the
law that It is criminal for men to pus
their heads together for mutual adFan-
taae You have got to find that they
combined with a sinister motive to de-
fraud and cheat"
Judge Harris said that members OF a
corporation could be compelled to appear
at the trial Of q case against their com
pany and testify. They could be com-
PEELED TO produce books and papers be-
longing to the company. They could not
claim the privilege Of the corporation az
a ground Of not furnishing evidence
against the defendant.
Judge Harris went on:--
The law does not penalize honorable
success It does not make criminal hon
orahe strife, You viii see that the law
i not attempting to prosecute monopoly
or combinations, but what 1t wants to
punish i simple old.fsshioned dishon-
esty. The law merely says: Thou
shalt not steal That is the whole
extent TO which II goes.
"On the third charge gentlemen, which
charges the defendants with attempting
to obtain a monopoly Of the steel busf.
ness, ] shall direct you to bring in a
formal verdict of mot guilty. That IS
so as to complete the record. On the
other two counts the facts are for yon
to consider"