Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1909-12-09
THE SHARP CASE AGAIN.

We print elsewhere a communication
from Mr. p l., Williams on the Sharp
coal case. Mr. williams. commenting
IN recent editorial in this paper,
saws the News" in common with
number of other papers. has been mis-
led as to the facts in that case, and
that some OF the comments, therefore.
are necessarily wrong. We leave To
our readers TO judge for themselves
as to the Importance of the technical
corrections made by Mr.. Williams. In
our comments we made the point that
the published summary of the decision
made II appear that the railroad conf
pany had refused to haul Sharp's coal.
and that the coal company had refused
to sell coal to him. and this we thought
misleading. since no public carrier can
lawfully refuse TO do that for which
It has been chartered We do not see
anything wrong in this proposition.
We are Indebted to MT, Williams for
a copy of the opinion of the Circuit
court. delivered by Judge Sanborn The
court says, in substance. that the
charge against the defendants
was that a combination had
been formed between the coal company
and transportation company to refuse
to sell and haul coal TO Sharp. and
since no combination was proved there
was no offense. For that reason the
judgments of the lower court must be
reversed and a new trial granted In
the article criticized by Mr.. Williams,
we took notice of this position of the
court, as follows:
THE court held that there was no
substantial evidence of any combina-
tion between any two of the defendants.
either to refuse to sell coal to Sharp
or to refuse TO transport II for him.
And we have no doubt that this is
true-that when person charges con-
splracy. he must prove II fully In
order to get judgment.
But. after all, the fact remains that
-the evidence shows that Mr. Sharp adj
vertlsed that he would sell coal for
81. IS per ton; that the manager of one
coal company notified him that his
company would sell coal at s425 per
ton, unless Sharp discontinued his ad-
vertisemcnt; that another manager
stopped shipments OF coal to him from
the mines of his company; and that
the superintendent of transportation OF
one of the railroads agreed with the
manager of the coal company that
Sharp must discontinue offering coal
at $40 The fact also remains that
Sharp did not get any coal but was
forced out OF business, and the general
public was thereby deprived Of the
benefit of the reduction he offered.
This is a regrettabe fact no matter
whether 1t was brought about with, or
without a combination between coal
dealers and carriers. Sharp had n
right to sell his coal at whatever price
he chose or at no price at all This
right he was deprived of. and the pub
lie was made TO suffer Somebody
robbed the public to that extent
Utah should have a more reasonable
rate on coal. Fuel should not cost any
more here than In Denver The devel-
opment of the State depends largely
on cheaper fuel The greed that keeps
coal up at a price that makes the estab-
lishment of factories out of the ques-
tlon is detriment to the State We
may get this region filed up by gam
blers. prize fighters, horse racers. and
all the retinuc that goes with that
class OF business, through the various
methods of booming ard boosting. but
the solid prosperity that depends on
the manufacture and production of the
necessaries of life. and that means
home building. is not fostered by ex-
orbitant coal prices.