The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-11-20
IN SHARP
| CASE IS REVERSED
United States Circuit Court of
Appeals Orders a New
Trial.
JUDGE DECLARES UNLAWFUL
COMBINATION NOT PROVEN
Detendants Found Guilty by
Jury and Sentenced by
Judge Marshall.
VINES ASSESSED IN
~ CONSPIRACY CASE :

ST. PAUL, MINI. Nov. l9.--Judge
Walter II. SaHhorn. in the United
s,s,cs circuit court of appeals, today
hnded down am opinion setting aside
se verdict and ordering q new trial
II the ease of the United States against
he Union Pacific Coal company, the
ruion Pacific Railway company, the
Oregon Short Line. James NJ. Moore
,,d Everett Buckingham, IN which
i iiey are charged with violating the
herman antitrust law by forming an
lllawfu combination.
While the suit was brought in lhc
rsme of the United States. proceedings
upe started by Salt Lake City coal
dzAr named Sharp. who charged the
tol company and the defendant rail
Uys with refusing TO sell aud haul
roal for him. Sharp charged that the
Union Pacific Coal company refused 10
Sn him coal, aud that the railways
,sfned TO haul the commodity because
le advertised and sold coal AT a less
izure than his competitors.
Judge Sanhorn in his opinion. holds
that there was no substantial evidence
/ u aly combination between any two of
he defendants, either 10 refuse 10 sell
tsl to Sharp nr TO refuse 10 transport
/ i for bin.
The lower court found the defendant
guilty Of violation Of the Sherman anti
ust law and imposed = fine of $1,000
'Sd costs on Buckingham and $4,000 aud
;cse on the four other defendants.
Judge sanborn's Opinion.
Tho opinion of the circuit court of
fS'oNs:
The test Of an unlawful combina.
lNn under The act of july >. 1890. is
Is Necessary effect upon free rompeti
mn IN commerce among the states or
snh iorelgu nations.
a combination. the necessity Of
shth is 10 sti0e. or directly and sub.
a''isIly 10 restrict such competition.
Hnawinl under that act, but if the
<sss,'ary effect of q combination - but
nelqentally and indirectly TO restrict
~opelliiou. while lis chief result is
loser the trade and increase the
s''lncss OF those who make and operate
does not fall under the ban of
coal company engaged i'm mining
..e selling IFS coal is not prohibited by
y antitrust act, or bv the law, from
siu'ne TO sell IFS coal. from selecting
euNouers. from fixing the price and
w on WgIch it viii sell Its product.
1 lSn selling to different persons and
violation of law by corpora
ss aoe' not render its non .participat-
4, "ockooldcrS crlmnally liable there.
i Unless there is substantial evidence
1 lacls: which exclude every other
i |~'ugsIS Iv but that Of guilt. IL is the
G Vi Tie trial court 10 instruct the
r.sl return verdict for the ne
Il Defines Court s Duty.
aHa where all the substantial cyi.
~ s rs consistent with innocence
rluu quit. il is the dutv of the an
Iesr;se eouri 10 reverse u Judgment Of
- conclusion the court suvs: .'Thcre
w substantial evidence of any
|&isSds.,oh between any two Of the
n Sluis either 10 refuse To sell coal
II lm. ~ ''' use 10 transport II
H. .u} u'}YiaoInation between Il corpora
ta ' ~ ,s officers or agent in viola.
ItpaJ lh' hhlI-trust act cannot be
I,rip, oN the thoughts or acts Of ihc
.Ismn. VI agent alone without the con
gfir,, ,p~a,'.'clpattnn in il of any other
IN HTl VI agent Of the corporation.
~ ,neon e unlon of tao or more persons,
ks,e ";'elous r';us participation Of two or
Issiul~ l~'nui. . IL Indispensable 10 an mn.