Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1909-11-27
rHE SHARP coal CASE.

THE SHARP COAL CASE
The recent setting aside or the YER
dict OF the lower court ia the case OF
sharp VS.. the Union Pacific coal com
pany, is "a great disappointment to the
general public
As reported IN our columns on Nov
goth, Judge SANFORD at 81. Paul handed
down the decision
The synopsis OF the case as printed
In the papers however, is probably
mis- eading from being too brief Pos
slbly, too. the plaintiff mistook his
remedy and brought the action for the
wrong cause. conspiracy. and perhaps
against the wrong parties
Mr.. sharp. a salt Lake coal dealer.
charged that there was conspiracy TO
drive him out Of business and obtained
judgments aggregating $4,000 against
the Union Pacific Coal company. the
Union Pacific Railway company the
Oregon short Line. J. NJ. Moore. and
Everett buckingham
The facts were that In 190s-9 the rail-
roads OF the west made n storage rate
for hauling which went into effect IN
the spring Of 1907 This agreement pro-
vided for 4 reduction OF so cents a ton
TO the wholesalers on the part OF the
railroads and In return for this con
cession the dealers agreed not TO raise
the price. or the supply that was not
exhausted in the fall. there was 10 be
a refund OF 50 cents a ton, made by IN,
railroads.
SHARP made an immediate reduction
IN prices and advertised them. Tho
railroad failed to haul any more
coal for sharp and the coal compapv
through J. NJ Moore, IT'S agent. failed
10 OIL it, orders II was alleged thai
cars Of coal belonging to him were
diverted and never delivered. sbarn
was forced out OF business.
NOW II we understand this SUMMARY
or the ease, Sharp did exactly what m.
people desire every man in business a.
uo-1o sell at the lowest rate possible
ana to give the public the beneat of
any cheaper processes OF production
That he Is able 10 secure. This is The
meaning Of competition. And this IA
the only kind OF competition thai is of
any use to the general public COM.
petition that merely stimulates trade
and that results in combinations 10
maintain or to advance prices. il of
no benefit TO the public.
The court held that there was no sub
stantial evidence OF any combination
between any two OF the defendants.
either 20 refuse 10 sell coal 10 shurp
or TO refuse 20 transport it for him.
And we have no doubt that this Is
true-taat when person charges con
spiracy he must prove il fully ip
order 20 get judgment
The court is right In holding that "A
local company engaged I'M mining and
selling las coal Is not prohibited by the
antitrust act, or by the law. from re.
fusing 10 sell lis coal, from selecting
it, customers. nom fixing the price and
terms ON which IL viii sell It's products.
or from selling 70 different persons and
on different terms"
So. 90. when the court says. "A yio-
iation Of "a law by "a corporation does
not render It's non-participating stock
holders cr,minally liable therefor" No
exception win bo taken 90 the PROPOSE
tlon. for % IS the law
/ AeyeIthcless, the report OF the case
shows that not only did the local Union
Pacific Coal company refuse 20 sell
coal 10 sharp. which a local company
has n perfect right to do. but that the
Union Pacific railway company refused
to hau sharps coal-a refusal that a
public service corporation has, in gen
oroL mo- right 60 make. n rs Just her,
that We suppose tine published summary
1f Tine case b. misleading Otherwise.
wc cannot aoc how public carrier. in
thiT clsr thc railroad company. could
lawfully refuse 90 do the thing IL d.
chartered tof under the law 10 haul
tho freight duly and properly offered
for tranHp ortstion
Finally, t must De- matter of gen
cal regret that either me railroads
or any other parties should be able 60
Prevent ibis city ana other places Ia the
state from getting coal az more rea-
souable rate than me present figure
ol $40 per ton or 81 n sacked
such o. price Nlli We believe. operate
powerfully against the derSopment of
manufacturing in this region. Indeed
r. b. often declared THAI this rs thg
. real intent of ariihciai2 keeping ths
price of coal al he present high figure
for otherwise. it "a claimed. the rail-
roads would moi have 30 much freight
! 90 haul herr from tho Eilst The truth
3 of this last proposition We are not dls.
+ posed 10 admit, since manufacturing
makes additional transportation nee.
% essary. But even II a. did not hay,
n this effect the people are clearly en-,
Titled 10 competitive prices on coal anl
y the result should b. somehow attained
4 Those Interested Ia aecWlng choapel