New-York tribune., 1910-12-10
TIE coll R0AnS nErIsEoN-

y = ttlB. RtiDN uEtiEjbA-
The decision of the United States
Circuit Court in Philadelphia against
the government on ali but one poiut in
the anthracite coal roads suit. if It
stands. illustrates the difficulty Of the
prosecutions for restraint OF trade when
The alleged combination IS unorganized.
The government fails not because it is
held that such combination or con-
spiracy as it charged would not he in
restraint Of trade. but because in spite
Of the general conviction that these coal
roads act in concert and control the
anthracite industry, the government did
not produce proofs 10 satisfy the court
that combination existed. Had there
been holding company. or n corpora
ti0n that acted rs a sort Of clearing
house for the coal roads. or any other
outward organization of a corporate ma
tIIre. the combination would have been
readily susceptible of proof and the
issue would have been. as it is in the
other great suits now pending. not as 20
the existence Of = combination, hut As
70 whether its operations restrained
interstate trade. IN this case the gov
erument had 10 prove the very existence
of combination which had n" corporeal
form and IL the opinion Of the court II
failed. Said Judge Lannin. the court
being unanimous in the cpini0@ hat no
general combination had been proved
These combinations cannot he tied to
ge1ler IL one gigantic trust OF conspiracy
asl-,
board OF control. no common scheme Of
managing their affairs and IL common
business interests. Each Of them Is
Wholly SEPARATE from and independent
Of the others. I am satisfied that the
proofs fail 10 show the existence of
general combination or conspiracy Of
the nature set forth in the petition.
These combinations" 10 which the
iudge refers were the combination nf
the Erie and Susquehanna railroads,
the Temple Iron Company combination,
the Reading and Central Railroad COM
hiuation, the Erie and Pennsylvania
coal combination ami the contract vita
the independent coal producers. They
were aIl susceptible of proof and The
government alleged that they We're parts
of or steps 10 the general combination
y Sought 10 prove. Judge Lannin says
there j no satisfactory proof that they
yvcre parts of or steps 10 scheme
entered into by the defendants gen
..eraIly for the control of the anthracite
..coal business The Temple Iron Com
nauv combination. which prevented the
construction Of 81 threatened competing
ccal road. j. pronounced in restraint Of
trade. but the decision in regard % it
will probably have no particular effect
upon the coal roads and their relation
to the anthracite industry.
The decision. if It is sustained. viii
prohably promote ''gentlemen's agree
ments" and other unorganized forms Of
combination instead Of holding compa-
MES or single large corporations owning
an industry outright and directly. n
The case OF these latter the combination
hardly requires proof. and certainly Is
easily susceptible Of IT, Proof Of the
existence of q combination which does
not take on 2 corporeal form. on the
OF her hand. appears to he difficult
The decision IN this case will probably
stimulate renewed efforts 10 strengthen
the commodities clause Of the Hepburn
act. which the Supreme Court sustained
while 81 interpreting il as 10 prevent
its accomplishing what il was Intended
20 accomplish. The Attorney General
was Of the opinion that the clause could
be amended TO prevent the holding Of IN
interest bv railroads in corporations
producing commodities carried by them
The opinion Of the Supreme Court. how
over loft II doubtful whether such IN
would be constitutional