Omaha daily bee., 1909-11-20
NO EVIDENCE OF CO. az =,
Judge Holds That .re
Wrongfully Col .,u.
NEW CONSTRUCTION OF LAW
Coal Companies Are Not Prohibited
from Selecting Customers.
COMBINES THAT ARE LAWFUL
Agreements, the Chief Results of
which Are to Foster the Business
of Those Making Them
Are Not Under Ban.

ST. PAUL, Nov. 1e.-Judge Walter II
Ssnborn, in the United States circuit court
Of appeals today handed down an opinion
setting aside the verdict and ordering
new trial in the case of the United states
against the Union Pacific Coal company,
the Union Pacific railway, the oregon
stort Line railway, james M. Moore and
Everett Buck ngham, charging them with
violation Of the Sherman antitrust law by
forming an unlawful combination.
While the suit was brought in the name
of the United states, proceedings were
started by Salt Lake City coal dealer
named Sharp, who charged the coal COM
pany and the defendant railways with re-
fusing to sell and haul coal for him.
Sharp charged that the Union Pacific Coal
company refused to sell him coal and that
the railways refused to haul the COM
modify for him because he advertised and
sold coal at a lower figure than his COM
petitors.
Judge Sanborn, in his opinion, holds that
there was no substantial evidence Of any
combination between any two of the de-
PENDANTS, either. TO refuse to sell coal to
Sharp, or to refuse to transport 1t for him.
The lower court found the defendant
guilty of violation Of the Sherman anti
trust law and imposed fine of $1,000
and costs on Moores and $4,000 and costs
on the other defendants.
Opinion of COurt.
The opinion of the circuit court of APP
pealspeals is contained in the syllabus as
follows:
The test of an unlawful combination,
under the act of July 2, 1880, is it's neces-
sary effect upon free competition in COM
merce among the states or with foreign
| nations.
which is to stifle ~ directly and sub
! stantialiy restrict su o. compstition Is un-
lawful sfgss qnder that ss Rat the Ss
dentally and indirectly restricts eompeti-
| tion while its chief result - % foster
the trade and increase the L. 5iness of
| those who make and operate it, It does
not fall under the ban Of this law.
coal company engaged in mining and
antitrust act or by the law from refusing
| to sell its coal. from selecting its custom
ers, from fixlDt the price and terms upon
which 1t will sell its product, or IRON
selling to different persons and on diff
| ferent terms.
stocIxhoIders Not Liable.
A violation Of law by corporation
Sers 90eS not crtT1Snal,v T1rGvI ". labie therefor
! Unless there Is substantial evidence OF
facts which exclude every other hypothesis
but that Of guilt II is the duty of the tria
court to instruct the jury to return q
verdict for the accused.
And while all he substantial evidence i
consistent with Innocence as with guilt II
is the duty OF the appellate court to reverse
a judgment of conviction"
In conclusion the court says:
There was no substantial evidence OF any
combination between any two OF the de-
PENDANTS, either to refuse to sell coal e
Sharp or to refuse to transport II for him
| A combination between a corOoratior
and it's officer or agent in violation of th'
lanti-trust act cannot be formed by thu
thoughts or acts of the officer or agen
alone without the conscious participation
in IL OF any other officer or agent of thu
corporation.
The union OF two or more persons, tn,
conscious participation OF two or mor'
minds, is Indispensable TO an unlawfu
combination