The citizen. (Honesdale, Pa.) 1908-1914, 1909-02-03
FarreaChing Decision by the
U. S. Supreme Court.
ILLEGAL COMBINES OUTLAMEO.
Judges Hold That Combinations
Formed In Restraint of Trade
Cannot Enforce Contracts
or Collect Bills.

Washington, Feb. 2.-The decision Of
the United States supreme court in the
matter of the Continental Wall Paper
company is held by lawyers to be a
crushing blow to illegal trusts and
combinations formed in restraint Of
trade.
In this case the court for the first
time laid down the broad principle
that an illegal combination in restraint
Of trade has no standing in court when
II attempts to enforce contracts made
in connection with such illegal agree
ments.
The case was brought by the CONT
mental company to collect a bill Of
$5G,762 for wall paper sold to Louis
Voight & Sons company Of Cincinnati.
The Continental Wall Paper COM
pany is what is known as a holding
company" for the National Wall Pa
per company and other manufacturers
of wall paper.
1t controls thirty factories in New
York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and
Massachusetts. producing 9S per cent
of the domestic output Of wall paper.
The articles of agreement show that
the National company was to select
three directors of the Continental COM
pany, three were to be chosen by the
other manufacturers, and the six were
to elect seventh, which board was to
have entire management and control
of the affairs of the thirty factories
and their output.
| They also provided. for the sitting
jfof competition by agreements as to
selling prices, which were fixed by the
directors, and refusal to sell to any
who cut the prices so fixed.
In delivering the opinion of the court
Justice Harlan said it was practically
admitted by the Continental company
that it had a monopoly Of the manu-
facture of wall paper in the United
! States and that the effect Of the com
bination of the various factories was
directly to restrain as well as to mo-
nOpolize interstate trade and com
merce in manufacture, sale and trans
portation of wall paper.
Therefore the sole question was
whether judgment for the Cont
mental company would not be in exc
cutiOn Of illegal agreements upor
which that combination was based
thus violating the we'll established rule
that a court would not lend it's aid to
ward carrying out the terms of an il
legal agreement. Justice Harlan added
The suit was based upon agreements tt
which both were parties, which had fol
their object and had the effect to accom-
plish the illegal ends for which the trus
was organized.
If judgment were given for the plain
tiff the result would be to give the aid Of
the court in making effective the illega
agreements that constituted the forbidden
combination.
We hold that such a judgment canno
be granted without departing from thu
statutory rule, that court will not len(
its aid in any way to enforce or to realiz'
the fruits of an agreement which appear!
to be tainted with illegality.
1t is of no consequence that the presen
defendant company had knowledge of tn,
alleged illegal combination and it's plan
or was a party thereto. Its interest mus
be put out of view altogether when it Il
sought to have the assistance of the cour
in accomplishing ends forbidden by law.